Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 28;16(10):e0258624. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258624

Analysis of maternal and newborn training curricula and approaches to inform future trainings for routine care, basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care in the low- and middle-income countries: Lessons from Ethiopia and Nepal

Gaurav Sharma 1,*, Yordanos B Molla 2, Shyam Sundar Budhathoki 3, Million Shibeshi 4, Abraham Tariku 5, Adhish Dhungana 6, Bindu Bajracharya 7, Goitam G Mebrahtu 8, Shilu Adhikari 9, Deepak Jha 10, Yunis Mussema 11, Abeba Bekele 12, Neena Khadka 2
Editor: Hannah Tappis13
PMCID: PMC8553030  PMID: 34710115

Abstract

Program managers routinely design and implement specialised maternal and newborn health trainings for health workers in low- and middle-income countries to provide better-coordinated care across the continuum of care. However, in these countries details on the availability of different training packages, skills covered in those training packages and the gaps in their implementation are patchy. This paper presents an assessment of maternal and newborn health training packages to describe differences in training contents and implementation approaches used for a range of training packages in Ethiopia and Nepal. We conducted a mixed-methods study. The quantitative assessment was conducted using a comprehensive assessment questionnaire based on validated WHO guidelines and developed jointly with global maternal and newborn health experts. The qualitative assessment was conducted through key informant interviews with national stakeholders involved in implementing these training packages and working with the Ministries of Health in both countries. Our quantitative analysis revealed several key gaps in the technical content of maternal and newborn health training packages in both countries. Our qualitative results from key informant interviews provided additional insights by highlighting several issues with trainings related to quality, skill retention, logistics, and management. Taken together, our findings suggest four key areas of improvement: first, training materials should be updated based on the content gaps identified and should be aligned with each other. Second, trainings should address actual health worker performance gaps using a variety of innovative approaches such as blended and self-directed learning. Third, post-training supervision and ongoing mentoring need to be strengthened. Lastly, functional training information systems are required to support planning efforts in both countries.

Introduction

The health of pregnant women and neonates are closely aligned, and there is growing emphasis on the promotion of integrated delivery of services across the continuum of care for maternal, newborn and child health [1]. Health systems are weaker and resource limitations are more pronounced in LMIC settings which has considerable implications for the efficient delivery of quality health services [2, 3]. It is now well accepted that training alone may not be enough to bring lasting improvements to the quality of care without improving wider health systems issues such as availability of equipment and supplies, human resources, clinical governance mechanisms and environments [4]. However, trainings of health workers, either individually or in combination, are generally the first step undertaken by any program aiming to improve maternal and newborn health services [47].

Effective interventions for routine and emergency care for mothers and neonates are all well-established. Most maternal and newborn deaths could be prevented by the provision of high-quality medical interventions termed `signal functions’ for emergency obstetric and newborn care (EmONC) defined by the United Nations agencies [8, 9]. These interventions listed in Table 1 have been identified based on a review of existing literature, the latest WHO guidelines, and their importance in enabling early identification and management of life-threatening complications in both mothers and newborns [1012].

Table 1. Essential maternal and newborn care interventions for routine care, basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care [10, 11, 13].

Dimensions of facility care Obstetric services Newborn services
1. Routine care (for all mothers and babies) Monitoring and management of labor using partograph Thermal protection
Maternal infection prevention measures (handwashing, gloves) Immediate and exclusive breastfeeding
Active management of the third stage of labor (AMTSL) Neonatal Infection prevention including hygienic cord care
Preparedness for neonatal resuscitation
2. Basic emergency care Administration of parenteral magnesium sulphate for pre/ eclampsia Administering antibiotics for preterm or prolonged rupture of membranes (P/PROM) to prevent infection
Performing assisted vaginal delivery Administration of Corticosteroids in preterm labor
Administration of parenteral antibiotics for maternal infection Resuscitation with bag and mask of non-breathing baby
Administration of parenteral oxytocin in the third stage of labor Kangaroo Mothers Care (KMC) for premature/very small babies
Manual removal of retained placenta Alternative feeding techniques if baby unable to breastfeed
Removal of retained products of conception Administration of injectable antibiotics for neonatal sepsis
Prevention of Maternal to Child Transmission (PMTCT) if the mother is HIV-positive
3. Comprehensive emergency care Basic emergency care plus surgery (e.g. cesarean) and blood transfusion Intravenous fluids
Safe Oxygen–Bubble continuous positive airway pressure (bCPAP)

There are many in-service training packages designed to improve maternal and newborn health in LMIC settings [14]. These training packages tend to cover one or more clinical areas listed in Table 1 and there is also some positive research evidence showing the effectiveness of these training packages in LMIC settings [1517]. Healthcare workers provide a variety of services across the continuum of care (from pregnancy to postnatal/newborn care) and may benefit more from integrated in-service trainings, i.e., trainings where they are taught comprehensively on multiple topics, for example- routine and emergency obstetric and neonatal care [18]. However, it is likely that greater transfer of knowledge and skills may happen with stand-alone trainings focused on the acquisition of specific clinical skills and learning of specific topics. Integrated trainings are argued to be more cost-effective, reduce absenteeism, cause less disruption of service delivery, and are more efficient since health workers are trained on multiple topics in one training. For example, stand-alone training programs often result in the same health worker being called multiple times from their work location to undergo repeated off-site trainings. On the other hand, integrated training programs have their drawbacks too: their scope is wider (multiple topics are taught) and they are longer compared to vertical trainings, all of which could compromise skill acquisition as well as training quality. On the ground experiences, have also shown that with integrated trainings, there can be a tendency to minimise or omit certain topics depending on the trainer’s expertise and interest. The evidence base on whether healthcare workers tend to benefit more from stand-alone trainings compared to integrated trainings in maternal and newborn health (MNH) is limited [19].

Broader questions remain about the overall effectiveness of any type of training programs, with a recent systematic review concluding that there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions on health worker performances and patient outcomes [20]. Training programs are often time-intensive and may have limited impact if newly trained health workers are unable to apply these skills and knowledge while providing clinical services [10, 21]. Training programs may also have limited impact due to various other factors such as poor design or suboptimal delivery; lack of necessary equipment, supplies, and infrastructure; poor organization and management at facilities; frequent staff turnover; frequent rotation of staff; lack of post-training support; or lack of supportive supervision and ongoing mentoring [20, 22, 23]. Generally, information on such determinants, particularly facility environments, would be beneficial for planners to understand how, when and where learners will have to apply their newly acquired knowledge and skills [11], but such contextual information is often not considered while planning.

With this background, we chose to review the existing MNCH training packages in Nepal and Ethiopia, two LMICs from Asia and Africa to help collate the packages and the implementation experiences from key health workers in these two countries. Ethiopia’s maternal mortality ratio (MMR) was 353 per 100,000 live births, and 28% of births were attended by skilled health personnel in 2015 [24, 25]. The neonatal mortality rate (NMR) reduced from 37 per 1000 live births [26] in 2011 to 29 per 1000 live births in 2016 [24]. Encouragingly, the number of women coming to deliver at health institutions increased to 26.2% in 2016 [27]. The targets for 2030 are to reduce the MMR to 70 per 100,000 live births, NMR to 12 per 1000 live births and improve coverage of births attended by skilled health personnel to 90% [28, 29]. In Nepal, 58% of births were attended by skilled birth attendants (SBA) and home deliveries remained high at 43% in 2016 [30]. The MMR was 259 per 100,000 live births [31]. Neonatal and infant mortality rates are 21 and 32 per 1,000 live births respectively [30]. The Government of Nepal (GON) aspires to reduce the MMR to 112 per 100, 000 live births and NMR to 13 per 1,000 live births by 2030 [32].

These countries were selected since they had active Maternal Child Survival Program (MCSP) activities focussed on maternal and newborn health. There was a high level of interest in conducting the study from both countries and national staff were available to facilitate local data collection efforts. Both countries have made considerable progress in improving maternal, newborn and child health indicators over the past two decades.

This study aims to describe the differences in the training content of existing, government-approved MNH training packages and capture implementation experiences from key stakeholders regarding the implementation of these training packages in Ethiopia and Nepal. We validated our findings with national experts and stakeholders in both countries and jointly developed recommendations for strengthening in-service trainings for maternal and newborn health in Ethiopia and Nepal. We refrained from making cross-country comparisons and focused, rather, on describing the strengths and weaknesses of training content and implementation in each country separately.

Materials and methods

Study design

This is a mixed-methods study using a quantitative analysis of technical contents in training materials used in Ethiopia and Nepal, supported by a qualitative component comprising of key informant interviews to better understand the implementation approaches utilized by various training initiatives [19, 33]. The study was conducted in Ethiopia and Nepal between August 2018 and March 2019.

Study methods

Before the start of the assessment, we obtained approvals from each country’s Ministry of Health (MoH). Independent national consultants (with extensive experience as MNH trainers) collaborated with the MoH to identify relevant training packages targeted towards doctors, nurses and midwives based upon an agreed selection criterion.

Available training materials were identified by the senior in-country study coordinator together with training focal points of the MoH in both countries. Inclusion criteria included MNH training packages developed after the year 2000 and which focused on skilled birth attendants (doctors, nurses and midwives). Exclusion criteria included all training packages with materials that were not officially endorsed by the MoH, did not have a specific focus on doctors, nurses and midwives working in health facilities, or if the learning materials that were incomplete such as stand-alone job aids, policy guides, program manager guides, materials on quality improvement alone. We assessed 12 training packages in Ethiopia and 15 in Nepal for eligibility. After exclusion based on our criteria, we had a final selection of 7 training packages from Ethiopia and 9 from Nepal included in this study (Fig 1). The training packages analysed in this paper included both stand-alone and integrated packages.

Fig 1. Flowchart showing steps for auditing the training materials in Ethiopia and Nepal.

Fig 1

We validated our quantitative findings with local experts through a series of key informant interviews and validation workshops to determine that what we identified were true gaps and not deliberate omissions due to contextual factors.

For the qualitative assessment, we conducted face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 12 key informants in Ethiopia and 16 in Nepal. The purpose of the qualitative interviews was to generate insights into implementation approaches utilised by various training packages. We used a purposive sampling technique to identify relevant stakeholders that were involved in organizing and facilitating MNH training packages. We took detailed interview notes and audiotape recordings were also made for future reference. Interviews were conducted until saturation was reached.

Data collection

Training packages were reviewed by two independent researchers (Ethiopia- MS and GS; Nepal-BB and NK) using the quantitative assessment tool or the data extraction template (S1 Questionnaire). This was used to identify the presence or absence of essential interventions in each training package. An excel sheet was used to enter and summarize binary responses (presence = Yes or absence = No).

National consultants also helped to identify participants for the key informant interviews. Participants were purposively selected and included MoH technical focal persons for maternal and newborn health; training focal points, representatives of partner organizations supporting MNH training packages; facilitators and learners that received either the stand-alone or the integrated training activities. Most respondents had a medical and public health background.

Study tools

For the quantitative assessment, a comprehensive data extraction template was developed (available as S1 Questionnaire) which captured information on various training elements such as the type of learning activities, trainer profile, participant/trainer ratio, methodologies to evaluate competencies, time allotted for practical sessions and clinical exposure, as well as technical content for routine, basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care. The data extraction tool was based on validated WHO guidelines [12] and was developed jointly with global maternal and newborn experts based on our framework presented in Table 1. The extraction tool gave equal weight to all interventions since there is no scientific basis for giving intervention specific weights and we wanted to be transparent. A semi-structured interview schedule was developed for the key-informant interviews. The interview guide is available as a (S1 File).

Data analysis

For the quantitative analysis, we collected data on all variables for routine care, basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and neonatal care that are outlined in Table 1. Variables under different technical areas were coded as ‘1’ if available or ‘0’ if not available in different training materials. All data were entered and analysed in Microsoft Excel. Frequencies were computed for all variables and data entered was cross-checked with original forms. After cross-checking for accuracy and completeness, summary scores were calculated for each clinical practice. Proportions were generated for each clinical practice which was defined as the total number of ‘yes’ responses divided by the total number of interventions in that clinical practice. As an example, a proportion of 50% implies that the training package contained 50% of the recommended interventions for that clinical practice.

The key informant interviews were conducted in Amharic and Nepali. The findings were transcribed in English and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. All the interviewers were involved in the transcription. A thematic analysis approach was utilized. To ensure consistency of the data, two researchers (MS and GS—Ethiopia and BB and NK- Nepal) independently reviewed responses and agreed on a set of codes. A codebook was developed to define the codes. Inter coder reliability between two coders was assessed manually using Microsoft excel Themes such as challenges for scaling up MNH training packages, national databases for training, and potential solutions and innovations were captured.

The mixed-methods approach allowed us to identify gaps in the technical content for various clinical interventions (quantitative analysis) and helped us generate insights into the context and weaknesses in implementation approaches (qualitative analysis). Preliminary findings from the audit of training packages and the qualitative interviews were presented at workshops in Ethiopia and Nepal where findings were validated with the insights of national experts working in maternal and newborn health in both countries.

Ethics and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Save the Children’s Ethics Review Committee. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) reviewed and contributed to the development of the study protocol. Approvals were sought from the Ministries of Health in both countries before undertaking data collection. The research involved the desk review of training materials and interviews to capture respondents’ opinions related to MNH training packages in Ethiopia and Nepal. The study did not test interventions or collect biological samples. Therefore, there was no direct risk associated with this study. Data collectors obtained written informed consent from participants before each interview. Before the interview, all participants were informed about the study, its sponsorship, confidentiality of any data collected and their ability to stop the interview at any time they desired.

Results

We analysed 7 MNH training packages in Ethiopia and 9 packages in Nepal. In Ethiopia, training packages ranged from short (3 days) vertical training packages focused on essential care for every baby (ECEB) and Prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) to three-month-long training packages on comprehensive emergency care. Similarly, in Nepal, training packages ranged from short training packages that were delivered over one day (Helping babies breathe) to longer training packages such as the SBA training (60 days) and Advanced SBA training package (70 days). Table 2 provides further details on the duration of training packages and cadres eligible to receive these training packages in Ethiopia and Nepal.

Table 2. Summary of maternal and newborn health trainings in Ethiopia and Nepal.

Duration of the training Cadre eligible for trainings
Country/ Training package Theory (days) Practical (days) Total duration (days) Doctor-MBBS/MD Doctors—Specialists Nurses (certificate, BA, MSc) Midwife / ANM Others–IESO Integrated (YES/NO)
Ethiopia
Essential Care for Every Baby (ECEB) 0 3 3 Yes No Yes Yes No NO
Integrated Management of Neonatal and Childhood Illnesses (IMNCI) 6 1* 6 Yes No Yes No No NO
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) 10 18 28 Yes Yes Yes Yes No NO
Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission (PMTCT) 3 3 Yes No Yes Yes Yes YES
Basic Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care (BEmONC) 8 10 21 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YES
Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care (CEmONC) 26 64 90 Yes Yes Yes No Yes YES
Newborn Care (NBC) 3 3 Yes No Yes Yes No NO
Nepal
Skilled Birth Attendant (SBA) 12 48 60 Yes Yes Yes Yes NA YES
Advanced Skilled Birth Attendant (ASBA) 7 63 70 Yes Yes No No NA YES
Postnatal care (PNC) 10 17 27 No No Yes Yes NA YES
Comprehensive newborn care Level 2 (CNBC L2) for Nurses 8 8 16 No No Yes Yes NA NO
Comprehensive newborn care Level 2 (CNBC L2) for Doctors 4 2 6 Yes Yes No No NA NO
Facility-based Integrated Management of Neonatal and Childhood Illnesses (FB-IMNCI) 4 2 6 Yes Yes No No NA NO
Maternal and Newborn Health (MNH) update 2 1 3 Yes No Yes Yes NA YES
Helping Babies Breathe- Version-2 (HBB2) 1 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NO
Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission (PMTCT) 5 5 Yes Yes Yes No NA NO

* In IMNCI there are clinical sessions on days 3, 4 and 5. Each session lasts about 2:30 hours.

Newborn care interventions in routine care

In Ethiopia, neonatal resuscitation was addressed comprehensively in all materials except in the IMNCI manuals (89%) in terms of components related to routine essential newborn care. Newborn infection prevention practices including hygienic cord care were found to be incomplete in BEmONC (70%), CEmONC (70%), and IMNCI (80%) manuals. The BEmONC and CEmONC manuals had not incorporated newer recommendations such as delayed cord clamping. Only two manuals (ECEB and NICU) covered basic newborn care interventions comprehensively.

In Nepal, for components related to basic newborn care; thermal protection was incomplete in SBA (86%), ASBA manuals (43%), FB-IMNCI manual (86%), clinical mentor guide and MNH updates package (43%), HBB-version 2 manual (71%) and PMTCT manuals (29%). Immediate and exclusive breastfeeding was found to be incomplete in the ASBA (63%), FB-IMNCI (88%), MNH update, HBB-2 (50%) and PMTCT manuals (29%). Similarly, neonatal infection prevention including hygienic cord care was found to be incomplete in all manuals except the SBA manual. Preparedness for neonatal resuscitation was found to be incomplete in FB-IMNCI (89%) manuals and absent from the PMTCT manual.

Newborn care interventions in basic emergency care

In Ethiopia, antibiotics for preterm premature rupture of the membranes (P/PROM) to prevent infection was covered only in BEmONC and CEmONC manuals. Antenatal corticosteroids for preterm labor was covered well in BEmONC and CEmONC manuals (90%). Neonatal resuscitation with bag and mask in case of a non-breathing baby was covered well in all manuals except the NICU and PMTCT manuals. KMC technical content was found to be incomplete in IMNCI (33%) and completely absent in NICU and PMTCT materials. Injectable antibiotics for neonatal sepsis were absent in NICU and PMTCT training materials. Care for HIV infected newborns was covered comprehensively in PMTCT and IMNCI manuals but absent from all the other manuals in Ethiopia. The BEmONC manual in Ethiopia did not recommend antiretroviral prophylaxis or refer participants to relevant sections of the national guidelines.

In Nepal, for basic emergency care interventions, antibiotics for P/PROM to prevent infection were fully covered (100%) in the SBA and ASBA manuals and were absent from all other training materials. Resuscitation with bag and mask of the non-breathing baby was covered comprehensively (100%) in all training materials except the PMTCT materials. None of the training materials covered antenatal corticosteroids for preterm labor since corticosteroids are still not included in the national standards. Kangaroo mother care for premature or very small babies was not covered in clinical mentors’ guide, HBB- version 2 and PMTCT materials. Management of the HIV-exposed infant was covered to varying degrees in different training materials.

Newborn care interventions in comprehensive emergency care

In Ethiopia, for comprehensive emergency care interventions, fluid management in newborns, safe oxygen therapy and b-CPAP therapy were covered comprehensively (100%) in the NICU training materials, but these interventions were missing in the remaining six manuals. The CEmONC manual did not comprehensively cover newborn resuscitation, stabilisation, initiating effective ventilation, preventing hypothermia and hypoglycaemia. The manual also did not provide instructions for referral to a higher centre. The comprehensive emergency care interventions were also not linked to the relevant sections of the NICU manual.

In Nepal, for comprehensive emergency care interventions, fluid management in the newborn was covered comprehensively (100%) in CNBC level– 2 for nurses and doctors but b-CPAP (100%) and safe oxygen therapy (100%) were only covered in the CNBC level- 2 materials for doctors. None of the other materials covered these newborn comprehensive emergency care interventions. Fig 2 summarises our findings related to newborn care interventions in Ethiopia and Nepal.

Fig 2. Newborn care interventions in routine, basic and comprehensive emergency care in Ethiopia and Nepal.

Fig 2

Routine maternal health interventions at the time of birth

In Ethiopia, both the BEmONC and CEmONC manuals appear complete (100%) but none of the other newborn health-focused manuals covers routine maternal health interventions. The PMTCT manual covers monitoring of labor using a partograph and infection prevention measures but does not cover active management of the third stage of labor.

In Nepal, labor monitoring using partograph was covered in the SBA manual (93%), ASBA manual (100%), MNH updates (87%) but not covered in any of the other training materials. Infection prevention measures were covered comprehensively in SBA, ASBA materials and CNBC for level– 2 nurses but were incomplete in HBB- 2 (80%) and PMTCT (80%) and absent in PNC, MNH updates, CNBC- nurses and facility-based IMNCI. Active management of the third stage of labor was also covered to some extent in the SBA (89%), ABSA (67%) and MNH updates (33%) but missing in all the other manuals that were reviewed.

Maternal health interventions in basic emergency care

In Ethiopia, the national BEmONC manual was complete with all clinical interventions duly reflected (100%). However, the CEmONC manual did not cover certain details on prophylactic antibiotics before caesarean sections for the prevention of maternal infections. None of the other newborn health focussed manuals discussed maternal health interventions in basic emergency care.

In Nepal, for maternal health basic emergency care interventions, all signal functions were covered adequately in SBA and ASBA materials except parenteral antibiotics for maternal infections, which was covered up to 89% in the SBA and 78% in the ASBA manual. The MNH update manual only focused on parenteral magnesium sulphate, assisted vaginal delivery and parenteral oxytocic drugs for hemorrhage, and did not cover other signal functions. None of the other newborn health manuals covered maternal signal functions in basic emergency care interventions.

Maternal health interventions in comprehensive emergency care

In Ethiopia, the CEmONC manual was found to cover a majority of technical contents (71%) but finer details such as what precautions should be taken during caesarean section, what are the complications following caesarean section and management of complications such as modified b-lynch sutures and obstetric hysterectomy were absent in other training materials. The regimen for prophylactic antibiotics before Caesarean section was also absent in the CEmONC manuals.

In Nepal, the ASBA manual covered all aspects of the cesarean section whereas the SBA manuals covered 57% and the MNH update covered about 50% of the content. These manuals were found to cover indications for caesarean and when to refer for complications of pregnancy but missed other details. Fig 3 below summarizes maternal care interventions in Ethiopia and Nepal.

Fig 3. Maternal care interventions in routine, basic and comprehensive emergency care in Ethiopia and Nepal.

Fig 3

We removed ECEB, IMNCI NICU, NBC-2012 manuals (Ethiopia) and CNBC- Level 2 for doctors, FB-IMNCI for doctors (Nepal) from the graph since they did not have any maternal health components.

Summary of qualitative findings

The qualitative interviews with the key informants supplemented the quantitative findings by giving a better understanding of implementation approaches and experiences of the stakeholders with the training packages in Ethiopia and Nepal. The qualitative data is organized into themes that are broadly related to the technical content of training materials and implementation approaches (before, during and after training). Specifically, themes were related to planning, quality, technical content, scaling-up, post-training skills retention, training-related metrics and training management issues. Key themes that emerged from the key informant interviews are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of qualitative findings.

Themes Summary of key findings from the interviews.
Training planning • The actual integration of technical functions at the level of the peripheral health worker is not considered while planning
• Suitable participants that fulfill the selection criteria are not always selected for trainings
• Limited numbers of certified neonatal care training centers limit expansion efforts
• Trainings should be conducted in response to performance assessments or measurement of existing service quality
• Strengthening pre-service curricula holds promise but is a neglected area.
• Training information systems are not functional in both countries
Training quality • Ensure quality during the rollout of the trainings
• Lack of newborn cases for practical sessions
• Practical sessions are not taken seriously by both the trainers and trainees
• Facilitators may or may not have received training from the trainers.
• There is usually an inadequate number of facilitators.
• NICU trainings are resource-intensive but do not employ competency-based training methods
Dilution effect- new topics are constantly added to trainings without thinking about quality
Limited technical content for newborn health • Core skills necessary for providing newborn care at primary, secondary and tertiary levels
• MNH training materials do not cover newborn health comprehensively and some are outdated
• Some training materials (IMNCI and PMTCT) are not focused on skill acquisition
• Trainers’ expertise and familiarity with certain technical topics mean that all topics do not receive the same level of attention or enthusiasm
Scaling up training packages • Cost-effectiveness to scale up long and expensive trainings
• Rapid scale-up of trainings can hamper the quality of learning
• Limited numbers of expert newborn health trainers
• Managing attrition of trained human resources or constant turnover of skilled staff
• There are many stand-alone training initiatives and duplication of efforts.
Post-training skill retention and application of skills • Newly learnt skills can deteriorate or be lost if there are not enough opportunities to practice
• Skills retention by learners in high caseload and low caseload clinical sites
• Linking training and retraining to continuing professional development
• MoH staff are not always able to supervise and follow up after training
• There are no resources allocated for post-training follow up
Training metrics • Use of pre-test and post-test scores–adequate representation of all technical areas
• Better use of pre and post-test scores
• Monitoring learners’ progress in service delivery after they leave the trainings
Training management • Lack of budgets affects training preparations
• If there are no per diems, learners don’t seem as motivated
• Lack of equipment and supplies for clinical practice such as Ambu bags and radiant warmers affects training quality. Even when supplies are available, they may be poorly maintained
• Some integrated trainings are of long duration, therefore, resource-intensive (BEmONC, CEmONC and NICU) and interrupt service delivery
• There is a lack of adequate cases for the practical sessions
• Overcrowding at training sites can be problematic since these training sites are also used by other students (nurses, doctors)

Training planning

Most participants expressed that in cases where the same health worker provides MNH services and when appropriate, integration may be a cost-effective option. Some participants suggested that a promising alternative strategy would be to first measure the existing quality of care provided by health workers and then design or implement specific technical modules based on the deficiencies identified from such an assessment rather than taking a universal approach towards training health workers. The respondents reported that implementing such a strategy where specific modules (or trainings) are implemented to address identified gaps in existing quality of care will help to improve the knowledge and skills of health workers.

Another recommendation by the participants was around strengthening the pre-service curriculum for MNH. The participants reported that since the design and development of a pre-service curriculum is a time-consuming and challenging process, it tends to remain unchanged for many years. However, strengthening areas that are weaker or outdated has the potential to bring about large-scale changes in countries. Another planning issue highlighted by participants was that suitable participants that fulfil the selection criteria are not always invited to attend the trainings. It was emphasised by the participants that training health workers that have no role in providing MNH services, is a waste of resources and a significant opportunity cost. Training information systems was also identified as a major planning challenge by participants in both countries. For example, information on which health worker has received training or where they are posted are hard to obtain. Participants suggested that there needs to be a greater investment in developing or strengthening functional and usable health training information system which can support planning efforts.

Training quality

Ensuring high-quality trainings are important, particularly as the training cascades down to peripheral levels. Participants reported that despite the Ministry of Health investing significant resources into preparing clinicians as master trainers, trainings are not a part of the official job description and hence trainers are often reluctant to go for trainings in peripheral areas. Participants from both countries highlighted the need to thoughtfully select skilled trainers who are committed and invest in creating an enabling environment for them with appropriate incentives so that they are retained within the system and training quality is maintained as trainings are expanded. Other quality-related challenges reported by the participants included a lack of clinical exposure during trainings, inadequate numbers of cases, limited training centres, resource constraints and lack of skilled facilitators (Table 3). Participants also highlighted that a ‘dilution effect’ may occur as a result of integrating various modules within one training package. For example, in Nepal, participants noted that the integration of HBB within SBA modules resulted in reduced training time for other modules and a change in training methodology. Another example given was that after the integration of KMC into SBA trainings, binding the baby to the mother received attention but other components of KMC did not receive adequate attention.

Limited technical content for newborn health

It was reported that there is a need to update existing training materials to reflect recent advances in global guidelines and ensure a focus on skills transfer and competency-based training methods. In certain cases, integration of technical content has also led to confusion amongst learners on practical issues. One example from the participants was about the difficulty in knowing the sequence for providing oxytocin injection for AMTSL when a non-breathing newborn also required resuscitation or the right sequence for applying chlorhexidine to the cut cord and initiating immediate skin to skin contact. Participants also reported that trainers’ expertise and preferences often result in some sessions receiving more attention than others. For example, newborn health tends to receive less importance if an obstetrician conducts the training and vice versa. Lastly, participants highlighted the need to define core competencies necessary for providing newborn care at primary, secondary and tertiary levels.

Scaling up training packages

Issues discussed under the theme of scaling-up trainings focused on high costs associated with long duration of trainings, attrition and turnover of staff, and challenges of sustaining quality of trainings at scale.

One participant from Nepal highlighted that, “although approximately 7,000 SBAs were trained on the SBA package over the past decade, less than half of those trained remain in the public sector. Participants also stated that rapidly scaling up trainings to meet coverage targets without adequate attention to training quality does not lead to the desired impact.”

One participant from Ethiopia also mentioned that “Often, there are numerous vertical, or donor led initiatives that contribute to duplication of efforts and do not strengthen existing national systems.

Post-training skill retention and application of skills

The retention and application of newly acquired skills in routine clinical practice was an important theme that emerged from the key informant interviews. Participants reported that skills deteriorate in circumstances where health workers do not have the opportunity to practice them. Respondents from both countries reported that, although mentoring and supportive supervision were recognised as important strategies, there were many associated challenges. For example, mentors need to be released from their daily clinical duties, a replacement must be found so that services are uninterrupted, and incentives for mentors must be agreed upon and obtained. Participants from both countries suggested that implementation research projects are necessary to answer questions around effective strategies for mentorship and supervision.

One participant said, “we need to learn more about effective models for mentorship and supervision—who should follow up, how frequently, how much does it cost, what is the process, where (on or off-site), what works and what does not work in a particular context”.

Training metrics

Respondents in both countries suggested that trainings must do better in terms of assessing learners’ progress during training and after they go back to work. Although pre and post-test scores are routinely utilised as most trainings follow competency-based learning methodologies, these scores tend to be used only for certification purposes. Participants emphasised that there are many opportunities to use them systematically such as linking them to continuing professional development and professional licensing.

Training management

Participants reported a lack of adequate budgets and logistical challenges as consistent realities especially when trainings are implemented by the Ministry of Health. Participants further highlighted that the resource constraints often mean that obtaining adequate training material and supplies and recruitment of expert trainers is problematic. Further, if programs cannot provide daily subsistence allowances, learners are not as motivated. Other issues reported included an inadequate number of cases for the clinical sessions, limited numbers of skilled trainers, and overcrowding at training sites. Lastly, participants highlighted that training management guidelines are often neglected and must be followed diligently so that quality can be maintained during implementation.

Discussion

This mixed-methods study uncovered several gaps in the training curricula for routine care, basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care in Ethiopia and Nepal. Key informant interviews provided additional insights and generated useful recommendations for strengthening training programs and approaches in both countries. Overall, we found significant gaps in technical content for newborn health in Ethiopia and Nepal. Areas found to be weak for routine care of newborns included preparedness for neonatal resuscitation, care for the small baby at home and newborn infection prevention including hygienic cord care.

Although neonatal resuscitation is one of the most urgent clinical situations in pediatrics, it was found to be missing in IMNCI guidelines in Nepal. It would be beneficial for countries to close down these gaps in line with the WHO standards for improving the quality of maternal and newborn care in health facilities [12]. For newborn interventions in basic emergency care, prophylactic antibiotics for P/PROM, antenatal corticosteroids for preterm labor, injectable antibiotics for sepsis and PMTCT were found to be incomplete. In Nepal, none of the training materials covered antenatal corticosteroids for preterm labor since they are not recommended for use by personnel other than qualified physicians. WHO guidelines (2015) currently recommend antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth from 24 to 34 weeks of gestation when gestational age assessment can be accurately undertaken, preterm birth is imminent, there is no maternal infection, and adequate facilities for the management of preterm birth are available at the secondary or tertiary level [34]. PMTCT appears to be a stand-alone entity in both Ethiopia and Nepal and does not incorporate most MNH components. Since mother to child transmission accounts for 90% of HIV infections in children, all health workers must be informed about PMTCT guidelines [35]. Further, babies born to HIV positive mothers tend to be preterm [36] and will need additional feeding and thermal care support [37], hence PMTCT manuals should incorporate home-based care of small babies. Similarly, all MNH trainings should cover the management of the HIV exposed infant [38]. As the prevalence of preterm births in Ethiopia (10.5%) and Nepal (9.3%) is high, this finding is particularly relevant and trainings should include special care for preterm births [39, 40]. Newborn interventions in CEmONC were found to be generally weak in both countries and need additional strengthening.

Not surprisingly, maternal health interventions were generally missing from newborn health training materials in both countries. AMTSL was found to be weak in Nepal in terms of routine maternal care interventions. For maternal health interventions in basic emergency care, all signal functions except parenteral antibiotics for maternal infections were covered adequately. For maternal health interventions in comprehensive emergency care, the advanced obstetric training materials covered all topics in detail except the management of complications following caesarean sections. These are all important signal functions for high-quality basic and emergency care services [11].

Results from our quantitative and qualitative analysis suggest four key avenues for improving training in Ethiopia and Nepal. First, there is a need to strengthen MNH technical content, improve alignment between training packages, and think carefully about the design and delivery of future trainings. Our findings are in line with previous studies examining SBA trainings in LMICs, which reported that education and training for SBAs greatly varied between countries in terms of duration and contents of the training [41]. Researchers found wide variation in the skills and competencies of staff across countries in terms of their ability to manage routine and emergency conditions [41]. Gaps in technical content identified through this rapid assessment have already been shared with the Ministries of Health and national experts in both countries.

Second, alternative approaches for training health workers should be explored. Designing and implementing specific training modules in response to deficiencies identified from the measurement of QoC could be a promising strategy to improve clinical quality. Clinical practice observations have been utilized with success in many settings to assess QoC [42]. Based on the findings of such observations, health workers should be provided with opportunities to take blended, self-directed, modules on individual topics so that any gaps in knowledge and skills can be closed down. Evidence from Tanzania suggests that remote or blended learning approaches could be feasible in low resource settings [43]. Innovative blended approaches that require learners to complete some preliminary reading and assignments before they come for trainings is a way to shorten overall training duration. Perhaps the best way forward is to use a variety of complementary approaches starting with high-quality pre-service trainings [19].

Third, there is a need to focus on skill retention after training, improve ongoing mentoring and identify better ways to provide a supportive environment for health workers to apply their newly learnt knowledge and skills. Training transfer is linked to work environments and staff’s perception of their work environment [44, 45], therefore, it is important to strengthen overall health systems. Program evidence suggests that health workers need repeated opportunities for training and that mastery of skills requires repeated practice. In Nepal, program reviews have found that skills deteriorate rapidly if health workers do not have opportunities to practice their newly acquired skills [46]. Also, skill retention is likely to vary depending on the work setting, opportunities to practice [47] and other factors such as being based at a high- or low-volume site, being based at a primary, secondary or tertiary level health facility, availability of instruments, essential commodities and supplies, and support received from facility management and leadership. However, there is limited evidence on the impact of in-service trainings on actual clinical outcomes in LMICs [19]. Hence, future studies that are well-designed and examine the actual impact of trainings on clinical practices and patient outcomes are urgently needed.

This study adds to the limited but growing evidence-base on the content of various in-service training materials and their implementation experience in both countries. Finally, our study indicates a need for greater investments in developing and strengthening functional training management information system for keeping track of trainings received by health workers which can better support planning efforts in both countries [48]. Further research on effective training management information systems is urgently needed. Opportunities to introduce and institutionalize platforms for continuous professional development by professional councils could also be pursued in both countries [49].

Limitations

Our analysis is subject to several limitations. First, we did not develop or test any hypothesis in our analysis as our aims were primarily descriptive. Second, we chose training materials and key informants in a purposive manner, which may limit the generalizability of our results to some extent. Third, although all key informant interviews were semi-structured and conducted by experienced interviewers, it is possible that interviewer bias may have influenced some of the comments recorded or question is asked. Fourth, we were unable to observe actual training sessions or measure the existing quality of care provided by health workers who had received any of the trainings we reviewed. Finally, we excluded training materials targeted at community-based health workers–a key part of the MNH service delivery system in both Ethiopia and Nepal–because our review focused specifically on materials for training clinically qualified health workers. Future studies may want to investigate the content and quality of MNH trainings provided to community-based health workers.

Conclusion

We found several gaps in the technical contents of the maternal and newborn health training curricula in Ethiopia and Nepal. The existing training packages could be improved by strengthening the missing technical content, improving alignment between different MNH training packages, using innovative methods to redesign existing training packages, better supporting health workers in terms of skill retention, and developing training information systems to keep up-to-date records on trainings received by health workers. These findings and recommendations may be of interest to other LMICs facing similar challenges in training content development and delivery.

Supporting information

S1 Questionnaire. Training curriculum data extraction tool.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Interview guide.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Key informant consent form for interviews.

(DOCX)

S3 File. Information sheet for key informants.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Data file.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This study was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-A-14-00028. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kerber KJ, de Graft-Johnson JE, Bhutta ZA, Okong P, Starrs A, Lawn JE. Continuum of care for maternal, newborn, and child health: from slogan to service delivery. Lancet. 2007. Oct;370(9595):1358–69. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61578-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mounier-Jack S, Mayhew SH, Mays N. Integrated care: learning between high-income, and low- and middle-income country health systems. Health Policy Plan. 2017. Nov 1;32(suppl_4):iv6–12. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czx039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Puchalski Ritchie LM, Khan S, Moore JE, Timmings C, van Lettow M, Vogel JP, et al. Low- and middle-income countries face many common barriers to implementation of maternal health evidence products. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016. Aug;76:229–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wilson AN, Spotswood N, Hayman GS, Vogel JP, Narasia J, Elijah A, et al. Improving the quality of maternal and newborn care in the Pacific region: A scoping review. Lancet Reg Heal—West Pacific. 2020. Oct;3:100028. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2020.100028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kayongo M, Butera J, Mboninyibuka D, Nyiransabimana B, Ntezimana A, Mukangamuje V. Improving availability of EmOC services in Rwanda—CARE’s experiences and lessons learned at Kabgayi Referral Hospital. Int J Gynecol Obstet [Internet]. 2006. Mar;92(3):291–8. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.10.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Santos C, Diante D, Baptista A, Matediane E, Bique C, Bailey P. Improving emergency obstetric care in Mozambique: The story of Sofala. Int J Gynecol Obstet [Internet]. 2006. Aug;94(2):190–201. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.05.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Barker CE, Bird CE, Pradhan A, Shakya G. Support to the Safe Motherhood Programme in Nepal: An Integrated Approach. Reprod Health Matters [Internet]. 2007. Jan 13;15(30):81–90. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1016/S0968-8080%2807%2930331-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.United Nations Children’s Fund, World Health Organisation, United Nations Population Fund. Guidelines for Monitoring the Availability and Use of Obstetric Services. New York; 1997.
  • 9.World Health Organisation. Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook [Internet]. Geneva; 2009. Available from: https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/obstetric_monitoring.pdf
  • 10.Sharma G, Mathai M, Dickson KE, Weeks A, Hofmeyr GJ, Lavender T, et al. Quality care during labour and birth: a multi-country analysis of health system bottlenecks and potential solutions. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015. Dec 11;15(S2):S2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-15-S2-S2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gabrysch S, Civitelli G, Edmond KM, Mathai M, Ali M, Bhutta ZA, et al. New Signal Functions to Measure the Ability of Health Facilities to Provide Routine and Emergency Newborn Care. PLoS Med. 2012. Nov 13;9(11):e1001340. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.World Health Organisation. Standards for improving quality of maternal and newborn care in health facilities. Geneva; 2016.
  • 13.World Health Organization. WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva; 2018. [PubMed]
  • 14.Lassi ZS, Kumar R, Mansoor T, Salam RA, Das JK, Bhutta ZA. Essential interventions: implementation strategies and proposed packages of care. Reprod Health. 2014;11(Suppl 1):S5. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-11-S1-S5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ameh CA, Mdegela M, White S, van den Broek N. The effectiveness of training in emergency obstetric care: a systematic literature review. Health Policy Plan. 2019. May 1;34(4):257–70. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czz028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Budhathoki SS, Gurung R, Ewald U, Thapa J, KC A. Does the Helping Babies Breathe Programme impact on neonatal resuscitation care practices? Results from systematic review and meta‐analysis. Acta Paediatr. 2019. May 24;108(5):806–13. doi: 10.1111/apa.14706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Amsalu R, Morris CN, Hynes M, Had HJ, Seriki JA, Meehan K, et al. Effectiveness of clinical training on improving essential newborn care practices in Bossaso, Somalia: a pre and postintervention study. BMC Pediatr. 2020. Dec 13;20(1):215. doi: 10.1186/s12887-020-02120-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.de Jongh TE, Gurol–Urganci I, Allen E, Zhu NJ, Atun R. Integration of antenatal care services with health programmes in low–and middle–income countries: systematic review. J Glob Health. 2016. Jun;6(1). doi: 10.7189/jogh.06.010403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gavine A, MacGillivray S, McConville F, Gandhi M, Renfrew MJ. Pre-service and in-service education and training for maternal and newborn care providers in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence review and gap analysis. Midwifery. 2019. Nov;78:104–13. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2019.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Das JK, Kumar R, Salam RA, Lassi ZS, Bhutta ZA. Evidence from facility level inputs to improve quality of care for maternal and newborn health: interventions and findings. Reprod Health. 2014;11(Suppl 2):S4. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-11-S2-S4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ameh CA, van den Broek N. Making It Happen: Training health-care providers in emergency obstetric and newborn care. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2015. Nov;29(8):1077–91. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.03.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ariff S, Soofi SB, Sadiq K, Feroze AB, Khan S, Jafarey SN, et al. Evaluation of health workforce competence in maternal and neonatal issues in public health sector of Pakistan: an Assessment of their training needs. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010. Dec 27;10(1):319. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pearson L, Shoo R. Availability and use of emergency obstetric services: Kenya, Rwanda, Southern Sudan, and Uganda. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2005. Feb;88(2):208–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Central Statistical Agency (CSA) [Ethiopia], ICF. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Rockville, Maryland, USA; 2016.
  • 25.WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, The World Bank, the United Nations Population Division. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2013. Geneva; 2014.
  • 26.Central Statistical Agency (CSA) [Ethiopia], ICF. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Rockville, Maryland, USA; 2012.
  • 27.Atun R, de Jongh T, Secci F, Ohiri K, Adeyi O. A systematic review of the evidence on integration of targeted health interventions into health systems. Health Policy Plan. 2010. Jan 1;25(1):1–14. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czp053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chou D, Daelmans B, Jolivet RR, Kinney M, Say L. Ending preventable maternal and newborn mortality and stillbirths. BMJ. 2015. Sep 14;h4255. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4255 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.World Health Organisation. Strategies towards ending preventable maternal mortality (EPMM). Geneva; 2015.
  • 30.Ministry of Health; New ERA; and ICF. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2016. 2017;636.
  • 31.WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, The World Bank, the United Nations Population Division. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2015. Geneva; 2015.
  • 32.World Health Organization, UNICEF. Every Newborn: an action plan to end preventable deaths. Geneva; 2014.
  • 33.Tran NT, Portela A, de Bernis L, Beek K. Developing Capacities of Community Health Workers in Sexual and Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health: A Mapping and Review of Training Resources. Jimenez-Soto E, editor. PLoS One. 2014. Apr 15;9(4):e94948. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.World Health Organisation, World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on interventions to improve preterm birth outcomes. Geneva; 2015. [PubMed]
  • 35.De Cock KM, Fowler MG, Mercier E, de Vincenzi I, Saba J, Hoff E, et al. Prevention of Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission in Resource-Poor Countries. JAMA [Internet]. 2000. Mar 1;283(9):1175. Available from: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jama.283.9.1175%5Cnhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10703780 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Naidoo M, Sartorius B, Tshimanga-Tshikala G. Maternal HIV infection and preterm delivery outcomes at an urban district hospital in KwaZulu-Natal 2011. South African J Infect Dis. 2016. Mar 4;31(1):25–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lawn JE, Davidge R, Paul VK, Xylander S von, de Graft Johnson J, Costello A, et al. Born Too Soon: Care for the preterm baby. Reprod Health. 2013. Nov 15;10(S1):S5. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-10-S1-S5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.World Health Organization. Routine care for HIV-exposed and infected infants and children. In: Manual on Paediatric HIV Care and Treatment for District Hospitals: Addendum to the Pocket Book of Hospital Care of Children. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gurung A, Wrammert J, Sunny AK, Gurung R, Rana N, Basaula YN, et al. Incidence, risk factors and consequences of preterm birth–findings from a multi-centric observational study for 14 months in Nepal. Arch Public Heal [Internet]. 2020. Dec 17;78(1):64. Available from: https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-020-00446-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Muchie KF, Lakew AM, Teshome DF, Yenit MK, Sisay MM, Mekonnen FA, et al. Epidemiology of preterm birth in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020. Dec 29;20(1):574. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03271-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hobbs AJ, Moller A-B, Kachikis A, Carvajal-Aguirre L, Say L, Chou D. Scoping review to identify and map the health personnel considered skilled birth attendants in low-and-middle income countries from 2000–2015. Lassi ZS, editor. PLoS One. 2019. Feb 1;14(2):e0211576. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211576 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Peabody JW, Taguiwalo MM, Robalino DA, Frenk J. Improving the Quality of Care in Developing Countries. In: Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, Alleyne G, Claeson M, Evans DB, et al., editors. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. 2nd editio. Washington (DC) and New York: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank and Oxford University Press; 2006. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nartker AJ, Stevens L, Shumays A, Kalowela M, Kisimbo D, Potter K. Increasing health worker capacity through distance learning: a comprehensive review of programmes in Tanzania. Hum Resour Health [Internet]. 2010. Dec 31;8(1):30. Available from: http://human-resources-health.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1478-4491-8-30 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Santos A, Stuart M. Employee perceptions and their influence on training effectiveness. Hum Resour Manag J. 2003. Jan;13(1):27–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Pham NTP, Gijselaers WH, Segers MR. The Effect of the Trainees’ Perception of the Training Design on Transfer of Training. In: Building Learning Experiences in a Changing World [Internet]. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2011. p. 215–33. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-0802-0_13 [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Nepal Health Training Centre, Nick Simons Institute. Skilled Birth Attendant Follow-Up Engagement Program. Kathmandu; 2013.
  • 47.Hamilton R. Nurses’ knowledge and skill retention following cardiopulmonary resuscitation training: a review of the literature. J Adv Nurs. 2005. Aug;51(3):288–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03491.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Driessen J, Settle D, Potenziani D, Tulenko K, Kabocho T, Wadembere I. Understanding and valuing the broader health system benefits of Uganda’s national Human Resources for Health Information System investment. Hum Resour Health. 2015. Dec 31;13(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12960-015-0036-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Karas M, Sheen NJL, North R V, Ryan B, Bullock A. Continuing professional development requirements for UK health professionals: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020. Mar 10;10(3):e032781. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hannah Tappis

3 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-38462

Analysis of maternal and newborn health training content and approaches to inform future training programs for routine care, basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care: Lessons from Ethiopia and Nepal

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sharma,

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 19 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,

Hannah Tappis, DrPH, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

This is an interesting article with potential to make a unique contribution to maternal and newborn health policy, programming and research. Please carefully consider feedback from both reviewers, with particular attention to clarification of research questions/objectives and contextualization of findings within the current global evidence base on the topic of focus.

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.) Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language as well as the English version already provided, as Supporting Information.

3.) We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4.) 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

5. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

[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: N/A

**********

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: General comments: The manuscript analyzes the maternal and newborn health training curricula in Ethiopia and Nepal. The authors conducted mixed qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the maternal and newborn health training content and approaches. The authors concluded that the technical content of training curricula had several gaps that should be addressed and the alignment between different MNH training packages should be improved by using innovative methods.

The manuscript needs improvement in grammar, the writing style and the sentence structure. Copy editing is required.

Below are the specific comments and questions:

Abstract:

In findings, it is strange to separate active management of the third stage of labor from CmONC as it is one of the signal functions. It would be better to include specific gaps in CmONC.

It seems that qualitative findings are missing.

The recommendations need to be adjusted based on the aims and findings of the study. The second and third recommendations seem vague. It would be better to come up with a clear and concise conclusion in the abstract.

Introduction

The introduction section needs a fundamental revision. It is a challenge for a reader to follow the sentences and paragraphs. The logical flow between the sentences and paragraphs needs to be considered.

Also, the definition of the authors for this study should be aligned with evidence and literature. Many statements are not supported by references. The rationale for this study is not well described.

Page 3: It would better to move the table as an annex and briefly describe the table in the introduction.

Page 3, line 6-10: It is hard to understand what the authors are trying to describe here. It does not have a logical flow with the previous sentences.

Page 3, table 1: According to proposed new signal functions by Gabrysch et. al BEmONC should be changed to Basic emergency care and CEmONC to Comprehensive emergency care. Otherwise, it creates confusion among readers.

Page 4, first paragraph: A reference is needed.

Page 4, line 6-7: It could be a perception, may not be supported by evidence.

Page 4: 13-19: Again, it is a challenge to follow. And the references are missing.

Page 5, Second paragraph: The logical flow should be considered.

Page 5: The aims of this study should be clear and easy to understand. It is difficult to grasp the aims of the study.

Page 5: Line 18-21: This sentence needs to be moved to the acknowledgments.

Page 5: The last paragraph should be integrated with the aims of the study followed by possible implications.

Methods:

Again, the logical flow of the ideas should seriously be considered. It’s a challenge for a reader to follow the jumping ideas in these sentences. It would be better to follow a smooth transition from one sentence to another and clarify the linkages.

Page 7: The last two paragraphs are relevant to the introduction section.

The authors need to describe Figure 1. the essential data in the text and clearly explain the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

“Priority was given to in-service training and interventions at health facility setting only.” It is a standalone sentence without any justification or profound description.

The tools development process and justification should further be explained.

It would be better to describe the type of software used for qualitative data analysis and the quality assurance data analysis- intercoder reliability assessment.

Result:

The authors need to consider reorganizing the results section and retain the consistency of presenting the findings. It would be better to include numbers beside the proportion for each clinical practice as number (%).

Page 11: Why did authors present the findings of different packages such as PMTCT, NICU, and IMNCI under the subheading of Newborn care interventions in BEmONC and CEmOC. These are confusing! If the authors are following Sabine Gabrysch et.al proposed framework, then the terms need to be clarified as basic or comprehensive emergency care to avoid confusion.

Presenting the data is not consistent throughout the results section e.g. page 12.

Page 12: Again, “In Ethiopia, for CEmONC, fluid management in a newborn, safe oxygen therapy and b-CPAP therapy were covered comprehensively in the NICU training materials,”. It is confusing to see the CEmONC is mixed up with different training packages. It seems that BEmONC and EmONC packages and signal functions are miss-interpreted in the results section.

Page 13: “the national BEmONC manual was found to be comprehensive”. It seems subjective without presenting the data.

The authors don’t need to present all the details of the findings in the qualitative section. They can focus more on the main and key findings. They also need to include some quotes from the participants of the study to support the findings and make the results more interesting. It would be interesting to see subheadings based on the themes.

Discussion:

The findings which are presented in the results section need to be interpreted in the discussion section but not the other new findings. For example: ”Specifically, newborn infection prevention guidelines were found to be deficient for topics such as hand washing before and after handling babies, the importance of rooming-in with the mother,

benefits of co-bedding, encouragement for early breastfeeding...". It would be strange to see these results for the first time.

It would be better to discuss the qualitative results, not only the recommendations from the participants.

Conclusion:

The first paragraph seems unnecessary. The first sentence of the second paragraph is general. It would be better to make it more specific.

Thank you. Best wishes to the authors.

Reviewer #2: This is an important study with the potential to help us understand gaps in the delivery of maternal and newborn health training content and approaches in Ethiopia, Nepal and more broadly. The paper is well written with only some minor grammatical edits required. The study sought to audit existing training packages in the two contexts of interest, and the authors have effectively defined essential maternal and newborn care interventions for routine care, basic, and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care, and mapped current offerings against these very effectively. There is, however, a lack of clarity as to whether this auditing is the full extent of the authors’ purpose in preparing this manuscript. The abstract and the introductory passages focus on the ‘integration of technical content in training on maternal and newborn health’ (abstract), establishing the expectation that this will be a significant component of the paper. Reading the document, it was unclear if the study was designed as an audit only (with findings confirmed through the qualitative method), or whether there was an initial intent to compare stand-alone and integrated packages and any evidence for their comparative effectiveness.

The abstract suggests that ‘it seems logical and cost-effective to integrate maternal and newborn health trainings’ and this seems to be an important issue for exploration. If this is the focus of the study, this needs to be made clearer throughout the remainder of the document, including highlighting findings on integration of training in the results, and situating these results in broader literature on integrated training and its benefits/ limitations in the discussion. This would help to provide solid, evidence-informed recommendations on what an effective integrated MNH training would look like in Ethiopia and Nepal. The audit of existing training packages provided by this study would also indicate what is in place and what is needed to reach the desired goal of effective integrated training.

If the focus of the paper is on the audit component, and not on the potential of integration of training content and approaches, this should be made clear and the abstract and introductory section re-written to reflect the purpose of the study.

The following comments are divided by manuscript section and include both major and minor issues, and examples of what may need to be addressed. Many of the comments that follow spring from this confusion around the core purpose of the paper.

Title and abstract:

• The title and the abstract do not seem to align. The abstract highlights a focus on integration of training content but this is not mentioned in the title.

Introduction:

• Table 1 is very useful but should be described more fully in the body of the manuscript. It is noted that references are provided at the end of the table, but more is needed in the text about where these essential maternal and newborn care interventions were extracted from, why they were chosen, whether they are the globally accepted standard etc. This is explained on page 6 but needs some explanation here to accompany the table. Explain the key guidelines that informed the construction of this table.

• Page 4: paragraph 1: suggest authors begin paragraph with a broader statement about MNH trainings in general- what is most commonly done- are stand-alone or integrated trainings the norm in LMIC? Are integrated trainings less common? Link this statement back to the opening statement that health workers are often responsible for care across the continuum and so an integrated training- a training that integrates maternal and newborn care would be a logical approach. Maybe also reference the different possible timings of trainings and make clear that this paper is focusing on in-service training, not pre-service etc.

• Page 4 paragraph 2: suggest removing first sentence to page 3 where there is reference to the same individual providing different services- both refer to the work, not the training and it is confusing to put this sentence in the middle of a passage about training.

• Page 4 paragraph 2- more references/evidence are needed throughout the second half of this paragraph. Examples: statements such as ‘…therefore, acquisition of skills may often fall short and quality may be compromised’; ‘There can be a tendency to omit certain topics…’ and others.

• Page 5 paragraph 2: the Kirkpatrick model of training evaluation is mentioned here but not referred to again. Suggest it is unnecessary. It is unclear how the reaction and learning components relate to the results and discussion.

• Pages 5-6 paragraph 2: states that ‘This rapid assessment aims to contribute to the evidence base on differences in training content and implementation approaches for integrated and stand-alone trainings…’ As explained above, this does not clearly come out in the results and discussion. This seems to be an important focus but it is not explored adequately in the sections to follow.

Materials and methods:

• A clear statement of research aims/ objectives/ question(s) would help guide the reader through the remainder of the paper. Again, the abstract highlights a focus on integrated training but this is absent from the title and does not flow through the results and discussion to support recommendations of ways forward for future MNH training packages in these contexts.

Study design

• Suggest changing the order of this section for clarity. Paragraph 1 under study design begins by discussing the identification of relevant training packages- suggest continuing this focus by moving the following passage (abbreviated here) “Available training materials were identified by the senior in-country study coordinator…Essential MNH interventions were based on validated WHO guidelines presented under Table 1” so that it comes directly after “The next step was to identify the national focal person for MNH trainings, and through them, we identified all the relevant national packages that fulfilled our selection criteria”. This allows the reader to better understand the first process of identifying national training packages.

Now that the selection process is more fully described, it is suggested that authors next move on to the review of these selected training packages. This would begin with the passage (abbreviated here) “Training packages were reviewed by two independent…and technical content for routine, basic and comprehensive emergency and obstetric newborn care”. This could then be followed by The extraction tool gave equal weight to all interventions…and not deliberate omissions due to contextual factors” (on page 7).

Adopting this structure means that authors are first describing how training packages were selected, and then describing how they were analysed. Changing the order of text in this way may also require deleting repetition or other editing.

• The inclusion of the data extraction template is excellent. It would be beneficial to provide some information on where this was derived from. If it was from the same documents that informed Table 1, please make this clear.

• Figure 1: provide some example reasons for exclusion.

• Make clear in the body of the manuscript that training packages included for analysis were both stand-alone and integrated.

• The sentence ‘Priority was given to in-service trainings…’ is unclear. Were only in-service trainings included? What was the criteria for this? Were some pre-service trainings included? If so, with what justification?

Data collection

• First paragraph is repeated from previous section.

• Need to be clearer on why the key informants were interviewed. What was the purpose of including this qualitative component? When the research aims/ questions are more clearly defined (as recommended above), the reason for using interviews should be clearly linked and explained. The provided interview guide is very broad so it would be helpful to have a clearer indication of the purpose of these interviews, how this method helped answer the research question, and how it fits with the quantitative analysis/ audit.

Data analysis

• A description of how the 2 components of the research work together to answer the research question is not provided.

Ethics

• Provide an explanation as to why in-country ethics approval was not needed.

Results

• Table 2: It was hard to read with the heavy load of acronyms. Could this be re-formatted to include the names of the training packages within the table?

• The results are well structured as they follow the key components outlined in Table 1.

• The reader can assume the meaning behind the %s given in this section (from p10), but it would be good to explain, at least in the first instance, how percentages were arrived at.

• Page 14- summary of qualitative findings: it would be good to reiterate the rational for conducting these interviews and their focus to guide the reader through the findings.

• From page 15: make clearer that statements included in the text encapsulate what the interviewees stated and are not a reference to other literature or the authors’ own interpretations.

Examples of this:

Pages 14- 15: ‘Implementing such a strategy where specific modules (or trainings) are implemented to address identified gaps in existing quality of care will help to improve knowledge and skills of health workers’. Is this reporting what was said by those interviewed or is this a conclusion drawn by the authors? If it is the former, this should be made clear through reporting verbs such as ‘the respondent explained/ respondents stated…’ etc. If the latter, it should be in the discussion and supported by other evidence.

Page 16: ‘There is a need to update existing…’. If this is what was said by those interviewed, this needs to be clear by adding something like ‘It was reported that…’

Page 16: ‘Rapidly scaling up trainings to meet…’. As above.

Page 17: ‘We need to learn more about effective models for mentorship and supervision…’. As above.

And others- make it clear what was told/ reported to the researchers by the interview participants. If it is interpretation by the authors or relating the responses to other literature, it would be best in the discussion section.

• Some passages seem to be interpretive/ reference other literature/studies and may be best in the discussion:

Examples:

Page 17: ‘In Nepal, program reviews have found that skills deteriorate rapidly…’.

Page 17: ‘Also, skill retention is likely to vary depending on the work…’.

• There is a noted absence of reporting on what participants said in relation to the integration of training packages. This is mentioned in the table e.g., ‘MNH training materials do not cover newborn health…’. As this was a stated focus of the paper, it would be good to have this as a theme if there is sufficient data. This would combine all that was discussed in relation to the overlaps between maternal and newborn health trainings and any comments participants had on this key issue.

Discussion

• Overall, the discussion needs to be improved by reference to existing literature and evidence from other studies or comparable contexts. The discussion does not adequately situate the findings/ results within existing literature and this is especially true for the qualitative findings.

• A deeper discussion section could be provided, followed by recommendations based on the results/ discussion.

• Again, the issue of integration of training contents is not clear in the discussion. If this is a focus of the paper, this needs to be described and the results pertinent to integrated trainings placed within the context of relevant literature. Are there relevant findings from different settings that could be referred to? What is the evidence for integrated training and how do the authors’ findings sit with these? Are there insights from the qualitative data that could provide further clarity here and point to recommendations?

• The discussion also does not elaborate on what the findings/ results mean for integration. Again- if this is the focus of the paper (as indicated by the abstract and the introduction section), this needs to be a focus of the discussion. Where else have integrated training packages been used? What was found in these contexts? What does the data say for Nepal and Ethiopia in this regard and how does this align/ not align with what is known in the literature about the use of stand-alone and integrated training packages? The abstract mentions evidence of benefits that come from integrating training contents but these are not followed through in the results or discussion. More information on this would be helpful in supporting the recommendations.

• If integration is not the focus of the paper, authors should use the discussion to situate the study results (from both the audit and the interviews) more clearly within existing literature on training effectiveness. There is an abundance of resources on training transfer which provide more insight into the nuances of trainees’ capability and willingness to pursue the objectives of their training when they return to work. This literature would be particularly useful to explain and situate the qualitative findings outlined in Table 3 and could be consulted whether integration is the final focus of the manuscript or not.

• There is a lack of reference to existing literature/ referencing in general. Examples, the statements: “Further, babies born to HIV positive mothers tend to be preterm and will need additional feeding and thermal care support…” (p20); and “Similarly, all MNH trainings should cover management of the HIV exposed infant” (p20). These (and others) are without references and do not refer to what is known on these issues from comparable contexts. If these are recommendations arising from this study, they should be stated as such.

• Reference to literature on the recommended alternative approaches to training is also needed (on p21).

**********

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 Oct 28;16(10):e0258624. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258624.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Apr 2021

Thank you to the Editor and the peer reviewers for the constructive comments to help improve our paper. This has been very useful for us. Please find the below our line by line responses that highlight the changes we have made to the manuscript based on the comments received from the peer review. Thank you for the opportunity to revise and improve our manuscript and submit to PLOS One.

Responses to the Editor’s Comments:

Comments E1: (Additional Editor comments) This is an interesting article with potential to make a unique contribution to maternal and newborn health policy, programming and research. Please carefully consider feedback from both reviewers, with particular attention to clarification of research questions/objectives and contextualization of findings within the current global evidence base on the topic of focus.

Response E1: Thank you so much for sharing this reflection. As advised, we have revised the manuscript thoroughly based on the comments received from both peer reviewers.

Comment E2: 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

Response E2.1: We have reformatted the manuscript in line with the PLoS one style templates.

2.) Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language as well as the English version already provided, as Supporting Information.

Response E2.2: We have attached the questionnaire used for the quantitative data collection in the supplementary section (S1 Questionnaire).

3.) We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Response E2.3: We have updated the Data Availability statement as “All relevant data are available from within the manuscript as well as a supplemental information file.”

4.) 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

Response E2.4 We have done this. My ORCID id is 0000-0002-8951-3245

5. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Response E2.5 We have corrected this mismatch. We have updated the ‘Funding Information section as follows “This data collected in this study was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-A-14-00028. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.”

Responses to the Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1 (R1):

R1 C1: General comments: The manuscript analyzes the maternal and newborn health training curricula in Ethiopia and Nepal. The authors conducted mixed qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the maternal and newborn health training content and approaches. The authors concluded that the technical content of training curricula had several gaps that should be addressed and the alignment between different MNH training packages should be improved by using innovative methods.

The manuscript needs improvement in grammar, the writing style and the sentence structure. Copy editing is required.

Response R1C1: Thank you so much for this comment. As advised, we have now performed a thorough copyediting of the manuscript and improved language and grammar throughout.

Abstract:

R1C2: In findings, it is strange to separate active management of the third stage of labor from CmONC as it is one of the signal functions. It would be better to include specific gaps in CmONC.

Response R1C2: Thank you for the comment. The abstract has been now been completey rewritten.

R1C3: It seems that qualitative findings are missing.

Response R1C3: As advised, we have now added the qualitative findings in the abstract.

R1C4: The recommendations need to be adjusted based on the aims and findings of the study. The second and third recommendations seem vague. It would be better to come up with a clear and concise conclusion in the abstract.

Response R1C4: Thank you for the comment. We agree and have revised the abstract thoroughly and made the recommendations more specific. “Taken together, our findings suggest four key areas of improvement: first, training materials should be updated based on the content gaps identified and should be aligned with each other. Second, trainings should address actual health worker performance gaps using a variety of innovative approaches such as blended and self-directed learning. Third, post-training supervision and ongoing mentoring needs to be strengthened. Lastly, functional training information systems are required to support planning efforts in both countries.”

Introduction

R1C5: The introduction section needs a fundamental revision. It is a challenge for a reader to follow the sentences and paragraphs. The logical flow between the sentences and paragraphs needs to be considered.

Also, the definition of the authors for this study should be aligned with evidence and literature. Many statements are not supported by references. The rationale for this study is not well described.

Response R1C5: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the introduction section thoroughly. We have ensured all statements are properly referenced and have tried to improve the overall flow of the manuscript and strengthened the rationale for the study.

R1C6: Page 3: It would better to move the table as an annex and briefly describe the table in the introduction.

Response R1C6: Thank you for this comment. We have now rewritten the introduction section. We feel that the table is better situated in the introduction section since it provides the conceptual framework for our study. We have also added a sentence on page 5, lines 73-76 that describes the contents of the table. However, if you still feel that the table would be better placed in the ‘Supplementary section’, we are happy to move it there.

R1C7: Page 3, line 6-10: It is hard to understand what the authors are trying to describe here. It does not have a logical flow with the previous sentences.

Response R1C7: We have revised the introduction section and deleted this confusing text. Thank you.

R1C8: Page 3, table 1: According to proposed new signal functions by Gabrysch et. al BEmONC should be changed to Basic emergency care and CEmONC to Comprehensive emergency care. Otherwise, it creates confusion among readers.

Response R1C8: We have made these changes in revised table 1 as per your suggestion. Thank you.

R1C9: Page 4, first paragraph: A reference is needed.

Response R1C9: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the introduction section and now added a reference to that statement. Please refer to line 80- page 6.

R1C10: Page 4, line 6-7: It could be a perception, may not be supported by evidence.

Response R1C10: Thank you. We have now deleted this statement.

R1C11: Page 4: 13-19: Again, it is a challenge to follow. And the references are missing.

Response R1C11: We have now revised the introduction section, and improved the over all flow. Please see Page 6 lines 83-99.

R1C12: Page 5, Second paragraph: The logical flow should be considered.

Response R1C12: Thank you. We have deleted the statement about the Kirkpatrick’s model for evaluation of of training effectiveness.

R1C13: Page 5: The aims of this study should be clear and easy to understand. It is difficult to grasp the aims of the study.

Response R1C13: We have revised the aims statement as follows: “This study aims to audit the training content of existing, government approved MNH training packages and explore the experiences of the stakeholders regarding the implementation of these training packages in Ethiopia and Nepal. Please see page 8 Lines 133-136.

R1C14: Page 5: Line 18-21: This sentence needs to be moved to the acknowledgments.

Response R1C14: We have removed the sentence from the manuscript altogether.

R1C15: Page 5: The last paragraph should be integrated with the aims of the study followed by possible implications.

Response R1C15: Thank you for your comment. We have now revised this section as follows. “In addition, we validated our findings with national experts and stakeholders in both countries and jointly developed recommendations for strengthening in-service trainings for maternal and newborn health in Ethiopia and Nepal.” Please see lines 134-136 on page 9.

Methods:

R1C16: Again, the logical flow of the ideas should seriously be considered. It’s a challenge for a reader to follow the jumping ideas in these sentences. It would be better to follow a smooth transition from one sentence to another and clarify the linkages.

Response R1C16: Thank you for your comment. We have now restructured the entire methods section and signposted with clear sub-headings.

R1C17: Page 7: The last two paragraphs are relevant to the introduction section.

Response R1C17: We have moved these to the introduction section. (page 8, Lines 113-126.)

R1C18: The authors need to describe Figure 1. the essential data in the text and clearly explain the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Response R1C18: Thank you. We have now clearly explained the inclusion and exculsion criteria used for the training curricula audit. Please see page 9-10, lines 152-161.

R1C19: “Priority was given to in-service training and interventions at health facility setting only.” It is a standalone sentence without any justification or profound description.

Response R1C19: We have now removed this sentence since our review only looks at in-service trainings.

R1C20: The tools development process and justification should further be explained.

Response R1C20: Thank you. We have made a separate sub-section for ‘Study tools’ and have described the development of the study tool. Please refer to page 11, lines 186-196.

R1C21: It would be better to describe the type of software used for qualitative data analysis and the quality assurance data analysis- intercoder reliability assessment.

Response R1C21: Thank you for this comment. This work was undertaken was as a rapid assessment to strengthen MOH’s ongoing programs and not as a focused qualitative study. We used Microsoft excel to analyze the qualitative data. A thematic approach was used where two reserachers jointly reviewed the interview transcripts line and by line and agreed on the sets of codes. Both researchers then jointly coded all the open-ended comments. In cases where disagreements arose between researchers, further discussion took place until consensus was achieved. Throughout the analysis process, researchers reflected on how their background, training and worldview might influence their interpretation of results and efforts were taken to minimise them. This data was also validated with a group of national experts in both countries. We triangulated the quantitative data with qualitative findings. Comments that summarise common findings across observations are reported.In addition, we have acknowledged the possibility of interviewer bias in the limitations section as well.

Result:

R1C22: The authors need to consider reorganizing the results section and retain the consistency of presenting the findings. It would be better to include numbers beside the proportion for each clinical practice as number (%).

Response R1C22: Thank you for this comment. As advised, we have revised the results section and tried to maintain a consistent approach to present the results. For presentation purposes and given the word count limitations, we have presented actual proportions only. We feel that including absolute numbers together with the proportions may make it hard for readers to follow. In the data analysis section, we have clarified that the proportion for each clinical practice was calculated as the total number of YES responses divided by the total number of interventions in that practice. If the reviewer and editor still want the us to include the absolute numbers, we would be happy to do so. Please advise.

R1C23: Page 11: Why did authors present the findings of different packages such as PMTCT, NICU, and IMNCI under the subheading of Newborn care interventions in BEmONC and CEmOC. These are confusing! If the authors are following Sabine Gabrysch et.al proposed framework, then the terms need to be clarified as basic or comprehensive emergency care to avoid confusion.

Response R1C23:Thanks for your comment. We have now revised the subheadings as basic emergency care and comprehensive emergency care through out the manuscript in line with the Gabrysch et.al framework.

R1C24: Presenting the data is not consistent throughout the results section e.g. page 12.

Response R1C24: Thank you for this comment. As advised, we have revised the results section and tried to maintain a consistent approach to present the results throughout. We have now added the percentages (%) in several places where they were missing.

R1C25: Page 12: Again, “In Ethiopia, for CEmONC, fluid management in a newborn, safe oxygen therapy and b-CPAP therapy were covered comprehensively in the NICU training materials,”. It is confusing to see the CEmONC is mixed up with different training packages. It seems that BEmONC and EmONC packages and signal functions are miss-interpreted in the results section.

Response R1C25: Thank you for your comment. We have now used ‘Comprehensive emergency care’ and ‘Basic emergency care’ to refer to the framework and only used CEmONC and BEmONC to refer to the training packages used in Ethiopia which have the same name.

R1C26: Page 13: “the national BEmONC manual was found to be comprehensive”. It seems subjective without presenting the data.

Response R1C26: This sentence has been updated as follows: In Ethiopia, the national BEmONC manual was complete with all clinical interventions duly reflected (100%). Please refer to Page 19 Line 312-313. We have now added the percentages (%) in this sentence and everywhere relevant throughout the results.

R1C27: The authors don’t need to present all the details of the findings in the qualitative section. They can focus more on the main and key findings. They also need to include some quotes from the participants of the study to support the findings and make the results more interesting. It would be interesting to see subheadings based on the themes.

Response R1C27: Thank you for your comment. We have now arranged the qualitative findings section and provided subheadings of each theme and added some quotes. (Page 24, Line 420-422)

Discussion:

R1C28: The findings which are presented in the results section need to be interpreted in the discussion section but not the other new findings. For example: ”Specifically, newborn infection prevention guidelines were found to be deficient for topics such as hand washing before and after handling babies, the importance of rooming-in with the mother,

benefits of co-bedding, encouragement for early breastfeeding...". It would be strange to see these results for the first time.

Response R1C28: Thank you. We have now removed these findings from the discussion section.

R1C29: It would be better to discuss the qualitative results, not only the recommendations from the participants.

Response R1C29: Thank you for your comment. We have now strengthened the discussion of the qualitative section.

Conclusion:

R1C30: The first paragraph seems unnecessary. The first sentence of the second paragraph is general. It would be better to make it more specific.

Response R1C30:Thank you for your comment. We have now removed the introductory paragraph of the conclusions section which was generic. Please refer to lines 535 onwards on page 29.

Reviewer #2 (R2):

R2C1: This is an important study with the potential to help us understand gaps in the delivery of maternal and newborn health training content and approaches in Ethiopia, Nepal and more broadly. The paper is well written with only some minor grammatical edits required. The study sought to audit existing training packages in the two contexts of interest, and the authors have effectively defined essential maternal and newborn care interventions for routine care, basic, and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care, and mapped current offerings against these very effectively. There is, however, a lack of clarity as to whether this auditing is the full extent of the authors’ purpose in preparing this manuscript. The abstract and the introductory passages focus on the ‘integration of technical content in training on maternal and newborn health’ (abstract), establishing the expectation that this will be a significant component of the paper. Reading the document, it was unclear if the study was designed as an audit only (with findings confirmed through the qualitative method), or whether there was an initial intent to compare stand-alone and integrated packages and any evidence for their comparative effectiveness.

Response R2C1: Thank you for your comment. We have now delected the emphasis on integration in the abstract and introductory passages and clearly spelled out our aims of the study. We have audited the contents of different training packages and explored the expriences of stakeholders in implementing these training packages. Please refer toPage 8-9, Lines 132-134.

R2C2: The abstract suggests that ‘it seems logical and cost-effective to integrate maternal and newborn health trainings’ and this seems to be an important issue for exploration. If this is the focus of the study, this needs to be made clearer throughout the remainder of the document, including highlighting findings on integration of training in the results, and situating these results in broader literature on integrated training and its benefits/ limitations in the discussion. This would help to provide solid, evidence-informed recommendations on what an effective integrated MNH training would look like in Ethiopia and Nepal. The audit of existing training packages provided by this study would also indicate what is in place and what is needed to reach the desired goal of effective integrated training.

If the focus of the paper is on the audit component, and not on the potential of integration of training content and approaches, this should be made clear and the abstract and introductory section re-written to reflect the purpose of the study.

The following comments are divided by manuscript section and include both major and minor issues, and examples of what may need to be addressed. Many of the comments that follow spring from this confusion around the core purpose of the paper.

Response R2C2: Thank you. This is very useful comment. We have now revised the abstract and the introduction sections of the manuscript. As mentioned earlier, the aims of the paper have now been clearly articulated. This study aims to audit the training content of existing, government-approved MNH training packages and explore the experiences of stakeholders regarding the implementation of these training packages in Ethiopia and Nepal. Our intention is not to compare standalone or integrated training packages in either of the countries.

Title and abstract:

R2C3: The title and the abstract do not seem to align. The abstract highlights a focus on integration of training content but this is not mentioned in the title.

Response R2C3:

We have revised the abstract and rewritten significant portions of the manuscript. There is now better flow and logic throughout the manuscript.

Introduction:

R2C4: Table 1 is very useful but should be described more fully in the body of the manuscript. It is noted that references are provided at the end of the table, but more is needed in the text about where these essential maternal and newborn care interventions were extracted from, why they were chosen, whether they are the globally accepted standard etc. This is explained on page 6 but needs some explanation here to accompany the table. Explain the key guidelines that informed the construction of this table.

Response R2C4: Thank you for this comment. We have now added some text about essential maternal and newborn care interventions listed in Table 1. Please see lines 72-78 in page 5 and 6.

R2C5: • Page 4: paragraph 1: suggest authors begin paragraph with a broader statement about MNH trainings in general- what is most commonly done- are stand-alone or integrated trainings the norm in LMIC? Are integrated trainings less common? Link this statement back to the opening statement that health workers are often responsible for care across the continuum and so an integrated training- a training that integrates maternal and newborn care would be a logical approach. Maybe also reference the different possible timings of trainings and make clear that this paper is focusing on in-service training, not pre-service etc.

Response R2C5:

Thank you for this comment. We have extensively rewritten the introduction section now and tried to clarify that our focus is on in-services trainings and that health workers provide care across the continuum of care. Please refer to page 6 line 82 onwards.

R2C6: • Page 4 paragraph 2: suggest removing first sentence to page 3 where there is reference to the same individual providing different services- both refer to the work, not the training and it is confusing to put this sentence in the middle of a passage about training.

Response R2C6: Thank you for this comment. We have now rewritten the introduction section and strengthened it.

R2C7: • Page 4 paragraph 2- more references/evidence are needed throughout the second half of this paragraph. Examples: statements such as ‘…therefore, acquisition of skills may often fall short and quality may be compromised’; ‘There can be a tendency to omit certain topics…’ and others.

Response R2C7: Thank you for this comment. We have now strengthened the introduction section and added some additional references that have tried to examine training related inputs for improving MNH. We have also deleted some of the sentences that did not have strong research evidence.

R2C8: • Page 5 paragraph 2: the Kirkpatrick model of training evaluation is mentioned here but not referred to again. Suggest it is unnecessary. It is unclear how the reaction and learning components relate to the results and discussion.

Response R2C8: Thank you. We have removed this in the revised manuscript.

R2C9: • Pages 5-6 paragraph 2: states that ‘This rapid assessment aims to contribute to the evidence base on differences in training content and implementation approaches for integrated and stand-alone trainings…’ As explained above, this does not clearly come out in the results and discussion. This seems to be an important focus but it is not explored adequately in the sections to follow.

Response R2C9:

We have now extensively revised the manuscript including refining the aims of the study. We have also removed any mention of making comparision between the benefits and pitfalls of integrated versus standalone approaches through out the manuscript. Hope this is sufficient. Please advise if any further changes are needed.

Materials and methods:

R2C10:• A clear statement of research aims/ objectives/ question(s) would help guide the reader through the remainder of the paper. Again, the abstract highlights a focus on integrated training but this is absent from the title and does not flow through the results and discussion to support recommendations of ways forward for future MNH training packages in these contexts.

Response R2C10: We have now clarified our aim as “This study aims to audit the training content of existing, government-approved MNH training packages and explore the experiences of the stakeholders regarding the implementation of these training packages in Ethiopia and Nepal.”. The manuscript has also been extensively rewritten and reads much better.

Study design

R2C11: • Suggest changing the order of this section for clarity. Paragraph 1 under study design begins by discussing the identification of relevant training packages- suggest continuing this focus by moving the following passage (abbreviated here) “Available training materials were identified by the senior in-country study coordinator…Essential MNH interventions were based on validated WHO guidelines presented under Table 1” so that it comes directly after “The next step was to identify the national focal person for MNH trainings, and through them, we identified all the relevant national packages that fulfilled our selection criteria”. This allows the reader to better understand the first process of identifying national training packages.

Now that the selection process is more fully described, it is suggested that authors next move on to the review of these selected training packages. This would begin with the passage (abbreviated here) “Training packages were reviewed by two independent…and technical content for routine, basic and comprehensive emergency and obstetric newborn care”. This could then be followed by The extraction tool gave equal weight to all interventions…and not deliberate omissions due to contextual factors” (on page 7).

Adopting this structure means that authors are first describing how training packages were selected, and then describing how they were analysed. Changing the order of text in this way may also require deleting repetition or other editing.

Response R2C11: Thank you for the suggestion. We have made all the suggested changes throughout the manuscript and also added subheadings in the methods section to improve the flow.

R2C12: • The inclusion of the data extraction template is excellent. It would be beneficial to provide some information on where this was derived from. If it was from the same documents that informed Table 1, please make this clear.

Response R2C12: Thank you. We have clarified this in the revised manuscript that the tool was based on the validated WHO guidelines and the conceptual framework as presented in table 1. (Page 11, Line 188 onwards)

R2C13: • Figure 1: provide some example reasons for exclusion.

Response R2C13: We have provided the reasons for exclusion and inclusion in the study methods section (Line 156-160) and the overall study flowchart in Figure 1 also highlights this.

R2C14: • Make clear in the body of the manuscript that training packages included for analysis were both stand-alone and integrated.

Response R2C14: We have added a sentence in the study design section to clarify that we have included both stand-alone and integrated trainings in our analysis.

R2C15: • The sentence ‘Priority was given to in-service trainings…’ is unclear. Were only in-service trainings included? What was the criteria for this? Were some pre-service trainings included? If so, with what justification?

Response R2C15: Thank you for the suggestion. We have removed this confusing statement. To clarify, all the trainings we have included in our analysis are in-service trainings.

Data collection

R2C16:• First paragraph is repeated from previous section.

Response R2C16: We have removed this paragraph now.

R2C17: • Need to be clearer on why the key informants were interviewed. What was the purpose of including this qualitative component? When the research aims/ questions are more clearly defined (as recommended above), the reason for using interviews should be clearly linked and explained. The provided interview guide is very broad so it would be helpful to have a clearer indication of the purpose of these interviews, how this method helped answer the research question, and how it fits with the quantitative analysis/ audit.

Response R2C17: Thank you for the comment. Based on both reviewers comments, we have rewritten the aims of the study as follows. “This study aims to audit the training content of existing, government-approved MNH training packages and explore the experiences of the stakeholders regarding the implementation of these training packages in Ethiopia and Nepal. “ The purpose of qualitative interviews was to generate a greater contextual understanding of how future traionings could be strengthened.

Data analysis

R2C18: • A description of how the 2 components of the research work together to answer the research question is not provided.

Response R2C18: We have added a paragraph at the end of the Data analysis section explaining the value of using the mixed-methods approach in our paper. Please refer to Page 12, Lines 218-223.

Ethics

R2C19: • Provide an explanation as to why in-country ethics approval was not needed.

Response R2C19: This assessment was approved by the Save the Children’s Ethical Review board and the in-country assessment was led by the Ministry of Health in each country. The MOH approved the workplan in the country and were involved in conducting the study in both countries. To clarify, this activity was not planned as a separate/ dedicated research activity but was conducted as a part of ongoing training implementation, led by the MOH and supported by partners to strengthen existing national in-service MNH trainings in both countries.

Results

R2C20: • Table 2: It was hard to read with the heavy load of acronyms. Could this be re-formatted to include the names of the training packages within the table?

Response R2C20: We have now reformatted the table in landscape mode and provided full forms for all of the acronyms. (Page 14-15)

R2C21: • The results are well structured as they follow the key components outlined in Table 1.

Response R2C21: Thank you so much.

R2C22: • The reader can assume the meaning behind the %s given in this section (from p10), but it would be good to explain, at least in the first instance, how percentages were arrived at.

Response R2C22: Thank you. We have now clarified this in the Data analysis section. Please see Page 12, lines 204-209.

R2C23: • Page 14- summary of qualitative findings: it would be good to reiterate the rational for conducting these interviews and their focus to guide the reader through the findings.

Response R2C23: Thank you. We have added a sentence right at the beginning before we summarise the qualitative findings as suggested. Please see page 20- lines 342-344.

From page 15: make clearer that statements included in the text encapsulate what the interviewees stated and are not a reference to other literature or the authors’ own interpretations.

Examples of this:

R2C24: Pages 14- 15: ‘Implementing such a strategy where specific modules (or trainings) are implemented to address identified gaps in existing quality of care will help to improve knowledge and skills of health workers’. Is this reporting what was said by those interviewed or is this a conclusion drawn by the authors? If it is the former, this should be made clear through reporting verbs such as ‘the respondent explained/ respondents stated…’ etc. If the latter, it should be in the discussion and supported by other evidence.

Response R2C24: This was expressed by the participants, so we have clarified that. Plase see Page 22 Lines 358-360.

R2C25: Page 16: ‘There is a need to update existing…’. If this is what was said by those interviewed, this needs to be clear by adding something like ‘It was reported that…’

Response R2C25: We have made it clear that it was reported as expressed by the participants. (Page 22, Lines 392-394)

R2C26: Page 16: ‘Rapidly scaling up trainings to meet…’. As above.

Response R2C26: We have made it clear that it was reported as expressed by the participants. (Page 24, Lines 409-412)

R2C27: Page 17: ‘We need to learn more about effective models for mentorship and supervision…’. As above.

Response R2C27: We have made it clear that it was reported as expressed by the participants. (Page 24, Lines 423-425)

R2C28: And others- make it clear what was told/ reported to the researchers by the interview participants. If it is interpretation by the authors or relating the responses to other literature, it would be best in the discussion section.

Response.R2C28: Thank you. We have now clarified throughout the discussion that participants had expressed these issues and that it is not our interpretation.

Some passages seem to be interpretive/ reference other literature/studies and may be best in the discussion: Examples:

R2C29: Page 17: ‘In Nepal, program reviews have found that skills deteriorate rapidly…’.

Response R2C29: This was interpretative and also supported by a reference. We have moved this to the appropriate section in the discussion. (Page 28, Line 507)

R2C30: Page 17: ‘Also, skill retention is likely to vary depending on the work…’.

Response R2C30: Thank you for this comment. This was interpretative and was referenced using a report. We have moved this to the appropriate section in the discussion. (Page 28, Line 509)

R2C31: • There is a noted absence of reporting on what participants said in relation to the integration of training packages. This is mentioned in the table e.g., ‘MNH training materials do not cover newborn health…’. As this was a stated focus of the paper, it would be good to have this as a theme if there is sufficient data. This would combine all that was discussed in relation to the overlaps between maternal and newborn health trainings and any comments participants had on this key issue.

Response R2C31: Thanks for this comment. We have a subheading on ‘Limited technical content for newborn health’ while discussing the qualitative findings. Please refer to Page 23, lines 391 to 402.

Discussion

R2C32: • Overall, the discussion needs to be improved by reference to existing literature and evidence from other studies or comparable contexts. The discussion does not adequately situate the findings/ results within existing literature and this is especially true for the qualitative findings. A deeper discussion section could be provided, followed by recommendations based on the results/ discussion.

Response R2C32: Thank you for this comment. We have added additional references to better situate our findings with relate existing body of work. Please refer to references 38, 41,42,43,45,46,47,50 and 51 in page 33 and 34.

R2C33: • Again, the issue of integration of training contents is not clear in the discussion. If this is a focus of the paper, this needs to be described and the results pertinent to integrated trainings placed within the context of relevant literature. Are there relevant findings from different settings that could be referred to? What is the evidence for integrated training and how do the authors’ findings sit with these? Are there insights from the qualitative data that could provide further clarity here and point to recommendations?

Response R2C33: We have now rewritten the abstract, most of the introduction and discussion sections to clarify that this manuscript only reports on findings from audit of different training pacakges.

R2C34: • The discussion also does not elaborate on what the findings/ results mean for integration. Again- if this is the focus of the paper (as indicated by the abstract and the introduction section), this needs to be a focus of the discussion. Where else have integrated training packages been used? What was found in these contexts? What does the data say for Nepal and Ethiopia in this regard and how does this align/ not align with what is known in the literature about the use of stand-alone and integrated training packages? The abstract mentions evidence of benefits that come from integrating training contents but these are not followed through in the results or discussion. More information on this would be helpful in supporting the recommendations.

Response R2C34: Thank you for this comment. We have now siginificantly revised the manuscript and strengthened our arguments by providing additional references throughout the manuscript. We have also made it clear that our intention is not to make any comparisons to standalone versus integrated trainings.

R2C35: • If integration is not the focus of the paper, authors should use the discussion to situate the study results (from both the audit and the interviews) more clearly within existing literature on training effectiveness. There is an abundance of resources on training transfer which provide more insight into the nuances of trainees’ capability and willingness to pursue the objectives of their training when they return to work. This literature would be particularly useful to explain and situate the qualitative findings outlined in Table 3 and could be consulted whether integration is the final focus of the manuscript or not.:

Response R2C35: Thank you for your excellent suggestions! We have now added additional refences to enrich the discussion section and rewritten the discussion particularly for the qualitative results presented under Table 3.

R2C36: • There is a lack of reference to existing literature/ referencing in general. Examples, the statements: “Further, babies born to HIV positive mothers tend to be preterm and will need additional feeding and thermal care support…” (p20); and “Similarly, all MNH trainings should cover management of the HIV exposed infant” (p20). These (and others) are without references and do not refer to what is known on these issues from comparable contexts. If these are recommendations arising from this study, they should be stated as such.

Response R2C36: Thanks for this comment. We have now added two references to support our statement that HIV positive mother are likelier to have increased odds of preterm birth. To clarify, our argument is that, if the odds of preterm births are higher amongst HIV positive women, then health workers caring for these women and their newborns, should also be trained on providing additional feeding support and thermal care . Hence, we feel that feel that MNH manuals should cover these issues as well. Globally, the complications of preterm birth are now the most important cause of newborn deaths and prevalence of preterm birth in Ethiopia is 10.5% and Nepal is 9.3%, so this is an important finding for these contexts. (Page 26, Lines 464-471)

R2C37: • Reference to literature on the recommended alternative approaches to training is also needed (on p21).

Response R2C37: Thank you. We have now added some references and strengthened this recommendation as well. Please see Page 27, Lines 494-498.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 25.4.2021.docx

Decision Letter 1

Hannah Tappis

3 Aug 2021

PONE-D-20-38462R1

Analysis of maternal and newborn health training content and approaches to inform future training programs for maternal and newborn care in the low- and middle-income countries: lessons from Ethiopia and Nepal

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sharma,

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 Sep 17 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,

Hannah Tappis, DrPH, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please carefully consider feedback from both reviewers, with particular attention to outstanding questions regarding methodology and risk of biases or subjectivity in presentation of results. A comprehesnive copyedit is also recommeded.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: The authors have brought considerable changes to the manuscript and incorporated previous comments and suggestions. Below suggestions will help to improve the manuscript further.

There are some grammatical and typographical errors in the manuscript, and the authors need to correct them.

Abstract:

The aim of the study seems complex. Therefore, the authors need to make the aim of the study simple, concise, and focused. Meanwhile, the integration of training packages and services stated in the first paragraph does not match the study's aim.

Keywords: It would be better to match the selected keywords with MeSH.

Introduction:

The introduction section is unnecessarily lengthy. It would be better to keep this section brief, clear, and aligned with the objective of the study. Several paragraphs are slipping away from the study's central concern, e.g., page 5, second paragraph. In addition, the aim of the study stated in the introduction should be aligned with the abstract.

Methods:

The authors need to include relevant references to the selected design/methods of the study.

Introduction.

The introduction section is unnecessarily lengthy. It would be better to keep this section brief, clear, and aligned with the study's objective. Several paragraphs are slipping away from the study's central concern, e.g., page 5, second paragraph. In addition, the aim of the study stated in the introduction should be aligned with the abstract.

Methods:

The authors need to include relevant references to the selected design/methods of the study.

Results:

Figures 2 and 3 captions should be adjusted to the subheadings (page 16-18). Adding some quotes from the study participants will enrich the qualitative results.

Discussion:

It will be better to compare the findings with other similar studies in LMIC and explain the differences.

Reviewer #3: I commend the authors for addressing a topic that has large programmatic relevance. Maternal and newborn health is an integral part of sustainable development targets. Huge amount of money government and aid money is spent on MNH training.

Generally speaking, the manuscript is written well and followed a sound technical approach. However, there are a few areas that need explanation and/or improvement.

1. The authors stated that their evaluation targeted levels 1 (reaction) and 2 (learning) of Kirkpatrick Framework but I have not seen the learning component clearly assessed in the paper. The authors should review the introduction section where they describe the Kirkpatrick evaluation framework. Levels 2 and 3 are exchanged.

2. In the methods section, the authors stated that they excluded training packages that are not approved by the MOH in the focus countries. What proportion of MNH trainings followed approved training materials? How might this have affected the selection and results?

3. The data extraction tool has binary responses (Yes or No). I wonder if the data extractors had difficulty in giving a Yes/No answer and what influence that might have had on the findings.

4. The manuscript identified missing technical contents in the reviewed materials. On the other hand, the authors rightly acknowledge the concerns about integration and said that training should respond to specific performance gaps instead of universal coverage of topics. The latter suggests we should not expect every training material to cover every related topic. It is not clear how the authors determined essential from nice to know content. Lack of clarity on this can potentially affect validity of conclusions.

There are needs for editorial improvements. Full stop at the end of sentences is missing in many places.

**********

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 #3: Yes: Tegbar Yigzaw Sendekie

[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 Oct 28;16(10):e0258624. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258624.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


21 Sep 2021

Response to reviewers

Reviewer #1: The authors have brought considerable changes to the manuscript and incorporated previous comments and suggestions. The below suggestions will help to improve the manuscript further.

Response: Thank you to the reviewers for your thoughtful and constructive comments which have helped to strengthen our manuscript further. Please find our responses below.

Reviewer 1, Comment 1: There are some grammatical and typographical errors in the manuscript, and the authors need to correct them.

Reviewer 1, Response 1: We have reviewed and revised the manuscript thoroughly for grammatical and typological errors.

Abstract:

Reviewer 1, Comment 2: The aim of the study seems complex. Therefore, the authors need to make the aim of the study simple, concise, and focused. Meanwhile, the integration of training packages and services stated in the first paragraph does not match the study's aim.

Reviewer 1, Response 2:

We have now revised the abstract to make it simpler as suggested.

Reviewer 1, Comment 3: Keywords: It would be better to match the selected keywords with MeSH.

Reviewer 1, Response 3:We have now matched keywords with MeSH headings as suggested.

Developing Countries, Health Services, Maternal Health, Newborn Health, Training, Inservice, On-the-Job, Ethiopia, Nepal.

Introduction:

Reviewer 1, Comment 4: The introduction section is unnecessarily lengthy. It would be better to keep this section brief, clear, and aligned with the objective of the study. Several paragraphs are slipping away from the study's central concern, e.g., page 5, second paragraph. In addition, the aim of the study stated in the introduction should be aligned with the abstract.

Reviewer 1, Response 4: We have now revised the introduction section, tightened the text and deleted repetitions. We have also aligned the aims of the study in the introduction section with the abstract as advised.

Methods:

Reviewer 1, Comment 5: The authors need to include relevant references to the selected design/methods of the study.

Reviewer 1, Response 5: Thanks. We have now added two references for the methods/ design section.

Results:

Reviewer 1, Comment 6: Figures 2 and 3 captions should be adjusted to the subheadings (page 16-18).

Reviewer 1, Response 6: We have adjusted the captions accordingly as suggested.

Reviewer 1, Comment 7: Adding some quotes from the study participants will enrich the qualitative results.

Reviewer 1, Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We did not put quotations initially given the word count but have now added two quotations on page 24 lines 439 onwards.

Discussion:

Reviewer 1, Comment 8: It will be better to compare the findings with other similar studies in LMIC and explain the differences.

Reviewer 1, Response 8: To the best of our knowledge, there is limited research evidence from peer-reviewed and grey literature systematically assessing training content and implementation experiences of in-services training programs in Nepal and Ethiopia. We have added the following to line 551 in the discussion section. This study adds to the limited but growing evidence-base on the content of various in-service training materials and their implementation experience in both countries.

Reviewer #3: I commend the authors for addressing a topic that has large programmatic relevance. Maternal and newborn health is an integral part of sustainable development targets. A huge amount of government and aid money is spent on MNH training.

Generally speaking, the manuscript is written well and followed a sound technical approach. However, there are a few areas that need explanation and/or improvement.

Reviewer 3, Comment 1: The authors stated that their evaluation targeted levels 1 (reaction) and 2 (learning) of the Kirkpatrick Framework but I have not seen the learning component clearly assessed in the paper. The authors should review the introduction section where they describe the Kirkpatrick evaluation framework. Levels 2 and 3 are exchanged.

Reviewer 3, Response 1: Kindly note that the reference to the Kirkpatrick framework was removed during the first revision of the manuscript. Hence, we can confirm that this version of the manuscript has no mention of and does not refer to the Kirkpatrick framework.

Reviewer 3, Comment 2: In the methods section, the authors stated that they excluded training packages that are not approved by the MOH in the focus countries. What proportion of MNH trainings followed approved training materials? How might this have affected the selection and results?

Reviewer 3, Response 2: Our selection criteria for inclusion was limited to collecting and analyzing existing national-level training materials which were endorsed and approved by the MoH in both countries. We did not capture information on the whole spectrum of training materials that may exist in countries and limited ourselves to those that were officially endorsed or approved by the MOH for implementation. Therefore, we are not in a position to provide any insights on other “non-approved” training materials. In addition, we validated our findings with program focal persons and key stakeholders in both countries during national consultative workshops (attended by >20 participants) and are confident that we have included all the relevant training materials.

Reviewer 3, Comment 3: The data extraction tool has binary responses (Yes or No). I wonder if the data extractors had difficulty in giving a Yes/No answer and what influence that might have had on the findings.

Reviewer 3, Response 3:

The lead researchers in both countries were experienced senior technical experts and did not have any difficulty in assigning yes/ no responses. Wherever technical content was found to be lacking compared to our data extraction tool, researchers gave that a no response. In addition, the key informant interviews and the validation workshops were used to clarify any technical nuances or specific clinical details.

Reviewer 3, Comment 4: The manuscript identified missing technical contents in the reviewed materials. On the other hand, the authors rightly acknowledge the concerns about integration and said that training should respond to specific performance gaps instead of universal coverage of topics. The latter suggests we should not expect every training material to cover every related topic. It is not clear how the authors determined essential from nice to know content. Lack of clarity on this can potentially affect the validity of conclusions.

Reviewer 3, Response 4: Thanks for this very important comment. The recommendations that emerged from this study respond to the gaps identified from the desk review, key informant interviews and consultations with national experts. On the issue of the technical scope of the training materials, our recommendations are to close down identified gaps based on the minimum technical standards or signal functions that have been identified for routine care, basic and comprehensive obstetric and neonatal care recommended by the World Health organization and other technical agencies. These signal functions are the most effective medical interventions that are essential for managing maternal and newborn health complications and will require trained health workers working in appropriately resourced facilities to provide high-quality care to the population.

Reviewer 3, Comment 5: There are needs for editorial improvements. Full stop at the end of sentences is missing in many places.

Reviewer 3, Response 5: Thank you. We have reviewed and revised the manuscript thoroughly for grammatical and typological errors including punctuations.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 16092021[49].docx

Decision Letter 2

Hannah Tappis

4 Oct 2021

Analysis of maternal and newborn training curricula and approaches to inform future trainings for routine care, basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care in the low- and middle-income countries: lessons from Ethiopia and Nepal

PONE-D-20-38462R2

Dear Dr. Sharma,

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,

Hannah Tappis, DrPH, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional): Please ensure a careful copyedit at the proof stage. There are a few minor language/style issues remaining (e.g. 'mix methods' used instead of 'mixed methods').

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Hannah Tappis

11 Oct 2021

PONE-D-20-38462R2

Analysis of maternal and newborn training curricula and approaches to inform future trainings for routine care, basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care in the low- and middle-income countries: lessons from Ethiopia and Nepal

Dear Dr. Sharma:

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. Hannah Tappis

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 Questionnaire. Training curriculum data extraction tool.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Interview guide.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Key informant consent form for interviews.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File. Information sheet for key informants.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Data file.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 25.4.2021.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 16092021[49].docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES