Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0248738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248738

Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia: A rapid program evaluation in Addis Ababa and Sidama zone

Mirgissa Kaba 1,*, Marlieke de Fouw 2, Kalkidan Solomon Deribe 1,*, Ephrem Abathun 3, Alexander Arnold Willem Peters 2, Jogchum Jan Beltman 2
Editor: Tim Luckett4
PMCID: PMC8062072  PMID: 33886561

Abstract

Introduction

In Ethiopia there is an extensive unmet need for palliative care, while the burden of non-communicable diseases and cancer is increasing. This study aimed to explore palliative care needs and preferences of patients, their caregivers, and the perspective of stakeholders on service provision in palliative programs for women, mostly affected by cervical cancer and breast cancer.

Methods

A rapid program evaluation using a qualitative study approach was conducted in three home-based palliative care programs in Addis Ababa and Yirgalem town, Ethiopia. Female patients enrolled in the programs, and their primary caregivers were interviewed on palliative care needs, preferences and service provision. We explored the views of purposely selected stakeholders on the organization of palliative care and its challenges. Audio-taped data was transcribed verbatim and translated into English and an inductive thematic analysis was applied. Descriptive analyses were used to label physical signs and symptoms using palliative outcome scale score.

Results

A total of 77 interviews (34 patients, 12 primary caregivers, 15 voluntary caregivers, 16 stakeholders) were conducted. The main physical complaints were moderate to severe pain (70.6%), followed by anorexia (50.0%), insomnia, nausea and vomiting (41.2%). Social interaction and daily activities were hampered by the patients’ condition. Both patients and caregivers reported that programs focus most on treatment of symptoms, with limited psychosocial, emotional, spiritual and economic support. Lack of organizational structures and policy directions limit the collaboration between stakeholders and the availability of holistic home-based palliative care services.

Conclusions

Although female patients and caregivers appreciated the palliative care and support provided, the existing services did not cover all needs. Pain management and all other needed supports were lacking. Multi-sectorial collaboration with active involvement of community-based structures is needed to improve quality of care and access to holistic palliative care services.

Introduction

In Ethiopia there is an extensive unmet need for palliative care, while the burden of non-communicable diseases and cancer is increasing [1]. Access to palliative care is a human right although there are evident disparities in its provision [2, 3]. In the past decade, very few of the people in need of palliative care across the globe receive it, and referral to palliative care teams for most patients occurs in the last 2 to 6 months of life or not at all [4, 5]. In Sub-Saharan Africa where life expectancy is short, supportive and palliative care for severely ill patients are hardly available. Referral to palliative care early in the course of illness is important for optimal quality of life, and at the same time reduces unnecessary hospitalizations and crowding of health-care services [68].

Ethiopia is one of the Sub-Saharan countries where high burden of suffering and lack of access to pain relief and palliative care are apparent. In this paper we assess palliative care and support programs for women, mostly affected by cervical cancer and breast cancer, as integrated part of screening activities. Breast and cervical cancer are the leading cancers among women in Ethiopia, with an annual crude incidence rate of 29.8 and 16.3 per 100.000 respectively [7]. The coverage of prevention programs in Ethiopia is increasing but still limited in terms of components of the program and accessibility for all women at risk. When presented in early stage cervical and breast cancer can be treated with surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy. However, most women identified with cervical and breast cancer present in advanced stage when curative treatment is no longer an option [9]. These women and their caregivers should receive support and appropriate care to address their needs, but comprehensive palliative care services are barely accessible.

Despite investments and programs of the Federal Ministry of Health in Ethiopia, the World Health Organization (WHO) and several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), palliative care services and data on palliative care needs in Ethiopia are still lacking or [10, 11]. A study conducted in Addis Ababa showed that 65% of cancer patients admitted in a tertiary referral hospital, the majority with advanced stage disease, did not receive adequate pain management [12]. Untreated pain and high costs associated with life-limiting illness are reported to be main factors leading to psychosocial distress and financial crisis [13]. The Ethiopian Ministry of Health has developed a national guideline on palliative care, but the gap with current service provision is evident [14].

Our study aimed to explore palliative care needs and preferences of female patients with breast and cervical cancer or other life-threatening chronic illnesses, and their primary and voluntary caregivers in three home-based palliative care programs in Ethiopia. Furthermore, we intended to assess the perspectives of stakeholders on the existing service provision and its challenges. Based on our findings we present recommendations to improve and prioritize palliative care provision.

Methods

Study design

A rapid evaluation methodology (REM) using a qualitative study approach was conducted in three home-based palliative care and support programs. The rapid evaluation methodology (REM) was developed by WHO to evaluate the performance of health care programs and identify problems in order to develop recommendations for future programming [13]. This methodology was tested in several low- and middle-income countries and was used for evaluation of a palliative care program in Malawi [14].

Study area and period

The study was conducted in May and June 2018 in Addis Ababa, capital city of Ethiopia, and Yirgalem town, in Sidama region, 320 km south of Addis Ababa. In Addis Ababa the palliative care programs of Hospice Ethiopia and Mary Joy Development Association (MJDA) were assessed, in Yirgalem town the palliative care program of Beza for Generation (B4G). At the time of conducting this study, these programs were to the best of our knowledge the only home-based palliative care and support programs in cancer care in Ethiopia.

Hospice Ethiopia is a NGO with both facility-based and home-based palliative care provision, trained by palliative care specialists from Uganda and Kenya. Mary Joy Development Association and Beza for Generation are local community-based NGOs providing support to palliative patients as part of the Ethiopian Female Cancer Initiative (EFCI), a cervical cancer and breast cancer prevention program, managed by Cordaid Ethiopia and supported by the Female Cancer Foundation from the Netherlands.

Study population

Looking into the total case population of each program (approximately 80–120 enrolled patients per program) of which the majority fulfilled the inclusion criteria, combined with reaching illustrative sample of patients and caregivers for this rapid evaluation methodology 10–15% of the total case load of each program and a matching number of caregivers (8–12 patients per setting) were interviewed. However, with 8–12 participants from the respective sites, saturation was achieved after the fifth participant was interviewed. Additional participants were interviewed after presumed saturation was achieved to ascertain repetition of evidence.

The primary caregiver of the interviewed patients who were, either relatives to the patient or volunteer were, included in the study. The number of caregivers was lower than for patients, because not all caregivers were present at the time of the scheduled interview or did not provide informed consent. All interviews were conducted individually, with the patient or caregiver, and the researcher. In Yirgalem a translator was present as a third person when necessary.

In addition to patients and their care givers, staff members responsible for palliative care at the Ministry of Health, palliative care providers at facility and community levels program managers of the NGOs involved in palliative care services, community and religious leaders were participated in the study.

Data collection tool and process

We employed the rapid program evaluation methodology different data sources: 1. Patient files and project reports; 2. Patients and their primary or voluntary caregivers; 3. Key stakeholders from both government, NGOs and the local communities.

Patient files and project reports were used to extract socio-demographic characteristics (age, marital status, educational level), clinical characteristics (diagnosis, HIV status, co-morbidities, medication used) and time of involvement in the program using a standardized form, see S1 Appendix.

For interviews with patients, caregivers and stakeholders open-ended interview guides were developed, based on a study by Herce et al [14] on palliative care in Malawi, see S2-S4 Appendices. The interview guide for patients collected information on socio-demographic characteristics, physical signs and symptoms using the adjusted Palliative Outcome Scale (POS) validated for the African setting [15], and perceived challenges and preferences for palliative care and end-of-life planning.

The interview guide for caregivers collected information on socio-demographic characteristics, perceived support, challenges and preferences for provision of palliative care (S3 Appendix). The interview guide for stakeholders included questions on existing health service activities, and gaps and challenges in palliative care programs (S4 Appendix). All interview guides included questions about the definition and perceived components of palliative care.

The interview guides were prepared in English and translated to Amharic language and Sidama language by an official translator. The translation was cross-checked by two health care professionals and a person without medical background.

The interviews were conducted by six data collectors. In Addis Ababa the team consisted of three Amharic speaking students (two females, one male) of the Master program of Public Health of Addis Ababa University. In Sidama zone the interviews were conducted by three data collectors (two females, one male) fluent in both Amharic and Sidama language, with at least a first degree in a health-related field. All data collectors were recruited based on their experience in social and medical research. All data collectors were trained on the objective of the study, the research protocol including the tools and procedures of data collection for two days by the local principal investigator [MK]. The interviews took place either in the participants’ home or at the Hospice Ethiopia health center, depending on their preference, with only the participant, the interviewer and if needed the translator present. Interviews with key stakeholders took place in their workplace or at home, depending on their preference. The interviews were tape-recorded and field notes were taken by the interviewer. Each interview was planned for approximately 40 minutes.

Data management and analysis

Descriptive analyses were used to label physical signs and symptoms using POS score. We used two categories to express the severity of symptoms; POS score 0 to 2 indicating ‘none to mild’ complaints, ‘POS score 3 to 5 indicating ‘moderate to severe’ complaints [16] [MK, MF, KS].

The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed in Amharic, translated into English, and aligned with field notes of the interviewer. Inductive approach was used and thematic analysis was applied to the transcribed interviews. Data were coded by two independent researchers [MK, KS] and in case of discrepancies between the two by another researcher [MF] to verify and reach decision. Before the analysis, consensus was reached among the researchers [MK, KS, MF] on the coded themes and subthemes. Data analysis was facilitated by Open-code version 4.02.

Data quality assurance

A standardized data collection form was developed to extract data from patient files and project reports. In addition to the initial training, data collectors were closely supervised by the local principal investigator. Interviews were conducted in settings preferred by the patient, caregiver or stakeholder, to ensure a comfortable environment for discussion. The interviewers did not have a relationship with the participants, nor were involved in the palliative care programs. The interviewer validated the obtained information with the participant after the interview, to ensure that the answers were rightly captured.

Ethics statement

The study was reviewed and approved by the Research and Ethics committee of the School of Public Health, Addis Ababa University, and registered with number prv/154/10. The health authorities of the research sites provided permission for the study. An official letter of permission was provided to the administrative office of each of the selected palliative care centers. Before data collection, the study participants were informed about the purpose of the study and that their decision about participation would not influence the care they received.

For both patients and their caregivers written or oral informed consent was obtained to carry out the interview. Those who gave oral consent did so in presence of a witness in their own language (Amharic in Addis Ababa, Amharic or Sidama in Yirgalem). An appointment was scheduled for an interview once consent was obtained.

During the interview voice recording was made after securing permission. Information obtained was kept confidential, anonymous and used only for this research purpose. After transcribing, the audio-tapes were deleted and hardcopies of the interview were stored at a secured place at Addis Ababa University accessible to the principal investigator.

Results

A total of 77 in-depth interviews were conducted; 34 interviews with patients, 12 with primary caregivers, 15 with voluntary caregivers and 16 with stakeholders.

Socio-demographic and disease related characteristics

Table 1 demonstrates the socio-demographic and disease-related characteristics of the patients. The age of the patients ranged from 23 to 80 years with a median age of 47 years. The educational level was low, half of the patients were illiterate (n = 18, 53%) and one third completed primary school (n = 12, 35%). The majority of patients (n = 25, 73%) was unemployed or unable to work.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of patients (n = 34).

Socio-demographic characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)
Marital status
Single 2 6
Married 12 35
Separated/divorced 9 27
Widowed 11 32
Religion
Orthodox 28 82
Christian other than orthodox 5 15
Muslim 1 3
Level of education
Illiterate 18 53
Literate 16 47
Employment status
Unemployed 13 38
Work at own home or farmland 2 6
Daily labourer, unskilled/skilled 7 21
Unable to work due to illness 12 35
Livelihood supports daily expenses (n = 9)
Somewhat but other source of income needed 1 11
No 8 89
Type of diagnosis
HIV/AIDS 13 38
Cervical cancer 10 29
HTN & DM 7 21
Breast cancer 4 12
Tested for HIV
Yes 34 100
No 0 0
HIV-positive patients using ARVs (n = 13)
Yes 9 69
No 4 31
Years since diagnosis of HIV/AIDS: median 6

SD: standard deviation, HIV: Human Immunodeficiency Virus, AIDS: acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, HTN: hypertension, DM: diabetes mellitus, ARV: anti-retroviral treatment.

All patients were tested for HIV/AIDS, 13 (38%) were HIV-positive and therefore enrolled in the palliative care program. Two-third of HIV-positive patients (n = 9, 69%) used antiretroviral treatment [17].

Table 2 illustrates that almost all caregivers (n = 26, 96%) were female and literate, 19 (70%) were employed in governmental and non-governmental organizations. Out of 12 caregivers that were not volunteering with NGOs, 9 (75%) were close relatives to the patients, 3 (25%) were neighbors.

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of caregivers (n = 27).

Socio-demographic characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)
Level of education of the caregiver
Illiterate 1 4
Literate 26 96
Employment status of the caregiver
Unemployed 8 30
Employed 19 70
Caregiver—patient relationship
Close relatives 9 33
Neighbors 3 11
Volunteers 15 56

SD: standard deviation.

Palliative Outcome Scale score

Table 3 illustrates POS scores for patients. The complaints that were experienced as moderate to severe by patients were pain (n = 24, 71%), anorexia (n = 17, 50%), insomnia (n = 15, 41%) and nausea and vomiting (n = 14, 41%).

Table 3. Ratings of patients’ signs and symptoms using the adjusted African Palliative Outcome Scale (POS).

Signs and symptoms Frequency Percentage
Pain
None-mild 10 29.4
Moderate-severe 24 70.6
Nausea and Vomiting
None-mild 20 58.8
Moderate-severe 14 41.2
Constipation
None-mild 23 67.6
Moderate-severe 11 32.4
Diarrhea
None-mild 30 88.2
Moderate-severe 4 11.8
Anorexia (trouble in eating)
None-mild 17 50.0
Moderate-severe 17 50.0
Coughing
None-mild 25 73.5
Moderate-severe 9 26.5
Trouble in breathing
None-mild 28 82.4
Moderate-severe 6 17.6
Insomnia (trouble in sleeping)
None-mild 19 58.8
Moderate-severe 15 41.2
Worried about their health
None-mild 12 35.3
Moderate-severe 22 64.7
Sharing with family or friends about their health
None-mild 29 85.3
Moderate-severe 5 14.4
Daily activities affected
None-mild 14 41.2
Moderate-severe 20 58.8
Social interaction affected
None-mild 14 41.2
Moderate-severe 20 58.8

None-mild = POS score 0, 1 or 2, and Moderate-severe = POS score 3, 4 or 5.

The majority of patients (n = 29, 85%) did not talk with relatives about their condition, were very worried about their condition (n = 22, 65%) and their condition strongly affected activities of daily life (n = 20, 59%) and their social interaction (n = 20, 59%).

Thematic analysis

We identified the following themes in the semi-structured interview transcripts: Awareness of palliative care, Organization of palliative care and referral pathways, Current palliative care activities, Physical and psychological impact, End-of-life planning, Preferences for home-based or institutional care and Challenges in palliative care provision.

Awareness of palliative care

The meaning of ‘palliative care’ was perceived differently among the study participants, as illustrated in Box 1. Almost all health professionals described palliative care as care given for terminally ill patients to alleviate their pain and improve the patient’s quality of life. Yet, these professionals were not aware of the national guideline on palliative care services in Ethiopia.

Box 1. Awareness and organization of palliative care

Awareness about palliative care

“I never heard about palliative care. I usually see people coming to the Hospice center and thought these are people who do not have support and come to the center to seek support. (35 year old, female, HIV-positive patient)

We know death is an inevitable event but when we try to advice patients not to lose hope and be ready for that, I think this is useful for the patient. That is probably an important care although this is not widely known and available to all patients.”

(63 year old, male, religious leader)

“I think it is giving a home to home care for patients with severe sickness which is non curable. Through this service their pain could be relieved to some extent so that they may pass without pain. (26 years old, female, volunteer)

Organization of palliative care

“Support to a patient who is seriously sick is often a family and community affair. At household level family members support on a daily basis to meet the demand of the patient. Community members also visit and offer advice and encouragement. Health facilities, in my view, do not help with social, spiritual and economic demands of the patient. They are responsible only for routine health service provision. (30 year old, female, volunteer)

As a religious person we provide spiritual support to sick people, and health facilities provide health care. Both services are meant to improve the quality of life of the patient.”

(63 year old, male, religious leader)

Most patients and caregivers reported that they “never heard” of palliative care and “don’t understand” what palliative care is. Few patients and stakeholders other than health professionals, described palliative care as helping patients, elders and orphans who are unable to care for themselves either due to illness or other reasons. Most stakeholders mentioned health care at facilities, home to home visits and advice and provision of economic support as elements of palliative care.

Organization of palliative care and referral pathways

The elements of palliative care provided by the organizations involved in this study were not uniform. Hospice Ethiopia provided both home-based support comprising of financial support and provision of analgesics, and outpatient care in the Hospice center which included medical, psychosocial, and financial support and daycare activities. Trained nurses and community volunteers provided palliative care services, while actively involving family members of the patient in care provision. Hospice Ethiopia referred its clients for advanced medical care to Black Lion Hospital. Black Lion Hospital, St Paul’s hospital and Yekatit Hospital in Addis Ababa provided palliative care services, but none of the hospitals had inpatient hospice care or home-based palliative care programs.

Unlike Hospice Ethiopia, MJDA and B4G did not have formal referral linkages with health facilities and focused more on home-based supportive care and less on medical care provision. The supportive care program consisted of periodical provision of materials like cloth and food items, financial support aimed at supporting patients for their medical expenses, and drug provision to alleviate pain by trained nurses, both at the organizations’ center and at the patients’ home. While there were no officially trained palliative care providers within MJDA and B4G, both organizations built on their experience from home-based care to people living with HIV/AIDS and caregivers received basic training in palliative care and support.

Patients were referred to the palliative care programs via health institutions and community volunteers, or patients themselves visited the program centers to apply for the services. Patients needed a referral letter from a health institution stating their diagnosis, before enrollment in the program. Patients, and to some extent families of these patients, orphans and elders, were supported in the programs.

Patients, caregivers and stakeholders stated that health professionals are responsible to screen the patient, treat and refer to other health facilities if indicated. Close relatives and community volunteers were identified as primary care providers. Religious local organizations called ‘Idirs’ were frequently mentioned to provide financial support to bedridden women, religious leaders provided psychosocial and spiritual support.

Current palliative care activities

More than two third (n = 27) of the patients claimed to have received medical, psychosocial and financial support from palliative care providers. Yet, all patients complained that the support they received was not sufficient. It was hard to specify this need in detail, although repeated reference was made to persisting pain and failure to make their living (Box 2).

Box 2. Current palliative care activities

“I received drugs and some money from Hospice. However, I want to recover fully from my illness and get back to my routines. I need more support that may help me full recovery and support to my children. (70 years old, female, congested heart failure patient)

She (the volunteer provider) has been caring. However, I am not happy and lose hope when my pain comes back. I then feel uncertain about my life. I feel like am dying. It is bad to live under uncertainty, losing your ability to make decision about myself. The volunteer at times fails to help under such circumstances.”

(42 years old, female, chronic kidney disease patient).

There is a long way to go to improve palliative care service in Ethiopia. There is no independent case team responsible to coordinate palliative care within the Ministry of Health or in regional health offices. As a result, there is no budget allocated for the program, no formally trained human resources and most importantly this is not given as much attention as other programs. In general, for me it is very difficult to say that there is palliative care as holistic as it should be.”

(45 year old, female, palliative care focal person) MOH)

The problem of insufficient palliative care provision was well-recognized at Ministry of Health level, related to insufficient budget, human resources and attention for palliative care services.

Physical and psychological impact

All patients reported panic, anxiety and sadness when they heard their diagnosis. Most patients recalled they refrained from their daily activities and social interactions.

Patients expressed their perception of their disease with words like “painful”, “bad disease” or “disgusting”. Women who were bedridden due to advanced cervical cancer reported to have experienced continuous, aching, foul smelling vaginal bleeding, and several women with different diagnoses reported severe pain to the extent of difficulty in breathing.

All patients experienced physical pain, psychosocial or emotional grief and spiritual neglect.

Patients agreed that spiritual support from religious leaders gave hope in their situation, although the religious leaders did not receive adequate training within the palliative care programs.

Box 3. Physical and psychological impact

I was very sick and couldn’t do my routine activities. So, I quitted my job because of the illness plus I have to now become dependent on someone elseI am hopeless and sad. I am however getting support from Hospice Ethiopia which lessens the tension I am in.”

(58 year old, female, cervical cancer patient)

I bleed every time. It clots and clots and brought offensive smell since I do not have support to clean it and of course no one comes closer. I got weaker and weaker. Only recently volunteers from Beza came to help me–thank God.

(38 year old, female, HIV-positive patient)

“I enclose myself in the house because people tell me quite indirectly that I stink. Because of this, I always cry and wish I could kill myself.”

(52 year old, female, hypertensive and diabetic patient)

“When you are largely dependent on others, you feel to be valueless. That compels you at times to wish death the soonest. What should I do? You know what; I would love to die to get away from this suffering. (46 year old, female, cervical cancer patient)

I suffered from the disease that restricted my movement. I have severe cough and accompanying pain of my abdomen and nausea. Although I was told there is no treatment, I can’t pay for better medical service. This makes me sad and feel worthless. At times I ask myself what mistake did I commit for I feel this is nothing but punishment.”

(77 years old, female, breast cancer patient)

“Following regular visits by the priest, I do regular prayer and got much stronger inside. I am also using holy water at home now nearly for a year. I am feeling much better with my health. (30 year, female, HIV-positive and skin cancer patient)

End-of-life planning

The majority of participants were not aware what their disease meant in terms of survival, and most patients (n = 25) did not have an end-of-life plan. The volunteer providers at community level also did not recognize these implications (Box 4).

Box 4. End-of-life planning

“No we do not have an end-of-life plan…Because we thought that planning about end-of-life is interfering with the work of God. (40-year-old, female, volunteer)

I pay for Idir and church because this is what everyone does and it is meant to ensure easy burial. I don’t plan for end-of-life because I wish to live a healthy life.”

(65 year old, female, breast cancer patient)

Since I believe that God helps me; I don’t die and get separated from people I love and live together. I keep praying believing the Almighty will save me. So, I fight my disease and want survive longer.(58 year old, female, cervical cancer patient)

Preferences for institutional or home-based care

Half of the patients (n = 18) preferred to stay at home and be cared for at home. Their preference was based on having company from family members, unlike in health facilities where patients would be lonelier. Some patients mentioned that health care staff was not respectful to patients and would not care adequately for their symptoms like pain.

Other patients preferred provision of palliative care in health facilities in order to be in close proximity to medical care when needed and to have more privacy than at home (Box 5).

Box 5. Preference for institutional or home-based care

“I prefer to stay at home. I prefer to be with my families. There are organizations and health centers which asked to take and care of me in their institution but I refused them. I fear to be alone there in the hospital.”(47 years old, female, HIV-positive patient)

“Care at home is much better, for family members sympathize and give me much care. In the health facilities, professionals are not respectful and do not show any sympathy and do not care much for the pain I suffer from” (80 years old, female, arthritis patient)

“I prefer to get care at health facilities. This will minimize the number of people that visit me at home and give me difficult time to answer different questions that at times are annoying” (42 years old female, HIV-positive patient)

Challenges in palliative care provision

The collaboration between potential stakeholders and their respective roles and responsibilities were not well defined. Providers felt that there is no clear guideline on palliative care provision, while patients and caregivers were looking for more support.

Providers at different levels reported challenges in palliative care provision. The most common challenges included lack of awareness among community and facility level providers, lack of guidance for care providers, lack of a structure that clarifies roles and expectations at different levels, lack of accountability and poor commitment of health care staff to palliative care programs.

At community level, volunteers reported to have limited information about the service. The shortage of volunteers and severity of the disease distressed the volunteers who are willing to care more for their patient. Patients who are bedridden revealed to suffer from dwindling livelihood, lack of appropriate information about their status and lack of support in relieving pain when needed.

Box 6. Challenges in palliative care

“In as much as palliative care improves the quality of life of a terminally sick person, the service is not as holistic as it should be and there is no line of accountability at different levels. For me mere focus on pain management and provision of financial support which is not sustainable, is not wise. (38 year old, male, palliative care focal person)

“…When we compare administrative support even the Ministry of Health didn’t give much focus to palliative care. This can be explained in terms of lack of budget and necessary training or man power. As I told you we are in establishing the palliative care unit but we face a lot of challenges since the administrators of the hospital are not that much dedicated to this service. (42 year old, male, palliative care focal person)

To me the major challenge is the non-supportive attitude and poor commitment of providers especially at facility level. I witnessed that professionals at facility level are not well prepared to help patients with non-curable diseases, including how they break the bad news is unprofessional. They don’t care much about the terminally ill patients. They do not know grief counseling and how to support patients.”

(38 year old, male, hospital palliative care focal person)

As volunteers, myself and my friends involve in this are very happy to care for bedridden patients. However, we do not have relevant information on what we should do and should not do. Often the suffering of the patient is so consuming that some of us get even sick. Besides, we do not have protective supplies such as gloves, so that we get worried.”

(42 years old, female, volunteer)

Discussion

Our study focused on the perceived needs and preferences of both patients, caregivers and stakeholders in home-based palliative care programs, and is one of the first studies to be conducted about this topic in Ethiopia. We found that awareness of palliative care was limited and several challenges need to be addressed; insufficient medical and psychosocial support to address patients’ complaints like severe pain, anorexia and anxiety in a holistic approach, lack of support for palliative care providers and caregivers to cope with their emotionally challenging task, lack of collaboration between stakeholders with a need to define roles and responsibilities, and create awareness and ownership at both community, healthcare and policy level to make palliative care a priority.

Awareness of palliative care

Our study showed poor awareness of palliative care among all participants at both policy level, health facility level and community level. Health care professionals were not familiar with the Ethiopian national guideline, patients and caregivers were not aware of the implications and existing structures of palliative care. Hence it is difficult for patients and their caregivers to use a service of which they are not well aware, and for care providers to provide an adequate level of palliative care. This situation is not limited to Ethiopia, but was found in women living in other parts of Africa, Asia, Eastern-Europe and the United States as well [5, 1821]. Limited awareness highlights the need for improved understanding of what palliative care means and whom it can benefit.

The lack of awareness of palliative care draws a parallel to the care for HIV/AIDS patients during the early years of the epidemic. It has taken many years of ongoing investment at all levels, including strong awareness programs at community level, to integrate HIV/AIDS care in routine health care activities and to make it accessible at health center level. Experiences from the time when HIV incidence was increasing plays an important role in rolling out palliative care services. For the two community-based organizations involved in our study, MJDA and B4G, the home-based care service they provided for people living with HIV/AIDS provided a useful foundation for the palliative support program. Still, the level of care currently provided proved insufficient to meet patients’ needs. and an organized effort at national and regional level is needed to develop norms and guidance for palliative care provision. To improve awareness at community level, coffee ceremonies have proven to be a context-specific and effective method in Ethiopia to discuss sensitive health topics like HIV and cervical cancer screening, and could be used to start community conversations about palliative care [22, 23].

Organization of palliative care

Our findings indicated that collaboration between different stakeholders in palliative care services was not well organized and that palliative care in Ethiopia is yet at its initiation phase. The actual practice was merely focused on medical care and financial support, rather than a holistic approach. The World Health Organization recommends palliative care programs to engage with the local health services, while health partnerships at national and regional levels are important to promote culturally safe palliative care service delivery [2]. The development of a national guideline on palliative care in Ethiopia was a good first step to align different stakeholders, however, for translation to practice much more is needed. This includes incorporating palliative care in the medical and nursing curriculum, and appoint palliative care focal persons in each regional health bureau and health facilities up to the level of health centers.

In home-based programs, caregivers are an essential component. In the present study they reported confidence in the care they provided while at the same time they asked for more training. Despite training in palliative care skills and ongoing support in the studied programs, in practice their skills did not always meet their needs and demands. The effect of peer support where caregivers can share experiences with each other could be explored to overcome their perceived lack of skills. Furthermore, home-based palliative care programs should organize care with case managers who evaluate the needs of both patient and caregiver on a regular basis and will address which needs can be alleviated by palliative care.

Pain and symptom control

Despite participation in palliative care programs, the majority of patients who participated in our study reported moderate to severe pain. Our findings are in line with a study conducted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where 65% of admitted cancer patients reported inadequate pain control [12]. Most patients in our study did use analgesics, however, data on the type, dosage, duration and adherence remained unclear and were not well-documented in the patient files. This finding raised the question whether pain was not adequately recognized or managed, or if analgesics like morphine were prescribed but not available, affordable or administered correctly. In future research, we recommend to explore pain control and its limitations more in-depth.

Psychosocial care and the role of religion

In our study many patients reported to feel supported by their relatives and their religion. Praying provided hope and helped to get relief from their symptoms and suffering. We did not encounter women who stopped using medication in favor of spiritual treatment. However, our cross-sectional study design among patients who are enrolled in a palliative care program might not be representative for palliative patients who do not have access to these programs. Studies in Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Zimbabwe on palliative care and cervical cancer screening demonstrated that African women value support from family members and spiritual influences that play a role in their daily lives, and would prefer religious or non-pharmacological healing as compared to existing health care services [1, 2426].

End-of-life planning

When designing the study, we debated whether to include questions about end-of-life planning, because it is a sensitive matter to discuss and culturally sensitive interviewing is needed. In practice the question was well accepted by patients, and we found that 2 out of 5 patients had made plans, half of the patients preferred to receive palliative care at home. This is in line with a study of Reid et al conducted in Ethiopia, which reported that the majority of patients (57%) wanted to die at home [1]. However, in the study of Reid et al, the preference for dying at home was mainly reported among patients who received home-based palliative care or who experienced low pain scores. Patients with poorly controlled pain preferred in-hospital death and patients with chronic non-communicable diseases had a slight preference (58%) to die at home. In our study, all patients received home-based care and pain was not well controlled. The proportion of patients with moderate to severe pain was comparable with patients receiving home-based care in the study of Reid. The difference in preference between these patient groups might be explained by patients’ experiences with in-hospital care. As mentioned previously, a study in Addis Ababa demonstrated that pain was poorly controlled in patients admitted for palliative care. This could influence patients’ preference where to receive end-of-life care. Both studies illustrate it is important to organize the control of pain in palliative setting, and when this care is available at home, it can prevent unnecessary hospitalizations and crowding of healthcare facilities.

Still, the majority of patients and caregivers in our study were not involved in end-of-life planning and avoid speaking about end-of-life. Studies showed discussing about end-of-life made patients more realistic about their situation and prognosis, and reduced the likelihood of receiving intensive treatment near death [2729].

Preferences for home-based or institutional care

Half of the patients preferred to receive palliative care at their own home, because they consider home-based care as safe and it will ensure the presence of their family members. Other patients focused on the delivery of good quality care irrespective of the care setting. These different preferences provide opportunities for both facility and home-based care programs, depending on the patients’ condition. In a setting with overburdened health facilities, home-based care could be an important service to prevent unnecessary hospitalizations.

Limitations

The programs we assessed were different in their set-up and services, therefore challenges and strengths of one program might not be experienced by patients or caregivers in the other programs. Our recommendations, however, combine our findings from the different study settings and methods used which we believe resulted in a representative picture of the programs.

We included only female patients, because they were the target group for two (MJDA and B4G) out of the three home-based palliative care programs. Although the needs and preferences we identified were not specific for the female role in the community or for complaints specific to female cancer, our findings cannot be extrapolated to male patients.

In patient files and project reports, data on initial management and pain scores were often missing. It was not possible to retrieve this via the patient or care provider due to recall bias. A prospective study design into the effect of palliative care on pain and the quality of life could help to answer these research questions.

Recommendations

To understand which strategies are well-accepted and effective for patients and caregivers, we propose to conduct a prospective study in both hospital and home-based care setting with health care providers trained in palliative care and including a community-based awareness strategy. We suggest to assess the level of awareness at different levels, the number of referrals, symptom management and quality of life before, during and after program, if possible in a cluster design or stepped-wedge approach.

The Lancet Commission on Palliative Care and Pain Relief estimated that the costs for an essential package in LMIC is around 3 USD per capita [3]. When the service becomes more widely available, community health workers (in Ethiopia known as health extension workers) can inform their respective communities and refer for services. It is essential to include existing community networks, including Idirs, into the awareness strategy, in order to create a platform that is supported throughout all levels. The current unmet need combined with the increase of non-communicable diseases and the growing and aging population call for action in end-of-life care. On the other hand, structural limitations to palliative care were found evident from the study where there is no responsible structure, policy directions and guidance that could have defined who is responsible for what and how coordination could be made. This calls for more organized effort by the Federal Ministry of Health to organize responsible structure with competent human resources and financial resources at different levels. With that structure, it is critical to define types of care at household, community and facility level and defined roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders.

Conclusion

Our study explored palliative care needs and preferences of female patients with breast cancer, cervical cancer, HIV/AIDS or other life-limiting chronic diseases, and their caregivers in three home-based palliative care programs in Ethiopia. Patients and caregivers positively experienced the care and support provided, however, it was not sufficient. The majority of patients still suffered from moderate to severe pain and there was an unmet need in psychosocial, spiritual, economic and emotional support. Emotional and spiritual support was mainly provided by religious leaders and relatives. A minority of patients planned for the end-of-life, hoping their situation would still improve.

Considering the lack of palliative care options in Ethiopia and the challenges patients and caregivers are facing, a clear organizational structure including ongoing training and supervision of health care providers and caregivers is essential. The current practice with relatives as caregivers and home-based care calls for active involvement of community-based networks and structures. Multi-sectorial collaboration is needed to improve the quality of care and access to palliative care services.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Data collection form for patient files and project reports.

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix. Interview guide for patients (English version).

(DOCX)

S3 Appendix. Interview guide for caregivers (English version).

(DOCX)

S4 Appendix. Interview guide for stakeholders (English version).

(DOCX)

S1 Dataset

(RAR)

Acknowledgments

The authors want to express their gratitude to all study participants for willingly sharing their thoughts and stories. We thank Dr Jamie Mumford and Sue Mumford of Hospice Ethiopia UK for their valuable input and comments. The authors would like to pass their gratitude to the EFCI program which is managed by Cordaid Ethiopia and supported by the Pink and Red Ribbon, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, the Female Cancer Foundation and Addis Ababa University School of Public Health, and to Hospice Ethiopia for supporting this study.

List of abbreviations

ART

Anti-Retroviral Treatment

FC

Family caregiver

FMOH

Federal Ministry of Health

HIV/AIDS

Human Immune Deficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

IQR

Interquartile range

NGO

Non-governmental organization

POS

Palliative outcome scale

SPSS

Statistical packages for social science

WHO

World health organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The study was supported by the Ethiopia Female Cancer Initiative (EFCI) project of Cordaid Ethiopia, and Treub Foundation from The Netherlands.

References

  • 1.Reid EA, Gudina EK, Ayers N, Tigineh W, Azmera YM. Caring for life-limiting illness in Ethiopia: a mixed-methods assessment of outpatient palliative care needs. Journal of palliative medicine. 2018;21(5):622–30. 10.1089/jpm.2017.0419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sepúlveda C, Marlin A, Yoshida T, Ullrich A. Palliative Care: the World Health Organization’s global perspective. Journal of pain and symptom management. 2002;24(2):91–6. 10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00440-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Knaul FM, Farmer PE, Krakauer EL, De Lima L, Bhadelia A, Jiang Kwete X, et al. Alleviating the access abyss in palliative care and pain relief-an imperative of universal health coverage: the Lancet Commission report. Lancet (London, England). 2018;391(10128):1391–454. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32513-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, McNeilly M, Grambow S, Parker J, et al. Preparing for the end of life: preferences of patients, families, physicians, and other care providers. Journal of pain and symptom management. 2001;22(3):727–37. 10.1016/s0885-3924(01)00334-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Noot Tipseankhum TT DAF, Pimpan Silpasuwun. Experiences of People with Advanced Cancer in Home-Based Palliative Care. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research 2016;20(3): 238–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ventafridda V, Ripamonti C, De FC, Tamburini M, Cassileth BR. Symptom prevalence and control during cancer patients’ last days of life. Journal of palliative care. 1990;6(3):7–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber RM, Barregard L, Bhutta ZA, Brenner H, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA oncology. 2017;3(4):524–48. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gakidou E, Nordhagen S, Obermeyer Z. Coverage of cervical cancer screening in 57 countries: low average levels and large inequalities. PLoS medicine. 2008;5(6):e132. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. 10.3322/caac.21492 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bruni L, Albero G, Serrano B, Mena M, Gómez D, Muñoz J, et al. Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases Report. ICO/IARC Information Centre on HPV and Cancer (HPV Information Centre); 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ethiopia FMoH. NATIONAL PALLIATIVE CARE GUIDELINE. Addis Ababa2016.
  • 12.Kassa H, Murugan R, Zewdu F, Hailu M, Woldeyohannes D. Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice and associated factors towards palliative care among nurses working in selected hospitals, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Palliat Care. 2014;13(1):6. 10.1186/1472-684X-13-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Anker M, Guidotti RJ, Orzeszyna S, Sapirie SA, Thuriaux MC. Rapid evaluation methods (REM) of health services performance: methodological observations. Bull World Health Organ. 1993;71(1):15–21. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Herce ME, Elmore SN, Kalanga N, Keck JW, Wroe EB, Phiri A, et al. Assessing and responding to palliative care needs in rural sub-Saharan Africa: results from a model intervention and situation analysis in Malawi. PLoS One. 2014;9(10). 10.1371/journal.pone.0110457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Powell RA, Downing J, Harding R, Mwangi-Powell F, Connor S. Development of the APCA African Palliative Outcome Scale. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007;33(2):229–32. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dix O. Impact of the APCA African Palliative Outcome Scale (POS) on care and practice. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;4(1):11. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.S. Aebischer Perone1 e. Addressing the needs of terminally-illpatients in Bosnia-Herzegovina: patients’perceptions and expectations. BMC pallative care. 2018(17):123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mupepi SC, Sampselle CM, Johnson TR. Knowledge, attitudes, and demographic factors influencing cervical cancer screening behavior of Zimbabwean women. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011;20(6):943–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Shalev A, Phongtankuel V, Kozlov E, Shen MJ, Adelman RD, Reid MC. Awareness and Misperceptions of Hospice and Palliative Care: A Population-Based Survey Study. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018;35(3):431–9. 10.1177/1049909117715215 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Aebischer Perone S, Nikolic R, Lazic R, Dropic E, Vogel T, Lab B, et al. Addressing the needs of terminally-ill patients in Bosnia-Herzegovina: patients’ perceptions and expectations. BMC Palliat Care. 2018;17(1):123. 10.1186/s12904-018-0377-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Xiao Bin Lai1 FKYWaSSYC. The experience of caring for patients at the end-of-life stage in non-palliative care settings: a qualitative study BMC pallative care. 2018(17):116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.de Fouw M, Kaba M, Hailu M, Bereket FZ, Beltman JJ. Local community networks in the fight against cervical cancer: the role of coffee ceremonies in the uptake of screening in Ethiopia. Tropical doctor. 2019;49(4):298–300. 10.1177/0049475519864763 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Esma’el JK DB, Bekele T, Kaso M. Community conversation experiences regarding HIV/AIDS awareness and beyond awareness in the rural community of Ethiopia: a qualitative study. Fam Med Med Sci Res 2015;4. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kale SS. Perspectives on spiritual care at Hospice Africa Uganda. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2011;17(4):177–82. 10.12968/ijpn.2011.17.4.177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Murray SA, Grant E, Grant A, Kendall M. Dying from cancer in developed and developing countries: lessons from two qualitative interview studies of patients and their carers. Bmj. 2003;326(7385):368. 10.1136/bmj.326.7385.368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Grant E, Murray SA, Grant A, Brown J. A good death in rural Kenya? Listening to Meru patients and their families talk about care needs at the end of life. J Palliat Care. 2003;19(3):159–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bakitas M, Lyons KD, Hegel MT, Balan S, Brokaw FC, Seville J, et al. Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2009;302(7):741–9. 10.1001/jama.2009.1198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wright AA, Zhang B, Ray A, Mack JW, Trice E, Balboni T, et al. Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. Jama. 2008;300(14):1665–73. 10.1001/jama.300.14.1665 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Weeks JC, Cook EF, O’Day SJ, Peterson LM, Wenger N, Reding D, et al. Relationship between cancer patients’ predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences. Jama. 1998;279(21):1709–14. 10.1001/jama.279.21.1709 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tim Luckett

29 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-13293

Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia rapid program assessment

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deribe,

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 Aug 13 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,

Tim Luckett

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. When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number of interviewers, their training and characteristics; and please provide the interview guide used.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following source, which needs to be addressed:

- https://treub-maatschappij.org/2019/07/03/palliative-care-needs-and-preferences-in-ethiopia/

The text that needs to be addressed involves some sentences of the Introduction.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

4. Thank you for your ethics statement:

"The study was reviewed by the Research and Ethics committee of the School of Public Health, Addis Ababa University, and registered with number prv/154/10. "

a. Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

5. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

8. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 is an important paper in an understudied population. The results are very interesting, especially the combination of qualitative and quantitative results. A few minor points: the first author listed initially is different from the one listed at the start of the actual manuscript, there are grammatical errors throughout. As for layout of the qualitative results, it might be helpful to the reader if the authors used textboxes to contain a series of quoted statements along the same theme. In one of the final paragraphs, authors cite Reid et al and state that their results contradict those findings in so far as preference for death at home vs in hospital. A closer look at the Reid et al results suggests that patients with high pain scores stated a preference for a hospital-based death. As the current population also had high pain scores, I believe the two align rather than contradict each other, and furthermore that controlling pain might affect patient choice in end of life preferences, which is also interesting as far as minimizing hospital-based deaths in this resource limited setting.

Reviewer #2: Many thanks for the opportunity to read this article and very important aspect of care; palliative care, and its provision in Ethiopia.

Abstract

The study title provides no suggestion of the study design. I was not sure that this was a mixed methods study until nearly completing reading of the methods section. Please can you specify the study design either in the title or clearly in the methods section of the abstract

In terms of the sampling method described, should ‘purposely selected’ be ‘purposively sampled’?

The sentence outlining participants were “interviewed on palliative care needs and preferences, palliative care service provision and users of the service” it is not clear whether all were interviewed on all topics or whether some of these were explored with some participants.

Could you specify number of interviews with the different stakeholder groups in the abstract?

In the results of the abstract, you state pain was the main complaint and then an ordering of which other symptoms were problematic. Given this was a qualitative paper it seems unusual to present these in such a way. You could potential revise the way this is presented to suggest these were symptoms that were problematic and experienced to differing levels by participants.

Intro – clearly written and sets the context of the study well

Method

Could you provide clarity on why data gathered in 2018 is only being submitted for review at this point? Do you suspect the data will still be valid and reflect the current situation?

Would it be possible to provide data on the wider context of palliative care in Ethiopia? How reflective are participating sites? What proportion are these of all sites in the country?

Please can you outline more details about the rationale for the 10 – 15% of the total case load being the deemed a representative sample?

Pleas cite which approach to Thematic Analysis you used for analysing the interview data. What was the process for developing themes through analysis, how were discrepancies discussed?

Please specify which researchers conducted the analysis (and use initials in brackets if these were study authors)

Were caregiver participants only included if the patient they are for also participated? Or were just caregivers recruited in some instances? Who was present for interviews – were these done individually or in dyads as this may have implications for the way data is analysed

Results

The text would benefit from a proof read for English with some errors noted throughout the writing of the results section (e.g. were / was0

Table 1 – I am not sure whether the patient data regarding HIV testing relates to the patient cohort, or the patients for whom caregivers provide support – or whether these are the same. It may be helpful to readers to keep data on patient and caregiver participants separate even if presented in the same table.

Discussion

For recommendations, can you provide tangible details of findings that could be used by palliative care providers or policymakers to inform improvements in palliative care provision now?

**********

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 Apr 22;16(4):e0248738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248738.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Aug 2020

Response to reviewers PONE-D-20-13293

Journal requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements, including those for file naming.

Reply to journal requirement 1:

We apologize for the inconvenience caused by not meeting PLOS ONE’s style requirements, and have adjusted our manuscript and file naming accordingly.

2. When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number of interviewers, their training and characteristics; and please provide the interview guide used.

Reply to journal requirement 2:

- Number of interviewers: there were three interviewers in Addis Ababa, two interviewers in Sidama

- Training of the interviewers:

o Addis Ababa: all interviewers were students of the Master in Public Health, experienced with data collection in social and medical research.

o Sidama: all interviewers had at least a first degree in a health-related field and were experienced with data collection in social and medical research.

All interviewers were trained during 2 days by MK on objectives, research protocol, tools and procedures

- Characteristics of the interviewers:

o Addis Ababa: all interviewers were Ethiopian, were fluent in Amharic, two were female, one was male

o Sidama: all interviewers were Ethiopian, were fluent in both Amharic and Sidama language, two were female, one was male

- Interview guide used: added as supplementary material S2, S3, S4 (see journal requirement 7).

The methods section has been adjusted accordingly:

The interviews were conducted by six data collectors. In Addis Ababa the team consisted of three Amharic speaking students (two female, one male) of the Master program of Public Health of Addis Ababa University. In Sidama zone the interviews were conducted by data collectors (two female, one male) fluent in both Amharic and Sidama language, with at least a first degree in a health-related field. All data collectors were recruited based on their experience in social and medical research. All data collectors were trained on the objective of the study, the research protocol including the tools and procedures of data collection for two days by the local principal investigator [MK].

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following source, which needs to be addressed:

- https://treub-maatschappij.org/2019/07/03/palliative-care-needs-and-preferences-in-ethiopia/

The text that needs to be addressed involves some sentences of the Introduction.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Reply to journal requirement 3:

The link refers to the website of the Treub Foundation (in Dutch: Treub Maatschappij), which provided financial support to facilitate the operational costs of this research. One of the conditions for funding is a short report about the research for publication on their website. Therefore there is overlapping text with the manuscript presented to you, which contains the full research description and detailed findings. Since the summary at the website does not present the methodology, detailed findings and in-depth interpretation of our study, we believe it does not constitute dual submission. We have included this information in the ‘Dual publication’ section and ‘funding section’ of Editorial Manager.

4. Thank you for your ethics statement:

"The study was reviewed by the Research and Ethics committee of the School of Public Health, Addis Ababa University, and registered with number prv/154/10. "

a. Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

Reply to journal requirement 4:

a. We have amended the statement about the ethical review, the protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research and Ethics committee of the School of Public Health, Addis Ababa.

b. According to your suggestion, we have amended the text in the ‘Ethics Statement’ field of the submission form.

5. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

Reply to journal requirement 5:

Thank you for noticing this inconsistency in titles, we have aligned both titles in the manuscript and the online submission form.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Reply to journal requirement 6:

The ORCID iD of dr. Mirgissa Kaba, first author, is 0000-0002-8093-5900, and is updated in the Editorial Manager.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

Reply to journal requirement 7:

We have updated the numbers of the Appendices in our manuscript in the correct order and according to the PLOS ONE style, and included captions for the Appendices at the end of our manuscript.

8. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Reply to journal requirement 8:

The ethics statement is the last chapter of the Methods section in our manuscript. We moved the additional information about ethical clearance that was located at the end of the manuscript to the Methods section, and removed it from the end of the manuscript. (see also reply to comment number 4)

Reviewer 1 comments:

1. The first author listed initially is different from the one listed at the start of the actual manuscript.

Reply to reviewer 1 comment 1:

Thank you for noticing this mistake, the author sequence was not uploaded correctly in the system, it should have followed the sequence as presented in the manuscript. We have corrected it according to the actual manuscript.

2. There are grammatical errors throughout.

Reply to reviewer 1 comment 2:

We apologize for the grammatical errors and have corrected the text. You will find all changes highlighted with ‘track changes’ in the revised manuscript.

3. As for layout of the qualitative results, it might be helpful to the reader if the authors used textboxes to contain a series of quoted statements along the same theme.

Reply to reviewer 1 comment 3:

Thank you for your suggestion to present our qualitative results in a clearer way to our readers. We have clustered some themes to make it more comprehensive, and included textboxes categorized by theme.

4. In one of the final paragraphs, authors cite Reid et al and state that their results contradict those findings in so far as preference for death at home vs in hospital. A closer look at the Reid et al results suggests that patients with high pain scores stated a preference for a hospital-based death. As the current population also had high pain scores, I believe the two align rather than contradict each other, and furthermore that controlling pain might affect patient choice in end of life preferences, which is also interesting as far as minimizing hospital-based deaths in this resource limited setting.

Reply to reviewer 1 comment 4:

This is an interesting remark and perspective on the findings of Reid et al. Indeed the group with the highest pain score (patients from the oncology clinic) preferred in-hospital death above dying at home. However, the majority of patients (80%) in both the NCD clinic and home-based palliative care group reported moderate to severe pain and still preferred to die at home. This preference was more pronounced in the home-based palliative care group than the NCD clinic group (79 vs 58%). In our study, the moderate to severe pain scores were similar to the home-based and NCD clinic group, but still only half of the patients in our study preferred to die at home. This could be explained by patients experiences with the care received in clinics, compared to the care received at home. We have added the following text to the discussion section:

In our study we asked where patients preferred to receive palliative care, half of the patients preferred to receive care at home. This is in line with a study of Reid et al conducted in Ethiopia, which reported that the majority of patients (57%) wanted to die at home. However, in the study of Reid et al, the preference for dying at home was mainly reported among patients who already received home-based palliative care or who experienced low pain scores. Patients with poorly controlled pain preferred in-hospital death and patients with chronic non-communicable diseases had a slight preference (58%) to die at home. In our study, all patients received home-based care and pain was not well controlled. However, the proportion of patients with moderate to severe pain was comparable with patients receiving home-based care in the study of Reid. The difference in preference between these patient groups might be explained by patients’ experiences with in-hospital care. As mentioned previously, a study in Addis Ababa demonstrated that pain was poorly controlled in patients admitted for palliative care. This could influence patients’ preference where to receive end-of-life care. Both studies illustrate it is important to organize the control of pain in palliative setting, and when this care is available at home, it can prevent unnecessary hospitalizations and crowding of healthcare facilities.

Reviewer 2 comments:

1. ABSTRACT comment 1: The study title provides no suggestion of the study design. I was not sure that this was a mixed methods study until nearly completing reading of the methods section. Please can you specify the study design either in the title or clearly in the methods section of the abstract.

Reply to reviewer 2 ABSTRACT comment 1:

When reviewing our manuscript after receiving your comments, we understand it should be more clear from the beginning which study design we have used. Therefore we included this in the title and abstract of our revised manuscript.

2. ABSTRACT comment 2: In terms of the sampling method described, should ‘purposely selected’ be ‘purposively sampled’?

Reply to reviewer 2 ABSTRACT comment 2:

Thank you for your remark, this indeed was a mistake from our side and is corrected in the revised version.

3. ABSTRACT comment 3: The sentence outlining participants were “interviewed on palliative care needs and preferences, palliative care service provision and users of the service” it is not clear whether all were interviewed on all topics or whether some of these were explored with some participants.

Reply to reviewer 2 ABSTRACT comment 3:

We understand this sentence is confusing, because stakeholders were not asked about their palliative care needs. We have adjusted it as follows: Women who were enrolled in the palliative care programs, their primary caregiver and volunteers were interviewed on palliative care needs, preferences and service provision. We explored the views of purposely selected stakeholders on the organization of palliative care and its opportunities and challenges.

4. ABSTRACT comment 4: Could you specify number of interviews with the different stakeholder groups in the abstract?

Reply to reviewer 2 ABSTRACT comment 4:

We have adjusted the abstract accordingly: A total of 77 interviews (34 patients, 12 primary caregivers, 15 voluntary caregivers, 16 stakeholders) were conducted.

5. ABSTRACT comment 5: In the results of the abstract, you state pain was the main complaint and then an ordering of which other symptoms were problematic. Given this was a qualitative paper it seems unusual to present these in such a way. You could potential revise the way this is presented to suggest these were symptoms that were problematic and experienced to differing levels by participants.

Reply to reviewer 2 ABSTRACT comment 5:

Thank you for your request to clarify this statement. We used the African Palliative Outcome Scale (POS) to assess the presence of symptoms and its severity at the time of the interview (see Methods section). This is quantitative data and therefore we presented it in order of prevalence and severity.

6. INTRO - clearly written and sets the context of the study well

Reply to reviewer 2 INTRO comment 6: Thank you for your positive feedback.

7. METHODS - Could you provide clarity on why data gathered in 2018 is only being submitted for review at this point? Do you suspect the data will still be valid and reflect the current situation?

Reply to reviewer 2 METHODS comment 7:

We had prepared our manuscript for publication last year and submitted it for review to a palliative care focused journal. Unfortunately, the journal was unable to find reviewers and it took time before we received this update. It was only then we were able to prepare our manuscript for a new submission. We think our data is still reflecting the current situation, the landscape of palliative care services in Ethiopia has not changed much since our research was conducted.

8. METHODS - Would it be possible to provide data on the wider context of palliative care in Ethiopia? How reflective are participating sites? What proportion are these of all sites in the country?

Reply to reviewer 2 METHODS comment 8:

The provision of palliative care in Ethiopia is scarce. To the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of programs providing home-based palliative care. As explained in the Methods section, the programs included in this study are to our knowledge the only home-based palliative care and support programs in cancer care in Ethiopia. As stated in the results section, Black Lion Hospital, St Paul’s hospital and Yekatit Hospital in Addis Ababa provide palliative care services, but none of the hospitals has inpatient hospice care or home-based palliative care programs. Therefore, the participating sites are reflective in our opinion, although we are aware that there might be palliative care activities that we have not heard about, and we have not assessed the needs and preferences of patients that are not enrolled in any palliative care program.

9. METHODS - Please can you outline more details about the rationale for the 10 – 15% of the total case load being the deemed a representative sample?

Reply to reviewer 2 METHODS comment 9:

Our study reviewed the perspectives of patients and caregivers in three different settings using the rapid evaluation methodology with a mixed methods approach. It was the objective of our study to gain insight in the perspectives of patients and caregivers to create better insight in the existing services and its gaps, with the objective to formulate recommendations for the future. Unlike in primarily qualitative research, saturation of themes is not the objective of a rapid program evaluation. Looking into the total case population of each program (approximately 80-120 enrolled patients per program) of which the majority fulfilled our inclusion criteria, combined with the aim of a rapid program evaluation we aimed for approximately 8-12 patients per setting. In case we would find very different perspectives during the data collection, we decided we would extend the number of inclusions, but this was not indicated. Still, as mentioned in the discussion section, with this approach we might have missed certain themes or perspectives.

10. METHODS - Please cite which approach to Thematic Analysis you used for analysing the interview data. What was the process for developing themes through analysis, how were discrepancies discussed?

Reply to reviewer 2 METHODS comment 10:

We analyzed the interview data inductively with pre-identified codes by 2 researchers [MK, KS]. In case of discrepancies, a third researcher [MF] was involved to discuss the different opinions and reach consensus.

11. METHODS - Please specify which researchers conducted the analysis (and use initials in brackets if these were study authors)

Reply to reviewer 2 METHODS comment 11:

We have included this information with initials in brackets do the Methods section, and the author contributions section.

12. METHODS - Were caregiver participants only included if the patient they are for also participated? Or were just caregivers recruited in some instances? Who was present for interviews – were these done individually or in dyads as this may have implications for the way data is analysed

Reply to reviewer 2 METHODS comment 12:

We invited both patients and their caregivers for an individual interview. We have not approached caregivers separately from patients. The number of caregivers was lower than for patients, because not all caregivers were present at the time of the scheduled interview or did not provide informed consent. All interviews were conducted individually, with the patient or caregiver, and the researcher. In Yirgalem a translator was present as a third person when necessary.

13. RESULTS - The text would benefit from a proof read for English with some errors noted throughout the writing of the results section (e.g. were / was)

Reply to reviewer 2 METHODS comment 13:

We apologize for the grammatical errors and have corrected the text. You will find all changes highlighted with ‘track changes’ in the revised manuscript.

14. RESULTS - Table 1 – I am not sure whether the patient data regarding HIV testing relates to the patient cohort, or the patients for whom caregivers provide support – or whether these are the same. It may be helpful to readers to keep data on patient and caregiver participants separate even if presented in the same table.

Reply to reviewer 2 RESULTS comment 14:

According to your suggestion we have prepared a separate table for the characteristics of caregivers to avoid confusion. Table 1 for patients, table 2 for caregivers.

15. DISCUSSION - For recommendations, can you provide tangible details of findings that could be used by palliative care providers or policymakers to inform improvements in palliative care provision now?

Reply to reviewer 2 DISCUSSION comment 15:

We have adjusted our recommendations in the discussion section, in order to provide more tangible solutions to improve palliative care in Ethiopia.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-13293R1 Point by point response.docx

Decision Letter 1

Tim Luckett

28 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-13293R1

Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia: a rapid program evaluation in Addis Ababa and Sidama zone

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deribe,

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 Nov 12 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,

Tim Luckett

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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: (No Response)

**********

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: No

**********

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: Thank you addressing previous comments in this current revision. Most of my queries have been addressed, but it would be helpful to include aspects of your response into the body of the manuscript.

For example, thank you for clarification on the way in which you sought to capture a representative sample. However, it would be helpful for readers of the manuscript if this rationale outlined in your response was outlined in the body of the manuscript so that your decision making around accessing the 10 – 15% of the total case load is clear. Similarly, your mention of continuously monitoring the data during the project (to determine whether new themes were emerging) would be useful to add further transparency to the approach adopted.

Thank you for clarifying that you adopted an inductive approach to framework analysis. Please can you add the term ‘inductive’ into the body of the manuscript. I was, however, unclear on how pre-identified codes were used within the inductive approach. This may be an issue with terminology, but please can you provide more detail about the use of pre-identified codes.

Please add details into the manuscript regarding which caregivers were involved in the interviews, and details around interviews with patient and caregiver participants being conducted alone, as you have outlined in your response.

The recommendations are very specific, aligning with a proposed research design or an awareness strategy. Is it possible to broaden the recommendations to consider, for example, how the findings align with the pillars of palliative care (i.e. policy, education, drug availability, implementation, and research) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23561750/) or policy relating to provision of care in Ethiopia?

**********

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: 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 22;16(4):e0248738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248738.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Oct 2020

Response to reviewers PONE-D-20-13293R1

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 # 2 comments: No

Reply to Reviewer 2 comments

� Thank you. The data is fully accessible as supporting information and also it can be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Reviewer #2: Thank you addressing previous comments in this current revision. Most of my queries have been addressed, but it would be helpful to include aspects of your response into the body of the manuscript. For example, thank you for clarification on the way in which you sought to capture a representative sample. However, it would be helpful for readers of the manuscript if this rationale outlined in your response was outlined in the body of the manuscript so that your decision making around accessing the 10 – 15% of the total case load is clear.

Reply to Reviewer 2 comments

� Thank you for the additional suggestion to provide the rationale outlined in the response in the body of the manuscript to clarify on accessing 10-15% of the total case load. We provided the rationale in the method section (Method section, page 5&6, from line 120 to 127)

Reviewer #2: Similarly, your mention of continuously monitoring the data during the project (to determine whether new themes were emerging) would be useful to add further transparency to the approach adopted.

Reply to Reviewer 2 comments

� Thank you for this useful insight. Here we were referring to the research process as project, which we realized may give a wrong impression. The point here has to do with the fact that we developed themes based on the research questions before the data collection. During the data collection as well as transcription, we kept note of emerging themes and/or if pre-defined themes still are valid based on evidences generated from the data. The analysis thus follows the themes that were finalized following completion of data collection (Method section, page 7, from line 183 to 186).

Reviewer #2: Thank you for clarifying that you adopted an inductive approach to framework analysis. Please can you add the term ‘inductive’ into the body of the manuscript. I was, however, unclear on how pre-identified codes were used within the inductive approach. This may be an issue with terminology, but please can you provide more detail about the use of pre-identified codes.

Reply to Reviewer 2 comments

� Thank you again for this useful point. We fully agree this is a bit confusing. Codes were developed early on before data collection based on the research question. These codes were finalized later based on data generated and transcribed. The coding of interview data was made by two researchers [MK and KS] with support from [MF] in cases of discrepancies. While the pre-coding is possible that doesn’t warrant inductive approach. So, this is removed and corrections made accordingly (Method section, page 7&8, from line 181 to 187)

Reviewer #2: Please add details into the manuscript regarding which caregivers were involved in the interviews, and details around interviews with patient and caregiver participants being conducted alone, as you have outlined in your response.

Reply to Reviewer 2 comments

� Thank you for this insight which will make the reading clearer. We included this information in the revised manuscript (Method section, page 6, from line 128 to 140. Additional details about how interviews with patient and caregiver participants being conducted has also provided in data collection and ethics sections.

Reviewer #2: The recommendations are very specific, aligning with a proposed research design or an awareness strategy. Is it possible to broaden the recommendations to consider, for example, how the findings align with the pillars of palliative care (i.e. policy, education, drug availability, implementation, and research) or policy relating to provision of care in Ethiopia?

Reply to Reviewer 2 comments

� We appreciate for this. We considered broadening the recommendation has an added value to the research outcome that we broadened the recommendations based on the study finding (Recommendation section, page 22, from line 484 to 498)

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-13293R1 Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Tim Luckett

30 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-13293R2

Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia: a rapid program evaluation in Addis Ababa and Sidama zone

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deribe,

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 Dec 14 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tim Luckett

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Like Reviewer #2, I would like to question the part of your Methods where contrast your 'mixed methods' approach with a 'primarily qualitative approach'. Please provide more information about the type of mixed methods you employed according to a recognised typology, such as Creswell's (2018), including details of how quantitative and qualitative data were integrated. As they are currently written, your Methods and Results look very much like a qualitative study, where the quantitative data were used only to describe the sample and nothing more?

On a related point, while you indicate that you did not use saturation to inform sample size, you don't suggest what alternative method was used beyond specifying what appears to be an arbitrary 10-15% 124 of the total case load of each program?

Reviewers' comments:

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 #2: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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 #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 #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 #2: Thank you for efforts to address my previous comments. These are now mostly resolved. Prior to making a recommendation for publication there are two remaining points that I feel need addressing first.

1) I am keen to ensure transparency in the reporting of the methods around your handling of the interview data. I appreciate that this was a rapid programme evaluation, but the methods still need to be very clear. Previous revisions have helped to clarify the approach you have taken, but following your last response (removal of the 'inductive' element) I am now unsure of which approach was adopted. Please can you clarify, was this a deductive thematic analysis that you adopted? And if so, please can you provide a supporting citation of the analysis approach, such as Braun and Clarke.

2) In your most recent response, you have outlined that the objective of your approach to interviewing was unlike other qualitative research where the focus is on achieving data saturation - I would strongly disagree with this being the only means of determining the completeness and quality of data captured in a qualitative study and would suggest that this statement is removed or revised.

These are the only remaining points and thank you for addressing previous comments.

**********

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 #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 Apr 22;16(4):e0248738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248738.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


9 Nov 2020

Editor Comments:

Like Reviewer #2, I would like to question the part of your Methods where contrast your 'mixed methods' approach with a 'primarily qualitative approach'. Please provide more information about the type of mixed methods you employed according to a recognized typology, such as Creswell's (2018), including details of how quantitative and qualitative data were integrated. As they are currently written, your Methods and Results look very much like a qualitative study, where the quantitative data were used only to describe the sample and nothing more?

Reply to editor comments

Thank you for this useful point. We fully agree this study is largely qualitative. Nonetheless, there are specific research questions that necessitated both qualitative and quantitative approach. we employed concurrent parallel design (Creswell and Creswell 2017) Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected in parallel and are both part of the rapid program evaluation approach as described in the method section (method section, page 5 from line 98 to 100). The quantitative data were used to describe such findings as palliative outcome scale score (POS) to express the severity of symptoms among patients, to quantify preference for institutional or home based care, to describe how many of the participants had end of life plan etc (method section, page 6, from line 152 to 155).

Editor Comments:

On a related point, while you indicate that you did not use saturation to inform sample size, you don't suggest what alternative method was used beyond specifying what appears to be an arbitrary 10-15% 124 of the total case load of each program?

Reply to editor comments

Thank you for your request to further specify our sample size selection. We want to clarify here that saturation was not strictly defined on how to track at the beginning. However, with 8-12 participants from the respective sites, saturation was achieved after the fifth participant was interviewed. We interviewed additional participants after presumed saturation was achieved to ascertain repetition of evidence were beyond doubt. In this research evidence was triangulated by different sources and methods, that makes the data presented in this manuscript very strong (method section, page 5 & 6, from line 121 to 136).

Reviewer # 2 comments:

I am keen to ensure transparency in the reporting of the methods around your handling of the interview data. I appreciate that this was a rapid program evaluation, but the methods still need to be very clear. Previous revisions have helped to clarify the approach you have taken, but following your last response (removal of the 'inductive' element) I am now unsure of which approach was adopted. Please can you clarify, was this a deductive thematic analysis that you adopted? And if so, please can you provide a supporting citation of the analysis approach, such as Braun and Clarke.

Reply to Reviewer 2 comments

Thank you as well for this useful point. As pointed out above, it is true that this study is largely qualitative. Nonetheless, there are specific research question that necessitated quantitative evidence. The findings however remain descriptive that we were guided by inductive approach. Based on your previous and current comments we explained this in the body of the manuscript under method section, page 7, line 182. Qualitative data coding was developed early on before data collection based on the research question. However, these codes were refined later following transcription of data. Eventual coding of the data was made by two researchers [MK and KS] with support from [MF] in cases of discrepancies. Quantitative data helped to describe palliative outcome scale score (POS) to express the severity of symptoms among patients, to quantify preference for institutional or home based care, to describe how many of the participants had end of life plan etc that could not be addressed through qualitative method (method section, page 6, from line 152 to 155, result section, page 9 from line 233 to 241, page 12 from line 297 to 319). As it is presented in the result section qualitative data helped to explain physical signs and symptoms, perceived challenges and preferences for palliative care, end-of-life planning. perceived support, preferences for provision of palliative care, existing health service activities, gaps and challenges in palliative care programs.

Reviewer #2 comments:

In your most recent response, you have outlined that the objective of your approach to interviewing was unlike other qualitative research where the focus is on achieving data saturation I would strongly disagree with this being the only means of determining the completeness and quality of data captured in a qualitative study and would suggest that this statement is removed or revised

Reply to Reviewer 2 comments

We agree with your insightful challenge and we revised the statement (Method section, page 5, from line 121 to 127).

Reference

Creswell, J. W. and J. D. Creswell (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage publications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-13293R2 Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Tim Luckett

11 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-13293R3

Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia: a rapid program evaluation in Addis Ababa and Sidama zone

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deribe,

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 Dec 26 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tim Luckett

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Editor Comments:

Thank you for attempting to address comments from the editor and reviewer on the last version of the manuscript, but unfortunately three responses were inadequate as follows:

1. Justification of why the design can be called mixed methods seems rests on there being some 'triangulation' between qualitative and quantitative components, but greater description of the process for integration is required.

2. Your response to the reviewer's request for more detail on your approach to qualitative analysis appears contradictory in that you call your approach inductive but also say that codes were predefined prior to data collection?

3. You have indicated that saturation was reached after 5 interviews, which is about half that considered more typical even for code rather than meaning saturation (Monique, 2017). Also, you had previously stated that a limitation of your study was that saturation for themes wasn't reached?

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0248738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248738.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


5 Dec 2020

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for providing us with useful comments and queries. We found this a useful opportunity to improve the quality of our submission to the expected standard of your journal. Below, you will find point-by-point explanations.

Thank you again,

Kalkidan Solomon

On behalf of all authors.

1. Justification of why the design can be called mixed methods seems rests on there being some 'triangulation' between qualitative and quantitative components, but greater description of the process for integration is required.

Thank you for this useful point. Our study reviewed the perspectives of patients, caregivers and providers in different settings using the rapid evaluation methodology with mixed method approach. It was the objective of our study to gain insight in the perspectives of service users and providers to create better insight in the existing services and its gaps, with the objective to formulate recommendations for the future. Basing this assumption, this study is largely qualitative. On the other hand, there are specific research questions that necessitated both qualitative and quantitative approach thus, we employed concurrent parallel design. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected in parallel and are both part of the rapid program evaluation approach. As it is presented in the result section qualitative data alone helped to explain most of the study objectives including; physical signs and symptoms, perceived challenges and preferences for palliative care, end-of-life planning. perceived support, preferences for provision of palliative care, existing health service activities, gaps and challenges in palliative care programs. As it was mentioned, integration of quantitative data was necessary to describe palliative outcome scale score (POS) to express the severity of symptoms among patients, to quantify preference for institutional or home based care, to describe how many of the participants had end of life plan etc. But The findings however remain descriptive that we were guided by inductive approach.

2. Your response to the reviewer's request for more detail on your approach to qualitative analysis appears contradictory in that you call your approach inductive but also say that codes were predefined prior to data collection?

Thank you for your suggestion. We analyzed the interview data inductively with pre-identified codes by 2 researchers [MK, KS]. In case of discrepancies, a third researcher [MF] was involved to discuss the different opinions and reach consensus. Though pre-coding is possible that doesn’t warrant inductive approach. Qualitative data coding was developed early on before data collection based on the research question. However, these codes were finalized later based on data generated and transcribed.

3. You have indicated that saturation was reached after 5 interviews, which is about half that considered more typical even for code rather than meaning saturation (Monique, 2017). Also, you had previously stated that a limitation of your study was that saturation for themes wasn't reached?

Thank you for noticing this inaccuracy. We apologize for the errors in the limitation section and we have corrected the text. The statement which stated that “saturation for themes wasn't reached” in the limitation section was to explain about the pitfall of rapid program evaluation (REM) which we used as a method in this study. We want to clarify here that saturation was not strictly defined on how to track at the beginning since we applied rapid program evaluation methodology. However, with 8-12 participants from the respective sites, saturation was achieved after the fifth participant was interviewed. We interviewed additional participants after presumed saturation was achieved to ascertain repetition of evidence were beyond doubt (This was the actual scenario in this study). You will find all changes highlighted with ‘track changes’ in the revised manuscript (Limitation section, page 21, from line 457 to 462).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer PONE-D-20-13293R4.docx

Decision Letter 4

Tim Luckett

9 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-13293R4

Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia: a rapid program evaluation in Addis Ababa and Sidama zone

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deribe,

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 Jan 23 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tim Luckett

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your response, which clarifies the third question asked on my last review. However, I'm afraid you still haven't responded satisfactorily to the first and second questions. No changes have been made to clarify the method used for integration or - if no such methods were used - to change the approach from mixed methods to qualitative (noting that some survey information was also collected from participants to describe the sample). Also, your confirmation that codes were predefined prior to analysis means the approach can no longer be described as 'inductive' throughout. Might an integrated approach of the kind described by Bradley et al (2007) be more fitting, for example - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x ?

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0248738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248738.r010

Author response to Decision Letter 4


24 Dec 2020

On behalf of all authors We thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript entitled “Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia; a rapid program evaluation” [PONE-D-20-13293R4]. Please find the point by point responses here below.

We trust that the improvements suggested by both academic editors and reviewers made this revised manuscript suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Kalkidan Solomon

On behalf of all authors

Editor Comments

1. Thank you for your response, which clarifies the third question asked on my last review. However, I'm afraid you still haven't responded satisfactorily to the first and second questions. No changes have been made to clarify the method used for integration or - if no such methods were used - to change the approach from mixed methods to qualitative (noting that some survey information was also collected from participants to describe the sample).

Thank you for this useful point. Our study applied rapid evaluation methodology with mixed method approach. This study is largely qualitative. On the other hand, there are specific research questions that necessitated description using quantitative approach. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected in parallel and are both part of the rapid program evaluation approach. As it is presented in the result section qualitative data alone helped to explain vast majority of the study objectives including; physical signs and symptoms, perceived challenges and preferences for palliative care, end-of-life planning. perceived support, preferences for provision of palliative care, existing health service activities, gaps and challenges in palliative care programs. But the findings of quantitative study however remain descriptive and we didn’t have integration of both qualitative and quantitative finding for a single objective since we have used quantitative data mainly to describe/quantify palliative outcome scale score among (POS) to express the severity of symptoms among patients.

2. Also, your confirmation that codes were predefined prior to analysis means the approach can no longer be described as 'inductive' throughout. Might an integrated approach of the kind described by Bradley et al (2007) be more fitting, for example https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x ?

Thank you for your suggestion. We analyzed the interview data inductively. As we mentioned earlier we had predefined code/ codebook prior to analysis based on the objectives but we have made a lot of amendments in to the code, we added new coded basing what we got from the data so we were free to have emerging codes from the data and all the codes, categories and themes in this study were emerging from the data itself and that is why we reported as we analyzed the interview data inductively. To avoid ambiguity in this regard and since we practically follow inductive approach we have removed the statement which stated that “predefined codes were used during analysis from the manuscript and replaced with the statement as ‘we analyzed the data inductively’ (Method section, Page 7, from line 183 to 184)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-PONE-D-20-13293-R4.docx

Decision Letter 5

Tim Luckett

4 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-13293R5

Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia: a rapid program evaluation in Addis Ababa and Sidama zone

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deribe,

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 Feb 18 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,

Tim Luckett

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you or clarifying that an inductive approach was indeed taken to the qualitative analysis reported in this manuscript, and for removing content that might be confusing to readers in this regard.

However, I am now even less satisfied that the overall approach taken can be described as mixed methods given that the authors have confirmed that no integration occurred. According to Creswell and all other leading methodologists I am aware of, integration is a requirement of mixed methods. Please either provide evidence from the literature that the approach taken meets the requirements of mixed methods without integration or else change the nomenclature throughout to describe the study as using a qualitative approach, while also collecting some quantitative data.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0248738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248738.r012

Author response to Decision Letter 5


14 Jan 2021

Response to Editor PONE-D-20-13293R5

On behalf of all authors We thank you for your constructive feedback and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia; a rapid program evaluation” [PONE-D-20-13293R5]. Please find the point by point responses here below.

We trust that the improvements suggested by both academic editors and reviewers made this revised manuscript suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Kalkidan Solomon

On behalf of all authors

Editor Comment

1. However, I am now even less satisfied that the overall approach taken can be described as mixed methods given that the authors have confirmed that no integration occurred. According to Creswell and all other leading methodologists I am aware of, integration is a requirement of mixed methods. Please either provide evidence from the literature that the approach taken meets the requirements of mixed methods without integration or else change the nomenclature throughout to describe the study as using a qualitative approach, while also collecting some quantitative data.

Thank you for your suggestion. As we explained before this study is largely qualitative. By now we understand and accept your suggestion and changed the terminology throughout the manuscript to describe the study as using a qualitative approach, while also (as it is presented in the result section) the descriptive findings of quantitative study were used to describe/quantify palliative outcome scale score (POS) to express the severity of symptoms among patients. Thus we removed the content from the manuscript that might be confusing to readers in this regard. (Abstract section, Page 2 and Method Section Page 5 & 6).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-PONE-D-20-13293-R5.docx

Decision Letter 6

Tim Luckett

15 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-13293R6

Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia: a rapid program evaluation in Addis Ababa and Sidama zone

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deribe,

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 Mar 01 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,

Tim Luckett

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for confirming that this was a qualitative study.

The manuscript will be ready for publication after some minor further edits.

Abstract

The abstract in the online system still says ‘mixed methods’ even though this has been changes to qualitative in the manuscript; please harmonise.

The methods should state that the POS was administered.

Please reword the sentence on analysis to state: ‘Descriptive analyses were used for POS data, and an inductive thematic analysis for the interview data’.

The sentence in the conclusion that begins ‘pain was poorly controlled’ really just repeats what was in the results and should be removed.

Manuscript

Please ensure ‘a’ is inserted before ‘qualitative study/approach’ throughout.

Please remove the following sentence which unnecessarily repeats: ‘Without integration with qualitative data, the quantitative data alone were used to describe palliative outcome scale score (POS) to express the severity of symptoms among patients’.

Please ensure the abbreviation POS is used throughout without the full name after this has been introduced the first time.

Cut-offs for the POS should be moved from the Results to the Methods and justified with a reference. Rather than use ‘low’ and ‘high’ which are ambiguous, I suggest just sticking with ‘none-mild’ and ‘moderate-severe’.

Please list the themes in sentence format rather than list form, i.e. ‘We identified the following themes in the semi-structured interview transcripts: awareness of palliative care; organization of palliative care and referral pathways …’

For Table 1, give the overall number of participants at the end of the title in brackets (i.e ‘(N=XX’).

Don’t repeat the contents of Table 1 in the text but only include any information that is additional.

Remove ‘age in years, median’ from Table 1 as it’s in the text and disrupts the column headings.

Move the contents of Table 2 to Table 1, as these are continuing socio-demographic characteristics.

Include an explanation in the text of why so much data were missing.

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 22;16(4):e0248738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248738.r014

Author response to Decision Letter 6


28 Feb 2021

Response to Editor PONE-D-20-13293R6

On behalf of all authors We thank you for your constructive feedback and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia; a rapid program evaluation” [PONE-D-20-13293R6]. Please find the point by point responses here below.

We trust that the improvements suggested by both academic editors and reviewers made this revised manuscript suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Kalkidan Solomon

On behalf of all authors

Editor Comment

Abstract

1. The abstract in the online system still says ‘mixed methods’ even though this has been changes to qualitative in the manuscript; please harmonise.

� Thank you. We harmonized the online content with the manuscript content

2. The methods should state that the POS was administered.

� Thank you for your suggestion. We included that POS was used to describe physical symptoms in the abstract (Abstract section, from line 38 to 40).

3. Please reword the sentence on analysis to state: ‘Descriptive analyses were used for POS data, and an inductive thematic analysis for the interview data’.

� Thank you again for your suggestion. We reword and add statement which describe about POS data and inductive thematic analysis for the qualitative data (Abstract section, from line 38 to 40).

4. The sentence in the conclusion that begins ‘pain was poorly controlled’ really just repeats what was in the results and should be removed

� We accept the comment and revised accordingly. Thank you (Abstract section, from line 50 to 52)

Manuscript

1. Please ensure ‘a’ is inserted before ‘qualitative study/approach’ throughout.

� Thank you for your suggestion. We just added ‘a’ before ‘qualitative study/approach’ throughout.

2.Please remove the following sentence which unnecessarily repeats: ‘Without integration with qualitative data, the quantitative data alone were used to describe palliative outcome scale score (POS) to express the severity of symptoms among patients’.

� Thank you for your feedback. We removed the statement (Method section, from line 150 to 152)

3. Please ensure the abbreviation POS is used throughout without the full name after this has been introduced the first time.

� Thank you. We revised and used the abbreviation ‘POS’ throughout without the full name after POS has been introduced the first time.

4. Cut-offs for the POS should be moved from the Results to the Methods and justified with a reference. Rather than use ‘low’ and ‘high’ which are ambiguous, I suggest just sticking with ‘none-mild’ and ‘moderate-severe’.

� Thank you for the valuable comments. We have moved Cut-offs for the POS to method section and added reference. In addition, ‘low and high’ words were removed to avoid confusion and as suggest we used ‘none-mild’ and ‘moderate-severe’ (Method section, from line 175 to 180 and Result section, from line 234 to 236 and Table 3, from line 626 to 629).

5. Please list the themes in sentence format rather than list form, i.e. ‘We identified the following themes in the semi-structured interview transcripts: awareness of palliative care; organization of palliative care and referral pathways …’

� We accept the suggestion and revised accordingly. Thank you (Result section, from line 244 to 256)

6. For Table 1, give the overall number of participants at the end of the title in brackets (i.e ‘(N=XX’).

� Thank you for your suggestion. We add the total number of participants for both table one two (Table section, line 630 and line 637)

7. Don’t repeat the contents of Table 1 in the text but only include any information that is additional.

� We accept the feedback and revised the text accordingly. Thank you (Result section, from line 220 to 228).

8. Remove ‘age in years, median’ from Table 1 as it’s in the text and disrupts the column headings.

� Thank you. As suggested, we removed the row from Table 1 (Table 1, line 630).

9. Move the contents of Table 2 to Table 1, as these are continuing socio-demographic characteristics.

� Thank you for your suggestion. We presented the socio-demographic characteristics of both patients and caregivers in one table when we initially submitted this manuscript but both reviewers (#1 and 2) commented on it to split the table in to two and present the socio-demographic characteristics of the patients and caregivers in separate table then based on reviewers comment we split and presenting using two table.

10. Include an explanation in the text of why so much data were missing

� Thank you for your suggestion. In this study a total of 27 care givers were included (12 with primary caregivers, 15 with voluntary caregivers) and as total number was indicated in the table we took the socio-demographic profile from all caregivers who were included in this study but we only select variables which had links with the study objectives. Nonetheless. nothing was missed while we collected the data.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-PONE-D-20-13293-R6.docx

Decision Letter 7

Tim Luckett

5 Mar 2021

Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia: a rapid program evaluation in Addis Ababa and Sidama zone

PONE-D-20-13293R7

Dear Dr. Deribe,

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,

Tim Luckett

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Tim Luckett

5 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-13293R7

Palliative care needs and preferences of female patients and their caregivers in Ethiopia: a rapid program evaluation in Addis Ababa and Sidama zone

Dear Dr. Deribe:

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. Tim Luckett

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 Appendix. Data collection form for patient files and project reports.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Appendix. Interview guide for patients (English version).

    (DOCX)

    S3 Appendix. Interview guide for caregivers (English version).

    (DOCX)

    S4 Appendix. Interview guide for stakeholders (English version).

    (DOCX)

    S1 Dataset

    (RAR)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-13293R1 Point by point response.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-13293R1 Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-13293R2 Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer PONE-D-20-13293R4.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-PONE-D-20-13293-R4.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-PONE-D-20-13293-R5.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-PONE-D-20-13293-R6.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES