Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0265906. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265906

Prevalence and risk factors associated with rural women’s protected against tetanus in East Africa: Evidence from demographic and health surveys of ten East African countries

Alebachew Taye Belay 1,*, Setegn Much Fenta 1, Setegn Bayabil Agegn 1, Mitiku Wale Muluneh 1
Editor: José Antonio Ortega2
PMCID: PMC8947264  PMID: 35324988

Abstract

Background

Tetanus is a deadly bacterial infection caused by Clostridium tetani wound contamination characterized muscular spasms and autonomic nervous system dysfunction. Maternal and neonatal tetanus occurs under improper hygiene practices during childbirth. Globally, an estimated 3.3 million newborn deaths occur every year, and about 9,000 babies die every day in the first 28 days of life. This study sought to identify risk factors associated with the immunization of rural women against tetanus in rural areas in ten East African countries.

Method

The data used in this study were taken from the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) of ten East African countries (Ethiopia, Burundi, Comoros, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Malawi, Ruanda, Tanzania, Uganda and, Zambia). Multivariable binary logistic regression is used to determine the risk factors associated with tetanus-protected women in east Africa.

Results

The weighted total samples of 73735 rural women were included in the analysis. The combined prevalence of tetanus immunization among protected rural women in ten East African countries was 50.4%. Those women with age of 24–34 (AOR = 0.778; 95%CI: 0.702–0.861), higher educational level (AOR = 4.010; 95%CI: 2.10–5.670), rich women (AOR = 3.097;95%CI: 2.680–3.583), mass media coverage (AOR = 1.143; 95%CI: 1.030–1.269), having above three antenatal care follow up (AOR = 1.550; 95% CI: 1.424–1.687), big problem of distance to health facility (AOR = 0.676; CI: 0.482–0.978) and place of delivery health facility (AOR = 1.103; 95% CI: 1.005–1.210) had a significant effect on women’s protected from tetanus.

Conclusion

The coverage of tetanus immunization in East Africa was very low. Public health programs target rural mothers who are uneducated, poor households, longer distances from health facilities, mothers who have the problem of media exposure, and mothers who have not used maternal health care services to promote TT immunization.

Background

Tetanus is a deadly bacterial infection caused by Clostridium tetani wound contamination and is characterized by muscular spasms and autonomic nervous system dysfunction [1, 2]. Maternal and neonatal tetanus occurs under improper hygiene practices during childbirth [1]. Tetanus, which occurs during pregnancy or within 6 weeks of the end of pregnancy, is called maternal tetanus (MT) and neonatal tetanus (NT) occurs in the first 28 days of life [1].

Globally, an estimated 3.3 million newborn deaths occur every year, and about 9,000 babies die every day in the first 28 days of life. Of this death, in 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 34,019 infants died due to NT, [2] and also, in 2017, approximately 30,848 neonates died of neonatal tetanus [3, 4]. It is estimated that tetanus deaths in 2018 were 25, 000 [5]

Despite the World Health Organization (WHO) initiatives to eliminate tetanus, it continues to lead to significant maternal and neonatal deaths [6]. In the poorest parts of the world, neonatal tetanus (NT) is responsible for 14% of neonatal deaths, while maternal tetanus (MT) is responsible for at least 5% of maternal deaths [7].

In general, tetanus mortality tends to be high in the absence of medical treatment where case fatality approaches 100%; this percentage decreases to 10%–60% in the presence of hospital care, depending on the availability of intensive care facilities [8, 9].

Similarly, the majority of the Sub-Saharan African countries could hardly reach the TT immunization target set to be covered [10], in sub-Saharan Africa, which accounts for nearly half of the global maternal and neonatal mortality by tetanus (6).

Evidence shows that a spread of determinant factors affects the use of TT protection. For instance, women’s education and wealth index might impose variations in immunization coverage [11]. Furthermore, studies indicate that maternal age, marital status and mother’s occupation, distance from health facilities, range of visits to healthcare facilities, and also the number of children within the house can even significantly verify TT immunization usage. Furthermore, the findings of different studies have shown that antenatal care visits (ANC visits) [10], women’s education [12, 13], income [13, 14], distance to a health facility [13, 14], residence[15], maternal age at first birth [16], women’s employment status [17] and media exposure [18] are significantly associated with mothers who protected TT immunization against tetanus.

Maternal vaccination is an important strategy to prevent maternal, neonatal, and infant diseases [1921]. Despite the evidence on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for mothers, there are still challenges in achieving high vaccination coverage during pregnancy worldwide [22].

Some studies have shown that 94% of the reduction in neonatal mortality can be obtained by immunization against tetanus (TT) in pregnant mothers [29] and mothers of reproductive age with at least two doses of TT. As a result, tetanus vaccines are recommended to eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus in these areas of the community [23, 24].

Moreover, the previous studies did not use a multi-country method to identify factors associated with tetanus immunization in rural women based on the pooled Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data in east Africa.

The problem of TT is more pronounced in developing countries like African states, as they have a significant number of the poorest and most neglected population groups that have little or no access to medical care [25]. Despite the problem being common in Africa, to the best of our knowledge, there is a scarcity of studies that determine the factors associated with a mother’s protected from TT immunization against maternal and neonatal tetanus. Therefore, this study was designed to show the prevalence and investigate the risk factors associated with tetanus protected from rural mothers in rural areas of ten East African countries. Carrying out this research is important for implementing prevention strategies for maternal tetanus by highlighting the risk factors associated with TT vaccination. Finally, this study aimed to identify the determinants of tetanus vaccination among rural women in east Africa.

Methods

Study area and data source

The data used in this study were obtained from the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) of ten East African countries (Ethiopia, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Malawi, Ruanda, Tanzania, Comoros, Uganda, and Zambia). Countries were selected based on geographical location, adjacency, and availability of data on the outcome variable. The DHSs were a nationally representative survey that collects data on basic health indicators like mortality, morbidity, family planning service utilization, fertility, maternal and child vaccination. The data were derived from the measure DHS program (https://www.dhsprogram.com/Data). It also collects standard protocols from most low and middle-income countries to facilitate comparability between countries. Sample selection in the surveys was based on a two-step stratified sampling method. Each country was divided into clusters. In the first phase, Enumeration Areas (EI) were selected in each group and a household listing exercise was conducted in all selected enumeration areas. The household list was used as the basis for household selection. During the second step, households were chosen from each enumeration area. In this study, we used the “latest” or most recent surveys conducted from 2014 to 2019, and the data used for analysis were obtained by pooling the DHS data of the ten East Africa countries. The data were extracted from each country and merge in to one sample data for the analysis. The combined DHS data included 73735 rural women who participated in the tetanus vaccination questionnaire. Therefore, the analysis of the study was based on 73735 samples (Table 1).

Table 1. Selected number of study participants in the 10 East Africa selected countries’ using the demographic and health surveys 2014–2019.

List of east Africa selected Country Participants selected from the target population
Ethiopia 7043
Burundi 8655
Comoros 6371
Zimbabwe 4749
Kenya 7119
Malawi 13376
Ruanda 3904
Tanzania 7019
Zambia 7296
Uganda 8203

Variables of the Study

The outcome variable for this study was rural mothers’ who were protected against tetanus in ten EA countries, which was dichotomized as mothers protected from TT and not protected from TT. In this study, a woman is said to be protected from tetanus before birth when women receive at least two TT injections during pregnancy for her most recent birth, or two or more injections (the last within 3 years of the most recent birth), or three or more injections (the last within 5 years of the most recent birth), or four or more injections (the last within 10 years of the most recent birth), or five or more injections at any time before the most recent birth [26].

The independent variables for this study were the educational status of women, age of the mother at first birth, costs covered by health insurance, occupation, marital status, husband/partner’s age, wealth index, mother’s pregnancy wanted, mothers had a terminated pregnancy, antenatal care (ANC), Place of delivery, distance from health facility and media exposure. Media exposure is created from four variables from DHS data called newspaper reading, radio and television viewing, and telephone usage. Then it is recorded as yes if a woman had used at least one of the four media sources and if a woman didn’t have any of the three media sources is said to be no.

Data analysis procedure

The data were extracted using SPSS version 25 statistical software to derive important variables and relevant inferences from the DHS data. The data were analyzed using R version 4.0.3. Descriptive statistics, such as percentages, bar graphs, and frequency tables, were used to describe the respondent study variables. This study also used a combination of the chi-square test to determine whether the response variable was associated with different cofactors. Moreover, a multivariable binary logistic regression model must correspond to a response variable with two categories (mothers protected against TT by TT immunization with two categories yes or no). A binary logistic regression model was used to determine the risk factors for TT-protected mothers using tetanus vaccination TT2+.

The risk factor outcome was reported in terms of an adjusted rating ratio with a significance level of 5% (95% CI). In the univariate analysis, a significance level of 25% was considered a candidate for the multivariate analysis of data analysis. All variables with p values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

For a binary response Yi and a quantitative explanatory variable Xij, j = 1, 2 … M and I = 1, 2 … N, let πi = P(Xij) denote the “success probability” when Xij takes the values Xij. The problem with the linear model is that the probability model E(Y) is used to approximate a probability value πi = P(Yi = 1) within the interval 0 and 1, while E(Yi) Is not constrained. Therefore, we apply the logit transformation where the transformed quantity lies in the interval from minus infinity to positive infinity and it is modeled as

Thelogitπi=log(πi1-πi)=α+β1X1+β2X2+,+βPXP

βi = the coefficient of the ith predictor variable determines the rate of increase or decrease of Xij On the log of the odds that Yi = 1, controlling for the other X’s [27].

The linkage function used for binary logistic regression modeling was legit, probit complementary log-log, and negative log-log function that fits the data, which are described as follows (Table 2):

Table 2. Link function for the logistic regression model.

Function Form Typical application
Legit Log [πXi1πXi] Evenly distributed categories
Complementary log-log Log [-Log (1- π (Xi))] Higher categories are more probable
Negative log-log -Log π (Xi) Lower categories are more probable
Probit ϕ-1 [π (Xi)] Normally distributed latent variable

Model selection

Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used to compare the candidate link function of models. The model with the minimum value of the information criterion is chosen as the best link for the analysis [34].

Ethical consideration

The study was used secondary data analysis of publicly available survey data from the DHS program, ethical approval, and participant consent was not necessary for this study. We requested the DHS program, and permission was granted to download and use the data for this study from http://www.dhsprogram.com. There is no name of individuals or households addresses in the data files. Therefor ethical approval was not necessary for this study.

Results

The combined prevalence of rural women protected against tetanus before birth in the ten East African countries was (50.4%). While more than half of the rural women 49.6% had no tetanus protection (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Percentage of protected women from tetanus before birth in East Africa (EA) countries.

Fig 1

The prevalence of protected rural women from tetanus in ten EA countries was Ethiopia (63.1% not protected and 36.9% protected), Burundi (53.8% not protected and 46.2% protected), Comoros (50.3% not protected and 49.7% protected), Kenya (55.0% not protected and 45.0% protected), Malawi (51.3% not protected and 48.7% protected), Rwanda (35.0% not protected and 65.0% protected), Tanzania (48.3% not protected and 51.7% protected), Zambia (48.6% not protected and 51.4% protected), Uganda (40.2% not protected and 59.8% protected) and Zimbabwe (39.8% not protected and 60.2% protected) (Fig 1).

More than half of women were not protected from tetanus in Ethiopia (63.1%), Kenya (55.0%), Burundi (53.8%), and Malawi (51.3%), and Comoros (50.3%) whereas Uganda (40.20%), Zimbabwe (39.80%), and Rwanda (35%) have below 50% prevalence of women’s not protected from tetanus (Fig 1).

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

The majority of 33676 (45.7%) of respondents’ mothers were aged between 25 and 34 years and 38857 (53.0%) were primary education. More than three-fourths 55603 (75.4%) of the sex of household heads were male, and 33135 (44.9%), 26206 (35.5%) and 14394 (19.5%) respondents were poor, middle, and rich respectively (Table 2).

More than three-fourths of respondents’ immunizations were not covered by health insurance, 64914 (88.0%) and the majority 45760 (65.5%) of respondents were married. More than half of respondents 8705 (57.5%) were told about pregnancy complications and 43270 (58.7%) had no media coverage (Table 2).

More than half of respondents 39996 (54.2%) were more than three ANC visits, 4675 (6.3%) were no ANC visit, and 29064 (39.4) were one have to three ANC visits, and also three fourth of respondents 56382 (76.5) were getting immunization to the health facility. Finally, more than three fourth women’s 6482 (82.3%) had a big problem of distance to health facilities whereas the remaining 8821 (17.7%) women’s haven’t a big problem of distance to health facilities.

Moreover, the chi-square test of association showed that respondent’s current age, educational level, sex of household head, wealth index, distance to health facilities, ever had a terminated pregnancy, covered by health insurance, current marital status, respondent’s occupation, told about pregnancy complications, mass media coverage, ANC visit, place of delivery, and country were significantly correlated TT protection amongst east Africa rural women but currently pregnancy and mother pregnancy wanted were no associated with women protected from tetanus (Table 3).

Table 3. Socio-demographic, economic, and maternal characteristics of respondents in ten East African countries from 2014–2019.

Variables Tetanus protected women before birth
No (%) Yes (%) Total (%) x2 value (P-value)
Age of mother 511.342 (<0.0001)
Below 24 years 9978 (44.2) 12602 (55.7) 22580 (30.6)
Age between 25 to 34 16888 (50.1) 16788(49.9) 33676 (45.7)
Age above 35 9700 (55.5) 7779 (44.5) 17479(23.7)
The highest educational level of mother 3374.514 (<0.0001)
No education 7078 (56.7) 5398 (43.3) 12476 (17.0)
Primary 18529 (47.7) 20328 (52.3) 38857 (53.0)
Secondary 9437 (49.3) 9688 (50.7) 19125 (26.1)
Higher 1172 (42.0) 1616 (58.0) 2788 (3.8)
Sex of household head
Male 27876 (50.1) 27727 (49.9) 55603 (75.4) 26.658 (< 0.0001)
Female 6982 (47.9) 9442 (52.1) 18132 (24.6)
Wealth index
Poor 17582 (53.1) 15553 (46.9) 33135 (44.9) 317.311 (<0.0001)
Middle 12002 (45.8) 14204 (54.2) 26206 (35.5)
Rich 6240 (48.5) 7412 (51.5) 14394 (19.5)
Age of respondent at 1st birth 15.436 (<0.0001)
Age below 24 years 33767 (49.8) 34075 (50.2) 67842 (92.0)
Age between 25–30 years 2486 (48.0) 2694 (52.0) 5180 (7.0)
Age above 30 years 313 (43.9) 400 (56.1) 713 (1.0)
Currently pregnant 0.231 (0.217)
No or unsure 33005 (49.6) 33537 (50.4) 66542 (90.2)
Yes 3561 (49.5) 3632 (50.5) 7193 (9.8)
Mother pregnancy wanted 3.398 (0.138)
Then 2058 (49.8) 2078 (50.2) 4136 (6.2)
Later 31580 (50.7) 30768 (49.3) 62348 (93.6)
Ever had a terminated pregnancy 10.73 (0.0001)
No 31441 (49.4) 32145 (50.6) 63586 (86.2)
Yes 5124 (50.5) 5024 (49.5) 10148 (13.8)
Covered by health insurance 8.234 (<0.004)
No 32318 (49.8) 32596 (50.2) 64914 (88.0)
Yes 4248 (48.2) 4573 (51.8) 8821 (12.0)
Current marital status 385.345 (<0.0001)
Single 2081 (45.0) 2544 (55.0) 4625 (6.6)
Married 24271 (53.0) 21489 (47.0) 45760 (65.5)
Living with partner 4601 (47.7) 5053 (52.3) 9654 (13.8)
Widowed 1880 (42.1) 2582 (57.9) 4462 (6.4)
Divorced 2421 (45.4) 2909 (54.6) 5330 (7.6)
Respondent’s occupation 510.571 (<0.0001)
Housewife 11031 (52.2) 10107 (47.8) 21138 (28.7)
Government employed 2202 (36.1) 3904 (63.9) 6106 (8.3)
Other type of worker 23333 (50.2) 23158 (49.8) 46491 (63.1)
Told about pregnancy complications 200.57 (<0.0001)
No 3154 (49.0) 3286 (51.0) 6440 (42.5)
Yes 3262 (37.5) 5443 (62.5) 8705 (57.5)
Mass media coverage 1232.466 (<0.0001)
No 23805 (55.0) 19465 (45.0) 43270 (58.7)
Yes 12761 (41.9) 17704 (58.1) 30465 (41.3)
ANC visit 3791.908 (<0.0001)
No ANC visit 4185 (89.5) 490 (10.5) 4675 (6.3)
One have to three ANC visit 15228 (52.4) 13836 (47.6) 29064 (39.4)
More than three ANC visit 17153 (42.9) 22843 (57.1) 39996 (54.2)
Place of delivery 1445.17 (<0.0001)
Health facility 25771 (45.7) 30611 (54.3) 56382 (76.5)
Home and other traditional place 10795 (62.2) 6558 (37.8) 17353 (23.5)
Distance to health facilities 1235.466 (<0.0001)
Big problem 32318 (49.8) 32596 (50.2) 6482 (82.3)
No big problem 4248 (48.2) 4573 (51.8) 8821 (17.7)

Selection of link function

Since the candidate link function of the data complementary log-log had a small value of AIC (13410.37) and BIC (13635.67). Therefore, the binary logistic regression model was fitted using a complementary log-log link function (Table 4).

Table 4. Candidate link function for binary logistic regression.

Information criteria Type of link function
Logit Probit Complimentary log Negative log-log
AIC 13454.97 13446.93 13410.37 13456.48
BIC 13680.28 13672.23 13635.67 13798.42

Multivariable analysis

In the multivariable logistic regression analysis; respondent’s current age, educational level, wealth index, marital status, women’s occupation, told about pregnancy complications, mass media coverage, place of delivery, age of respondent at 1st birth, country, distance to health facility and number of ANC visits remained statistically significantly associated with women’s protected from tetanus (Table 5).

Table 5. Risk factors associated with rural women’s protection from tetanus in 9 East Africa countries from 2014–2019.

Variables COR (95% CI) P_value AOR (95% CI) P_value
Constant 0.395 (0.319, 0.488) < 0.0001
Age of mother (ref = Below 24 years)
Age between 24 to 34 0.787 (0.761, 0.814) < 0.0001 0.830 (0.778, 0.886) < 0.0001
Age above 35 0.635 (0.610, 0.661) < 0.0001 0.733 (0.673, 0.799) < 0.0001
Educational level (ref = no education)
Primary 1.439 (1.381, 1.498) < 0.0001 0.792 (0.737, 0.852) < 0.0001
Secondary 1.346 (1.286, 1.409) < 0.0001 0.833 (0.751, 0.922) 0.0005
Higher 1.823 (1.672, 1.991) < 0.0001 1.276 (1.092, 1.490) 0.0014
Sex of household head (ref = male)
Female 1.030 (1.062, 1.134) < 0.0001 1.091 (0.966, 1.097) 0.3615
Wealth index (ref = poor)
Middle 1.414 (1.371, 1.467) < 0.0001 1.976 (1.802, 2.166) < 0.0001
Rich 1.191 (1.140, 1.241) < 0.0001 1.589 (1.425, 1.771)* < 0.0001
Ever had a terminated pregnancy (ref = no)
Yes 0.930 (0.891, 0.974) 0.0028 0.965 (0.882, 1.055) 0.4395
Covered by health insurance (ref = no)
Yes 1.124 (1.074, 1.171) 0.00412 0.924 (0.844, 1.012) 0.0881
Current marital status (ref = Single)
Married 0.721(0.676, 0.774) < 0.0001 1.038 (0.911, 1.185) 0.5786
Living with partner 0.801(0.745, 0.873) 0.0028 0.780 (0.643, 0.944) 0.0111
Widowed 0.698(0.641, 0.795) 0.0060 0.941 (0.740, 1.188) 0.6137
Divorced 0.976(0.102, 1.063) 0.6690 1.055 (0.902, 1.236) 0.4995
Mother occupation (ref = Housewife)
Government employed 2.014 (1.881, 2.165) < 0.0001 0.865 (0.762, 0.980) 0.0231
other type of worker 1.053 (1.021, 1.084) < 0.0001 0.968 (0.914, 1.025) 0.2650
Told about pregnancy complications (ref = no)
Yes 1.605 (1.501, 1.721) < 0.0001 1.103 (1.039, 1.170) 0.0010
Mass media coverage (ref = no)
Yes 1.751 (1.691, 1.802) < 0.0001 1.968 (1.530, 2.569) < 0.0001
ANC visit (ref = no ANC visits)
One have to three visit 8.032 (7.271, 8.891) < 0.0001 1.113 (1.125, 1.313) 0.0041
more than 3 ANC visit 11.38(10.312,12.59) < 0.0001 1.324 (1.252, 1.400) 0.0010
place of delivery (ref = home and other traditional places)
health facility 2.072 (1.991, 2.144) < 0.0001 1.165 (1.012, 1.332) 0.0458
Distance to a health facility (ref = big problem)
No big problem 0.653 (1.018, 1.081) < 0.0001 0.678 (0.483, 0.979) < 0.0001
Age of household head 0.995 (0.991, 0.105) 0.100 (0.996, 1.004) 0.5689
Age of respondent at 1st birth (ref = Below 24)
Between 24–30 1.125 (1.056, 1.182) 0.0135 1.206 (1.092, 1.330) < 0.0001
Above 30 1.326 (1.147, 1.542) 0.0019 1.416 (1.097, 1.808)* < 0.0001
Country (ref = Ethiopia)
Burundi 1.467 (1.376, 1.564) < 0.0001 1.323 (1.134, 1.545) 0.0004
Comoros 1.685 (1.57,3 1.805) < 0.0001 1.324 (1.161, 1.512) < 0.0001
Kenya 1.398 (1.307, 1.495) < 0.0001 0.908 (0.788, 1.047) 0.1813
Malawi 1.619 (1.526, 1.718) < 0.0001 2.370 (2.083, 2.702) < 0.0001
Rwanda 3.171 (2.923, 3.442) < 0.0001 1.542 (1.337, 1.780) < 0.0001
Tanzania 3.171 (2.923, 3.442) < 0.0001 1.542 (1.337, 1.780) < 0.0001
Zambia 1.828 (1.709, 1.956) < 0.0001 2.217 (1.918, 2.567) < 0.0001
Zimbabwe 1.806 (1.690, 1.931) < 0.0001 1.232 (1.056, 1.438) 0.0078
Uganda 2.584 (2.396, 2.787) < 0.0001 0.711 (0.597, 0.846) < 0.0001

Hence, mothers’ current age between 24 to 34 were 0.830 times less likely to have been women’s protected from tetanus than mothers’ age below 24 (AOR = 0.830; 95%CI: 0.778, 0.886). In addition, mother’s current age above 34 was 0.733 times less likely to have been women’s protected from tetanus than mother’s age under 24 (AOR = 0.733; 95%CI: 0.673, 0.799); which shows that at the age of mother increase the rural women’s protected from tetanus become decrease.

Additionally, the odds of having a woman protected from tetanus were 0.792 less likely than women’s who had primary education compared to no education (AOR = 0.792; 95%CI: 0.737, 0.852); and a woman protected from tetanus were 0.833 times less likely among mothers who have secondary educational levels compared to no education (AOR = 0.833; 95%CI: 0.751, 0.922) Similarly, mothers with higher education were 1.276 times more likely to be women protected against tetanus than those without education (AR = 1.276; 95% CI: 1.092, 1.490).

Rural mothers from middle wealth households were a 1.976 (AOR = 1.976; 95% CI: 1.802, 2.166) times higher probability of women being protected from tetanus compared to poor households. Similarly, rich wealthiest households were a 1.589 (AOR = 1.589; 95% CI: 1.425, 1.771) times higher probability of women being protected from tetanus compared to a poor household.

Being current marital status of a mother who lives with a partner was 0.780 times less likely to have women’s protected from tetanus than the mother’s marital status was single (AOR = 0.780; 95% CI: 0.643, 0.944). Similarly, women who work government employed was 0.865 times less likely to have women’s protected from tetanus than the women who were housewife (AOR = 0.865; 95% CI: 0.762, 0.980).

The odds of having women’s protected from tetanus were 1.103 times higher among mothers who have to get information about pregnancy complications compared to no told about pregnancy complications (AOR = 1.103; 95%CI: 1.039, 1.170). Besides, mothers who had mass media coverage were 1.968 times more likely to have women’s protected from tetanus compared to no mass media coverage (AOR = 1.968; 95% CI: 1.530, 2.569).

A mother who had one to three ANC visits was 1.113 (AOR = 1.113; 95% CI: 1.125, 1.313) times more likely to have women’s protected from tetanus compared to a mother who did not have a PNC visit. Additionally, a mother who had more than three PNC visits was 1.324 (AOR = 1.324; 95% CI: 1.252, 1.400) times more likely to have women’s protected from tetanus compared to a mother who did not have a PNC visit.

The tetanus immunization, health delivery was 1.165 (AOR = 1.165; 95% CI: 1.012, 1.332) times more likely to have women’s protected from tetanus compared to home and other traditional places. Similarly, the odds of having women’s protected from tetanus were 0.678 times lower among mothers who haven’t a big problem of distance to the health facility compared to mother’s in the household haven big problem to health facility (AOR = 0.678; CI: 0.483, 0.979).

Mother’s age at 1st birth between 24 to 30 years was 1.206 times more likely to have women protected from tetanus than mother’s age of 1st birth below 24 (AOR = 1.206; CI: 1.092, 1.330). Similarly, mothers’ ages of 1st birth above 34 were 1.416 times more likely to have women’s protected from tetanus compared to mothers’ ages of 1st birth below 24 (AOR = 1.416; CI: 1.097, 1.808) (Table 5).

Discussion

This study assessed the risk factor of women protected from tetanus among rural east Africa women’s before birth. The study illustrated that the proportion of ten east Africa women’s protected from tetanus toxoid protective immunization was found to be 50.4%. However, the proportion of this magnitude is low as compared to the study done [28] showed that TT2+ immunization coverage among pregnant mothers’ were 75% worldwide, ranging from 95% in South East Asia to 53% in the East Mediterranean and 63% in Africa.

In this study, age of mother, educational level, wealth index, marital status, told about pregnancy complications, mass media coverage, ANC visit, place of delivery, and distance to the health facility, Age of mother at 1st birth, and Country was associated with mother protected from tetanus.

The odds of having women protected from tetanus among women aged above 24 years were higher than those women aged below 24 years. This result is consistent with a study conducted by different scholars [2932]. This is because of the lack of information and education about the burden of tetanus and the importance of TT vaccination in the older age group compared with younger age groups of women [33]. This finding indicates the need of having prioritization of adolescent vaccination as a necessary element of preventive health care to improve the health of their births and their health [34].

The other variable, the age of the mother at first birth had a significant effect on mothers protected from tetanus. This result contradicts the study was done [35], which showed that the age of the mother at first birth hadn’t a significant effect on women’s protection from tetanus. This might be the target population of this study were women who live in the rural area of East Africa, which have a problem of early marriage in this area. Therefore, the age of the mother at first birth may relate to early marriage that causes a knowledge gap on ANC visits and TT protective immunization.

The educational level of the mother was positively significantly associated with women’s protection from tetanus; which is in line with other studies [30, 36], in this study, the increasing level of education significantly increases the mother’s obtained TT immunization. Because education may strengthen the level of knowledge about the impact of TT on women and neonatal that increases the number of women who obtained TT immunization.

Another factor that is significantly associated with women’s protection from tetanus in this study was the distance from a health facility; which is also consistent with other studies[10], in this study, mothers who perceive TT immunization may be due to no big problem of distance from a health facility; which increased the odds of having protected mother from TT immunization compared to women whose distance to a health facility as a big problem. This would be due to the reduced time, injury, and transportation costs associated with distance from the health facility. However, the other study showed that distance from health facilities has no significant effect on women’s protection from tetanus [32, 35].

The access to mass media coverage increases the odds of women being protected from tetanus; which is in line with the other studies elsewhere [13, 18, 35]. In this study, women who have access to media exposures may strengthen knowledge about TT does immunization of women, which might be increased the odds of women being protected from tetanus. The other reason may be fewer media coverage in the rural area of most east Africa countries that affect knowledge of TT does immunization. However, the study contradicts other studies [32].

Another important factor that significantly affects women’s protection from tetanus was the wealth index of women in the household, this study is also consistent with other studies conducted elsewhere[19]. In this study, the increasing wealth index of households from middle to rich causes to increase in the odds of women being protected from tetanus compared to the poor wealth index of households in the rural area of East Africa countries. This might be economic status has a significant impact on the use of health care services of the mother; rural areas most east Africa countries are far from health facilities that lead to households with low economic status could not afford the high transportation and maternity costs [14, 37]. Moreover, mothers who have low economic status might be busy with other activities to fulfill their human needs that lead mothers may not have enough time to utilize health care services compared with the high economic level in developing countries. However, this study contradicts the study done by [38] showed that the wealth index hadn’t significant effect on women’s protection from tetanus.

This study showed that ANC follow-up had a higher chance of having women’s protected from tetanus compared to mothers with no ANC follow-up; which is also consistent with the previous study done in different countries worldwide [22, 25]. This might be that women with ANC follow up usually have increased awareness about the importance of taking TT immunization, one of the ANC service packages, and mothers who had ANC follow up are more likely to get vaccinated and immunized against tetanus which in turn results in births protected against neonatal tetanus [31].

Mothers who had information about pregnancy complications had increased the likelihood that women would be protected against tetanus, which is consistent with other studies elsewhere. [13, 18]. In this study, women who have information about pregnancy complications may increase women’s protection from tetanus, which might be rural mothers who have information about pregnancy complications may include the consequence tetanus for neonatal and mothers themselves if there is no ANC visit and TT immunization.

Marital status had significantly increased the odds of women being protected from tetanus, which in line with the previous study [35] showed that marital status had a significant effect on TT immunization, but the other study contradict with the study done [32] showed that marital status had no significant effect with women’s protected from tetanus.

The other important variable countries had significantly affected the odds of women being protected from tetanus; this might be different geographical location may increase the knowledge gap about immunization. Similarly, had significantly affected the odds of women being protected from tetanus; it may be different implications for immunization-based religious beliefs.

The variable place of delivery had significantly increased the odds of women’s protection from tetanus, but this study contradicts the previous study [35] showed the place of delivery hadn’t a significant effect on TT immunization. This might be the geographical location of the target population. Rural areas do have not sufficient infrastructure for hospitals and other health facilities, this leads to the place of delivery has an impact on immunization.

In this study, the occupation has no significant effect on women’s protection from tetanus, but the other study contradicts this study [28] showed that occupation had a significant effect on women’s protection from tetanus. This might be rural area mothers may have almost similar occupational activity, which leads to occupation having no significant effect on the immunization. Similarly, the age of the household head had no significant effect on women’s protection from tetanus, which is also consistent with the other study [35]. The other variable sex of house old head hadn’t significant effect with the odds of women’s protected from tetanus. This might be in the rural area of the most African country house the old head is men and the most decision may be decided by men.

The odds of women being protected from tetanus were not affected by mothers who terminated the pregnancy. Finally, immunization costs covered by health insurance had not affected the odds of TT immunization, which inline the other study [35]. This might be most rural Africa countries’ the cost of ANC visit was covered by the government. Therefore, large proportions of mother cost of immunization were covered by the government, and then it may be insignificant.

Conclusion and recommendations

The percentage of mothers vaccinated with protective of TT in rural areas of East African countries was 50.4%. Vaccination coverage of rural women in Ethiopia (36.90%), Kenya (45.00%), Burundi (46.20%) and Malawi (48.7%) and Comoros (49.7%) was below 50% protected women against tetanus. However, Uganda (59.8%), Zimbabwe (60.2%), Zambia (51.40%), Tanzania (51.70), and Rwanda (65%) have a low prevalence of women with no tetanus protection. The study revealed that low vaccination with protective of TT immunization in the rural area east Africa countries was attributed by low educational level, long-distance from the health facility, poor economic status, older age of mother, number of ANC visit, and media exposure. The official visit of the ANC, the planned pregnancy, and the early beginning of the visit of the ANC should be emphasized. Likewise, it is recommended to raise awareness of rural women’s education and to correct women’s perceptions of the importance of immunization and the quality of TT service.

Furthermore, public health programs target rural mothers who are uneducated, poor households; longer distances from health facilities, mothers who have the problem of media exposure, and mothers who have not used maternal health care services can be promoted for TT immunization. By enhancing vaccination against maternal tetanus, the government and other stakeholders should work adequately to increase vaccination against maternal tetanus.

Limitation of the study

The study used secondary data from DHS in selected Africa countries. But the data have missing value in the variable and some variables are not found in some eastern Africa countries which are missing from the analysis. Therefore, missingness in the data was the main limitation of the study.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We strongly recognize the DHS measuring program to provide access to DHS datasets in East Africa.

Abbreviations

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

AIC

Akaka’s Information Criterion

BIC

Bayesian’s Information Criterion

CI

Confidence Interval

DHS

Demographic Health Survey

EA

East Africa

MT

Maternal Tetanus

NT

Neonatal Tetanus

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Science

TT

Tetanus

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

The survey datasets used in this study were based on a publicly available dataset that is freely available online with no participant’s identity from http://www.dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm. Approval was sought from MEASURE DHS/ICF International and permission was granted for this use.

Funding Statement

Funding was not provided for this study.

References

  • 1.Blencowe H., et al., Tetanus toxoid immunization to reduce mortality from neonatal tetanus. International journal of epidemiology, 2010. 39(suppl_1): p. i102–i109. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Messeret E.S., et al., Maternal and neonatal tetanus elimination (MNTE) in the WHO African region. Journal of immunological sciences, 2018(15): p. 103. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Burgess C., et al., Eliminating maternal and neonatal tetanus and closing the immunity gap. The Lancet, 2017. 389(10077): p. 1380–1381. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30635-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mehanna A., Ali M.H., and Kharboush I., Knowledge and health beliefs of reproductive-age women in Alexandria about tetanus toxoid immunization. Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 2020. 95(1): p. 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s42506-020-00049-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Njuguna H.N., et al., Progress towards maternal and neonatal tetanus elimination—worldwide, 2000-2018/Progres accomplis en vue de l’elimination du tetanus maternel et neonatal dans le monde, 2000–2018. Weekly Epidemiological Record, 2020. 95(18): p. 173–185. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Owusu-Darko S., Diouf K., and Nour N.M., Elimination of maternal and neonatal tetanus: a 21st-century challenge. Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2012. 5(3–4): p. e151. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Organization, W.H., Maternal and neonatal tetanus elimination by 2005: strategies for achieving and maintaining elimination, 2002, World Health Organization.
  • 8.Organization W.H., Tetanus vaccines: WHO position paper–February 2017. Wkly Epidemiol Rec, 2017. 92(6): p. 53–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Khan R., et al., Maternal and neonatal tetanus elimination: from protecting women and newborns to protecting all. International journal of women’s health, 2015. 7: p. 171. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S50539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Adeiga A., et al., Tetanus toxoid immunization coverage among mothers of below one year of age in difficult-to-reach area of Lagos Metropolis. African Journal of Clinical and Experimental Microbiology, 2005. 6(3): p. 233–237. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Unicef P., Maternal and neonatal tetanus elimination initiative pampers UNICEF 2010 campaign launch. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dubale Mamoro M. and Kelbiso Hanfore L., Tetanus toxoid immunization status and associated factors among mothers in Damboya Woreda, Kembata Tembaro zone, SNNP, Ethiopia. Journal of nutrition and metabolism, 2018. 2018. doi: 10.1155/2018/2839579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Teshale A.B. and Tesema G.A., Determinants of births protected against neonatal tetanus in Ethiopia: A multilevel analysis using EDHS 2016 data. PloS one, 2020. 15(12): p. e0243071. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Orimadegun A.E., Adepoju A.A., and Akinyinka O.O., Prevalence and socio-demographic factors associated with non-protective immunity against tetanus among high school adolescents girls in Nigeria. Italian journal of pediatrics, 2014. 40(1): p. 1–8. doi: 10.1186/1824-7288-40-29 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kidane T., Factors influencing TT immunization coverage and protection at birth coverage in Tselemti District, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development, 2004. 18(3): p. 153–158. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mohammad M., Determinants of the utilization of the tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccination coverage in Bangladesh: evidence from a Bangladesh demographic health survey 2004. The Internet Journal of Health, 2008. 8. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Haile Z.T., Chertok I.R.A., and Teweldeberhan A.K., Determinants of utilization of sufficient tetanus toxoid immunization during pregnancy: evidence from the Kenya demographic and health survey, 2008–2009. Journal of community health, 2013. 38(3): p. 492–499. doi: 10.1007/s10900-012-9638-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Anatea M.D., Mekonnen T.H., and Dachew B.A., Determinants and perceptions of the utilization of tetanus toxoid immunization among reproductive-age women in Dukem Town, Eastern Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study. BMC international health and human rights, 2018. 18(1): p. 1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12914-018-0143-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Englund J.A., Maternal immunization–Promises and concerns, 2015, Elsevier. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Marchant A., et al., Maternal immunisation: collaborating with mother nature. The lancet infectious diseases, 2017. 17(7): p. e197–e208. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30229-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bethancourt C.-N., Wang T.L., and Bocchini J.A., Vaccination during pregnancy: first line of defense for expecting mothers and vulnerable young infants. Current opinion in pediatrics, 2017. 29(6): p. 737–743. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0000000000000553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Vickers N.J., Animal communication: when i’m calling you, will you answer too? Current biology, 2017. 27(14): p. R713–R715. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Khan R.E.A. and Raza M.A., Maternal health-care in India: the case of tetanus toxoid vaccination. Asian Development Policy Review, 2013. 1(1): p. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Roper M.H., Vandelaer J.H., and Gasse F.L., Maternal and neonatal tetanus. The Lancet, 2007. 370(9603): p. 1947–1959. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61261-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Who U., World Bank. State of the world’s vaccines and immunization, Geneva. World Health Organization, 2009: p. 130–145. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Croft T.N., Marshall A.M., and Allen C.K., Guide to DHS statistics, DHS-7. The Demographic and health surveys program. ICF, Rockville, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tranmer M. and Elliot M., Binary logistic regression. Cathie Marsh for census and survey research, paper, 2008. 20. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gebremedhin T.S., et al., Tetanus toxoid vaccination uptake and associated factors among mothers who gave birth in the last 12 months in Errer District, Somali regional state, Eastern Ethiopia. BioMed Research International, 2020. 2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/4023031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Abdella A., Maternal mortality trend in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development, 2010. 24(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Biswas S.C., Darda M.A., and Alam M.F., Factors affecting childhood immunisation in Bangladesh. The Pakistan development review, 2001: p. 57–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Abadura S.A., et al., Individual and community level determinants of childhood full immunization in Ethiopia: a multilevel analysis. BMC public health, 2015. 15(1): p. 1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2315-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yeshaw Y., et al., Factors associated with births protected against neonatal tetanus in Africa: Evidences from Demographic and health surveys of five African countries. Plos one, 2021. 16(6): p. e0253126. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hilton S., et al., Teenagers’ understandings of and attitudes towards vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases: a qualitative study. Vaccine, 2013. 31(22): p. 2543–2550. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.04.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Azzari C., et al., Experts’ opinion for improving global adolescent vaccination rates: a call to action. European journal of pediatrics, 2020. 179(4): p. 547–553. doi: 10.1007/s00431-019-03511-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Liyew A.M. and Ayalew H.G., Individual and community-level determinants of poor tetanus toxoid immunization among pregnant women in Ethiopia using data from 2016 Ethiopian demographic and health survey; multilevel analysis. Archives of Public Health, 2021. 79(1): p. 1–10. doi: 10.1186/s13690-020-00513-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Roosihermiatie B., Nishiyama M., and Nakae K., Factors associated with TT (tetanus toxoid) immunization among pregnant women, in Saparua, Maluku, Indonesia. Southeast Asian Journal of tropical medicine and public health, 2000. 31(1): p. 91–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Maral I., et al., Tetanus immunization in pregnant women: evaluation of maternal tetanus vaccination status and factors affecting rate of vaccination coverage. Public health, 2001. 115(5): p. 359–364. doi: 10.1038/sj/ph/1900780 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Yaya S., et al., Prevalence and predictors of taking tetanus toxoid vaccine in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study of 8,722 women in Sierra Leone. BMC public health, 2020. 20: p. 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7969-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

José Antonio Ortega

15 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-34591Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated with Rural Mother’s Protected against Tetanus in East Africa: Evidence from Demographic and health surveys of Nine East African countriesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Belay,

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.

The article has been carefully revised by two researchers from the fields who, while agreeing on the overall scientific merit, provide detailed feedback on issues to ammend regarding description of methods to ensure reproducibility and issues of interpretation of evidence.​

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 2022 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

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

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

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“No”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

“No”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. 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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: The research is of great relevance, bringing important results, especially with regard to the studied region, where the incidence of the disease is high, therefore, understanding the factors associated with vaccination in this region is relevant.

But there are some aspects to consider:

In the introduction, I suggest that you include a paragraph with information about the World Health Organization's strategies for preventing the disease in women in the at-risk area, we have an important document published in 2019 (Protecting all against tetanus-2019 by the World Health Organization https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/protecting-all-against-tetanus). In addition, I suggest that data on the incidence of the disease be updated, we now have more recent data.

Another aspect to be included is about the reach of the elimination of the disease in the studied region, was it achieved?

Also in the introduction, I suggest that the study hypothesis be included.

In the methods:

I suggest that a brief description of the outcome variable be made, as it was extracted from the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), it was not clear to the reader. Also, describe what the tetanus vaccination questionnaire was like, was it based on any other questionnaire?

I suggest describing, in the paragraph "Variables of the study", how the immunization program specifically against tetanus works in the regions studied.

About the independent variables, how were they selected? Was it through a theoretical model?

The variable income, as the classification "Poor, middle and Rich" was considered, I suggest that you make a brief description.

Still, in methods, I suggest including information about ethical aspects of the research.

In results:

I suggest that in all tables, the sample number and year of data collection are included in the description.

In table 4, include the meaning of *

Also in table 4, I suggest that a column with the value of p be included.

Discussion:

I suggest that a systematic review and meta-analysis recently published on the subject be included:

Entitled "Tetanus vaccination in pregnant women: a systematic review and

meta-analysis of the global literature" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34144334/

In addition, I would like to suggest to the authors the inclusion of a paragraph on the possible interference of tetanus vaccination during the pandemic, as we observe a drop in vaccination prevalence.

Still under discussion, I suggest that the limitations of the study be included.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer’s comments

Manuscript Title: Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated with Rural Mother’s Protected against Tetanus in East Africa: Evidence from Demographic and health surveys of Nine East African countries

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-21-34591

General comments

The authors assessed the prevalence and risk factors associated with protection against tetanus among mothers in rural settings in nine EA countries. The findings and recommendations from the article will add to the body of available literature on the subject. The article will be relevant to countries that are yet to eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus as well as those are striving to sustain their elimination status

Minor comments

- In the background and other sections, the countries listed as “East African” do not all fall into that category, as Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe are considered as southern African countries, and Comoros as Island nation. The authors should consider using the appropriate categorizations for these countries

- In several sections of the manuscript and in tables, Comoros seems to have been replaced by Cameroon (A Central African country). The authors need to correct this error throughout the draft

- The authors need to read through the draft carefully to edit typos, and other errors that require editing

Major comments

Background

- It is important for the authors to indicate why Uganda, a key East African country is not included in the list despite having a 2016 DHS

- 34,019 (1%) deaths from NT in 2015 as against 3.3 m annual ND cannot be described as a “high number” The authors may wish to rephrase the sentence to “despite progress with global efforts to eliminate MNT, 34,019 neonatal deaths were attributed to tetanus in 2015”

- The statement “Maternal tetanus continues to be a major cause of neonatal and infant deaths in many developing countries” is not clear. I couldn't find such statements in the reference (Ref #6 & 7) cited. Please, ensure that references are correctly quoted. It is not clear how maternal tetanus causes neonatal and infant deaths. Maybe the authors meant “Neonatal tetanus”

- The statement “It is estimated that between 15,000 and 30,000 women die each year from tetanus acquired during or soon after pregnancy [5] would require an indication of the year of estimation

- Annual neonatal tetanus deaths were indicated for 2015 and 2017. The authors may wish to consider using the most recent estimates, which is 25,000 in 2018 (visit the link below). https://www.who.int/initiatives/maternal-and-neonatal-tetanus-elimination-(mnte)

- The statement “Similarly, the majority of the Sub-Saharan African countries could hardly reach the TT immunization target set to be covered [10]” requires that the authors indicate what the threshold TT coverage is referred to.

- I was unable to find the statement “Somalia, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Nigeria, and Ethiopia reported the highest rates of neonatal tetanus mortality (1,000 deaths per 100,000 population) [11]” in the cited reference. Please, ensure to quote relevant references to support the statement

Methods

1. The countries selected are a mix of East African (Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda), Horn of Africa (Ethiopia), Island nation (Comoros) and southern African (Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe). The authors may wish to use the appropriate classification of countries. Other East African countries such as Uganda that had DHS conducted in 2016 would be nice to include. Kenya’s DHS was in 2014, and was wondering how it made the list of countries, if only DHS from 2016 were considered

2. While the DHS reports for the nine EA countries provide data on all variables for this paper, which should allow for comparison across countries or even at sub-national levels of the countries, no indications in this sections that comparisons will be made across countries or at subnational level. Moreover, Maternal and Neonatal tetanus elimination is based indicator performance at the district level.

3. If the paper relied on secondary data analyses, that should be stated clearly, as it will appear that there was extensive use of data already collected through the DHS.

4. While it appears that extensive scoping literature review was conducted especially around the factors that drive TT protection among women, this was not stated. The authors need to mention this.

Results

1. It is not clear what the cut-off TT threshold coverage for protection is. Please state this

2. “Cameroon (50.3% not protected and 49.7% protected)” – Cameroon is not in East Africa and is not part of the list in the other sections of the manuscript. Please, crosscheck. Probably the authors meant Comoros.

3. It is difficult to understand where percentage coverages quoted as “The prevalence of protected rural women from nine EA countries” come from. I looked up the TT2+ or Td2+ coverage figures reported through the most recent DHS reports in these countries and they do not seem to align with those reported in the manuscript. A clearer understanding in method section of how these figures were calculated would be useful.

4. From the method and result section, protection against tetanus is based on reported TT2+ or Td2+ coverage in the DHS. For several documented reasons, TT2+ method for assessing protection against tetanus among women of reproductive age (WRA) tends to grossly underestimate the true protection, hence the recommended use of the Protection at Birth (PAB), which you will notice in the DHS to be higher than TT2+ coverage in nearly all countries. For example, the 2016-2017 DHS for Burundi indicates 28.5% TT2+ coverage whereas PAB shows 84% coverage. It will be useful for the authors to consider including PAB coverage in this draft manuscript. Several reference materials are available on PAB methods.

5. In view of the wide disparities in health systems strength, demographics, development indices and economic status in the nine countries, it is difficult to understand why there were no efforts to compare findings across countries. While all the nine countries have been validated for the elimination of MNTE, several years back, the possibilities are there that disaggregating the data by country will show “high performing” and “low performing” countries. The authors may wish to disaggregate the data by country and consider indicating the ranges for the various variables, highlighting those with highest coverage and those with lowest coverage.

6. The statement “were significantly correlated with full childhood immunization (Table 2)” appears to be out of place. I am not sure why reference is being made to “full childhood immunization” here, since it neither the outcome nor one of the independent variables. Table 2 shows the correlation between TT protection amongst women and not full childhood immunization. Needs some explanation here or correct the sentence

Discussion

1. In the opening statement there seems to be an attempt to compare the findings from the nine “EA” countries lumped together with findings from single countries and even subnational levels of the countries. I am not sure that this is a good comparison. It will be more useful, if findings from EA are compared to those from West Africa, Central Africa or South Africa if such literatures exist.

2. Reference is required for the statement “This might be the target population of this study were women who live in the rural area of East Africa, which have a problem of early marriage in this area. Therefore, the age of the mother at first birth may relate to early marriage that causes a knowledge gap on ANC visits and TT protective immunization”

3. Ref #18 “Regarding the perception of distance to the health facility, nearly half (52%) of respondents perceived distance from the health facility as a big problem (Table 1)” is contrary to the citation by the authors of the same ref. Please, crosscheck and rectify.

Conclusions and recommendations

1. There appears to be many typos rendering the section unclear. The authors need to address these

2. The sweeping conclusion about TT protection and the influencing factors in EA may make it difficult for readers to understand the extent of the problem at individual country level.

Limitations

- There is no section that highlights the limitation of this study. The authors need to highlight the limitations

References

- The authors need to include URLs for all reference so readers can easily access and check the referenced materials

**********

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer_comments_PLOS_Nov2021.docx

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0265906. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265906.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Jan 2022

the comments raised by both reviewers were very interesting and important for the development of this article as well as for other work.

Attachment

Submitted filename: answer for plose 1 review.docx

Decision Letter 1

José Antonio Ortega

10 Mar 2022

Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated with Rural Women’s Protected against Tetanus in East Africa: Evidence from Demographic and health surveys of Ten East African countries

PONE-D-21-34591R1

Dear Dr. Belay,

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,

José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All suggestions have been addressed. Congratulations!

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The study is relevant because it is carried out in regions where vaccination rates are lower than expected, therefore, it presents important considerations for the literature. The authors included all requested suggestions.

Reviewer #2: While most of the concerns raised have been addressed by the authors, the revised draft appears to contain more typos and grammatical errors than earlier draft. This needs to be addressed for the final draft

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

José Antonio Ortega

15 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-34591R1

Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated with Rural Women’s Protected against Tetanus in East Africa: Evidence from Demographic and health surveys of Ten East African countries

Dear Dr. Belay:

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. José Antonio Ortega

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 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer_comments_PLOS_Nov2021.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: answer for plose 1 review.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The survey datasets used in this study were based on a publicly available dataset that is freely available online with no participant’s identity from http://www.dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm. Approval was sought from MEASURE DHS/ICF International and permission was granted for this use.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES