Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 7;16(4):e0249793. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249793

Do mothers who delivered at health facilities return to health facilities for postnatal care follow-up? A multilevel analysis of the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey

Brhane Ayele 1,*, Mulugeta Woldu 1, Haftom Gebrehiwot 2, Tsegay Wellay 2, Tsegay Hadgu 1, Hailay Gebretnsae 1, Alemnesh Abrha 1, Equbay Gebre-egziabher 1, Sarah Hurlburt 3
Editor: Samson Gebremedhin4
PMCID: PMC8026072  PMID: 33826670

Abstract

Introduction

Returning to health facility for postnatal care (PNC) use after giving birth at health facility could reflect the health seeking behavior of mothers. However, such studies are rare though they are critically important to develop vigorous strategies to improve PNC service utilization. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the magnitude and factors associated with returning to health facilities for PNC among mothers who delivered in Ethiopian health facilities after they were discharged.

Methods

This cross-sectional study used 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey data. A total of 2405mothers who gave birth in a health facility were included in this study. Multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model was fitted to estimate both independent (fixed) effects of the explanatory variables and community-level (random) effects on return for PNC utilization. Variable with p-value of ≤ 0.25 from unadjusted multilevel logistic regression were selected to develop three models and p-value of ≤0.05 was used to declare significance of the explanatory variables on the outcome variable in the final (adjusted) model. Analysis was done using IBM SPSS statistics version 21.

Result

In this analysis, from the total 2405 participants, 14.3% ((95%CI: 12.1–16.8), (n = 344)) of them returned to health facilities for PNC use after they gave birth at a health facility. From the multilevel logistic regression analysis, being employed (AOR = 1.51, 95%CI: 1.04–2.19), receiving eight and above antenatal care visits (AOR = 2.90, 95%CI: 1.05–8.00), caesarean section delivery (AOR = 2.53, 95%CI: 1.40–4.58) and rural residence (AOR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.36–0.88) were found significantly associated with return to health facilities for PNC use among women who gave birth at health facility.

Conclusion

Facility-based PNC utilization among mothers who delivered at health facilities is low in Ethiopia. Both individual and community level variables were determined women to return to health facilities for PNC use. Thus, adopting context-specific strategies/policies could improve PNC utilization and should be paid a due focus.

Introduction

Postnatal care service is an effective intervention to reduce morbidity and mortality of both mothers and newborns if it is given in a timely manner, with adequate frequency and including full service components [1]. Though maternal, newborn and child health issues are the national priorities in many countries, effective postpartum care implementation in developing countries in general and Sub-Saharan Africa in particular remains weak [2, 3].

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that a woman and her baby should be assessed by a health professional within one hour of birth, and again before discharge from a facility; especially for institutional births as opportunities are in place, this assessment could continue up to 24 hours after delivery which is a time seated for first contact of PNC [4]. The other follow-up contacts are recommended at 2–3 days, 6–7 days and 6 weeks (4 postnatal visits in total) [57].

Many studies in developing countries reported that mothers who delivered in a health facility were more likely to report attending postnatal care visit [1, 811]. However, even for deliveries at health facility level, PNC is a neglected service in Sub-Saharan African countries, where women are often discharged before 24 hours postpartum, which limits them from receiving the WHO’s recommended services [3, 12]. In some studies, health facility delivery has been associated with lower postnatal care service utilization, with cited reasons including; mothers who delivered at the health facility were not advised when to return and more complications among mothers who delivered at home [12, 13].

While improvements have been made for Antenatal Care (ANC) use and skill birth attendance, PNC service utilization in Ethiopia remains low. The 2016 Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey (EDHS) result revealed that among women age 15–49 who gave birth, only 17% had a postnatal check during the first 2 days after birth, and four out of five women (81%) did not receive a postnatal check at all [14]. Other Ethiopian studies have also documented low (though higher than DHS) PNC service utilization, which ranges from 31.7% in Orromia to 65.6% in Addis Ababa [1518]. The low utilization rates, and intra-setting difference of PNC rates show the real low coverage, but also the inconsistency in reporting practices. For example, health facilities reported that women who received immediate childbirth care before discharge at a facility were considered, by default, as having received postnatal care [12, 13], which may result in over reporting of PNC service utilization. On the other hand, studies on how many mothers are returned to health facilities for PNC use after they delivered at health facilities are rare. Four studies in Ethiopia further analyzed 2016-EDHS data to explore PNC service utilization considering different target populations: among fourth ANC utilizers [19], among home deliveries [20], and among home and health facility deliveries [21, 22].

Health facility based PNC use among women who delivered at health facilities (after they discharged from health facility for their facility based delivery) could reflect PNC seeking behavior of mothers. However, no study was conducted on health facility based PNC after discharged for health facility based delivery and no analysis was carried out for the DHS data in Ethiopia though it is critically important to develop vigorous strategies to improve PNC service utilization. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the magnitude and factors associated with returning to health facilities for PNC use among mothers who delivered in Ethiopian health facilities after they were discharged.

Methods

Study design and data source

A cross-sectional study design using secondary analysis of 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey data was used. The 2016 Ethiopian DHS data is the fourth series which was collected by the Central Statistical Agency (CSA), Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI) and the DHS Program, International Classification of Functioning (ICF). To collect the data, two-stage stratified (urban and rural) sampling technique was employed in the survey to select Enumeration Areas (EAs) in the first stage and households in the second stage. Its further sampling technique is explained elsewhere [14].

The data for mothers who delivered at a health facility was extracted from the Individual Record (IR) dataset of the EDHS 2016. Only the most recent child-birth of the women was included in the analysis, to avoid mix-ups in the recall and reporting of mothers’ experiences, especially for mothers who had more than one birth in the previous 5-year period. Additionally, mothers who did not remember the PNC care they received for either herself or her newborn or both were excluded from analysis. Finally, a total of 2405 mothers (between 15 and 49 years) were included in this study (S1 Fig).

Outcome variable

To develop the outcome variable “respondent’s health checked after discharge” and “baby postnatal checked within two months” were used as the starting point. Following this, “where respondent was checked after discharge” and “where the baby was first checked” were used to identify where the PNC was conducted after discharge. Those where either the mother or baby or both were checked in any health facility (public or private, and not necessarily the same at place of birth) were considered as returned for PNC use, while those who were not checked were considered as not returned for PNC use. Those who were checked (either the mother or baby or both) in home were excluded from the analysis. Finally, the outcome variable i.e. “Returned to health facility for PNC use” was developed with a value of “1 = Yes” if either of the mother or baby or both returned at least once for PNC check at any health facility and “0 = No” if neither the mother nor baby were checked at any health facility within 42 days of post-delivery for the mother and two months for the baby. The reason why we include the PNC use for babies up to two months after birth was explained elsewhere [20].

Independent variables

The explanatory variables for this study were grouped in two subgroups; 1) socio-demographic (age, marital status, educational status, place of residence, region type, religion, sex of the household head, family size, age of the household head and media exposure) and socio-economic characteristics (wealth status and occupation), and 2) Gynecological/Obstetrical characteristics and service utilization variables (age at first sex, age at first birth, number of ever born children, pregnancy wantedness, number of ANC visits, delivery by caesarean section, checked before discharge, attitude towards domestic violence and informed when to return). Women’s age was grouped in to three categories: 15–24, 25–34 and ≥35 years. Region type was grouped in to three categories: Metropolitan for Addis-Ababa, Harrar and Drie-Dawa, Large central for Amhara, Orromia, South Nations and nationalities and Tigray, and Small peripheral for Afar, Benishangule, Gambella and Somalia. Residence was categorized as rural or urban. Marital status was grouped into two categories: Others (single, divorced and widowed) and married/living with husband. The highest level of education achieved by women was categorized in to four groups: no education, primary, secondary and higher. Religion of the participant was grouped in to four categories: Orthodox, Muslim, Protestant and others (for catholic and traditional). No categorization was done for wealth status; it was taken as per the EDHS data (poorest, poorer, middle richer and richest). Ownership of place of delivery was categorized in to two groups: governmental (for governmental hospital, governmental health center, governmental health post and other public sector) and non-governmental (for private hospital, private clinic, NGO health facility, other private and NGO). Family size was grouped into three categories: 1 to 4, 5 to 8 and ≥ 9 members. Age of the household head was grouped in to three categories: 16–29, 30–59 and 60–88 years. Regarding media exposure, we were grouped it in to four categories: not at all, less than once per week, at least once per week and almost every day. Furthermore, for occupation of the women, we took the respondent’s grouped occupation and was categorized in to two groups: employed (for other than not working) and not employed (for not working). Age at first sex and age at first birth were categorized in to three groups: 8–14, 15–17 and ≥ 18 and 12–19, 20–24 and ≥25 years respectively. Number of ANC visits during pregnancy was categorized in to four groups: no visit, 1–3 visits, 4–7 visits and ≥ 8 visits. Furthermore, facility type for delivery was categorized in to three groups: health post/clinic/NGO health facility, health center and hospital. The category for autonomy (low and high) and attitude towards domestic violence (supporting and opposing) were explained elsewhere [22, 23].

Data analysis

After categorizing and recoding of different variables, frequencies and proportions were reported to describe categorical variables using cross tabulation tables. Furthermore, texts and graphs were used to present the finding. To compensate the unequal probability of selection between the strata due to non-proportional allocation of samples to different regions, place of residence and non-response rate among participants, a weighted sample was used [14]. Since DHS data are hierarchical, i.e. individuals (level 1) were nested within communities (level 2); a two-level mixed-effect logistic regression model was fitted to estimate both independent (fixed) effect of the explanatory variables and community-level (random) effect on return for PNC utilization among mothers who gave birth at health facilities. The log of the probability of PNC utilization was modeled using a two-level multilevel model as follows(as indicated elsewhere) [22]:

LogΠij[1Πij]=β0+β1Xij+β2Zij+μj+eij

Where, i and j are the level 1 (individual) and level 2 (community) units, respectively; X and Z refer to individual and community-level variables, respectively; πij is the probability of return to health facility for PNC utilization for the ith women in the jth community; the β’s were the fixed coefficients. Whereas, β0 is the intercept-the effect on the probability of returning to health facility for PNC use in the absence of influence of predictors; and uj showed the random effect (effect of the community on returning to health facility for PNC use after health facility delivery) for the jth community and eij showed random errors at the individual levels. Due to clustered data nature, the within and between community variations were taken in to account by assuming each community had different intercept (β0) and fixed coefficient (β).

During the advanced analysis, first we conduct unadjusted multilevel logistic regression analysis to identify selected variables for the next models. Second, we estimate the null-model (model-0) which only indicates the random intercept and allowed detecting the existence of a possible contextual dimension for returning to health facilities for PNC after health facility delivery [24]. Then, we include the individual and community level factors (with p-value of ≤0.25 in the unadjusted multilevel logistic regression) to develop models 1 and 2 respectively. Finally, individual and community level factors from model 1 and 2 were fitted (model-3) together to adjust the estimates of the separated models (models 1 and 2).

The measures of association (fixed-effects) estimate between the odds of women to return to health facility for PNC and other independent variables were reported using Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with its 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value of ≤ 0.05 to declare the significance of the estimates. Furthermore, the measures of variation (random-effects) were reported using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) to explain how much the observation in the same cluster were resembled each other [22], Median Odds Ratio (MOR) to measure of unexplained cluster heterogeneity [22] and Proportion of Change in Variance (PCV) to estimate the reduction in variance due to the step-wise introduction of variables into the model [25]. Moreover, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and over all percentage of correct classification were also reported.

To calculate, ICC, MOR and PCV, we used the following formulas as illustrated elsewhere [24]:

ICC=δ2δ2+π23=δ2δ2+3.29

Where δ2 is the area level variance and π23 corresponds to individual level variance.

MOR=exp(2*δ2*0.6745exp(0.95δ2)

Where δ2 the area level variance and 0.6745 is the 75thcentile of the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1.

PCV=δ2Aδ2Bδ2A

Where δ2A = variance of the initial model, and δ2B = varianceof the model with more terms.

Multi-collinearity was checked using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) test and all variables were with value of <5 which indicates there was no multi-collinear variables in the model [26]. All the analysis was done using IBM-SPSS statistics version 21.

Ethical consideration

Authorization to use the data was obtained from MEASURE DHS by providing a brief description of the study through their website (https://dhsprogram.com/data/). Approval for EDHS data utilization for this study was obtained from the data originator, ICF Macro International U.S.A. before the data was extracted from their web platform.

Results

Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics

Only 13% (n = 94) of youths who delivered at health facilities returned to health facilities for PNC. Above 27% (n = 61) of women from metropolitan regions returned to health facilities for PNC while 87% (n = 1814) of women from large central regions did not return. Furthermore, slightly higher proportions (22%) of women who delivered at non-governmental health facilities returned for PNC than women who delivered at governmental health facilities (14%). Additionally, 90% (n = 181) of women from family size of nine and above did not return for PNC while 17% (n = 167) of women from one to four family size returned for PNC after they gave birth at health facilities (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics of study participants, analysis from the 2016 EDHS, (N = 2405).

Variable Returned for PNC Total N (%) Unweight number
No n (%) Yes n (%)
Age
15–24 615 (86.7) 94 (13.3) 709(100) 794
25–34 1047(85.5) 178(14.5) 1225(100) 1354
> = 35 398(84.6) 72(15.4) 470(100) 548
Region Type
Metropolitan 160(72.5) 61(27.5) 221(100) 848
Large central 1814(87.1) 268(12.9) 2082(100) 1229
Small peripheral 86(84.6) 16(15.4) 102(100) 619
Place of residence
Urban 643(79.1) 170(20.9) 813(100) 1255
Rural 1417(89.1) 174(10.9) 1591(100) 1441
Marital status
Other (single, widowed, divorced 149(83.2) 30(16.8) 179(100) 251
Married/Living with partner) 1911(85.9) 314(14.1) 2225(100) 2445
Highest education level
No education 848(88.4) 111(11.6) 959(100) 965
Primary 772(86.9) 117(13.1) 889(100) 976
Secondary 282(82.5) 60(17.5) 342(100) 462
Higher 157(73.6) 56(26.4) 213(100) 293
Religion
Orthodox 954(81.1) 223(18.9) 1177(100) 1234
Muslim 656(89.2) 79(10.8) 735(100) 1009
Protestant 427(91.2) 41(8.8) 468(100) 421
Others 24(97.1) 1(2.9) 25(100) 32
Sex of household head
Male 1715(86.8) 260(13.2) 1975(100) 2035
Female 346(80.4) 84(19.6) 430(100) 661
Wealth index
Poorest 194(89.2) 24(10.8) 218(100) 347
Poorer 349(90.5) 37(9.5) 386(100) 350
Middle 364(87.3) 53(12.7) 417(100) 324
Richer 407(88.4) 53(11.6) 460(100) 351
Richest 747(80.7) 178(19.3) 925(100) 1324
Ownership of place of delivery
Non-governmental 90(78.0) 25(22.0) 115(100) 254
Governmental 1971(86.1) 319(13.9) 2290(100) 2442
Family size
1 to 4 820(83.1) 167(16.9) 987(100) 1142
5 to 8 1060(87.1) 157(12.9) 1217(100) 1307
9 and above 181(90.2) 20(9.8) 200(100) 247
Age of the HH head
16–29 years 516(85.5) 87(14.5) 603(100) 700
30–59 years 1366(85.6) 231(14.4) 1596(100) 1767
60–88 years 178(87.1) 26(12.9) 204(100) 227
Media exposure
Not at all 959(87.3) 139(12.7) 1098(100) 1108
Less than once per week 205(87.9) 29(12.1) 234(100) 270
At least once per week 394(87.2) 58(12.8) 452(100) 543
Almost every day 503(80.9) 119(19.1) 622(100) 775
Occupation
Not employed 1041(88.5) 135(11.5) 1176(100) 1372
Employed 1020(83.0) 209(17.0) 1229(100) 1324

Gynecological/obstetrical characteristics

Above one third (36%; n = 49) of participants with eight and above ANC visits returned to health facilities for PNC after they gave birth at health facilities. On the other hand, above 90% (91.6%; n = 214) of participants who had not had ANC and delivered at health facilities did not return to health facilities for PNC. Furthermore, 19% (n = 125) of participants who delivered at hospitals returned to health facilities for PNC while 87% (n = 1320) of women who delivered at health centers did not return. One fourth (25%; n = 143) of the participants who were informed when to return returned for PNC to health facilities. Around one-third (31.7; n = 58) of the participants who delivered by caesarean section were returned to health facilities for PNC use (Table 2).

Table 2. Gynecological/Obstetrical characteristics and related service utilization among participants, analysis from the 2016 EDHS, (N = 2405).

Variable Returned for PNC Total N (%) Unweight number
No n (%) Yes n (%)
Number of ever born children
1–4 1568(84.9) 279(15.1) 1847(100) 2095
5–8 410(87.8) 57(12.2) 467(100) 511
> = 9 83(91.4) 8(8.6) 90(100) 90
Age at first birth
12–19 years 1142(87.4) 164(12.6) 1306(100) 1402
20–24 years 678(84.8) 122(15.2) 800(100) 910
> = 25 years 240(80.5) 58(19.5) 299(100) 384
Age at first sex
8–14 years 319(86.0) 52(14.0) 371(100) 425
15–17 years 889(87.8) 123(12.2) 1012(100) 1097
> = 18 years 853(83.5) 169(16.5) 1022(100) 1174
Wanted pregnancy when became pregnant
Then 1540(85.1) 271(14.9) 1811(100) 2132
Later 366(86.8) 55(13.2) 421(100) 414
No more 155(89.4) 18(10.6) 173(100) 150
Autonomy
Low 665(84.8) 119(15.2) 784(100) 865
High 1395(86.1) 226(13.9) 1621(100) 1831
Number of ANC
No ANC 214(91.6) 20(8.4) 234(100) 180
1–3 ANC 719(89.5) 85(10.5) 804(100) 820
4–7 ANC 1039(84.5) 191(15.5) 1230(100) 1469
> = 8 ANC 88(64.1) 49(35.9) 137(100) 227
Facility type for delivery
HP/Clinic/NGO HF 216(90.6) 23(9.4) 239(100) 243
Health center 1320(87.0) 197(13.0) 1517(100) 1402
Hospital 525(80.8) 125(19.2) 649(100) 1051
Delivered by caesarean section
No 1936(87.1) 286(12.9) 2222(100) 2441
Yes 125(68.3) 58(31.7) 183(100) 255
Child or/and mother checked before discharge after delivery
No 1017(92.0) 88(8.0) 1105(100) 1073
Yes 1000(79.8) 253(20.2) 1253(100) 1582
Not remembered 44(92.9) 3(7.1) 47(100) 41
Attitude towards domestic violence
Supporting domestic violence 1225(87.7) 172(12.3) 1397(100) 1383
Opposing domestic violence 835(82.9) 173(17.1) 1008(100) 1313
Informed when to return
No 269(85.1) 47(14.9) 316(100) 334
Yes 429(75.0) 143(25.0) 572(100) 788
Do not remember 1363(89.8) 154(10.2) 1517(100) 1574

Return to health facility for PNC

In this analysis, from the total 2405 participants, 14.3% ((95%CI: 12.1–16.8), (n = 344)) of them returned to health facilities for PNC use after they gave birth at a health facility and only 2.5% ((95%CI: 1.6–3.8), (n = 59)) women returned for PNC use for both the mother and the child (S2 Fig).

Associated factors with return to health facility for PNC (fixed effects)

After adjusting for individual and community level factors in the final model (model 3), occupation and number of ANC visits from individual-level and caesarean section delivery and place of residence from community-level were the identified significant variables with returning to health facilities for PNC use among women who delivered at health facilities.

Employed women were 51% (AOR = 1.51, 95%CI: 1.04–2.19) more likely to return to health facility for PNC than not employed women during their postnatal period after they gave birth at health facilities. Furthermore, the odds of returning to the health facility for PNC after delivering at the health facility was 2.9 times (AOR = 2.90, 95%CI: 1.05–8.00) higher among women who had eight and above ANC visits than women who had no ANC visits during their pregnancy. Women who delivered by caesarean section were also in higher odds (AOR = 2.53, 95%CI: 1.40–4.58) of returning to health facilities for PNC than their counterparts during their postnatal period. On the other hand, rural resident women were in lower odds (AOR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.36–0.88) of returning to health facility for PNC use than urban resident women (Table 3).

Table 3. Multilevel logistic regression analysis for factors associated with returning to health facility for postnatal care utilization among mothers who delivered in health facility in Ethiopia: Analysis of the 2016 EDHS.

Individual and community level characteristics.

COR (95%CI) Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Highest education level
No education 1 1 1
Primary 1.09(0.68–1.73) 1.05(0.65–1.70) 1.00(0.62–1.63)
Secondary 1.36(0.77–2.39) 1.14(0.61–2.13) 1.17(0.61–2.31)
Higher 2.47(1.45–4.19) 1.61(0.82–3.13) 1.30(0.59–2.86)
Religion
Orthodox 1 1 1
Muslim 0.65(0.41–1.02) 0.83(0.51–1.38) 0.84(0.49–1.43)
Protestant 0.66(0.38–1.14) 0.72(0.42–1.22) 0.67(0.38–1.17)
Others 0.23(0.02–2.22) 0.26(0.03–2.57) 0.32(0.03–3.55)
Age at first birth
12–19 years 1 1 1
20–24 years 1.40(0.96–2.04) 1.09(0.68–1.73) 1.35(0.89–2.05)
> = 25 years 1.63(0.95–2.78) 1.07(0.59–1.93) 1.18(0.66–2.11)
Sex of household head
Male 1 1 1
Female 1.31(0.87–1.97) 1.18(0.80–1.75) 1.05(0.71–1.56)
Wealth index
Poorest 1 1 1
Poorer 1.05(0.54–2.05) 1.17(0.60–2.29) 1.33(0.70–2.53)
Middle 1.04(0.52–2.08) 1.18(0.58–2.38) 1.32(0.64–2.74)
Richer 0.86(0.42–1.75) 0.91(0.45–1.85) 1.02(0.50–2.09)
Richest 1.60(0.80–3.21) 1.35(0.61–2.97) 0.80(0.28–2.30)
Occupation
Not employed 1 1 1
Employed 1.52(1.06–2.18) 1.32(0.90–1.91) 1.51(1.04–2.19)*
Number of ANC
No ANC 1 1 1
1–3 ANC 1.24(0.47–3.25) 1.15(0.44–3.05) 1.42(0.55–3.65)
4–7 ANC 1.64(0.66–4.09) 1.42(0.55–3.65) 1.54(0.62–3.84)
> = 8 ANC 4.04(1.52–10.76) 3.11(1.11–8.70)* 2.90(1.05–8.00)*
Age at first sex
8–14 years 1 1 1
15–17 years 091(0.53–1.56) 0.91(0.52–1.59) 0.93(0.52–1.67)
> = 18 years 1.46(0.87–2.46) 1.23(0.66–2.32) 1.21(0.65–2.26)
Media exposure
Not at all 1 1 1
Less than once per week 0.79(0.43–1.47) 0.73(0.38–1.40) 0.60(0.29–1.23)
At least once per week 0.84(0.48–1.49) 0.69(0.36–1.31) 0.65(0.37–1.15)
Almost every day 1.34(0.82–2.21) 0.88(0.44–1.68) 0.77(0.42–1.41)
Region Type
Metropolitan 1 1 1
Large central 0.28(0.17–0.45) 0.58(0.31–1.08) 0.72(0.36–1.14)
Small peripheral 0.61(0.18–2.09) 1.07(0.27–4.28) 1.32(0.31–5.62)
Place of residence
Urban 1 1 1
Rural 0.36(0.24–0.55) 0.56(0.33–0.94)* 0.56(0.36–0.88)*
Facility type for delivery
HP/Clinic/NGO HF 1 1 1
Health center 1.48(0.62–3.51) 1.45(0.62–3.39) 1.45(0.61–3.45)
Hospital 2.07(0.79–5.39) 1.21(0.47–3.15) 1.23(0.46–3.27)
Delivered by caesarean section
No 1 1
Yes 3.43(1.87–6.32) 2.79(1.46–5.35)* 2.53(1.40–4.58)**
Child or/and mother checked before discharge after delivery
No 1 1 1
Yes 2.47(1.54–3.94) 1.55(0.89–2.73) 1.62(0.92–2.85)
Not remembered 0.70(0.17–2.87) 0.63(0.15–2.75) 0.57(0.13–2.41)
Informed when to return
No 1 1 1
Yes 1.82(1.03–3.24) 1.74(0.99–3.08) 1.75(0.99–3.10)
Do not remember 0.67(0.37–1.18) 0.97(0.53–1.78) 1.03(0.56–1.86)

* P<0.05

** P<0.005.

Random-effect estimates

Two level mixed-effect logistic regression model was used to analyze the effect of individual and community level factors on returning to health facilities for PNC among women delivered at health facilities. From the empty (null) model of Table 4, 32.6% of the variation in the odds of returning to health facilities for PNC use among women delivered at health facilities was due to cluster variation and this variability was declined to 30.8% in the final model. Thus, to explain the factors associated with the return to health facility for PNC, the final model was taken.

Table 4. Measure of variation on individual and community level factors among health facility delivered mothers in Ethiopia, EDHS 2016 dataset.

Measures Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
AIC(Akaike information criterion) 12159.59 12360.61 12442.97 12491.91
Over all percentage of correct classification 87.0% 87.3% 88.2% 88.0%
Variance 1.594 1.472 1.473 1.469
VPC or ICC (Variance partition coefficient/ Intraclass Correlation Coefficient) 0.326 0.309 0.309 0.308
PCV (Proportion of change in variance) (%) Ref 7.65 7.59 7.84
MOR (Median Odds Ratio) 3.33 3.18 3.18 3.17

Discussion

This study was aimed to determine the utilization of facility-based PNC and associated factors after discharged from a health facility among Ethiopian mothers who delivered at a health facility.

The finding showed that the overall utilization of facility-based PNC is 14.3% among women who delivered at a health facility. Being employed, greater number of ANC visits, caesarean section delivery, and rural residence were identified as factors associated with the use of facility-based PNC services in Ethiopia.

The magnitude of facility-based PNC in this study is lower than that of studies in some other low resource countries, which documented PNC coverage of 43% in Nepal and 50.9% in Malawi [17, 27], almost similar to results from studies conducted in Tanzania (18.1%) and Benin (18.4%) [12, 28], and slightly higher than finding from Tanzania (10.4%) and Rwanda (12.8%) [13, 29]. These differences could be due to differences in socio-demographic and socio-economic status of countries. Furthermore, there could be differences in the various studies reporting periods after delivery and different methods among the studies and setups. In this regard, our finding on ‘return for facility-based PNC after discharge following health facility-based delivery’ could be a more robust indicator for PNC service utilization and continuity of care, as it gives a picture of the health care seeking behavior of mothers after health facility delivery.

Regarding factors associated with facility-based PNC utilization, mothers who received ≥8 ANC visits during their pregnancy had a higher likelihood of utilizing facility-based PNC than those who did not have an ANC visit. Repeated ANC visits may instill greater sense of value in mothers regarding the potential benefit of contact with a provider, thus improving their health seeking behavior following delivery [19, 27]. Furthermore, repeated contact with health workers during pregnancy through ANC services could promote confidence and familiarity with the health system leading to increased trust in the health system [12, 30, 31]. On the other hand, those mothers with more ANC visit (≥8 visits) could also have more complications than their counterparts [1, 9, 12, 13]. This finding is also a great opportunity to support the new WHO recommendation of increasing the frequency of focused ANC to eight visits [32].

Another variable found to be positively associated with facility-based PNC was caesarean section delivery. Those who gave birth through caesarean section were 2.53 times more likely to return for health facility-based PNC after discharge. This finding is in line with the findings of other studies [9, 11, 12]. Caesarean section delivery could affect the healthcare seeking of mothers as part of recommended follow-up service [7, 12] and due to increased risk of complications [11, 33].

Occupation was another positively associated variable; employed participants were in higher odds of receiving health facility based PNC after they discharged for their health facility based delivery. This finding is in line with the finding of other study [31]. Employed women could have better opportunity to pay the transport cost, and they could have better educational level for which they were able to be employed.

Finally, rural residence was negatively associated with return to health facilities for PNC among women who gave birth at health facilities. Those who lived in rural were 44% less likely to return to health facilities for PNC use than their counterparts. This finding is also in line with the finding of other studies [17]. This could be explained by different reasons like: long distance between home and health facility [34], transport inaccessibility, inability to cover transport cost [16, 31], perception of good health [16, 35], poor autonomy among women to decide on service use and other cultural influences [16, 36].

Our study made use of cross-sectional data from the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey. The data relies on women’s self-reported care utilization, and may be influenced by recall bias, given that the study events took place within the 5 years preceding the survey. However, the study has a number of strengths. The data is national survey data, and the sample size is powered to be generalizable at national and regional level. Furthermore, the method of analysis was multilevel which adjust for individual and community level effects. Thus, this study could give more robust information about the health seeking choice of mothers on facility-based PNC use and help to design proper strategy to boost PNC service utilization.

Conclusion

The finding of this study showed that facility-based PNC utilization among mothers who delivered at health facilities is still low in Ethiopia. Having ≥ 8 ANC visits, caesarean section delivery, being employed and rural residence were the identified factors associated with facility-based PNC service utilization. Both individual and community level variables determined women to return to health facilities for PNC use. Therefore, adopting context-specific strategies/policies could improve PNC utilization and should be paid a due focus.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Schematic presentation of sampling procedure.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Magnitude of women who returned to health facility for PNC use after they gave birth at health facility.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Central Statistical Agency (CSA) and MEASURE DHS project for providing free access to the data.

Abbreviations

ANC

Antenatal Care

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

EDHS

Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey

PNC

Postnatal Care

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Chungu C., Makasa M., Chola M., and Jacobs CN., Place of Delivery associated With Postnatal care Utilization among childbearing Women in Zambia Frontiers in Public Health 2018. 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization, Informal Meeting on provision of home-based care to mother and child in the first week after birth: Follow-up to the Joint WHO/UNICEF Statement on home visits for the newborn child. 2012.
  • 3.Duysburgh E1., Kerstens B., Kouanda S., Kaboré CP., Yugbare D.B, and Gichangi P., et al., Opportunities to improve postpartum care for mothers and infants: design of context-specific packages of postpartum interventions in rural districts in four sub-Saharan African countries. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.McPherson R. and Hodgins S., Postnatal home visitation: Lessons from country programs operating at scale. Journal of Global Health, 2018. 10.7189/jogh.08.010422 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.World Health Organization, WHO recommendations on Postnatal care of the mother and newborn. 2013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lawn J.E, Cousens S., and Zupan J., Lancet Neonatal Survival Steering Team (2005) 4 million neonatal deaths: When? Where? Why? Lancet 2005. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71048-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chemir F., Gelan M. and Sinaga M., Postnatal Care Service Utilization and Associated Factors among Mothers Who Delivered in Shebe Sombo Woreda, Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wang W. and 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. 10.1186/s12884-015-0497-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chaka E.E, Abdurahman A.A., Nedjat S., and Majdzadeh R., Utilization and Determinants of Postnatal Care Services in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ethiopian Journal of Health Science, 2019. 10.4314/ejhs.v29i1.16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Singh K., Brodish P., Chowdhury M.E., Biswas T.K., Kim E.T., and Godwin C., et al., Postnatal care for newborns in Bangladesh: The importance of health–related factors and location. Journal of Global Health, 2017. 10.7189/jogh.07.020507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Limenih M.A., Endale Z.M, and Dachew B.A., Postnatal Care Service Utilization and Associated Factors among Women Who Gave Birth in the Last 12 Months prior to the Study in Debre Markos Town, Northwestern Ethiopia: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Hindawi, 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mohan D., Gupta S., LeFevre A., Bazant E., Killewo J., and Abdullah H Baqui A.H., Determinants of postnatal care use at health facilities in rural Tanzania: multilevel analysis of a household survey. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. 10.1186/s12884-015-0717-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kanté A.M., Chung C.E., Larsen A.M., Exavery A., Tani K. and Phillips J.F., Factors associated with compliance with the recommended frequency of postnatal care services in three rural districts of Tanzania. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. 10.1186/s12884-015-0769-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Central Statistical Agency (CSA) [Ethiopia] and ICF. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: CSA and ICF. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Darega B., Dida N., Tafese F., and Ololo S., Institutional delivery and postnatal care services utilizations in Abuna Gindeberet District, West Shewa, Oromiya Region, Central Ethiopia: A Community-based cross sectional study. 2016. 10.1186/s12884-016-0940-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Moreda TB and Gebisa K, Assessment of Postnatal Care Service Utilization and Associated Factors among Mothers Attending Antinatal Care at Ambo Health Facilities. Epidemiology international journal, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Machira K. and Palamuleni M.E., Rural-urban differences in the use of postnatal care services in Malawi 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Berhanu S., Asefa Y., and Giru B.W., Prevalence of Postnatal Care Utilization and Associated Factors among Women Who Gave Birth and Attending Immunization Clinic in Selected Government Health Centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016. Journal of Health, Medicine and Nursing, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fekadu G.A., Ambaw F., and Kidanie S.A., 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): p. 64. 10.1186/s12884-019-2216-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ayele B.G., Woldu M.A., Gebrehiwot H.W., Gebre-egziabher E.G., Gebretnsae H., Hadgu T. et al., Magnitude and determinants for place of postnatal care utilization among mothers who delivered at home in Ethiopia: a multinomial analysis from the 2016 Ethiopian demographic health survey. Reproductive health, 2019. 16(1): p. 162. 10.1186/s12978-019-0818-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sisay M.M., Geremew T.T., Demlie Y.W., Asaye Tariku Alem A.T., Beyene D.K., Melak M.F. et al., Spatial patterns and determinants of postnatal care use in Ethiopia: findings from the 2016 demographic and health survey. BMJ open, 2019. 9(6): p. e025066. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Adane B., Fisseha G., Walle G. and Yalew M., Factors associated with postnatal care utilization among postpartum women in Ethiopia: a multi-level analysis of the 2016 Ethiopia demographic and health survey. Archives of Public Health, 2020. 78: p. 1–10. 10.1186/s13690-019-0383-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tiruneh F.N., Chuang K.Y., and Chuang Y.C., Women’s autonomy and maternal healthcare service utilization in Ethiopia. BMC health services research, 2017. 17(1): p. 718. 10.1186/s12913-017-2670-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Merlo J., Chaix B., Ohlsson H., Beckman A., Johnell K., and Hjerpe P., et al., A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2006. 10.1136/jech.2004.029454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Austin P.C., and Merlo J., Intermediate and advanced topics in multilevel logistic regression analysis. Statistics in medicine, 2017. 36(20): p. 3257–3277. 10.1002/sim.7336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Akinwande M.O., Dikko H.G., and Samson A., Variance Inflation Factor: As a Condition for the Inclusion of Suppressor Variable(s) in Regression Analysis. Open Journal of Statistics, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Khanal V., Adhikari M., Karkee R., and Gavidia T., Factors associated with the utilisation of postnatal care services among the mothers of Nepal: analysis of Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2014. 10.1186/1472-6874-14-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yaya S., Uthman O.A., Amouzou A., Ekholuenetale M., and Bishwajit G., Inequalities in maternal health care utilization in Benin: a population based cross-sectional study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. 10.1186/s12884-018-1846-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rwabufigiri B.N., Mukamurigo J., Thomson D.R., Hedt-Gautier B.L. and S. Semasaka J.P, Factors associated with postnatal care utilisation in Rwanda: A secondary analysis of 2010 Demographic and Health Survey data. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2016. 10.1186/s12884-016-0913-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dutamo Z., Assefa N., and Egata G., Maternal health care use among married women in Hossaina, Ethiopia. 2015. 10.1186/s12913-015-1047-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ndugga P., Namiyonga N.K., and Sebuwufu D., Determinants of early postnatal care attendance: analysis of the 2016 Uganda demographic and health survey BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2020. 10.1186/s12884-020-02866-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Islam M.M. and Masud M.S., Determinants of frequency and contents of antenatal care visits in Bangladesh: Assessing the extent of compliance with the WHO recommendations. PlosOne, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mohan D., LeFevre A.E., George A., Mpembeni R., Bazant E Rusibamayila N., et al., Analysis of dropout across the continuum of maternal health care in Tanzania: findings from a cross-sectional household survey. Health Policy and Planning, 2017. 10.1093/heapol/czx005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Belihu T.M., and Deressa A.T., Postnatal Care within One Week and Associated Factors among Women Who Gave Birth in Ameya District, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia, 2018: Cross Sectional Study. Ethiop J Health Sci., 2020. 10.4314/ejhs.v30i3.3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kifle D., Azale T Gelaw Y.A., and Melsew Y.A., Maternal health care service seeking behaviors and associated factors among women in rural Haramaya District, Eastern Ethiopia: a triangulated community-based cross-sectional study Reproductive Health 2017. 10.1186/s12978-016-0270-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mukonka P.S., Mukwato P.K., Kwaleyela C.N., Mweemba O. and Maimbolwa M., Household factors associated with use of postnatal care services. African Journal of Mdwifry and Women’s Health, 2018. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Samson Gebremedhin

8 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-18442

Postnatal care follow-up among mothers who delivered at health facilities in Ethiopia: Further analysis of the 2016 Demographic and Health Survey.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ayele,

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.

  • At least three published studies (Sisay et al, 2018; Ayele et al 2019; Fikadu et al, 2019) have so far identified predictors of PNC utilization in Ethiopia based on the same dataset (Ethiopian DHS 2016)bused in this study. What was the justification for reanalyzing the dataset again?

  • The operational definition used for postnatal care (any health check-up in the first 42 days) is deficient because it does not takethe timing and number of PNC visits into consideration. At least basic description on the timing and frequency of PNC visits must be given in the manuscript.

  • The authors provided inadequate information how they analyzed the data. As the DHS employed cluster sampling design, data must be analyzed using analytical techniques (e.g. mixed effects model, GEE or survey design) that accommodate the clustering nature of the study. Furthermore, sampling weights provided in the data and post-stratification weight for balancing the contribution of the regions must be used.

  • The reason for including some of the variables included in the multivariable is not clear. The variables “Children born in last five years” and “Children born in last one year” are likely to have redundant information in the model and hence one of them has to be dropped. Further, while analyzing these variables, the authors should rather be focused on number of births that occur before the index pregnancy analysed for the PNC. Births that occur after the index birth should be excluded and this can easily be done in DHS by taking date of birth into consideration.

  • The variable “Currently working” is also confusing. Does it refer to the occupation of the mother during the index pregnancy? How can the current occupation affect PNC received some years back?

  • Two variables (ownership of mobile phone and having bank account) are already used for developing the wealth index. So, what is the purpose of considering them as distinct variables again?

  • It is not clear how 50% of the data fall into the richest wealth quintile (Table 1). As I understand, wealth index in DHS data divides the study subjects into 5 equal Quintiles each nearly having 20% of relative frequency. I recommend the authors to redo the PCA again.

  • Fitting 18 variables in one model would be to much and might result in an unstable model. I recommend the authors to remove less relevant variables or to use more stringent p-value for screening candidate variables for the multivariable model.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 23 2020 11:59PM. 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,

Samson Gebremedhin, 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

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

2. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission (mainly methods and 'limitations' sections) and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-019-0818-2

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough

Additional Editor Comments (Section-by-section comments):

Abstract

  • The operational definition for “utilization of PNC” should be provided

  • The conclusion sub-section should be condensed and should not repeat what has been reported in the results.

Background

  • Please don’t direct copy from other literature. Many sentences and paragraphs have not been adequately paraphrased.

Methods

  • Please describe the basic sampling technique employed in the DHS survey.

  • Line 92-93: “Only the most recent child of the women was included in the analysis”. Please clearly indicate that this is about the most recent birth that happened in the preceding 5 years of the survey.

  • Figure 1: I think the decision to exclude women who had home PNC is wrong. The data of these subjects should be retained in the analysis but they should be considered as they have no PNC.

Results

  • Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics: Looks very superficial. Please expand

  • Please interpret OR>1 on multiplicative, rather than additive scale.

  • Table 3: “pace of delivery” >> “place of delivery”

Discussion

  • Please integrate the Strength and Limitation section with the Discussion section.

  • Paragraph 2: is just a repetition of the findings of the study, I don’t see any discussion

  • Paragraph 3: Comparison should only be made with studies that estimated PNC coverage among women who had health facility delivery.

[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: No

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: 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: Thank you for this well written manuscript. Just a few minor comments and questions:

Outcome variable

• Line 108: Please clarify whether the PNC being discussed is for the mother, the child or both

• It is not quite clear to me what is meant by “follow up check”. Is the paper focussing on immediate postnatal care or any postnatal care. Follow up would essentially mean that the mother got a first check up, and then they had a follow up check after a few days/weeks? Is this the case, or are the investigators only considering the first check? This needs to be clarified both when discussing the derivation of the outcome variable but might also need to be reflected in the topic

• At some point the authors have mentioned that women who were checked within a month were considered to have accessed PNC. However, the WHO guidelines stipulate that PNC should be accessed in the first 42 days after birth. Can the authors please clarify this, or correct this in their generation of the outcome variable?

Statistical analysis

• Demographic and Health Surveys are usually sampled at two levels. The authors have not mentioned that they adjusted their analysis for sample weights. How did the authors account for the multilevel structure of the data?

• Line 91: DHS does not have a specific data set for pregnancy and postnatal care. Can the authors clarify in the write up whether they used the birth recode or the women’s recode? This will be useful for reproducibility of the results by the readers. The DHS does not have a unique file for pregnancy and postnatal care

• Line 115 and 116: I would expect the following variables to be highly collinear: (number of ever born children, children born in last five years, children born in last one 116 year). Is there a particular reason why you chose to include all three? What was the VIF for these variables?

• What bivariate method was used? This should be specified in the write up. I have not seen results of any bivariate analysis presented. What the authors have presented is a univariate logistic regression analysis

• In the methods section there is a mention of the VIF, but I don’t see the results from the VIF being talked about anywhere. Were any of the variables highly correlated or not? A sentence on this might be useful when starting to discuss results from the logistic regression

Table 1

Ownership of pace of delivery should have place of delivery instead of pace

Table 2

• Other(single, widowed, divorce): divorce should be divorced to be consistent with the other words

Table 3

• Part 3 of the caption of Table 3 should read as a table that is continuing from the previous pages. Just as it was done on the second part of the table

• P-values are usually categorized as follows: *** p-value <0.001, ** p-value < 0.01, * p-value < 0.005. The authors might wish to adopt this

• On the same p-value note,

• Why is it that the statistically significant results in the adjusted logistic regression model have been highlighted but those in the unadjusted model have not?

• I find Table 3 to be a little crowded. Firstly, the table caption says that the table presents results from the logistic regression, and yet the table includes results from cross-tabulations

• Normally, the cross tabulations would be included in Table 1. i.e. one could have 3 columns in the table: had PNC (n & %), did not have PNC (n & %), total (which is what is currently the column in Table 1 (n & %))

Reviewer #2: 1. The manuscript is technically sound because it covers all the aspects of a good manuscript and content stuck to the subject matter. The data supports the conclusion methodology, results (proportions and AOR) appropriately handled and presented to draw the conclusion.

2. Statistical analysis well handled - explanations of process and methods appropriately selected and handled.

3. The Author clearly indicated that the data will be made available without restrictions.

4. Lines 69 and 70, the sentence is not clear, "not advised to return to more complications among mothers". Line 81 consideration of removing the word despite and make the point more clear. Line 151 to rephrase the sentence and add - women who were not checked before discharge.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Charles Chungu

[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 Apr 7;16(4):e0249793. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249793.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Nov 2020

Dear editor and reviewers thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Your concerns are very important and critical to improve our manuscript accordingly. We tried to address the points in our revised manuscript. Here are our point by point responses!

Editor’s Comments :

At least three published studies (Sisay et al, 2018; Ayele et al 2019; Fikadu et al, 2019) have so far identified predictors of PNC utilization in Ethiopia based on the same dataset (Ethiopian DHS 2016)bused in this study. What was the justification for reanalyzing the dataset again?

Authors response :

Thank you for the comment and for raising the issue. Dear editor, though we make it clear in the current manuscript, the reason that we analyze the data is that our study population in our analysis and the study population in the mentioned studies are different. For example, the study population in Sisay et’al, 2018 was any women in childbearing age that gave birth in the last 5 years preceding the survey in the selected EAs irrespective of place of delivery. The study population in Ayele et’al, 2019 was also women in child bearing age that gave birth in the last 5 years preceding the survey and delivered at home. The study population in Fikadu et’al, 2019 was mothers who delivered at health facility and only those who had fourth antenatal care visit. Furthermore, there is also a recently published study (Tiruneh, 2020) on postnatal care utilization with a study population of women who give birth in both health facility and home.

Thus, as our study is only included women who gave birth in health facilities it is different from all the above mentioned four articles.

Editor’s Comments :

The operational definition used for postnatal care (any health check-up in the first 42 days) is deficient because it does not take the timing and number of PNC visits into consideration. At least basic description on the timing and frequency of PNC visits must be given in the manuscript.

Authors response :

If I understand your concern, you expect us to explain the timing and frequency of PNC visit. Thank you! However in this study the main objective that we want to explain is not the frequency and timing of PNC. We need to show how much mothers (those who delivered in health facilities) returned to any health facility (could be governmental, private, to the same facility where they gave birth or to other health facility) at least once before their 42 days of postpartum period. That’s why we did not include the frequency and timing of the visit.

Editor’s Comments :

The authors provided inadequate information how they analyzed the data. As the DHS employed cluster sampling design, data must be analyzed using analytical techniques (e.g. mixed effects model, GEE or survey design) that accommodate the clustering nature of the study. Furthermore, sampling weights provided in the data and post stratification weight for balancing the contribution of the regions must be used.

Authors response :

Thank you very!

The data analyzing method is changed according to your comment. Thus, we used mixed effect model to analyze the data so as to accommodate the clustering of the data. Furthermore, we also used sampling weigh to balance the regional variation. Thank you once again!

Editor’s Comments :

The reason for including some of the variables included in the multivariable is not clear. The variables “Children born in last five years” and “Children born in last one year” are likely to have redundant information in the model and hence one of them has to be dropped. Further, while analyzing these variables, the authors should rather be focused on number of births that occur before the index pregnancy analyzed for the PNC. Births that occur after the index birth should be excluded and this can easily be done in DHS by taking date of birth into consideration.

Authors response :

Acceptable comment. The analysis already changed and this comment is taken it account. Thank you very much for your concern.

Editor’s Comments :

The variable “Currently working” is also confusing. Does it refer to the occupation of the mother during the index pregnancy? How can the current occupation affect PNC received some years back?

Authors response :

Thank you! However, DHS data collects the socio demographic characteristics (like age, educational level, working status and wealth status) of the participants during the data collection. They can’t be collected in relation to specific event. That’s why we took the work status. However, to prevent confusion among readers we prefer the “Occupation” to “Currently working”.

Editor’s Comments :

Two variables (ownership of mobile phone and having bank account) are already used for developing the wealth index. So, what is the purpose of considering them as distinct variables again?

Authors response :

Thank you! Acceptable and these variables are omitted in this manuscript.

Editor’s Comments :

It is not clear how 50% of the data fall into the richest wealth quintile (Table 1). As I understand, wealth index in DHS data divides the study subjects into 5 equal Quintiles each nearly having 20% of relative frequency. I recommend the authors to redo the PCA again.

Authors response :

Method of analysis is changed and your concern is already solved. Thank you very much!

Editor’s Comments :

Fitting 18 variables in one model would be too much and might result in an unstable model. I recommend the authors to remove less relevant variables or to use more stringent p-value for screening candidate variables for the multivariable model.

Authors response :

In the revised manuscript 15 variables are fitted in the mixed effect multilevel logistic regression model. Thank you for your valuable concern!

Additional Editor’s Comments (Section-by-section comments):

Editor’s Comments :

Abstract

� The operational definition for “utilization of PNC” should be provided

� The conclusion sub-section should be condensed and should not repeat what has been reported in the results.

Authors response :

Thank you!

The introduction and the conclusion of the manuscript are revised according to your suggestions.

Editor’s Comments :

Background

� Please don’t direct copy from other literature. Many sentences and paragraphs have not been adequately paraphrased.

Authors response :

Paraphrasing is conducted as much as possible. Thank you!

Editor’s Comments :

Methods

� Please describe the basic sampling technique employed in the DHS survey.

Authors response :

Acceptable comment and basic sampling technique of the DHS survey is included in the revised manuscript. Thank you!

Editor’s Comments :

� Line 92-93: “Only the most recent child of the women was included in the analysis”. Please clearly indicate that this is about the most recent birth that happened in the preceding 5 years of the survey.

Authors response :

Thank you! The comment is acceptable and included.

Editor’s Comments :

� Figure 1: I think the decision to exclude women who had home PNC is wrong. The data of these subjects should be retained in the analysis but they should be considered as they have no PNC.

Authors response :

Thank you for the comment!

However, women who received PNC at home were excluded due to the reason that the interest of this manuscript is mainly to show the health seeking of mothers for PNC after they gave birth in health facilities which could be decreased if they received it in home. In other words why they need to return to health facility for PNC reason if they received it in their home? They don’t! That’s why we exclude them from the analysis. We revised the figure to make it more clear in the revised manuscript.

Editor’s Comments :

Results

� Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics: Looks very superficial. Please expand

� Please interpret OR>1 on multiplicative, rather than additive scale.

� Table 3: “pace of delivery” >> “place of delivery”

Authors response :

Thank you very much! In the revised manuscript all of these comments are considered! Please see the revised version of the manuscript.

Editor’s Comments :

Discussion

� Please integrate the Strength and Limitation section with the Discussion section.

� Paragraph 2: is just a repetition of the findings of the study, I don’t see any discussion

� Paragraph 3: Comparison should only be made with studies that estimated PNC coverage among women who had health facility delivery.

Authors response :

� Thank you for the comment. As you said in the strength and limitation part is integrated with the discussion part.

� The second paragraph is the repetition of the result. Yes, this part (the second paragraph) is the summary of the finding which is important to grasp the attention of the readers what the key findings of the study and their discussion points are followed subsequently.

� This is acceptable comment

Reviewers comments

Reviewer #1: Thank you for this well written manuscript. Just a few minor comments and questions:

Outcome variable

• Line 108: Please clarify whether the PNC being discussed is for the mother, the child or both

Authors response :

First I thank you very much for your precious comments!

� The outcome variable which is “Return to health facility for PNC” in the revised manuscript is for both the mother and the baby. It ‘yes’ if the mother returned to use PNC either for her baby or herself or both. This is clearer in the revised version of the manuscript.

Reviewers comments

• It is not quite clear to me what is meant by “follow up check”. Is the paper focusing on immediate postnatal care or any postnatal care? Follow up would essentially mean that the mother got a first check up, and then they had a follow up check after a few days/weeks? Is this the case, or are the investigators only considering the first check? This needs to be

clarified both when discussing the derivation of the outcome variable but might also need to be reflected in the topic

Authors response :

Thank you!

The paper’s focus is on PNC seeking among women who delivered in health facility; we do not focus on whether they received PNC before discharge or not. We only focus on ‘do mothers returned for PNC use to health facilities after they gave birth in health facilities at least once in their postpartum period?’ which can show the health seeking behavior of mothers for PNC. To make it more clear your comment is very important and we amend the title of the manuscript as well considering your suggestion. Thank you once again!

Reviewers comments

• At some point the authors have mentioned that women who were checked within a month were considered to have accessed PNC. However, the WHO guidelines stipulate that PNC should be accessed in the first 42 days after birth. Can the authors please clarify this, or correct this in their generation of the outcome variable?

Authors response :

If I understand your comment well, as you said the PNC should be accessed in the first 42 days after birth with a recommended frequency of four. Thus, in our manuscript we also took this period in to account regardless of the frequency; whether mothers were returned for PNC use after they gave birth at health facilities. Furthermore, the PNC for babies was considered up to two months after birth for explained reason.

Reviewers comments

Statistical analysis

• Demographic and Health Surveys are usually sampled at two levels. The authors have not mentioned that they adjusted their analysis for sample weights. How did the authors account for the multilevel structure of the data?

Authors response :

Thank you very much!

All your comments are acceptable and the revised version of the manuscript includes considerations to the mentioned (sampling weight and multilevel structure) issues.

Reviewers comments

• Line 91: DHS does not have a specific data set for pregnancy and postnatal care. Can the authors clarify in the write up whether they used the birth recode or the women’s recode? This will be useful for reproducibility of the results by the readers. The DHS does not have a unique file for pregnancy and postnatal care

Authors response :

Thank you your comment is acceptable and included in the revised manuscript. The “Individual Record (IR) dataset was used!

Reviewers comments

• Line 115 and 116: I would expect the following variables to be highly collinear: (number of ever born children, children born in last five years, children born in last one 116 year). Is there a particular reason why you chose to include all three?

What was the VIF for these variables?

Authors response :

Thank you!

In the revised version your concerns are addressed! Unfortunately these variables are not included in the new version due to the reason that these variables were not fulfilling the assumption for inclusion.

Reviewers comments

• What bivariate method was used? This should be specified in the write up. I have not seen results of any bivariate analysis presented. What the authors have presented is a univariate logistic regression analysis.

Authors response :

Thank you!

Bivariable multilevel logistic regression was used and clearly stated in the revised manuscript.

Reviewers comments

• In the methods section there is a mention of the VIF, but I don’t see the results from the VIF being talked about anywhere. Were any of the variables highly correlated or not? A sentence on this might be useful when starting to discuss results from the logistic regression

Authors response :

Thank you!

VIF was done and no variables were above 5 and this is clearly stated in the revised document.

Reviewers comments

Table 1

Ownership of pace of delivery should have place of delivery instead of pace

Authors response :

Thank you!

Unfortunately this variable is omitted in the revised version as we only put variables which fulfill the assumption for inclusion.

Reviewers comments

Table 2

• Other(single, widowed, divorce): divorce should be divorced to be consistent with the other words

Authors response :

Corrected!

Reviewers comments

Table 3

• Part 3 of the caption of Table 3 should read as a table that is continuing from the previous pages. Just as it was done on

the second part of the table

Authors response :

Corrected!

Reviewers comments

• P-values are usually categorized as follows: *** p-value <0.001, ** p-value < 0.01, * p-value < 0.005. The authors might

wish to adopt this on the same p-value note,

Authors response :

Thank you for your suggestions! However, as the result of p-value in the final model rages from 0.002 to 0.04 for significant variables, we adapt P-value < 0.005** and 0.05* respectively.

Reviewers comments

• Why is it that the statistically significant results in the adjusted logistic regression model have been highlighted but those in the unadjusted model have not?

Authors response :

Corrected!

Reviewers comments

• I find Table 3 to be a little crowded. Firstly, the table caption says that the table presents results from the logistic

regression, and yet the table includes results from cross-tabulations

• Normally, the cross tabulations would be included in Table 1. i.e. one could have 3 columns in the table: had PNC (n & %), did not have PNC (n & %), total (which is what is currently the column in Table 1 (n & %))

Authors response :

Thank you very much! It is acceptable comment and corrected accordingly. Please see the revised version of the document.

Reviewers comments

Reviewer #2: 1. The manuscript is technically sound because it covers all the aspects of a good manuscript and content stuck to the subject matter. The data supports the conclusion methodology; results (proportions and AOR) appropriately handled and presented to draw the conclusion.

2. Statistical analysis well handled - explanations of process and methods appropriately selected and handled.

3. The Author clearly indicated that the data will be made available without restrictions.

4. Lines 69 and 70, the sentence is not clear, "not advised to return to more complications among mothers". Line 81 consideration of removing the word despite and make the point more clear. Line 151 to rephrase the sentence and add - women who were not checked before discharge.

Authors response :

Thank you very much!

� The phrase "not advised to return to more complications among mothers" in line 69-70 is revised and we tried to make it more understandable.

� The “despite” in line 81 is amended and we tried to make it clear.

� Accepted and your concern is considered.

Dear editor and reviewers, once again we thank you very much for all your valuable comments!

Kindly regards,

Brhane Ayele (on behalf of all authors)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Samson Gebremedhin

11 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-18442R1

Do mothers who delivered at health facilities return to health facilities for postnatal care follow-up? A multilevel analysis of the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ayele,

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 also make sure that the manuscript is thoroughly edited for typographical and grammatical errors.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 25 2021 11:59PM. 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,

Samson Gebremedhin, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Abstract

• I am a Statistician, but have never actually heard the term “bivariable multilevel logistic regression” before. What do the authors mean by this? Did you, perhaps, mean to say a univariate/unadjusted multilevel logistic regression?

• Delete were in the sentence “In this analysis, from the total 2405 participants, 14.3% ((95%CI: 12.1-16.8), (n=344)) of them were returned to health facilities for PNC use after they gave birth at a health facility”

Introduction

• Line from 54 to 56. Remained should probably be remains.

• Authors might wish to have someone check the grammar throughout the paper

Methods

• Great job explaining how the outcome variable was derived and how the independent variables were defined

• I would also like to commend the authors for explaining their choice of methods in detail

• Authors should avoid using the term bivariable/bivariate multilevel logistic regression. The appropriate term is univariate/unadjusted multilevel logistic regression.

Results

Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics

• Sentence 213: “were returned” should be returned. Can this be implemented throughout the manuscript, please

• Sentence 220: capitalize t on Table-1. Table should always have a capital T in the text

Associated factors with return to health facility for PNC (fixed effects)

• Odds ratios are supposed to be reported together with their reference categories. For instance, sentence 241: “Employed women were 51% (AOR=1.51, 95%CI: 1.04-2.19) more likely to return to health 242 facility for PNC during their postnatal period after they gave birth at health facilities” – more likely than who? The reference category should be mentioned for all the sentences explaining the odds ratios. This has been done for sentence “Women who delivered by caesarean section were also in higher odds (AOR= 2.53, 95%CI: 1.40-4.58) of returning to health facilities for PNC than their counterparts during their postnatal period.”, but not for the other sentences.

**********

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

[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 Apr 7;16(4):e0249793. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249793.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Mar 2021

Dear editor and reviewer thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on the revised version of our manuscript. As usual, your comments and concerns are very important and critical to improve the manuscript accordingly. We tried to address the points in this re-revised manuscript. Here are the point by point responses!

Editor’s comments

Please make sure that the manuscript is thoroughly edited for typographical and grammatical errors.

Authors ‘ response

Thank you very much for the concern. As much as possible, we thoroughly edit for typographical and grammatical errors.

Reviewer’s comments

Abstract

� I am a Statistician, but have never actually heard the term “bi-variable multilevel logistic regression” before. What do the authors mean by this? Did you, perhaps, mean to say a univariate/unadjusted multilevel logistic regression?

� Delete were in the sentence “In this analysis, from the total 2405 participants, 14.3% ((95%CI: 12.1-16.8), (n=344)) of them were returned to health facilities for PNC use after they gave birth at a health facility”

Authors ‘ response

� Yes, we mean to “unadjusted multilevel logistic regression”. Dear reviewer it is common to say “bi-variable multilevel logistic regression” for unadjusted multilevel logistic regression considering the two variables (one dependent and one independent). However, to make it more clear we revised the manuscript according to your comments. Thank you very much!

� Thank you very much!

Introduction

• Line from 54 to 56. Remained should probably be remains.

• Authors might wish to have someone check the grammar throughout the paper

Accepted! Thank you!

Methods

• Great job explaining how the outcome variable was derived and how the independent variables were defined

• I would also like to commend the authors for explaining their choice of methods in detail

• Authors should avoid using the term bivariable/bivariate multilevel logistic regression. The appropriate term is

univariate/unadjusted multilevel logistic regression.

Thank you for your kind recognition and comments; your comments and concerns are considered.

Results

Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics

• Sentence 213: “were returned” should be returned. Can this be implemented throughout the manuscript, please

• Sentence 220: capitalize t on Table-1. Table should always have a capital T in the text

Accepted! Thank you!

Associated factors with return to health facility for PNC (fixed effects)

• Odds ratios are supposed to be reported together with their reference categories. For instance, sentence 241:

“Employed women were 51% (AOR=1.51, 95%CI: 1.04-2.19) more likely to return to health 242 facility for PNC during their postnatal period after they gave birth at health facilities” – more likely than who? The reference category should be mentioned for all the sentences explaining the odds ratios. This has been done for sentence “Women who delivered by caesarean section were also in higher odds (AOR= 2.53, 95%CI: 1.40-4.58) of returning to health facilities for PNC than their counterparts during their postnatal period.”, but not for the other sentences.

Thank you very much! Your concern is addressed in the re-revised version of the manuscript.

Dear editor and reviewer, once again we thank you very much for all your valuable comments!

Kindly regards,

Brhane Ayele (on behalf of all authors)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Samson Gebremedhin

25 Mar 2021

Do mothers who delivered at health facilities return to health facilities for postnatal care follow-up? A multilevel analysis of the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey.

PONE-D-20-18442R2

Dear Dr. Ayele,

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,

Samson Gebremedhin, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Samson Gebremedhin

29 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-18442R2

Do mothers who delivered at health facilities return to health facilities for postnatal care follow-up?A multilevel analysis of the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey.

Dear Dr. Ayele:

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. Samson Gebremedhin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Schematic presentation of sampling procedure.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Magnitude of women who returned to health facility for PNC use after they gave birth at health facility.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES