Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Feb 8;16(2):e0244395. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244395

Barriers to healthcare access and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa: A multilevel modelling of Demographic and Health Surveys

Bright Opoku Ahinkorah 1, Eugene Budu 2,*, Abdul-Aziz Seidu 2,3, Ebenezer Agbaglo 4, Collins Adu 5, Edward Kwabena Ameyaw 1, Irene Gyamfuah Ampomah 3, Anita Gracious Archer 6, Kwaku Kissah-Korsah 2, Sanni Yaya 7,8
Editor: Claudia Marotta9
PMCID: PMC7870045  PMID: 33556057

Abstract

Introduction

The success of current policies and interventions on providing effective access to treatment for childhood illnesses hinges on families’ decisions relating to healthcare access. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), there is an uneven distribution of child healthcare services. We investigated the role played by barriers to healthcare accessibility in healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in SSA.

Materials and methods

Data on 223,184 children under five were extracted from Demographic and Health Surveys of 29 sub-Saharan African countries, conducted between 2010 and 2018. The outcome variable for the study was healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses. The data were analyzed using Stata version 14.2 for windows. Chi-square test of independence and a two-level multivariable multilevel modelling were carried out to generate the results. Statistical significance was pegged at p<0.05. We relied on ‘Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology’ (STROBE) statement in writing the manuscript.

Results

Eighty-five percent (85.5%) of women in SSA sought healthcare for childhood illnesses, with the highest and lowest prevalence in Gabon (75.0%) and Zambia (92.6%) respectively. In terms of the barriers to healthcare access, we found that women who perceived getting money for medical care for self as a big problem [AOR = 0.81 CI = 0.78–0.83] and considered going for medical care alone as a big problem [AOR = 0.94, CI = 0.91–0.97] had lower odds of seeking healthcare for their children, compared to those who considered these as not a big problem. Other factors that predicted healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses were size of the child at birth, birth order, age, level of community literacy, community socio-economic status, place of residence, household head, and decision-maker for healthcare.

Conclusion

The study revealed a relationship between barriers to healthcare access and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses in sub-Saharan Africa. Other individual and community level factors also predicted healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses in sub-Saharan Africa. This suggests that interventions aimed at improving child healthcare in sub-Saharan Africa need to focus on these factors.

Introduction

Although the global prevalence of child deaths remains high, the world has made enormous progress in child survival in the past few decades. In 2018, an estimated 6.2 million children died under the age of 15 years across the globe [1]. Globally, 85% of deaths among children in 2018 occurred in the first five years of life, accounting for 5.3 million deaths [2]. Children continue to face widespread regional disparities in their chances of survival. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) remains the region with the highest child mortality in the world [1, 2]. In 2018, SSA recorded an average under-five mortality rate of 78 deaths per 1,000 live births, which translates to 1 in 13 children dying before their fifth birthday [2, 3]. Children in SSA are more than 16 times more likely to die before the age of 5, as compared to children in high-income countries [2]. In 2018, more than half of children under the age of 15 died in SSA [2].

The international community has made efforts to recognize the urgent need to end preventable child deaths, making it an important part of global child survival goals, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the United Nations Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016–2030). For instance, the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 aims at ensuring a reduction in deaths of children under-five to 25 deaths per 1,000 live births and deaths of newborns to 12 deaths per 1,000 live births throughout the world by 2030 [3]. This attention given to child health by the international community is important, given that children constitute a vulnerable population who deserve public health attention such as enhancing access to healthcare service [4]. Promoting access to cost-effective child health intervention is central to child mortality reduction [5].

With current policies and interventions on providing effective access to treatment of childhood illness, the success of the policies and interventions hinges on families’ decision relating to whether to access healthcare service [6] and where to seek healthcare [7]. These decisions are extremely determined by availability of healthcare services. Therefore, increased access to essential child health services remains an integral effort to achieve SDG 3. The introduction of the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) has helped to reduce child mortality. It represents the main approach to promoting access to healthcare across a continuum of care, including a community and health system focus through its interrelated components, namely, clinical/facility IMCI, community IMCI, and health systems strengthening [8].

In SSA, there is an uneven distribution of child healthcare services [8]. Previous studies show that mothers in SSA usually do not have enough knowledge to identify danger signs or appropriate treatment to be given to their children to promote or maintain their health [4, 9, 10]. Besides, some mothers use traditional treatment ahead of modern healthcare services [9, 11]. Previous country-specific studies in Malawi [8], Ethiopia [4], and Nigeria [12] have revealed some barriers to health-seeking behaviour for childhood illnesses. A study by Bennett et al. [13], for example, identified child age, child sex, maternal education, place of residence, socio-economic status, and distance to the nearest healthcare facility as socio-demographic factors related to healthcare seeking for childhood illness. These factors could also serve as barriers to healthcare access and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses. However, since those studies each focused on single countries, they failed to provide a panoramic view of the phenomenon. In view of this, this current study investigates the barriers to healthcare access and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in the entire SSA. Findings from this study will be potentially useful in contributing to efforts to promote child health, survival, and development in the sub-region.

Materials and methods

Data source

We pooled data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHSs) of 29 SSA countries, conducted between 2010 and 2018. Specifically, we used data from the children’s files from the various countries. All women whose data are captured in this file are either caregivers of children under five or gave birth within the five years preceding the surveys. The DHS is a nationally representative survey that is conducted in over 85 low- and middle-income countries globally. The survey focuses on essential maternal and child health markers, including health seeking behaviour, contraceptive use, skilled birth attendance, immunization among under-fives, and intimate partner violence [14]. The survey employs a two-stage stratified sampling technique, which makes the data nationally representative. The study by Aliaga and Ruilin [15] provides details of the sampling process. Sample sizes are determined by the number of women in the selected households who fall within the ages 15–49 years for women and 15–64 years for men. Various quality control measures are employed to collect quality data. For example, consistency across the various countries is maintained by employing the same variables and measures (instruments). Nonetheless, countries are allowed to add specific variables of interest to suit their context. The survey staff are trainees who are instructed in standard DHS procedures, including general interviewing techniques, conducting interviews at the household level, and review of each question and mock interviews between participants. The DHSs in sub-Saharan Africa are usually conducted in English, French, and Portuguese depending on the official language of the country. To ensure participants comprehended/understood the questions being asked, the definitive questionnaires are first prepared in the official language in the specific country and subsequently translated into the major local languages at the various data collection points [14, 15]. In this study, we analysed data for a weighted sample of 223,184 children under five years who were alive during the surveys. Table 1 provides details of the countries, survey years, and samples used for the study. In this study, we relied on the ‘Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology’ (STROBE) statement in writing the manuscript [16].

Table 1. Distribution of the study sample by country.

Country Survey year Sample used % of sample used
Angola 2015–16 5472 2.5
Burkina Faso 2010 14869 6.7
Benin 2017–18 12479 5.6
Burundi 2016–17 12448 5.6
Congo DR. 2013–14 15722 7.0
Congo 2011–12 3716 1.7
Cote D’Ivoire 2011–12 6113 2.7
Cameroon 2011 3025 1.4
Ethiopia 2016 10371 4.7
Gabon 2012 611 0.3
Ghana 2014 4951 2.2
Gambia 2013 7336 3.3
Guinea 2018 7462 3.3
Kenya 2014 7769 3.5
Comoros 2012 2700 1.2
Liberia 2013 4911 2.2
Lesotho 2014 964 0.4
Mali 2018 9671 4.3
Malawi 2015–16 14757 6.6
Nigeria 2018 23285 10.4
Namibia 2013 2034 0.9
Rwanda 2014–15 6624 3.0
Sierra Leone 2013 2589 1.2
Senegal 2010–11 10960 4.9
Chad 2014–15 5790 2.6
Togo 2013–14 3277 1.5
Uganda 2016 12783 5.7
Zambia 2018–19 4931 2.2
Zimbabwe 2015 5564 2.5
Total 223,184 100.0

Definition of variables

Outcome variable

The outcome variable for the study was healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses. It was derived as a composite variable from two questions, “Did [NAME] receive treatment for diarrhea?” and “Did [NAME] receive treatment from fever/cough?” The responses were “Yes” and “No”. For the purpose of this study, respondents who answered “Yes” to any of the two questions were considered as seeking healthcare for childhood illnesses and were put in the category “Yes” and coded 1. On the other hand, those who answered “No” to the two questions were considered as those who did not seek healthcare for childhood illnesses and were put in the category “No” and coded 0.

Independent variables

The study considered barriers to accessing healthcare as the independent variables. These variables were generated by asking women whether they had serious problems in accessing healthcare for themselves when they are sick, by type of problem. The problems were difficulty with distance to health facility, difficulty in getting money for treatment, difficulty with getting permission to visit health facility, and difficulty in not wanting to go for medical help alone. In each of these instances, these variables were recoded as “Big problem” and “Not a big problem.”

Control variables

Sixteen control variables consisting of four child factors (size of child at birth, birth order, twin status, and sex of child), eight maternal factors (age, marital status, employment, religion, parity, frequency of reading newspaper/magazine, frequency of listening to radio, and frequency of watching television), and five community factors (healthcare decision-making capacity, place of residence, community literacy level, community socio-economic status, and sex of household head) were considered in our study. Child and maternal factors were combined as individual factors. The selection of these variables was influenced by their relevance in previous studies on health-seeking for childhood illnesses [8, 1719]. The categories generated for each of these variables can be found in Table 2.

Table 2. Distribution of barriers to healthcare, individual and community factors and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa.
Variable Weighted N Weighted % Healthcare seeking χ2 (p-value)
Getting permission for medical care for self 127.0 (<0.001)
Big problem 43762 19.6 83.8
Not a big problem 179422 80.4 86.9
Getting money for medical care for self 558.5 (<0.001)
Big problem 125809 56.4 83.9
Not a big problem 97375 43.6 87.5
Distance to facility for medical care for self 265.3 (<0.001)
Big problem 92234 41.3 84.1
Not a big problem 130950 58.7 86.5
Wanting to go for medical care alone 185.2 (<0.001)
Big problem 50274 22.5 83.6
Not a big problem 172909 77.5 86.0
Community literacy level 154.7 (<0.001)
Low 77145 34.6 84.9
Medium 69376 31.1 84.7
High 76661 34.3 86.8
Community socio-economic status 243.9 (<0.001)
Low 122650 54.9 84.6
Medium 25337 11.4 85.0
High 75196 33.7 87.2
Residence 202.3 (<0.001)
Urban 61987 27.8 87.2
Rural 161197 72.2 84.8
Age 118.1 (<0.001)
15–19 9865 4.4 82.2
20–24 46744 20.9 84.9
25–29 62222 27.9 85.6
30–34 49889 22.4 85.8
35–39 34051 15.3 86.2
40–44 15676 7.0 85.6
45–49 4737 2.1 85.6
Marital status 296.4 (<0.001)
Married 183738 82.3 86.1
Cohabiting 39446 17.7 82.7
Healthcare decision-making capacity 9.6 (<0.05)
Alone 34435 15.4 84.9
Not alone 188749 84.6 85.5
Parity 130.1 (<0.001)
One birth 24725 11.1 83.4
Two births 42493 19.0 86.4
Three births 39052 17.5 86.3
Four or more births 116914 52.4 85.5
Employment status 1.2 (0.269)
Not working 56674 25.4 85.3
Working 166510 74.6 85.5
Religion 161.7 (<0.001)
Christianity 136422 61.1 85.0
Islam 76937 34.5 86.6
Traditionalist 4712 2.1 84.0
No religion 5113 2.3 82.0
Frequency of reading newspaper 65.7 (<0.001)
Not at all 197283 88.4 85.3
Less than once a week 16086 7.2 86.6
At least once a week 9815 4.4 87.9
Frequency of listening to radio 180.2 (<0.001)
Not at all 98150 44.0 84.4
Less than once a week 44712 20.0 86.3
At least once a week 80322 36.0 86.4
Frequency of watching television 306.2 (<0.001)
Not at all 148268 66.4 84.6
Less than once a week 28389 12.7 86.9
At least once a week 46526 20.9 87.6
Sex of household head 10.1 (<0.05)
Male 191890 86.0 85.5
Female 31294 14.0 84.9
Size of child at birth 242.4 (<0.001)
Larger than average 81851 36.7 85.1
Average 104566 46.8 86.5
Smaller than average 36767 16.5 83.3
Birth order 80.6 (<0.001)
First 41576 18.6 86.3
2–4 108425 48.6 85.7
5+ 73182 32.8 84.5
Twin status 49.8 (<0.001)
Single birth 214929 96.3 85.3
Multiple birth 8255 3.7 881
Sex of child 0.9 (0.337)
Male 112929 50.6 85.4
Female 110255 49.4 85.5
N 223184

Statistical analyses

The data were analyzed using Stata version 14.2 for windows. The datasets were extracted from each country’s datafiles, cleaned, and recoded. The recoding was done to ensure consistency in the variables across the countries. After that, the dataset was appended to generate pooled data [14]. The analyses began with the computation of the prevalence of healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses using bar chart. This was followed by the distribution of healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses across the barriers to healthcare, child, maternal, and community level factors. Chi-square test of independence was used to assess the statistical significance of the association between each of the factors and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses at a p-value of 0.05 (see Table 1). Next, a two-level multivariable logistic regression analysis was carried out to examine the influence of barriers to healthcare access and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses while controlling for the effect of individual and community factors. The two-level modelling in this study implies that women were nested within clusters (primary sampling units). Clusters were considered as random effects to cater for the unexplained variability at the community level [20].

In terms of the modelling, four models were fitted and they comprised the empty model (model 0), Model I (individual factors and barriers to healthcare access), Model II (community level factors only), and Model III (all factors). Model 0 showed the variance in the outcome variable that is attributed to the clustering of the primary sampling units (PSUs) without the explanatory variables. The Stata command “melogit” was used in fitting these models. Model comparison was done using the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) tests. The highest log-likelihood and the lowest AIC were used to determine the best fit model (see Table 3). Odds ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were presented for all the models apart from Model 0 (see Table 2). To check for high correlation among the explanatory variables, a test for multicollinearity was carried out using the variance inflation factor (VIF), and the results showed no evidence of high collinearity (Mean VIF = 1.51, Maximum VIF = 3.18, and Minimum VIF = 1.02). Sample weight (v005/1,000,000) and SVY command were used to correct for over- and under-sampling, and the complex survey design and generalizability of the findings respectively.

Table 3. Mixed effects results on barriers to healthcare, individual and community factors associated with healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa.

Variable Model 0 Model I AOR[95%CI] Model II AOR[95%CI] Model III AOR[95%CI]
Size of child at birth
Larger than average 0.91*** (0.89–0.93) 0.91*** (0.88–0.93)
Average 1 1
Smaller than average 0.78***(0.75–0.80) 0.78***(0.75–0.80)
Birth order
First 1 1
2–4 0.54*** (0.51–0.58) 0.54***(0.51–0.58)
5+ 0.43*** (0.40–0.46) 0.43***(0.40–0.46)
Twin status
Single birth 0.76*** (0.71–0.81) 0.76***(0.71–0.81)
Multiple birth 1 1
Age
15–19 0.66***(0.61–0.71) 0.67***(0.62–0.72)
20–24 0.76***(0.72–0.80) 0.76***(0.72–0.80)
25–29 0.83***(0.79–0.86) 0.83***(0.79–0.87)
30–34 0.90***(0.87–0.94) 0.90*** (0.87–0.94)
35–39 1 1
40–44 1.00(0.95–1.06) 1.01(0.85–1.06)
45–49 1.02 (0.94–1.11) 1.02 (0.94–1.12)
Marital status
Married 1 1
Cohabiting 0.84*** (0.81–0.86) 0.84*** (0.81–0.86)
Parity
One birth 0.55***(0.52–0.59) 0.55***(0.52–0.59)
Two births 1 1
Three births 1.12***(1.07–1.17) 1.12***(1.07–1.17)
Four or more births 1.13***(1.08–1.18) 1.14***(1.09–1.19)
Religion
Christianity 0.86***(0.86–0.91) 0.89***(0.87–0.92)
Islam 1 1
Traditionalist 0.87***(0.80–0.94) 0.87***(0.81–0.95)
No religion 0.78***(0.73–0.85) 0.79***(0.74–0.86)
Frequency of reading newspaper
Not at all 0.91**(0.85–0.98) 0.92*(0.86–0.99)
Less than once a week 0.90* (0.83–0.98) 0.91*(0.84–0.98)
At least once a week 1 1
Frequency of listening to radio
Not at all 0.92*** (0.89–0.96) 0.93***(0.89–0.96)
Less than once a week 1 1
At least once a week 0.97(0.94–1.01) 0.97(0.94–1.01)
Frequency of watching television
Not at all 0.89***(0.86–0.92) 0.92***(0.89–0.96)
Less than once a week 0.98(0.93–1.03) 1.00(0.96–1.05)
At least once a week 1 1
Getting permission for medical care for self
Big problem 0.99 (0.96–1.03) 0.99 (0.96–1.02)
Not a big problem 1 1
Getting money for medical care for self
Big problem 0.81***(0.78–0.83) 0.81***(0.78–0.83)
Not a big problem 1 1
Distance to facility for medical care for self
Big problem 0.97* (0.91–0.97) 0.98 (0.95–1.01)
Not a big problem 1 1
Wanting to go for medical care alone
Big problem 0.94***(0.91–0.97) 0.94***(0.91–0.97)
Not a big problem 1 1
Community literacy level
Low 0.97(0.93–1.00) 1.01(0.98–1.05)
Medium 0.93***(0.90–0.96) 0.95**(0.92–0.99)
High 1 1
Community socio-economic status
Low 0.87***(0.84–0.91) 0.95**(0.92–0.99)
Medium 0.89***(0.84–0.93) 0.94**(0.89–0.98)
High 1 1
Residence
Urban 1 1
Rural 0.90***(0.87–0.94) 0.95**(0.91–0.98)
Healthcare decision-making
Alone 0.95***(0.92–0.98) 0.96**(0.92–0.99)
Not alone 1 1
Sex of household head
Male 1 1
Female 0.94***(0.91–0.98) 0.96**(0.92–0.99)
Random effect result
PSU variance (95% CI) 0.05 (0.04–0.06) 0.04 (0.04–0.05) 0.05(0.04–0.06) 0.04(0.03–0.05)
ICC 0.015 0.013 0.014 0.013
LR Test χ2 = 406.68, p = 0.000 χ2 = 360.24, p = 0.000 χ2 = 387.93, p = 0.0000 χ2 = 356.02, p = 0.000
Wald chi-square Reference 2077.59 312.75 2144.42
Model fitness
Log-likelihood -92397.577 -91320.966 -92237.854 -91284.861
AIC 184799.2 182701.9 184493.7 182643.7
N 223184 223184 223184 223184

Exponentiated coefficients; 95% confidence intervals in brackets

* p < 0.05

** p < 0.01

*** p < 0.001

N = Sample size; 1 = Reference category; PSU = Primary Sampling Unit; ICC = Intra-Class Correlation; LR Test = Likelihood ratio Test; AIC = Akaike’s Information Criterion

Ethical approval

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethics Committee of ORC Macro Inc. as well as Ethics Boards of partner organizations of the various countries such as the Ministries of Health. The DHS follows the standards for ensuring the protection of respondents’ privacy. Inner City Fund (ICF) International ensured that the survey complies with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations for the respect of human subjects. The survey indicates that the respondents provided both written and oral consent prior to the data collection. However, this was a secondary analysis of data and, therefore, no further approval was required since the data is available in the public domain. Further information about the DHS data usage and ethical standards are available at http://goo.gl/ny8T6X.

Results

Prevalence of health seeking for childhood illness in sub-Saharan Africa

As shown in Fig 1, approximately eighty-six percent (85.5%) of women in SSA sought healthcare for childhood illnesses, with the highest and lowest prevalence in Gabon (75.0%) and Zambia (92.6%) respectively.

Fig 1. Prevalence of healthcare seeking for childhood illness in sub-Saharan Africa.

Fig 1

Distribution of barriers to healthcare, individual, and community factors and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa

Table 2 shows the distribution of barriers to healthcare, individual, and community factors, and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in SSA. It was found that 19.6% of the childbearing women indicated that they have a big problem getting permission to seek medical care, 56.4% indicated they face a big problem getting money to seek care, while 41.3% and 22.5% also said it is a big problem for them when it comes to distance and not wanting to go to a health facility alone respectively. About 46.8% of the children were of average size at birth, 48.6% were parity 2–4, slightly above ninety-six percent (96.3%) of them were single births, and 50.6% were males. The study also showed that 27.9% of the mothers were aged 25–29, fifty-two percent (52%) had four or more births, 74.6% were working, and 61.1% were Christians. In terms of exposure to mass media, the study revealed that 44%, 66.4%, and 34.6% did not read newspaper, listen to radio, or watch television at all. The study also showed that 54.9% were in low category of community socio-economic status, 72.2% resided in rural areas, 86.0% were in male-headed households, and 84.6% did not take healthcare decisions alone. The chi-square analysis showed that, except employment status and sex of child, all the independent variables had statistically significant association with healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses at p<0.05.

Barriers to healthcare, individual, and community factors associated with healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa

Table 3 shows the results on barriers to healthcare, individual, and community factors associated with healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in SSA. In the fully adjusted model, controlling for the effects of individual and community factors, it was found that women who perceived getting money for medical care for self as a big problem [AOR = 0.81 CI = 0.78–0.83] and considered going for medical care alone as a big problem [AOR = 0.94, CI = 0.91–0.97] had lower odds of seeking healthcare for their children, compared to those who considered these as not a big problem.

The results further showed that mothers with children larger [AOR = 0.91 CI = 0.88–0.93] and smaller than average [AOR = 0.78, CI = 0.75–0.80] had lower odds of seeking care for their children’s illnesses, compared to those who had children with average size at birth. The odds of healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses reduced with high birth order, as mothers with children who were at birth order 5 or more were less likely to seek healthcare for childhood illnesses, compared with children of first birth order [AOR = 0.43, CI = 0.40–0.46]. Mothers of single birth children were less likely to seek healthcare for childhood illnesses, compared to those with multiple births [AOR = 0.76, CI = 0.71–0.81].

The likelihood of healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses reduced with age, as mothers aged 15–19 had the lowest odds of seeking healthcare for their children’s illnesses, compared with those aged 45–49 [AOR = 0.67, CI = 0.62–0.72]. The results also showed that mothers who were cohabiting [AOR = 0.84, CI = 0.81–0.86], those with parity one [AOR = 0.55, CI = 0.52–0.59], and those with no religion [AOR = 0.79, CI = 0.74–0.86] had lower odds of seeking healthcare for their children’s ailments, compared with married women, women with parity three, and Muslim women respectively. With mass media exposure, it was revealed that women who read newspaper/magazine less than once a week [AOR = 0.91, CI = 0.84–0.98), those who did not listen to radio at all [AOR = 0.93, CI = 0.89–0.96], and those who did not watch television at all [AOR = 0.92, CI = 0.89–0.96] had lower odds of seeking healthcare for their children’s ailments.

The study further showed that those with medium level of community literacy [AOR = 0.95 CI = 0.92–0.99], mothers with medium socio-economic status [AOR = 0.94, CI = 0.89–0.98], those in rural areas [AOR = 0.95, CI = 0.91–0.98], those in female-headed households [AOR = 0.96, CI = 0.92–0.99], and those who take healthcare decisions alone [AOR = 0.96, CI = 0.92–0.99] had lower odds of seeking healthcare for childhood illnesses.

Discussion

Though there have been some improvements in child survival globally, a considerable number of children still die in poor-income countries, especially in SSA [1]. This suggests the need to pay more attention to child healthcare services in SSA. In the present study, we investigated the barriers and other factors associated with health-seeking behavior for childhood illnesses in sub-Saharan Africa. This was done with the aim of providing target areas for interventions intended to improve child healthcare in the sub-region. The study revealed an overall health-seeking prevalence of 85%, with inter-country variations. In terms of specific countries, the prevalence ranged from 75.0% in Gabon to 92.6% in Zambia. This difference in prevalence of health-seeking for childhood diseases across countries could be a reflection of differences in socio-cultural factors across the countries. It may also suggest an uneven distribution of child healthcare services across the countries in the sub-region [8].

The study found a significant association between access to money and mothers’ healthcare seeking behavior for their children’s ailments. Specifically, women who had a big problem getting money had a lower likelihood to seek healthcare for their children’s diseases, compared to their counterparts who had no problem getting money for healthcare. This finding confirms the results of Assefa et al. [21], who reported financial constraints as a barrier to health-seeking behaviour for childhood diseases in Northzoa Zone of Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia. Bedford and Sharkey [22] similarly reported financial problems as a barrier to heath-seeking behaviour for childhood diseases in Kenya, Niger, and Nigeria. Concurrently, Noordam et al. [23] also reported higher likelihood of health-seeking for childhood diseases among mothers from rich households. In SSA countries that have health insurance schemes, such as Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, and Ethiopia [24], the barrier may not have resulted from financial charges that come with healthcare, but other indirect costs involved, such as the cost of transportation to health centres [25].

In the present study, we observed an association between mothers’ age and the likelihood of seeking healthcare for their children’s diseases. Specifically, older mothers recorded higher likelihoods of seeking healthcare for their children, compared to younger mothers. Related to this finding, the study also reveals that mothers with single births were less likely to seek care for their children’s illnesses, compared with mothers with multiple births. Since multiple births come with old age, these findings collectively seem to suggest that older mothers are more experienced in determining when their children need healthcare, and this may be a reason for their higher probability of seeking healthcare for their children’s illnesses [9]. This finding is, however, inconsistent with findings of a study by Astale and Chenault [26], who found higher likelihood of health-seeking behaviour for childhood diseases among younger mothers in Ethiopia. Gelaw et al. [27] also reported that younger mothers, relative to older mothers, were more likely to seek medical care for their children’s diseases. On the contrary, a study by Amin et al. [28] in rural Bangladesh reported no significance association between mothers’ age and health-seeking behaviour for childhood diseases.

Women with no religion had lower odds of seeking healthcare for their children’s illnesses, compared with Muslim women. This finding seems to suggest that religion encourages health-seeking behavior for childhood illnesses. A study by Abdulkadir and Abdulkadir [29] similarly reported that being a votary of Muslim faith is a strong determinant of maternal health-seeking for childhood diseases. Mebratie et al. [30] also reported a significant association between religion and health-seeking behaviour for childhood illnesses. Some studies, however, found no association between religion and healthcare-seeking behaviour of mothers for childhood diseases [27]. Bedford and Sharkey [22], on the other hand, reported how some religious beliefs rather prohibited health-seeking behaviour for childhood diseases in Kenya and Nigeria.

Women who were not exposed to mass media reported lower likelihood of seeking healthcare for their children’s diseases, compared to those who were more exposed to newspapers, radio, and television. This finding affirms the findings of Yaya and Bishwajit [31], and Gebretsadik et al. [32] in Uganda and Ethiopia, respectively. Adinan et al. [33] similarly reported that parents with mass media exposure were about two times more likely to seek healthcare for their children, as compared to those without mass media exposure. In explaining this finding, Gebredsadik et al. [32] and Adinan et al. [33] noted that mass media are sometimes used to create awareness on health issues; therefore, mothers’ access to mass media increases their awareness of the importance of child healthcare, and this may explain their higher likelihood of seeking healthcare for their sick children. However, studies by Amin et al. [28], and Chandwani and Pandor [34] in Bangladesh and India, respectively, reported no association between mass media exposure and mothers’ health-seeking behaviour for their children’s illnesses.

Rural-urban differentials also showed a significant association with mothers’ health-seeking for their children’s illnesses. Specifically, mothers in the rural areas reported lower likelihood of seeking care for their children’s diseases, compared to mothers who dwelled in urban areas. Assefa et al. [21] and Gelaw et al. [27] reported a similar finding in Ethiopia. Similarly, Ferdous et al. [35] reported low health-seeking behaviour for childhood diseases among mothers in rural Bangladesh. This low health-seeking behavior for childhood diseases among mothers in rural areas, compared to urban areas, could be attributed to the disparity in the distribution of infrastructure that could facilitate healthcare. In most African countries, relative to urban areas, rural areas suffer infrastructure deficit, in terms of health facilities, good roads, and transportation networks [3638], and this is likely to negatively influence the health-seeking behavior of residents of rural areas. Noordam et al. [23], however, found no significant association between rural-urban residency and health-seeking behaviour for childhood ailments.

Strengths and limitations

The findings of the study need to be interpreted in the light of some strengths and limitations. The main strength of this study lies in the use of nationally representative data. The sampling strategy–multi-stage—employed by the DHS usually helps to minimize selection bias [39]. Also, the DHS employs standard data collection instruments and procedures. The DHS conduct extensive training of interviewers, which guarantees the collection of reliable information from survey participants. With the sampling strategy and procedures, the findings of the study can be generalized to all children in the studied countries. In terms of analysis, the clustered nature of the data was accounted for by employing multi-level modelling. This ensured vigorous analysis of the data. Aside these strengths, the study also suffers some limitations that need to be acknowledged. In the first place, since the study relied on secondary data, our analysis was limited to only the variables available in the data. With this, other variables that could be significantly associated with health-seeking behaviour for childhood diseases might have been excluded from the analysis. The study might also suffer social desirability bias since some of the variables were self-reported. The possibility of recall biases that often characterize DHS data, due to the retrospective nature of the report, cannot be overruled.

Conclusion

The study revealed a relationship between barriers to healthcare access and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses in SSA. Other individual and community level factors also predicted healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses in SSA. This suggests that interventions aimed at improving child healthcare in SSA need to focus on these factors.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Measure DHS for providing us with the data upon which the findings of this study were based.

Data Availability

All relevant data are publicly accessible on the DHS Program website via the following URLs: Angola (2015-16): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Angola_Standard-DHS_2015.cfm?flag=0 Burkina Faso (2010): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Burkina-Faso_Standard-DHS_2010.cfm?flag=0 Benin (2017-18): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Benin_Standard-DHS_2017.cfm?flag=0 Burundi (2016-17): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Burundi_Standard-DHS_2016.cfm?flag=0 Congo DR. (2013-14): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Congo-Democratic-Republic_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Congo (2011-12): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Congo_Standard-DHS_2011.cfm?flag=0 Cote D’Ivoire (2011-12): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Cote-d-Ivoire_Standard-DHS_2012.cfm?flag=0 Cameroon (2018): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Cameroon_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0 Ethiopia (2016): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Ethiopia_Standard-DHS_2016.cfm?flag=0 Gabon (2012): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Gabon_Standard-DHS_2012.cfm?flag=0 Ghana (2014): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Ghana_Standard-DHS_2014.cfm?flag=0 Gambia (2013): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Gambia_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Guinea (2018): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Guinea_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0 Kenya (2014): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Kenya_Standard-DHS_2014.cfm?flag=0 Comoros (2012): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Comoros_Standard-DHS_2012.cfm?flag=0 Liberia (2013): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Liberia_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Lesotho (2014): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Lesotho_Standard-DHS_2014.cfm?flag=0 Mali (2018): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Mali_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0 Malawi (2015-16): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Malawi_Standard-DHS_2015.cfm?flag=0 Nigeria (2018): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Nigeria_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0 Namibia (2013): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Namibia_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Rwanda (2014-15): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Rwanda_Standard-DHS_2015.cfm?flag=0 Sierra Leone (2013): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Sierra-Leone_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Senegal (2010-11): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Senegal_Standard-DHS_2010.cfm?flag=0 Chad (2014-15): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Chad_Standard-DHS_2014.cfm?flag=0 Togo (2013-14): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Togo_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Uganda (2016): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Uganda_Standard-DHS_2016.cfm?flag=0 Zambia (2018-19): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Zambia_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0 Zimbabwe (2015): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Zimbabwe_Standard-DHS_2015.cfm?flag=0.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.WHO. Children-reducing mortality. Available at: www.who.int/news-room/facts-sheets/detail/children-reducing-mortality. 2019.
  • 2.UNICEF, WHO, World Bank Group & United Nations. Levels & trends in child mortality: estimates developed by the UN inter-agency group for child mortality estimation. New York, USA: United Nations Children’s Fund; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Van Malderen C, Amouzou A, Barros Aluisio J.D, Masquelier B, Van Oyen H and Speybroeck N ‘Socioeconomic factors contributing to under-five mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: a decomposition analysis’. BMC Public Health:2019:19(760). 10.1186/s12889-019-7111-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nebiat Teshager Abegaz Hailemariam Berhe and Gebremedhin Beedemariam Gebretekle. Mothers/caregivers healthcare seeking behavior towards childhood illness in selected health centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a facility-based cross-sectional Study. BMC Pediatrics:2019:19:220 10.1186/s12887-019-1588-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rutherfold ME, Mulholland K & Hill PC. How access to healthcare relates to under-five mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review. Tropical Med Int Health:2010: 15:508–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Black RE, Levin C, Walker N, Chou D, Lui L and Temmeman M. ‘Reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health: key messages from disease control priorities 3rd Edition’. Lancet:2016:388(10061):2811–24. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00738-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lui L, Oza S, Hogan D, Chu Y, Perin J and Zhu J. ‘Global, regional and national causes of under-five mortality in 2000–15: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the sustainable development goals’. Lancet: 2016:388(10063):3027–35 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31593-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lungu E. A., Darker C., & Biesma R. Determinants of healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among caregivers of under-five children in urban slums in Malawi: a population-based cross-sectional study. BMC Pediatrics:2020:20(1): 1–13. 10.1186/s12887-019-1898-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ajibade B, Amoo P, Adeleke M, Oyadiran G, Kolade O, Olagunju R. Determinants of mothers health seeking behavior for their children in a Nigerian teaching hospital. IOSR J Nurs Health Sci:2013:1 (6):09–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fantaye AW, Okonofua F, Ntoimo L, Yaya S. A qualitative study of community elders’ perceptions about the underutilization of formal maternal care and maternal death in rural Nigeria. Reproductive health. 2019. December;16(1):1–7. 10.1186/s12978-018-0662-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Khalid M, Kumari R, Mohan U, Manar M, Singh V. Morbidity profile of preschool children from below poverty line families of Lucknow district, North India. Int J Adv Res:2014:2(11):627–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tinuade O, Iyabo RA, & Durotoye O. Healthcare seeking behavior for childhood illness in a resource-poor setting. J Paediatr Child Health:2010: 46:238–42. 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2009.01677.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bennett A, Eisele T, Keating J, Yukich J. Global trends in care seeking and access to diagnosis and treatment of childhood illnesses. Rockville, Maryland, USA: ICF International; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Corsi DJ, Neuman M, Finlay JE, Subramanian SV. Demographic and health surveys: a profile. International journal of epidemiology. 2012. December 1;41(6):1602–13. 10.1093/ije/dys184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Aliaga A, Ruilin R. Cluster optimal sample size for demographic and health surveys. In7th International Conference on Teaching Statistics–ICOTS 2006 Jul (Vol. 7, pp. 2–7).
  • 16.Von Elm E., Altman D. G., Egger M., Pocock S. J., Gøtzsche P. C., & Vandenbroucke J. P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Annals of Internal Medicine:2007:147(8): 573–577. 10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Taffa N., & Chepngeno G. Determinants of health care seeking for childhood illnesses in Nairobi slums. Tropical Medicine & International Health:2005:10(3):240–245. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2004.01381.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Abdulraheem I. S., & Parakoyi D. B. Factors affecting mothers’ healthcare‐seeking behaviour for childhood illnesses in a rural Nigerian setting. Early Child Development and Care:2009:179(5): 671–683. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kolola T., Gezahegn T., & Addisie M. Health care seeking behavior for common childhood illnesses in jeldu district, oromia regional state, Ethiopia. PloS ONE:2016:11(10). 10.1371/journal.pone.0164534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Solanke B. L., Oyinlola F. F., Oyeleye O. J., & Ilesanmi B. B. Maternal and community factors associated with unmet contraceptive need among childbearing women in Northern Nigeria. Contraception and Reproductive Medicine:2019:4(1): 11 10.1186/s40834-019-0093-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Assefa T, Belachew T, Tegegn A, Deribew, A. Mothers’ Health Care Seeking Behavior for Childhood Illnesses in Derra District, Northshoa Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Health Science:2008:18(3):87–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bedford KJ, Sharkey AB. Local Barriers and Solutions to Improve Care-Seeking for Childhood Pneumonia, Diarrhoea and Malaria in Kenya, Nigeria and Niger: A Qualitative Study. PLoS ONE:2014:9(6):e100038 10.1371/journal.pone.0100038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Noordam AC, Carvajal-Velez L, Sharkey AB, Young M, Cals JWL. Care Seeking Behaviour for Children with Suspected Pneumonia in Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with High Pneumonia Mortality. PLoS ONE:2015: 10(2): e0117919 10.1371/journal.pone.0117919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fenny AO, Yates R, Thompson R. (2018). Social health insurance schemes in Africa leave out the poor. Int Health:2018:10: 1–3. 10.1093/inthealth/ihx046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Anafi P, Mprah W. K., Jackson A. M., Jacobson J. J., Torres C. M., Crow B. M., et al. Implementation of Fee-Free Maternal Health-Care Policy in Ghana: Perspectives of Users of Antenatal and Delivery Care Services from Public Health-Care Facilities in Accra. International Quarterly of Community Health Education:2018:38(4):259–267. 10.1177/0272684X18763378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Astale T, Chenault M. Help-Seeking Behavior for Children with Acute Respiratory Infection in Ethiopia: Results from 2011 Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey. PLoS ONE:2015:10(11): e0142553 10.1371/journal.pone.0142553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gelaw YA, Biks GA, Alene KA. Effect of residence on mothers’ health care seeking behavior for common childhood illness in Northwest Ethiopia: a community based comparative cross–sectional study. BMC Research Notes:2014:7:705 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1756-0500/7/705. 10.1186/1756-0500-7-705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Amin R, Shah NM, Becker S. Socioeconomic factors differentiating maternal and child health-seeking behavior in rural Bangladesh: A cross-sectional analysis. International Journal of Equity in Health:2010:9(9). http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/9/1/9. 10.1186/1475-9276-9-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Abdulkadir MB, Abdulkadir ZA. A cross-sectional survey of parental care-seeking behavior for febrile illness among under-five children in Nigeria. Alexandria Journal of Medicine:2017:53:85–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mebratie AD, Van de Poel E, Yilma Z, Abebaw D, Alemu G, et al. Healthcare-seeking behaviour in rural Ethiopia: evidence from clinical vignettes. BMJ Open:2014: 4:e004020 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004020 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yaya S, Bishwajit G. Trends in the prevalence and care-seeking behaviour for acute respiratory infections among Ugandan infants. Global Health Research and Policy. 2019. December;4(1):9 10.1186/s41256-019-0100-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gebretsadik A, Worku A, Berhane Y. Less Than One-Third of Caretakers Sought Formal Health Care Facilities for Common Childhood Illnesses in Ethiopia: Evidence from the 2011 Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey. 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Adinan J, Damian DJ, Mosha NR, Mboya IB, Mamseri R, Msuya SE. Individual and contextual factors associated with appropriate healthcare seeking behavior among febrile children in Tanzania. PLoS ONE:2017: 12(4): e0175446 10.1371/journal.pone.0175446 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chandwani H, Pandor J. Healthcare-seeking behaviors of mothers regarding their children in a tribal community of Gujarat, India. Electronic Physician:2015:7(1):990–997. 10.14661/2015.990-997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ferdous F, Farzana FD, Ahmed S, Das SK, Malek MA, Das J, et al. Mothers’ Perception and Healthcare Seeking Behavior of Pneumonia Children in Rural Bangladesh. Family Medicine:2014. 10.1155/2014/690315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lemière C, Herbst CH, Dolea C, Zurn P, Soucat A. Rural-Urban Imbalance of health workers in sub-saharan Africa. The Labor Market for Health Workers in Africa: A New Look at the Crisis:2013:147–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Strasser R, Kam SM, Regalado SM. Rural health care access and policy in developing countries. Annual Review of Public Health:2016:37:395–412. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Adewoyin Y, Chukwu NN, Sanni LM. Urbanization, Spatial Distribution of Healthcare Facilities and Inverse Care in Ibadan, Nigeria. Ghana Journal of Geography:2018;10(2):96–111. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Amegah AK, Näyhä S. Educational attainment modifies the association of wealth status with elevated blood pressure in the Ghanaian population. Heliyon. 2018. July 1;4(7):e00711 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Claudia Marotta

18 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-18533

Barriers to healthcare access and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa: A multilevel modelling of Demographic and Health Surveys

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Budu,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 5 December. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudia Marotta

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors follow reviewer suggestion to improve your article

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: This manuscript analyzed data from Demographic and Health Surveys of 29 sub-Saharan African countries. The results showed that mothers’ age, religion, mass media exposure, and rural-urban residency are significantly associated with healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses in sub-Saharan Africa. The topic of this manuscript falls within the scope of Plus one. However, there are several major issues with the manuscript need to be addressed, as follows:

1. The data used in the manuscript come from different countries. Please indicate how the accuracy and quality control of the data was carried out.

2. Some of the independent variables in this study were selected by asking women for relevant information. Please indicate how to ensure the validity and reliability of the data.

3. Using STATA for a multilevel modelling may not be appropriate. Please explain the applicability of using STATA in this study.

Reviewer #2: After reading, I've got some questions/suggestions to the authors:

- There are too many lines in the tables, especially vertical lines, which do not conform to the statistical table specification.

- The quality of DHS data should be mentioned in the paper where appropriate or explained by reference.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

[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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 8;16(2):e0244395. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244395.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Nov 2020

AUTHOR’S RESPONSE TO REVIEWS

Barriers to healthcare access and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa: A multilevel modelling of Demographic and Health Surveys

Date: 20/11/2020

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We are pleased to resubmit for publication the revised version of “Barriers to healthcare access and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa: A multilevel modelling of Demographic and Health Surveys”. We are extremely grateful to you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit this manuscript. We appreciate the time and constructive feedback provided by the reviewers and the Editor. The manuscript has certainly benefited from these insightful suggestions. Based on the comments, we have responded specifically to each suggestion below.

RESPONSE TO REVIEWS

Reviewer #1:

This manuscript analyzed data from Demographic and Health Surveys of 29 sub-Saharan African countries. The results showed that mothers’ age, religion, mass media exposure, and rural-urban residency are significantly associated with healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses in sub-Saharan Africa. The topic of this manuscript falls within the scope of PlOS one. However, there are several major issues with the manuscript need to be addressed, as follows:

1. Comment: The data used in the manuscript come from different countries. Please indicate how the accuracy and quality control of the data was carried out.

Response: Thank you for this valid comment. Please we have explained how quality control of the data was carried out during the data collection stage and at the analysis stage. See page 4.

2. Comment: Some of the independent variables in this study were selected by asking women for relevant information. Please indicate how to ensure the validity and reliability of the data.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have explained how validity and reliability were maintained in the DHS data. Nonetheless, we have acknowledged that there is the possibility of social desirability and recall biasness as part of the limitations of the study. See page 17-18.

3. Comment: Using STATA for a multilevel modelling may not be appropriate. Please explain the applicability of using STATA in this study.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Please the use of STATA for multi-level modelling has been explained in the analysis section. Again, STATA is the software but we used the ‘melogit’ which is a command in STATA for running the multilevel models. See page 6.

Reviewer #2:

4. Comment: After reading, I've got some questions/suggestions to the authors: There are too many lines in the tables, especially vertical lines, which do not conform to the statistical table specification.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Please we have formatted the Tables accordingly. See Table 1-3.

5. Comment: The quality of DHS data should be mentioned in the paper where appropriate or explained by reference.

Response: We have mentioned the quality of the DHS data in the methods section of our paper. We have also specified this at the strength and limitation section. Thank you. See page 6 and 17-18.

Thank you once more for your valuable comments.

Decision Letter 1

Claudia Marotta

9 Dec 2020

Barriers to healthcare access and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa: A multilevel modelling of Demographic and Health Surveys

PONE-D-20-18533R1

Dear Dr. Budu,

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,

Claudia Marotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors, congratulations

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors had adequately addressed my comments raised in last round of review and I felt that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

**********

7. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zhang Yuhong

Acceptance letter

Claudia Marotta

28 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-18533R1

Barriers to healthcare access and healthcare seeking for childhood illnesses among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa: A multilevel modelling of Demographic and Health Surveys

Dear Dr. Budu:

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. Claudia Marotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are publicly accessible on the DHS Program website via the following URLs: Angola (2015-16): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Angola_Standard-DHS_2015.cfm?flag=0 Burkina Faso (2010): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Burkina-Faso_Standard-DHS_2010.cfm?flag=0 Benin (2017-18): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Benin_Standard-DHS_2017.cfm?flag=0 Burundi (2016-17): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Burundi_Standard-DHS_2016.cfm?flag=0 Congo DR. (2013-14): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Congo-Democratic-Republic_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Congo (2011-12): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Congo_Standard-DHS_2011.cfm?flag=0 Cote D’Ivoire (2011-12): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Cote-d-Ivoire_Standard-DHS_2012.cfm?flag=0 Cameroon (2018): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Cameroon_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0 Ethiopia (2016): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Ethiopia_Standard-DHS_2016.cfm?flag=0 Gabon (2012): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Gabon_Standard-DHS_2012.cfm?flag=0 Ghana (2014): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Ghana_Standard-DHS_2014.cfm?flag=0 Gambia (2013): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Gambia_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Guinea (2018): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Guinea_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0 Kenya (2014): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Kenya_Standard-DHS_2014.cfm?flag=0 Comoros (2012): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Comoros_Standard-DHS_2012.cfm?flag=0 Liberia (2013): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Liberia_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Lesotho (2014): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Lesotho_Standard-DHS_2014.cfm?flag=0 Mali (2018): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Mali_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0 Malawi (2015-16): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Malawi_Standard-DHS_2015.cfm?flag=0 Nigeria (2018): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Nigeria_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0 Namibia (2013): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Namibia_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Rwanda (2014-15): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Rwanda_Standard-DHS_2015.cfm?flag=0 Sierra Leone (2013): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Sierra-Leone_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Senegal (2010-11): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Senegal_Standard-DHS_2010.cfm?flag=0 Chad (2014-15): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Chad_Standard-DHS_2014.cfm?flag=0 Togo (2013-14): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Togo_Standard-DHS_2013.cfm?flag=0 Uganda (2016): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Uganda_Standard-DHS_2016.cfm?flag=0 Zambia (2018-19): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Zambia_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0 Zimbabwe (2015): https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Zimbabwe_Standard-DHS_2015.cfm?flag=0.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES