Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 27;15(8):e0237963. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237963

Does knowledge of pregnancy complications influence health facility delivery? Analysis of 2014 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey

Edward Kwabena Ameyaw 1,#, Bright Opoku Ahinkorah 1,#, Abdul-Aziz Seidu 2,3,*,#
Editor: Georg M Schmölzer4
PMCID: PMC7451572  PMID: 32853211

Abstract

Introduction

Only thirty-seven percent (37%) of deliveries occur in health facilities in Bangladesh despite the enormous benefits of health facility delivery. We investigated women’s recall of receiving counseling on pregnancy complications and how it affects health facility delivery in Bangladesh.

Materials and methods

Data from the 2014 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey was used for the study. After calculating the proportion of women who were informed about pregnancy complications during their last Antenatal Care (ANC) and the number of them who delivered in health facilities, Binary Logistic Regression was utilized in investigating chances of giving birth in health facilities among women who recalled they were told about pregnancy complications and those who were not told. The models were considered significant at 95%.

Results

A little above half of the women who were told about pregnancy complications during ANC delivered in health facilities (53.3%) and 43.6% of those who were not told delivered in health facilities. The findings revealed that women who were told about pregnancy complications during ANC were more likely to deliver at the health facility compared to those who were not told [COR = 1.56, CI = 1.31–1.87], and this persisted after controlling for the effect of covariates [AOR = 1.44, CI = 1.21–1.71].

Conclusion

This study has stressed the importance of telling women about pregnancy complications during ANC by revealing that telling women about pregnancy complications during ANC is likely to result in health facility delivery. Health workers should intensify health education on pregnancy complications during ANC and motivate women to deliver in health facilities.

Introduction

Globally, maternal mortality ratio (MMR) declined by 44% from 385 to 216 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births between 1990 and 2015 [1]. Meanwhile, the reduction has been unbalanced, with low and middle-income countries (LMICs) experiencing the largest burden. In 2015, the MMR in LMICs was 239 per 100 000 live births while high-income countries recorded 12 per 100 000 live births [2]. The persistently high rates of MMR in LMICs has been attributed to high fertility, high maternal mortality tendency, fragile health structures and poverty [3, 4]. MMR in Bangladesh as of 2015 was 176 per 100 000 live births [1]. Maternal mortality in Bangladesh is linked to imbalances in primary healthcare access with a huge gap between women in advantaged and disadvantaged socioeconomic communities [5]. This is marked by the 15% and 70% health facility deliveries among women in lowest and highest wealth quintiles respectively [6].

In a lot of instances, maternal deaths occur because of direct obstetric conditions including obstructed labor, hemorrhage, unsafe abortion, and hypertensive disorders [7]. Most of the reported complications take place during delivery and some of them are unpredictable. Meanwhile, the complications could be solved effectively and deaths prevented by delivering in health facilities that have skilled birth attendants (SBAs) [8]. The importance of SBAs during delivery was deepened by the WHO’s recommendation that every delivery should be overseen by SBA—a health care provider who can recognize and handle normal labor and birth, figure out and provide basic care and referral [9]. However, the global proportion of SBA assisted deliveries is below the recommended levels [10]. In LMICs, SBAs assist in about half of all deliveries and even where ANC is high, most deliveries occur at home [11].

Despite the argument concerning effective ways by which maternal mortality can be reduced in LMICs, programmes are planned with the intent that complications are unpredictable, and prompt professional intervention is required anytime they occur [12]. However, studies have shown that knowledge of obstetric danger signs and preparedness for emergency complications are effective ways of increasing maternal health service utilisation especially seeking skilled care during delivery [1315]. The new Antenatal Care (ANC) model by WHO aims at providing relevant and timely information that can lead to positive delivery experience [16]. Information about pregnancy complications can assist pregnant women to promptly identify these danger signs and positively influence their subsequent healthcare-seeking actions, including health facility delivery [17, 18]. These positive health utilisation attitudes can be achieved if women are well informed and understand that delivery at home can upsurge complications [13, 19].

The most recent Demographic and Health Survey reported that 37% of deliveries occurred in health facilities [6]. Several studies conducted in Bangladesh have identified some factors that determine health facility delivery. Reported significant factors for health facility delivery include place of residence [2022], maternal age [21], region of residence [22, 23], educational status of the mother [2022], parity [22, 24, 25], exposure to media [26] and access to ANC [27, 28].

Although these factors play significant role in a pregnant woman’s decision to deliver at the health facility, there are other critical factors such as obtaining information on pregnancy complications during ANC. Notwithstanding, it appears none of the studies on health facility delivery in Bangladesh has looked at information women obtain about pregnancy complications at ANC and how it affects health facility delivery. We, therefore, hypothesize that women in Bangladesh who obtain information on pregnancy complications at ANC are probable to deliver at the health facility. Findings from the study can enhance information sharing on pregnancy complications in Bangladesh and will stimulate healthcare providers to consistently discuss pregnancy complications with women during ANC and use educational interventions during ANC to encourage women to deliver at the health facility.

Materials and methods

Data source

Data underlying our study were obtained from the 2014 version of Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS). This nationally representative survey was conducted under the guidance of the National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT) [6]. It was implemented between June and November 2014 and technical assistance was offered by ICF International through the DHS Program. This is the seventh round of the BDHS which gathered information for addressing the Health, Population and Nutrition Sector Development Program (HPNSDP). It aimed at offering information to managers and policymakers to help them plan and implement interventions successfully. The survey collates evidence on some maternal and child health characteristics such as fertility preferences and utilisation of maternal health services. The survey was done with a two-stage stratified sampling approach based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census of Bangladesh. In the maiden stage, 600 enumeration areas (EAs) were identified through probability proportional to the size of EAs. This resulted in 207 from urban and 393 from rural locations [6]. Household listing was conducted in each EA to develop a sampling frame for the second stage. A sample of 30 households were selected averagely per EA in order to have a statistically dependable estimation of the core health variables for Bangladesh. This resulted in 17,989 households selected for the survey of which 17,300 were successfully interviewed. In those households, 18,245 women eligible for the individual interview were identified, of which 17,863 were interviewed (98% response rate). Details of the survey design, sampling techniques, questionnaire and quality control are narrated in the BDHS 2014 report [6]. We relied on the “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (STROBE) statement writing the manuscript.

Definition of variables

Dependent variable

The dependent variable in this study was place of delivery. During the survey, women were asked “Where did you give birth?” with eleven responses broadly on various health facilities and the respondent’s home. To derive the dependent variable, we re-categorised these into a binary outcome where respondent’s home was recoded as zero (0) whilst all health facilities were recoded as one (1). Our categorisation into home or health facility followed conceptualisation by some earlier studies that explored place of delivery using the Demographic and Health Survey data of other countries [2931].

Independent variables and sample

The principal independent variable was whether a woman recalls being told about pregnancy complications at the time of her last ANC visit. Only women who had at least one ANC visit with any provider were asked about counseling on danger signs during pregnancy. Therefore, women who had at least one live birth in the 3 years before the survey answered this question. In terms of ANC visit, 964 women who had live births in the past 3 years preceding the survey had never visited ANC and 5 (0.1%) indicated don't know. These women were excluded. In relation to the women who attended ANC and were asked about their recall of counseling on danger signs during pregnancy, the responses were “No” coded as 0, “Yes” coded as 1 and “Don’t Know” coded as 8. Only four (4) women (0.11%) indicated “Don’t Know” and they were excluded from the sample since they were unsure whether they were told or not.

As a result, 3,519 women were included in our analysis. To decipher the robustness of our key explanatory variable in relation to health facility delivery, some theoretically pertinent variables were incorporated in the analysis. These are age, education, wealth quintile, place of residence, division, religion, parity and wantedness of the last child. Parity was recoded into one (1), two (2) and three or more. Age was recoded into 15–19, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39 and 40+ and religion was recoded into Islam and other.

Analytical procedure

We initiated our analysis by calculating the proportion of women who gave birth at home or health facility against whether they were told about pregnancy complications. We also calculated proportions of place of delivery (either home or health facility) by the socio-demographic characteristics of the women (see Table 1). Our inferential analysis comprised two Binary logistic regression models. The first model involved place of delivery and whether a woman was told about pregnancy complications. The outcome of this was reported as Crude Odds Ratio (COR) at a 5% margin of error. In the second model, we included the women’s socio-demographic characteristics in order to ascertain how they will be associated with whether a woman was told about pregnancy complications to determine where the women will deliver. The sample was weighted and all analyses were carried out with STATA Version 13.0.

Table 1. Told about pregnancy complications, socio-demographic characteristics and place of delivery (N = 3,519).
Variable Weighted N Percentage (%) Place of delivery
Home % Health facility %
Told about pregnancy complications ((X2 = 32.6,p<0.001)
No 1,875 53.3 56.4 43.6
Yes 1,644 46.7 46.7 53.3
Age (X2 = 6.7,p = 0.248)
15–19 761 21.6 55.3 44.7
20–24 1,187 33.7 50.9 49.0
25–29 899 25.5 50.0 50.0
30–34 470 13.4 52.7 47.3
35–39 163 4.7 48.7 51.2
40–49 39 1.1 57.9 42.1
Education (X2 = 318.2,p<0.001)
No Education 361 10.3 73.5 26.4
Primary 870 24.7 65.2 34.8
Secondary 1,851 52.6 50.1 49.9
Higher 437 12.4 21.0 79.0
Wealth Quintile (X2 = 499.0,p<0.001)
Poorest 554 15.7 78.5 21.5
Poorer 595 16.9 68.8 31.2
Middle 696 19.8 56.9 43.0
Richer 830 23.5 46.5 53.5
Richest 844 24.1 24.4 675.6
Place of residence (X2 = 193.8,p<0.001)
Urban 1,049 29.8 36.3 63.7
Rural 2,470 70.2 60.7 39.2
Division (X2 = 78.8,p<0.001)
Barisal 190 5.4 60.3 39.7
Chittagong 731 20.8 54.2 45.8
Dhaka 1,329 37.8 48.7 51.3
Khulna 317 9.0 38.3 61.7
Rajshahi 339 9.7 45.3 54.7
Rangpur 354 10.0 55.7 44.3
Sylhet 259 7.3 62.2 37.8
Religion (X2 = 6.5,p<0.05)
Islam 3,236 91.9 52.5 47.5
Other* 283 8.1 44.5 55.5
Parity(X2 = 97.6,p<0.001)
One 1,515 43.1 44.3 55.7
Two 1,086 30.8 51.5 48.5
More than two 918 26.1 65.0 34.9
Wanted Last Child (X2 = 24.5,p<0.001)
Wanted then 2,661 75.6 50.2 149.8
Wanted later 512 14.6 52.6 47.4
Wanted no more 346 9.8 64.8 35.2

Source: 2014 BDHS Other Religion* (Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity).

Ethics

We analyzed secondary data provided by Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) -2014. Ethical clearance for the BDHS 2014 data collection project was obtained from the NIPORT and ICF International’s Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). The survey ensured international ethical standards of confidentiality, anonymity, and informed consent. This study is based on publicly available, de-identified DHS data; https://dhsprogram.com/what-we-do/survey/survey-display-441.cfm. The dataset was requested and a letter of data authorization was received from the DHS Program ICF International. More details regarding ethical standards of the DHS data are available at: https://www.dhsprogram.com/What-We-Do/Protecting-the-Privacy-of-DHS-Survey-Respondents.cfm.

Results

Descriptive results

As shown in Table 1, 53.3% of women who recall they had information on pregnancy complications during ANC delivered at the health facility compared to 43.6% who had no information on pregnancy complications during ANC. Similarly, health facility delivery was high among women aged 35–39 (51.2%), those with higher education (79.0%), richest women (75.6%), women in urban areas (63.7%), women in Khulna (61.7%), Christians (85.7%), women with parity one (55.7%) and women who wanted their last child at the time of pregnancy (49.8%).

Binary logistic regression results

The results in Table 2 show that women who were told about pregnancy complications during ANC were more likely to deliver at the health facility compared to those who were not told [COR = 1.57, CI = 1.32–1.87], and this persisted after controlling for the effect of covariates [AOR = 1.45, CI = 1.22–1.73]. The results further showed that the likelihood of health facility delivery increases with age, with women aged 40 and above years having the highest likelihood of health facility delivery [AOR = 3.60, CI = 2.20–5.90].

Table 2. Effects of knowledge on pregnancy complication and socio-demographic characteristics on health facility delivery.

Variable Model I Model II
COR 95% CI AOR 95% CI
Told about pregnancy complications
No 1 [1,1] 1 [1,1]
Yes 1.57*** [1.32–1.87] 1.45*** [1.22–1.73]
Age
15–19 1 [1,1]
20–24 1.50** [1.14–1.96]
25–29 2.08*** [1.46–2.96]
30–34 2.99** [1.52–5.91]
35–39 3.60*** [2.20–5.90]
40–49 2.34 [0.74–7.37]
Education
No Education 1 [1,1]
Primary 1.76** [1.18–2.61]
Secondary 2.31*** [1.56–3.42]
Higher 4.20*** [2.61–6.79]
Wealth quintile
Poorest 1 [1,1]
Poorer 1.36* [1.01–1.84]
Middle 1.74* [1.14–2.65]
Richer 2.45*** [1.77–3.38]
Richest 4.78*** [3.26–7.00]
Place of residence
Urban 1 [1,1]
Rural 0.65** [0.50–0.84]
Division
Barisal 1 [1,1]
Chittagong 1.16 [0.79–1.70]
Dhaka 1.31 [0.94–1.85]
Khulna 2.60*** [1.77–3.83]
Rajshahi 1.85** [1.29–2.63]
Rangpur 1.31 [0.83–2.05]
Sylhet 0.93 [0.67–1.30]
Religion
Islam 1 [1,1]
Other* 1.40 [0.90–2.18]
Parity
One 1 [1,1]
Two 0.58*** [0.45–0.76]
More than two 0.35*** [0.25–0.49]
Wanted Last Child
Wanted then 1 [1,1]
Wanted later 1.17 [0.89–1.53]
Wanted no more 1.03 [0.74–1.44]

COR = Crude Odds Ratio, AOR = Adjusted Odds Ratio, CI = Confidence Intervals, Other Religion* (Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity)

* p < 0.05

** p < 0.01

*** p < 0.001

Source: 2014 BDHS

The odds of health facility delivery was also highest among women with higher educational level [AOR = 4.20, CI = 2.61–6.79], richest women [AOR = 4.78, CI = 3.26–7.00] and women living in Khulna [AOR = 2.60, CI = 1.77–3.83]. On the other hand, the likelihood of health facility delivery was low among women in rural areas [AOR = 0.65, CI = 0.50–0.84] and women with more than two children [AOR = 0.35, CI = 0.25–0.49].

Discussion

This study sought to test the hypothesis that women in Bangladesh who recall they were told about pregnancy complications at ANC are more likely to deliver at the health facility. The inferential analysis confirmed the hypothesis that women who recall getting information on pregnancy complications during ANC have higher odds of delivering in a health facility compared to those who did not receive such information during ANC. The association between getting information on pregnancy complications during ANC and health facility delivery was significant although slightly attenuated in the multivariable analyses when we adjusted for woman’s age, educational level, wealth, parity, religion, and region of residence.

This finding affirms several other studies on the relationship between exposure to health information and health behavior uptake. For instance, the study by Dutamo, Assefa, and Egata [32] revealed that women who had knowledge of at least one pregnancy danger sign were more likely to deliver in a health facility. Relatedly, Mageda and Mmbaga [33] found in Tanzania that women who had advice from health care providers to deliver at a health care facility had higher odds to deliver in a health facility. The results corroborate other findings in Ethiopia [34, 35], Eritrea [10], Zambia and Sri Lanka [36], which found that the information women receive during ANC has a positive association with their use of institutional delivery services. As explained by Eshete, Legesse, and Ayana [37], mothers who are exposed to information on pregnancy complications have a greater fear and this can propel them to deliver in a health facility. This is also related to two constructs of the Health Belief Model- perceived severity and cues to action, which state that individuals are more likely to take up positive health behavior when they perceive a condition to be severe [38]. In this sense, pregnant women who get information on pregnancy complications might be afraid of the complications they are likely to face when they deliver at home. Moreover, if women are knowledgeable about danger signs they will be motivated to deliver in health facility to avert possible birth complications.

Situating these findings into the existing program context in Bangladesh, there are several interventions to promote counseling on danger signs during ANC including behavior change communication (BCC), posters and counseling guides. For example in relation to BCC strategies, they are considered to be an integral part of the ways by which pregnant women can acquire knowledge in Bangladesh. These strategies range from individual face-to-face contacts to the use of traditional media like folk songs and street theatre [39]. Specifically, programs such as improving maternal neonatal and child survival (IMNCS) programme of BRAC was initiated to reduce maternal, neonatal and child mortality and morbidity in poor communities [40, 41]. It started in Nilphamari district in northern Bangladesh and was gradually expanded to three other districts in 2008 and a further six in 2010. While the BRAC IMNCS programme mainly targets pregnant women, mothers of newborns and under-5 children, it also includes family members and influential community people in its target population [39]. Messages delivered by Community Health Workers include: pregnancy care, birth preparedness, safe delivery, postpartum care, neonatal and child health and include topics such as: nutrition, safety, rest taking and cleanliness during pregnancy, the need for antenatal check-up. Importantly, the danger signs of pregnancy, delivery and the postpartum period are discussed during these programs [3942].

Again in relation to posters the BRAC IMNCS had four different types of posters and two stickers were distributed to the women as part of the BCC intervention during the roll out of the project. The Posters illustrated first, messages such as a healthy mother and child with the message “if you find any problem in pregnancy, do not delay. We want healthy mothers, healthy children, and healthy neonates”; One sticker depicts the maternal danger signs of pregnancy, delivery, and post delivery period’. The danger signs include high fever; severe headache and blurring of vision; prolonged labor; convulsion; and hemorrhage or excessive bleeding. The second sticker is a smaller version of the poster illustrating neonatal danger signs. Both stickers and the poster on children’s danger signs also highlight procedures for accessing health facilities [39].

Posters and stickers are posted on the wall of the woman’s house by the Community Health Workers to reinforce knowledge and awareness. The Program organizer’s mobile phone numbers are listed at the bottom of each poster and sticker so that they can be contacted in case of emergencies. According to Rahman et al. [39, 40], the mass media approach to MNCH BCC includes folk songs (locally termed as jaarigan) and street theatre (naatak) [40]. The programme generally hires a local team to organize and perform the events according to prepared script. The topics to be addressed by folk songs and street theatre are selected by the programme personnel [39]. The folk song and street theatre initiative deliver messages specifically on antenatal care, safe delivery, and postpartum care, family planning, infant and child health [3943]. From these it could be explained that some of the women who indicated they recall receiving counseling on danger sign in pregnancies from healthcare providers might have also been reinforced by some of these existing interventions in various parts of Bangladesh.

Although some studies have identified a high correlation between age and parity [44, 45], our study found that age and parity do not have the same influence on use of health facility delivery. Whiles health facility delivery increased with age, it decreased with parity. Specifically, the study found that the uptake of health facility delivery increased with age, with older women more likely to utilize health facility delivery compared to younger women. This corroborates other studies in Bangladesh [21] and Ethiopia [35, 46]. The possible explanation to this finding could be that as women grow, they may become more conscious of their health and appreciate the need to deliver in a health facility compared to younger women who might not be well informed about the enormous benefits associated with health facility delivery. Childbearing in advanced age is associated with high risks of complications [47, 48]. It is, therefore, possible that older women in Bangladesh are aware of the risks associated with birth outcomes in advanced maternal age and hence the higher likelihood of health facility delivery.

With parity, the results also showed that women with parity two and above had lower odds to deliver in health facilities. Some literature from Bangladesh [22], Nepal [42], Kenya [24] and Ghana [25] show that women who have more than two births are less likely to deliver in health facilities. As explained by Boah, Mahama and Ayamga [25] and Gebregziabher et al. [49], nulliparous women do not have prior experience with childbirth and due to this may lack self-confidence. Besides, they may consider the delivery experience challenging and for that matter may anticipate unforeseen complications. These might compel them to deliver in a health facility. It is also worthy to acknowledge that first births are at higher risk of experiencing complications that can lead to delivery in a hospital which may also contribute to the higher probability of delivery of first births in health facilities. Nonetheless, a multiparous woman might have gathered enough experience in terms of delivery. If her previous home deliveries were not associated with any complications, this may strengthen her preference for home delivery in the future [25].

We found that there was a positive association between level of education and the odds of delivering in a health facility. Several studies from Bangladesh [2022] and other LMICs such as Nepal [50], Cambodia [51], Ethiopia [37, 52, 53], Eretria [49] and India [54] have consistently revealed that high maternal education influences the use of health facility delivery. The link between formal education and the uptake of health facility delivery can be explained through several pathways. First, women who are educated are more likely to comprehend health messages that will be communicated during ANC as well as other ones that are delivered through newspapers, billboards, and other media [22]. Second, formal education erases erroneous beliefs rooted in various traditions that interpret certain healthy behaviors as taboos and by so doing can make educated women acquire positive attitudes towards health facility delivery [22]. Third, as posited by Fekadu, Ambaw and Kidanie [53] and Gebregziabher et al [49] “higher level of education is associated with better information processing skill, improved cognitive skills and value feelings of self-worth and confidence which all improve health service use.” Also, Tsegay et al. [34] are of the view that formal education is associated with women empowerment and as a result enable women to make better decisions relating to their healthcare and to easily notice complications they might face during pregnancy and delivery. Education increases women's knowledge of where and how the best health care can be accessed and enhances their capability of making autonomous decisions [55]. Fekadu et al [53] also explained that educated women are aware of their health and possess greater knowledge about available health services and the risk of not delivering at a health facility. With this, they are more probable to know and choose the best from the range of services available to them. To this end, it is crucial to invest in female education in Bangladesh to help in the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals related to maternal and child health [20, 21].

Similar to other studies in Bangladesh [2022] and other LMICs such as Kenya [56], our results indicated that women having highest wealth quintile had higher odds of health facility delivery. The probable explanation is that poor women may be incapable of paying for some costs associated with health facility delivery including means of getting to the health facility. It is, therefore, necessary to adopt and strengthen existing means of empowering women economically such as the use of microcredit programs which invariable can improve maternal and child health conditions [20, 57].

Our results showed that women in rural areas had lower odds of delivering in a health facility. This corroborates recent studies in Bangladesh [2022] and other countries [34, 35, 58]. The possible explanations to this finding are that women in the rural areas have varied barriers in accessing health facilities including geographical and challenges in getting information on the need to deliver in health facilities [53]. This is also related to the lower socioeconomic conditions of rural women as well as the paucity of health facilities and personnel in rural Bangladesh [6]. Since more than 65% of the people of Bangladesh live in rural areas [59], there is the need to prioritize those in rural areas to reduce these inequities, which can ultimately help improve maternal, and child health outcomes.

Just like studies from other countries such as Tanzania [33], Uganda [23], and Ethiopia [60], there are variations in the utilization of maternal health services including health facility deliveries in terms of regions or divisions in Bangladesh. We found that women in Khulna had higher odds to deliver in a health facility compared to those in Barisal. Huda et al. [22] explained that in terms of health indicators in Bangladesh, Khulna is one of the best performing divisions. It is therefore imperative for the government of Bangladesh to consider these differences when designing policies related to maternal health to increase health facility deliveries.

Strengths and limitations

The use of large nationally representative sample makes the study findings generalizable and strengthens the validity of our conclusions. Whereas the findings from this study provide important considerations for advocacy, some important limitations are worth highlighting. First, the cross-sectional design precludes causality inference but only permits associations between the dependent and independent variable. Another major limitation is that there is also the likelihood of recall bias since the study demanded the women to recall previous event thus recalling whether they have received counseling on pregnancy complications or not. For example, women who experienced danger signs during their pregnancy may be more likely to recall the messages because they were more relevant for them and also more likely to deliver in a facility because of the complications, or women who are more predisposed to use healthcare in general might be more likely to recall the counseling. It is also important to acknowledge that our independent variable is whether women recall receiving counseling on danger signs but not whether they actually received counseling on danger signs. Also, there is the possibility of social desirability bias since. It is worthy to acknowledge also that age and parity are highly correlated in the since young women are more likely to have low parity. Future qualitative studies are needed to explore the in depth information about how women comprehend the information on danger signs in pregnancy during ANC.

Conclusion

This study has highlighted the importance of telling women about pregnancy complications during ANC. It has revealed that telling women about pregnancy complications during ANC is likely to result in health facility delivery. Covariates such as maternal age, educational level, wealth status, place of residence, division and parity were also associated with health facility delivery. To attain the maternal and child health inclined Sustainable Development Goals, policymakers, program designers and implementers in Bangladesh should consider these results to help reduce maternal and newborn mortality. Specifically, health workers should intensify health education on pregnancy complications during ANC and motivate women to deliver in health facilities.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their deepest appreciation to Measure DHS for providing them the data for this study.

Data Availability

The data can be accessed freely from the Measure DHS website: https://www.dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Bangladesh_Standard-DHS_2014.cfm?flag=0.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and the United Nations Population Division. Trends in maternal mortality. 1990 to 2015: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and the United Nations Population Division; 2015 [cited 2019 August 25]. Available from https://openknowledge.worldbank
  • 2.WHO. Maternal mortality; 2018 [cited 2019 August 25]. Available from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality
  • 3.Mills A. Health care systems in low-and middle-income countries. New England Journal of Medicine, 2014; 370(6): 552–557. 10.1056/NEJMra1110897 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bhutta ZA, Black RE. Global maternal, newborn, and child health—so near and yet so far. New England Journal of Medicine, 2013; 369(23): 2226–2235. 10.1056/NEJMra1111853 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mahumud RA, Alamgir NI, Hossain M, Baruwa E, Sultana M, Gow J, et al. Women’s preferences for maternal healthcare services in Bangladesh: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2019; 8(2): 132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT), Mitra and Associates, and ICF International. Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2014. Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: NIPORT, Mitra and Associates, and ICF International; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tunçalp Ö, Moller A-B, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 2014; 2(6): e323–e333. 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gabrysch S, Campbell OM. Still too far to walk: literature review of the determinants of delivery service use. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2009; 9(1), 34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.WHO. Making pregnancy safer: the critical role of the skilled attendant. Geneva: Jt Statement WHO ICM FIGO; 2004.
  • 10.Kifle MM, Kesete HF, Gaim HT, Angosom GS, Araya MB. Health facility or home delivery? Factors influencing the choice of delivery place among mothers living in rural communities of Eritrea. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 2018; 37(1): 22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Stanton C, Blanc AK, Croft T, Choi Y. Skilled care at birth in the developing world: progress to date and strategies for expanding coverage. Journal of Biosocial Science, 2007; 39(1): 109–120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nikiéma B, Beninguisse G, Haggerty JL. Providing information on pregnancy complications during antenatal visits: unmet educational needs in sub-Saharan Africa. Health Policy and Planning, 2009; 24(5): 367–376. 10.1093/heapol/czp017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mbalinda SN, Nakimuli A, Kakaire O, Osinde MO, Kakande N, Kaye DK. Does knowledge of danger signs of pregnancy predict birth preparedness? A critique of the evidence from women admitted with pregnancy complications. Health Research Policy and Systems, 2014; 12(1): 60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Smeele P, Kalisa R, van Elteren M, van Roosmalen J, van den Akker T. Birth preparedness and complication readiness among pregnant women admitted in a rural hospital in Rwanda. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2018; 18(1): 190 10.1186/s12884-018-1818-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tura G, Afework MF. Yalew AW. The effect of birth preparedness and complication readiness on skilled care use: a prospective follow-up study in Southwest Ethiopia. Reproductive Health, 2014; 11(1): 60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.WHO. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. World Health Organization; 2016. [PubMed]
  • 17.Bintabara D, Mpembeni RN, Mohamed AA. Knowledge of obstetric danger signs among recently-delivered women in Chamwino district, Tanzania: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2017; 17(1): 276 10.1186/s12884-017-1469-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mwilike B, Nalwadda G, Kagawa M, Malima K, Mselle L, Horiuchi S. Knowledge of danger signs during pregnancy and subsequent healthcare seeking actions among women in Urban Tanzania: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2018; 18(1): 4 10.1186/s12884-017-1628-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Duysburgh E, Ye M, Williams A, Massawe S, Sie A, Williams J, et al. Counselling on and women's awareness of pregnancy danger signs in selected rural health facilities in Burkina Faso, Ghana and Tanzania. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 2013; 18(12): 1498–1509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yaya S, Bishwajit G, Ekholuenetale M. Factors associated with the utilization of institutional delivery services in Bangladesh. PLoS One, 2017; 12(2): e0171573 10.1371/journal.pone.0171573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Al Kibria GM, Ghosh S, Hossen S, Barsha RAA, Sharmeen A, Uddin SI. Factors affecting deliveries attended by skilled birth attendants in Bangladesh. Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology, 2017; 3(1): 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Huda TM, Chowdhury M, El Arifeen S, Dibley MJ. Individual and community level factors associated with health facility delivery: A cross sectional multilevel analysis in Bangladesh. PloS One, 2019; 14(2): e0211113 10.1371/journal.pone.0211113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rutaremwa G, Wandera SO, Jhamba T, Akiror E, Kiconco A. Determinants of maternal health services utilization in Uganda. BMC Health Services Research, 2015; 15(1): 271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gitonga E, Muiruri F. Determinants of health facility delivery among women in Tharaka Nithi County, Kenya. The Pan African Medical Journal, 2016; 25(Suppl 2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Boah M, Mahama AB, Ayamga EA. They receive antenatal care in health facilities, yet do not deliver there: predictors of health facility delivery by women in rural Ghana. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2018; 18(1): 125 10.1186/s12884-018-1749-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.El Arifeen S, Hill K, Ahsan KZ, Jamil K., Nahar Q, Streatfield PK. Maternal mortality in Bangladesh: a Countdown to 2015 country case study. The Lancet, 2014; 384(9951): 1366–1374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pervin J, Moran A, Rahman M, Razzaque A, Sibley L, Streatfield PK, et al. Association of antenatal care with facility delivery and perinatal survival–a population-based study in Bangladesh. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2012; 12(1): 111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Shahabuddin ASM, Delvaux T, Utz B, Bardají A, De Brouwere V. Determinants and trends in health facility-based deliveries and caesarean sections among married adolescent girls in Bangladesh. BMJ Open, 2016; 6(9): e012424 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Baatiema L, Ameyaw EK, Moomin A, Zankawah MM, Koramah D. Does Antenatal Care Translate into Skilled Birth Attendance? Analysis of 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey. Advances in Public Health, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yaya S, Uthman OA, Amouzou A, Ekholuenetale M, Bishwajit G. Inequalities in maternal health care utilization in Benin: a population based cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2018; 18(1): 194 10.1186/s12884-018-1846-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Adedokun ST, Uthman OA. Women who have not utilized health Service for Delivery in Nigeria: who are they and where do they live? BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019; 19 (1): 93 10.1186/s12884-019-2242-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dutamo Z, Assefa N, Egata G. Maternal health care use among married women in Hossaina, Ethiopia. BMC Health Services Research, (2015; 15(1): 365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mageda K, Mmbaga EJ. Prevalence and predictors of institutional delivery among pregnant mothers in Biharamulo district, Tanzania: a cross-sectional study. Pan African Medical Journal, 2015; 21(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tsegay Y, Gebrehiwot T, Goicolea I, Edin K, Lemma H, San Sebastian M. Determinants of antenatal and delivery care utilization in Tigray region, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. International Journal for Equity in Health, 2013; 12(1): 30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fekadu M, Regassa N. Skilled delivery care service utilization in Ethiopia: analysis of rural-urban differentials based on national demographic and health survey (DHS) data. African Health Sciences, 2014; 14(4): 974–984. 10.4314/ahs.v14i4.29 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gabrysch S, Zanger P, Seneviratne HR, Mbewe R, Campbell OM. Tracking progress towards safe motherhood: meeting the benchmark yet missing the goal? An appeal for better use of health‐system output indicators with evidence from Zambia and Sri Lanka. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 2011; 16(5): 627–639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Eshete T, Legesse M, Ayana M. Utilization of institutional delivery and associated factors among mothers in rural community of Pawe Woreda northwest Ethiopia, 2018. BMC Research Notes, 2019; 12(1): 395 10.1186/s13104-019-4450-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 1984; 11(1): 1–47. 10.1177/109019818401100101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sarker B. K., Mridha M. K., Dasgupta S. K., Islam N., & Reichenbach L. (2012). The effect of Behavior Change Communication (BCC) interventions on maternal neonatal and child health (MNCH) knowledge in urban slums of Bangladesh [working paper]. Manoshi Working Paper, (17). [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rahman A., Leppard M., Rashid S., Jahan N., & Nasreen H. E. (2016). Community perceptions of behaviour change communication interventions of the maternal neonatal and child health programme in rural Bangladesh: an exploratory study. BMC health services research, 16(1), 389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rahman M., Jhohura F. T., Mistry S. K., Chowdhury T. R., Ishaque T., Shah R., & Afsana K. (2015). Assessing community based improved maternal neonatal child survival (IMNCS) program in rural Bangladesh. PloS one, 10(9), e0136898 10.1371/journal.pone.0136898 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Baral YR, Lyons K, Skinner JVTE, Van Teijlingen ER. Determinants of skilled birth attendants for delivery in Nepal. Kathmandu University Medical Journal, 2010; 8(3): 325–332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Salam S. S., Khan M. A., Salahuddin S., Choudhury N., Nicholls P., & Nasreen H. (2009). Maternal, neonatal and child health in selected Northern Districts of Bangladesh: findings from baseline survey 2008. Dhaka: BRAC Reports. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Shadyab A. H., Gass M. L., Stefanick M. L., Waring M. E., Macera C. A., Gallo L. C.,& & LaCroix, A. Z. (2017). Maternal age at childbirth and parity as predictors of longevity among women in the United States: The women’s health initiative. American journal of public health, 107(1), 113–119. 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Câmara S. M. A., Pirkle C., Moreira M. A., Vieira M. C. A., Vafaei A., & Maciel Á. C. C. (2015). Early maternal age and multiparity are associated to poor physical performance in middle-aged women from Northeast Brazil: a cross-sectional community based study. BMC women's health, 15(1), 56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mezmur M, Navaneetham K, Letamo G, Bariagaber H. Individual, household and contextual factors associated with skilled delivery care in Ethiopia: Evidence from Ethiopian Demographic and Health Surveys. PLoS One, 2017; 12(9): e0184688 10.1371/journal.pone.0184688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lean SC, Derricott H, Jones RL, Heazell A. Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One, 2017; 12(10), e0186287 10.1371/journal.pone.0186287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Shan D, Qiu PY, Wu YX, Chen Q, Li AL, Ramadoss S, et al. Pregnancy Outcomes in Women of Advanced Maternal Age: a Retrospective Cohort Study from China. Scientific Reports, 2018; 8(1), 12239 10.1038/s41598-018-29889-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gebregziabher NK, Zeray AY, Abtew YT, Kinfe TD, Abrha DT. Factors determining choice of place of delivery: analytical cross-sectional study of mothers in Akordet town, Eritrea. BMC Public Health, 2019; 19(1): 924 10.1186/s12889-019-7253-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tamang TM. Factors associated with completion of continuum of Care for Maternal Health in Nepal. IUSSP XXVIII International Population Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 2017
  • 51.Wang W, Hong R. Levels and determinants of continuum of care for maternal and newborn health in Cambodia-evidence from a population-based survey. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2015; 15(1): 62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Alemi KH, Teklehaymanot AN. Factors associated with institutional delivery service utilization in Ethiopia. International Journal of Women's Health, 2016; 8: 463 10.2147/IJWH.S109498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Fekadu GA, Ambaw F, Kidanie SA. Facility delivery and postnatal care services use among mothers who attended four or more antenatal care visits in Ethiopia: further analysis of the 2016 demographic and health survey. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019; 19(1): 64 10.1186/s12884-019-2216-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kabakyenga JK, Östergren PO, Turyakira E, Pettersson KO. Influence of birth preparedness, decision-making on location of birth and assistance by skilled birth attendants among women in south-western Uganda. PloS One, 2012; 7(4): e35747 10.1371/journal.pone.0035747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Woldemichael G, Tenorang EY. Women’s autonomy and maternal health seeking behavior in Ethiopia. Matern Child Health J., 2010; 14: 988–998. 10.1007/s10995-009-0535-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kitui J, Lewis S, Davey G. Factors influencing place of delivery for women in Kenya: an analysis of the Kenya demographic and health survey, 2008/2009. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2013; 13(1): 40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Haider M, Sarkar M. The Case for Microcredit: Does IT Improve Maternal and Child Health and Wellbeing? International Journal of Public Health Science, 2014; 3(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Melaku YA, Weldearegawi B, Tesfay FH, Abera SF, Abraham L, Aregay A, et al. Poor linkages in maternal health care services—evidence on antenatal care and institutional delivery from a community-based longitudinal study in Tigray region, Ethiopia. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2014; 14(1): 418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Bangladesh population and housing census. 2011.
  • 60.Feyissa TR, Genemo GA. Determinants of institutional delivery among childbearing age women in Western Ethiopia, 2013: unmatched case control study. PloS One, 2014; 9(5): e97194 10.1371/journal.pone.0097194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Michael Johnson Mahande

17 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-25087

Does knowledge of pregnancy complications influence health facility delivery? Analysis of 2014 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Seidu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 31 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael Johnson Mahande, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

  1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Major revision

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Counseling on danger signs that require medical attention during pregnancy and delivery is an important part of antenatal care and is actively promoted by maternal health interventions in Bangladesh. The analysis in this paper examines the association between counseling on complications during ANC and delivery in a health facility in Bangladesh. Below are some comments to the authors.

Statistical Issues

1. The sample for the statistical analysis is not adequately described in the Methods section (p. 6). In the 2014 Bangladesh DHS women who had a live birth in the 3 years (not in the last 5 years) before the survey were asked about antenatal care for their most recent live birth. Only those women who had at least one ANC visit with any provider were asked about counseling on danger signs during pregnancy. Therefore your analysis sample is women who had at least one live birth in the 3 years before the survey and had at least one ANC visit.

2. There is some selection into this sample that is not discussed in that women who did not have ANC are likely to be different from those who did. Therefore your results are not representative of all women who had a live birth in the 3 years before the survey. I recommend stating the percentage of women with a recent live birth who had at least one ANC visit so the reader can see how many women are excluded.

3. It is important to be clear that what you are measuring with the independent variable is whether women recall receiving counseling on danger signs not whether they actually received counseling on danger signs. The difference is subtle, in that women have to recall the messages in order to act on them so recall is what is important for action, but the recommendations are different if women were counseled but don’t recall the message rather than that they weren’t counseled at all. You can’t make that distinction with these data which should be addressed in the Discussion.

4. There is also selection in who recalls being counseled on danger signs. For example, women who experienced danger signs may be more likely to recall the messages because they were more relevant for them and also more likely to deliver in a facility because of the complications, or women who are more predisposed to use healthcare in general might be more likely to recall the counseling. This kind of selection will bias your results and limits causal interpretation. This is difficult to address statistically (instrumental variables are used to address similar recall selection issues in health communication program evaluation for example, but finding good instruments can be very difficult if not impossible and weak instruments will introduce different types of biases). You mention recall bias very briefly at the end of the Strengths and Limitations section on p. 17 but this issue is a significant limitation and warrants more attention than currently given. I recommend also being more cautious in the causal interpretation of your findings as what you estimate is association rather than causal association given these selection issues.

5. Age and parity are highly correlated (young women are more likely to be low parity). Your discussion of the results for these two variables in the Discussion should acknowledge this. There are only 9 births (weighted) to women age 45-49 so your 95% CI for the AOR for this category in Table 2 is very wide. I suggest combining the 40-44 and 45-49 age groups in the analysis.

Other comments

6. The description of the DHS survey on pages 5-6 needs tightening up. Mostly this is editorial but the last sentence of the Data Source section (lines 112-113) is misleading. The number of households identified is not equal to the number of eligible women identified as implied by this sentence (i.e. not every household will contain an eligible woman and some households will contain more than 1 eligible woman). In the 2014 BDHS, 17,989 households were selected for the survey of which 17,300 were successfully interviewed. In those households 18,245 women eligible for the individual interview were identified, of which 17,863 were interviewed. Providing more complete information like this allows the reader to also get a sense of the response rates in the survey, which is important for assessing quality.

7. In Table 1 you don’t really need to include both the numerator (n) and the % for the place of delivery variables. The % is the most useful information for the reader but that is in parentheses so is less prominent. It would be clearer to only present the %. Also, is the n presented weighted or unweighted in the place of delivery columns? If you divide the n in the place of delivery column by the n for the category you don’t get the percentage reported which I assume is related to weighting (e.g. for those not told about danger signs during ANC, the weighted denominator is 1,875 and the numerator given for delivering at home is 1,046 so the % implied is 55.8% not 56.4%. I think 56.4% is correct though not 55.8% because the 2014 BDHS report reports 56.9% of women who received ANC received counseling on danger signs).

8. The focus of the paper is on the association between counseling on pregnancy danger signs during ANC and delivery care but the Discussion spends a lot of time discussing the results for the control variables which are not the focus of the paper (although it relates them nicely to other literature). This is particularly the case for education. The Discussion would benefit from being more focused on the primary independent variable of interest while acknowledging that associations between control variables and delivery care are largely as expected. Also, in the discussion of the parity results be aware that that first births are at higher risk of experiencing complications that can lead to delivery in a hospital which may also contribute to the higher probability of delivery of first births in health facilities (the DHS data don’t allow you to distinguish whether a woman chose a priori to deliver in a hospital or started delivering at home and then had to be taken to a facility due to complications).

9. I would like to see the discussion place the results in the existing program context in Bangladesh more. Bangladesh has interventions to promote counseling on danger signs during ANC including behavior change communication posters and counseling guides, although fewer than 50% of women in this analysis recalled receiving those messages. And it already considers divisional variation in its health programming, although disparities remain. The current discussion does not demonstrate knowledge of the Bangladesh program environment. There is also a significant shift going on towards accessing maternity care in the private sector which has implications for who and how to target interventions to strengthen counseling on danger signs. And there is a significant increase in caesarean sections associated with increased delivery in private sector facilities. Some integration of these larger contextual factors into the Discussion would be beneficial. There are also some new results coming out now from the 2017 Bangladesh DHS and 2016 Bangladesh maternal mortality and morbidity survey that would be useful to integrate into the discussion (although I recognize that the preliminary 2017 DHS results were not available when you wrote this paper).

10. The paper overall would benefit from review by a technical editor to tighten up and clarify the writing. Several sentences are unclear or imprecise. For example lines 68-70 (awkward sentence), 131-133 (unclear), lines 145-146 (imprecise as you are controlling for confounding factors not fitting interactions), 150-151 ( “the study” here refers to the DHS not the current study you are presenting in the paper but that is not immediately clear) etc.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sian L Curtis

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 27;15(8):e0237963. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237963.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Jan 2020

AUTHOR’S RESPONSE TO REVIEWS

Title: Does knowledge of pregnancy complications influence health facility delivery? Analysis of 2014 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey

Ref: PONE-D-19-25087

Version: 1

Date: 11/01/2020

Dear Editor/Reviewer (s),

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Does knowledge of pregnancy complications influence health facility delivery? Analysis of 2014 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey”. Please we have considered all the comments and modified our manuscript in that respect. In the following detailed response, we address each comment calling for changes point-by-point, indicating where relevant additional texts have been added to the body of the manuscript. Most of the changes have been indicated in Yellow. We believe the manuscript has improved substantively and will be published in your reputable journal.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Counseling on danger signs that require medical attention during pregnancy and delivery is an important part of antenatal care and is actively promoted by maternal health interventions in Bangladesh. The analysis in this paper examines the association between counseling on complications during ANC and delivery in a health facility in Bangladesh. Below are some comments to the authors.

Statistical Issues

Comment: 1. The sample for the statistical analysis is not adequately described in the Methods section (p. 6). In the 2014 Bangladesh DHS women who had a live birth in the 3 years (not in the last 5 years) before the survey were asked about antenatal care for their most recent live birth. Only those women who had at least one ANC visit with any provider were asked about counseling on danger signs during pregnancy. Therefore, your analysis sample is women who had at least one live birth in the 3 years before the survey and had at least one ANC visit.

Response: Please we have described this in detail at the methods section of the manuscript (see Page 6, line 128-137). Also, the report clearly states 3 years but not 5.

Comment: 2. There is some selection into this sample that is not discussed in that women who did not have ANC are likely to be different from those who did. Therefore, your results are not representative of all women who had a live birth in the 3 years before the survey. I recommend stating the percentage of women with a recent live birth who had at least one ANC visit so the reader can see how many women are excluded.

Response: Please we have stated the number of women who were excluded in the methods section of the manuscript (Page 6, line 136-137).

Comment: 3. It is important to be clear that what you are measuring with the independent variable is whether women recall receiving counseling on danger signs not whether they actually received counseling on danger signs. The difference is subtle, in that women have to recall the messages in order to act on them so recall is what is important for action, but the recommendations are different if women were counseled but don’t recall the message rather than that they weren’t counseled at all. You can’t make that distinction with these data which should be addressed in the Discussion.

Response: Many thanks for this clarification. Please we have acknowledged this as a limitation in the discussion section of our manuscript (Page 17, line 331-347).

Comment: 4. There is also selection in who recalls being counseled on danger signs. For example, women who experienced danger signs may be more likely to recall the messages because they were more relevant for them and also more likely to deliver in a facility because of the complications, or women who are more predisposed to use healthcare in general might be more likely to recall the counseling. This kind of selection will bias your results and limits causal interpretation. This is difficult to address statistically (instrumental variables are used to address similar recall selection issues in health communication program evaluation for example, but finding good instruments can be very difficult if not impossible and weak instruments will introduce different types of biases). You mention recall bias very briefly at the end of the Strengths and Limitations section on p. 17 but this issue is a significant limitation and warrants more attention than currently given. I recommend also being more cautious in the causal interpretation of your findings as what you estimate is association rather than causal association given these selection issues.

Response: We are much grateful for this comment. Please we have discussed recall bias in detail in the limitation section of our manuscript (Page 17-18, line 331-347).

Comment: 5. Age and parity are highly correlated (young women are more likely to be low parity). Your discussion of the results for these two variables in the Discussion should acknowledge this.

Response: We acknowledge this and have added this to the discussion and as a limitation (Page 14 line 260) and (Page 17 line 343-347).

Comment: There are only 9 births (weighted) to women age 45-49 so your 95% CI for the AOR for this category in Table 2 is very wide. I suggest combining the 40-44 and 45-49 age groups in the analysis.

Response: Please we have recategorised age by combining 40-44 and 45-49 age groups in the analysis as well as religious affiliation (Please Table 1).

Other comments

Comment: 6. The description of the DHS survey on pages 5-6 needs tightening up. Mostly this is editorial but the last sentence of the Data Source section (lines 112-113) is misleading. The number of households identified is not equal to the number of eligible women identified as implied by this sentence (i.e. not every household will contain an eligible woman and some households will contain more than 1 eligible woman). In the 2014 BDHS, 17,989 households were selected for the survey of which 17,300 were successfully interviewed. In those households 18,245 women eligible for the individual interview were identified, of which 17,863 were interviewed. Providing more complete information like this allows the reader to also get a sense of the response rates in the survey, which is important for assessing quality.

Response: We appreciate this a lot! Please we have revised this section (see Page 5, line 110-113).

Comment: 7. In Table 1 you don’t really need to include both the numerator (n) and the % for the place of delivery variables. The % is the most useful information for the reader but that is in parentheses so is less prominent. It would be clearer to only present the %. Also, is the n presented weighted or unweighted in the place of delivery columns? If you divide the n in the place of delivery column by the n for the category you don’t get the percentage reported which I assume is related to weighting (e.g. for those not told about danger signs during ANC, the weighted denominator is 1,875 and the numerator given for delivering at home is 1,046 so the % implied is 55.8% not 56.4%. I think 56.4% is correct though not 55.8% because the 2014 BDHS report reports 56.9% of women who received ANC received counseling on danger signs).

Response: We have presented only the percentages (See Table 1). We acknowledge the percentages might be a bit different due to weighting and also due to the fact that we omitted those who indicated, “don’t know”(4, [0.11%]) from the sample.

Comment: 8. The focus of the paper is on the association between counseling on pregnancy danger signs during ANC and delivery care but the Discussion spends a lot of time discussing the results for the control variables which are not the focus of the paper (although it relates them nicely to other literature). This is particularly the case for education. The Discussion would benefit from being more focused on the primary independent variable of interest while acknowledging that associations between control variables and delivery care are largely as expected. Also, in the discussion of the parity results be aware that that first births are at higher risk of experiencing complications that can lead to delivery in a hospital which may also contribute to the higher probability of delivery of first births in health facilities (the DHS data don’t allow you to distinguish whether a woman chose a priori to deliver in a hospital or started delivering at home and then had to be taken to a facility due to complications).

Response: We really appreciate this comment and have modified the discussion section of the manuscript (Page 11-17).

Comment: 9. I would like to see the discussion place the results in the existing program context in Bangladesh more. Bangladesh has interventions to promote counseling on danger signs during ANC including behavior change communication posters and counseling guides, although fewer than 50% of women in this analysis recalled receiving those messages. And it already considers divisional variation in its health programming, although disparities remain. The current discussion does not demonstrate knowledge of the Bangladesh program environment. There is also a significant shift going on towards accessing maternity care in the private sector which has implications for who and how to target interventions to strengthen counseling on danger signs. And there is a significant increase in caesarean sections associated with increased delivery in private sector facilities. Some integration of these larger contextual factors into the Discussion would be beneficial. There are also some new results coming out now from the 2017 Bangladesh DHS and 2016 Bangladesh maternal mortality and morbidity survey that would be useful to integrate into the discussion (although I recognize that the preliminary 2017 DHS results were not available when you wrote this paper).

Response: We appreciate this comment. Please we have integrated these in our discussion (Page 11-14).

Comment: 10. The paper overall would benefit from review by a technical editor to tighten up and clarify the writing. Several sentences are unclear or imprecise. For example lines 68-70 (awkward sentence), 131-133 (unclear), lines 145-146 (imprecise as you are controlling for confounding factors not fitting interactions), 150-151 ( “the study” here refers to the DHS not the current study you are presenting in the paper but that is not immediately clear) etc.

Response: We have proof read the entire manuscript to correct these errors.

Thank you once again for meticulously reviewing this manuscript and giving us insightful comments to improve upon this manuscript.

Decision Letter 1

Georg M Schmölzer

7 Aug 2020

Does knowledge of pregnancy complications influence health facility delivery? Analysis of 2014 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey

PONE-D-19-25087R1

Dear Dr. Abdul-Aziz Seidu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Georg M. Schmölzer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Georg M Schmölzer

18 Aug 2020

PONE-D-19-25087R1

Does knowledge of pregnancy complications influence health facility delivery? Analysis of 2014 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey

Dear Dr. Seidu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Georg M. Schmölzer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES