Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Oct 26;17(10):e0276184. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276184

Work time allocation at primary health care level in two regions of Albania

Altiona Muho 1,2,*, Altina Peshkatari 3, Kaspar Wyss 1,2
Editor: Dragan Pamucar4
PMCID: PMC9605026  PMID: 36288384

Abstract

Introduction

Although well-performing workforce is essential to equitable and efficient health service delivery, few countries have systematically addressed performance improvements. How health workers use their work time and what tasks they accomplish is here an important starting point. Therefore, a time motion study was conducted to assess the work time allocation patterns of primary health care doctors and nurses in two regions of Albania.

Methods

We used observation tool to record the time allocation along eight predefined main categories of activities. Conditional to presence at work, 48 health workers were continuously observed in early 2020 before start of the Covid-19 pandemic over five consecutive working days.

Results

The observed health workers spent 40.7% of their overall working time unproductively (36.8% on waiting for patients and 3.9% on breaks), 25.3% on service provision to users, 18.7% on administrative activities, 12.7% on outreach activities, 1.6% on continuous medical education and 1% on meetings. The study found variations in work time allocation patterns across cadres, with nurses spending more time unproductively, on administrative activities and on outreach and less on all other activities than doctors. Further, the work time allocation patterns were similar between urban and rural settings, except for nurses in rural settings spending less time than those in urban settings on administrative work.

Conclusion

This study found that primary health care workers in Albania devote a substantial amount of work time to unproductive, service provision to users and administrative activities. Consequently, there is possibility for productivity, respectively efficiency gains in how health workers use their time.

Introduction

A well-performing workforce is imperative to equitable and efficient health service delivery. Although efficiency and quality improvements of health workforce have been a major concern in the context of health sector reforms, few countries have systematically addressed performance improvements. Additionally, serious workforce shortages [1–3] are being observed across the globe that are further aggravated by poor human resource management practices, large imbalances in the geographical distribution of the health workforce [1, 4–7] and migration [1, 7–11]. It is therefore within the remit of health policy and practice to identify approaches for improving the performance of the existing health workforce.

One critical dimension of workforce performance is productivity. Productivity can be measured using benchmarks that derive from duties defined on job descriptions, against which performance indicators can afterwards be compared [12]. To assess this, work-time patterns is an important aspect of interest.

Different authors suggest to analyze time allocation patterns through various methods such as “time–motion” studies [13–15], Methods Time Measurement (MTM), Maynard Operation Sequence Technique (MOST) etc. [16–19]. The latter two are anchored in the industrial sector, mainly manufacturing or an environment with clearly defined workflow practice and typically aim to help determining and optimizing the standard time of a specific work process [16–19]. In time motion studies, frequently used in health sector, working patterns are analyzed along tasks that are divided into discrete steps and observed for the movements needed for these tasks to be completed, and measures the time that each movement takes [20]. Different techniques are used to conduct time–motion studies, but the continuous observation is known to be the most accurate one [20, 21]. During continuous observation the observer shadows the observed individual while keeping track of tasks that are being performed and records the time that each task takes [20, 22–24]. However, owing to the lack of feasibility at large scale and the high costs that this method presents, there is a preference for using alternative methods, in larger surveys, such as self-administered timesheets, retrospective interviews and data captured by computerized systems [13, 15, 20]. The current study used a time-motion approach, as our objective was most importantly to capture the overall use of work time by category of health worker, and not that of a specific task, and/or to optimize the work processes.

The limited global evidence available from previous studies on work-time patterns at primary health care (PHC) indicates that health workers (HWs) at PHC level use their work-time ineffectively with substantial time used for administrative work or simply in waiting for patients. It has been shown, for instance, that nurses of PHC services in Tanzania, Cameroon and Punjab spent 56%, 46.5% and 38% of their time respectively waiting for patients [12, 25, 26], whereas PHC doctors from different USA states spent 20–41% of their time on administrative and documentation activities [22, 27, 28]. Overall, these studies indicate that there is potential for optimizing the use of the work-time.

Albania, a southeastern European post-communist country [29], has embraced the universal health coverage policy as an essential pillar of the health system [30]. Despite having a network of 413 health centers that offer an essential package of seven main services across the country, the system seems to be inefficient among else due to a lack of professional staff, inequity in the distribution of human resources, insufficient health financing and a lack of health service management and human resource development [30, 31]. The Ministry of Health and Social Protection has acknowledged the systems’ limitations and is committed to improve the quality of service delivery and strengthening PHC throughout the country. Thus, understanding the work and behavior patterns of PHC workers in Albania is of importance. At present, little is known about the time allocated to different tasks such as administration, service provision to users and outreach activities by HWs at the PHC level in Albania and neighboring countries. Having a better understanding of how PHC workers use their working time may allow for adjusting the workforce management and ensuring more efficient care for patients.

This study assesses the work-time allocation patterns of PHC workers in two regions of Albania and to compare the patterns between different cadres and urban and rural facilities.

Methods

Ethics statement

Ethical clearance for the study was granted by the Ministry of Health and Social Protection of Albania on 22nd October 2019 (reference number: 5035). All HWs were informed on the objectives and methodology of the study and all participants provided written consent before study participation.

Study design and setting

The study was conducted in two out the twelve regions of Albania. The first one, Diber, is a mountainous, rural area located in the northeast of Albania with mainly agricultural production. The second one, Fier, is located in the southeast and borders the sea, and its main economic activities are the oil industry and agriculture.

In total, these two regions host 80 health centers, out of which only 13 are urban (four in Diber and nine in Fier). Health centers are the basic unit of service provision located in towns and center of communes and to them health post-ambulatories and ambulatories are affiliated. Ambulatories were also treated as health post facilities, within the scope of this study.

Study sampling

The time–motion study was conducted in health centers and their affiliated health post-ambulatories in the two regions corresponding in Albania to the PHC level. The following criteria had to be met by the health center for it to be eligible for study inclusion: (i) at least one medical doctor working at the health center; (ii) at least one nurse working at the health center; (iii) at least one affiliated health post-ambulatory with a nurse working at the health post-ambulatory. Eligible health centers were randomly included. In each of the two study regions, nine health centers (six rural, three urban), four rural health post ambulatories and two urban health post ambulatory were included. At the health center level, one doctor and one nurse were selected for observing work time use, while at the health post-ambulatory level, one nurse was selected for study inclusion. This resulted in an overall sample of 48 HWs.

Data collection tool

For each of the HWs included data of his/her demographic and educational background was collected as well as selected characteristics of the health facilities he/she has been working at the time of the study.

Using the approach deployed by previous time motion studies [22–24, 32–35], an observation tool was used to observe and document key tasks of HWs and to collect and categorize activities performed. The tool reflected outlined standards of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection for doctors and nurses of PHC in Albania. The tool was pre-tested at the level of health facilities which were later not part of the study. The tool capturing work patterns was built around eight categories of activities, i.e., (i) service provision to users; (ii) administration; (iii) continuous medical education; (iv) unproductive; (v) miscellaneous; (vi) meetings, (vii) outreach, (viii) other. The eight categories were then further broken down in 21 sub-categories and 25 subordinate sub-categories of activities, as presented in S1 Table.

Data collection

Data collection took place from the 7th to the 28th of January 2020 using tablets, shortly before the Covid-19 pandemic hit Albania. Data were gathered by 15 observers, who received a two-day in-class training on the questionnaire and the use of the electronic data collection instrument, followed by a one day pre-test of the approach.

Conditional to presence at work, each HW was shadowed and followed-up over five consecutive days by the same observer. The time recording was conditional to the HW being at his/her workplace. In case of HW being absent, the reason for the absence was registered and no time recording was conducted. If the HW left the workplace earlier than the official duty hours, the reason for this was recorded and the observation stopped. Additionally, in many facilities nurses had their work divided in morning and afternoon shifts. During the afternoon shifts, nurses would go for home injections and visits. Due to logistics constrains of the study, no observation took place during the afternoon shifts.

The start and end of work was recorded. Additionally, the tool captured if the HW was performing facility-based or outreach activities. In the scope of this study, outreach activities included all the activities that were performed not on-site, i.e., home visits, consultation at schools, door to door visits, surveillance activities, health promotion in community, specifically (see S1 Table) and all the other main categories of activities that took place away from the facility. When the HW would leave the facility to conduct a non-site activity, the tool would first capture that an outreach activity was being performed and then the specific outreach activity that was being performed. Further, the number of patients consulted by the HWs per day was recorded.

Data management and analysis

Data were entered using Open Data Kit (ODK) v1.25.1 and analyzed using Stata/IC (version 14.0., College Station, Texas). Data was checked for correctness and plausibility. We then applied simple descriptive statistics to analyze the data. The duration of each activity was captured in seconds. The total observed time was calculated by multiplying the total number of activities by their duration in hours. The percentage of time spent on each activity was calculated by dividing the time spent on that activity by the total observed time.

As the time recording was conditional to presence at work, we also estimated the overall work-time patterns. For doing so, we used the official duty hours per day as given by the Albanian regulations for governmental health workers, i.e., six hours and 40 minutes and six working days. To extrapolate the overall worktime, we multiplied the official duty hours for each HW by five, which stands for the number of observation days. The percentage of observed working hours was calculated by dividing the respective recorded time with the total of overall worktime. Further, the number of hours HWs lost due to absenteeism was calculated, which in this study stands for full day absences, coming late to work and leaving work earlier than official duty hours. To do so, we deducted the amount of hours observed per HW from the amount of duty hours HWs reported to work. The percentage for each absenteeism’ reason was calculated by dividing the respective time by the total of overall worktime.

Four days of observation as well as the afternoon shifts could not be tracked, and they were excluded from further analyses.

Results

Characteristics of health workers

The sample was made up by 18 doctors and 30 nurses. Table 1 presents the characteristics of these HWs.

Table 1. Characteristics of the observed staff.

Characteristics Doctors Nurses
Urban Rural Total Urban health center Rural health center Urban health post ambulatories Rural health post ambulatories Total
Number observed 6 12 18 6 12 4 8 30
Average age (years) 46 43.9 44.6 39 48.9 45.3 41.2 44.4
% female 100 50 66.7 83.3 83.3 100 87.5 86.7
Average years of practice 22 17.3 18.9 12.5 25.5 20.5 14.5 19.3
Median of years of practice 27.5 20.5 23.5 10 28.5 23.5 15 17

Seventeen doctors reported to work 6 hours and 40 minutes daily, while one doctor worked only 6 hours daily due to a status of limited ability to work. Fifteen of the observed nurses were originally trained as general nurses, 13 as midwife-nurse, one as a medical assistant, and one for one person the professional background could not be captured. Six of the observed nurses completed a master’s program in nursing, three completed a nursing course and one did another training course.

Overall time allocation

The direct observations at health center and ambulatory / health post level allowed to track and record 76.3% of the overall working hours (1216.7 hours). In 17% of official duty hours, the HWs included were absent from the workplace. Reasons for these absences were: coming late to the workplace (4.4%), leaving earlier (4.9%) and being absent for full working days (7.7%) (Fig 1). Most of the time the absenteeism was explained by health workers by a lack of transportation mean to come and get back from work, rotation and replacement within health services, or personal reasons.

Fig 1. Percentage of observed time and percentage of lost time (not recorded) related to working hours.

Fig 1

HWs worked on average 5.6 hours daily (min 1.5 hours; max 7.9 hours). Over this period, they had an average of 11.4 patient consultations; doctors saw an average of 18.2 patients (min 0; max 26) per day and nurses 7.4 patients (min 0; max 28). Consequently, doctors examined an average of 3.3 patients per hour while nurses saw on average 1.3 patients per hour, excluding patient contacts during non-observed afternoon shifts.

Regarding time allocation patterns, HWs spent most of their overall working time on unproductive activities (40.7%), followed by service provision to users (25.3%), administrative tasks (18.7%), and outreach (12.7%) (Fig 2 and Table 2).

Fig 2. Percentage of overall time allocation on categories of activities.

Fig 2

Table 2. Overall time allocation on categories and sub-categories of activities by health workers category.

Category Doctors Nurses Combined
% % %
Service provision to users 45.1 14.4 25.3
Child care 1.4 1 1.1
Woman and reproductive health care 0.1 0.2 0.2
Adult and adolescent care 4.2 0.3 1.7
Clinical consultation 1.8 0.2 0.8
Check up 0.1 2.2 1.5
Assistance with services 0.3 0.1 0.2
Medical procedures 2.9 2.6 2.7
Other patient consultation 1.3 0.4 0.8
Health promotion 0.4 0.1 0.2
Clinical orientation in the reception 0.1 0.3 0.2
Writing prescriptions 11.5 0 4.1
Preparation for patient care 0.4 2.3 1.6
Patient administration 20.6 4.7 10.3
Administration 14.3 21.1 18.7
Health information system 6.4 12.1 10.1
Other administration 7.9 9 8.6
Continuous medical education 2.2 1.3 1.6
Professional reading 2.2 1.3 1.6
Training 0 0 0
Unproductive 29.4 46.9 40.7
Waiting 24.8 43.3 36.8
Break 4.6 3.6 3.9
Meetings 1.8 0.5 1
Outreach 7.2 15.8 12.7
Service provision to users 0.7 4.4 3.1
Administration 0.4 0.6 0.5
Continuous medical education 1 0 0.4
Unproductive 0.1 0.8 0.6
Miscellaneous 3.4 8.7 6.8
Other 0 1 0.6
Meetings 1.5 0.2 0.7

The categories of activities under the bold ‘Outreach’ activity, capture the amount of time that was spent in each of them, respectively, while these activities were being performed not on-site.

Differences in work-time allocation patterns were observed across cadres, with nurses spending more time unproductively, on administrative and on outreach activities, and consequently less time on other activities; due to smaller sample size (n = 18), the estimates for doctors are less precise than for nurses (n = 30) (see S1 Table) Both doctors and nurses spent most of their time waiting for patients (24.8% and 43.3%, respectively). Furthermore, nurses spent a substantial time on administrative tasks (21.1% versus 14.3% for doctors), mostly on filling forms for the health information system (12.1% versus 6.4% for doctors). Regarding service care provision, nurses spent 2.6% of their overall working time on medical procedures, 2.3% on preparation for patient care and 2.2% on check-up. Further, 3.6% of their time was allocated to breaks. Doctors spent most of their time on service provision. Furthermore, doctors spent 20.6% of their overall working time for administering patient forms, followed by writing prescription (11.5%) and adult and adolescent care (4.2%). Further, doctors used 4.6% of their overall working time for breaks. Both nurses and doctors spent less time on breaks than the labor regulations foresee.

Time allocation patterns during outreach corresponded to 7.2% and 15.7% of overall work time of doctors and nurses, respectively. When further breaking down this category, it was observed that doctors and nurses spent most of their time within this category on miscellaneous activities like walking/driving and/or rotation (3.4% versus 8.7%). This was followed for nurses by service provision tasks (4.4%), and for doctors by meetings (1.5%).

Work-time allocation patterns at rural and urban health facilities

Doctors in both urban and rural health centers spent most of their time with service provision activities (54.0% versus 41.2%), followed by unproductive activities (30% versus 29.3%) and administrative tasks (17.3% versus 9.7%) (Table 3) (see confidence intervals in S1 Table). While for a number of categories differences were small, doctors working in urban health centers spent more time for service provision than doctors of rural health centers, the latter spent more time on–most notably–miscellaneous activities (5.3% versus 0.2%) and outreach (10.7% of their overall working time compared with 1.2% for doctors in urban settings) (Table 4).

Table 3. Percentage of overall time allocation (including outreach time) by HWs category at rural and urban settings.

Health worker category Doctors (%) Nurses (%)
Category Rural health center Urban health center Rural health center Rural health post ambulatories Urban health center Urban health post ambulatories
Service provision to users 41.2 54 19.5 18.7 18.8 18
Administration 17.3 9.7 20.6 15.5 26.1 28
Continuous Medical Education 3.5 2.8 2.1 0.6 1.2 0.5
Unproductive 29.3 30 49 50.2 48.1 40.7
Miscellaneous 5.3 0.2 6.6 12.9 4.4 12.5
Other 0 0 1.6 1.2 0.1 0
Meetings 3.4 3.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.3

Table 4. Percentage of overall time allocation during outreach by HWs category at rural and urban settings.

Time allocation at rural and urban settings by health worker category while on outreach
Health worker category Doctors (%) Nurses (%)
Category Rural health center Urban health center Rural health center Rural health post ambulatories Urban health center Urban health post ambulatories
Service provision to users 13.3 0 31.2 27.9 20.5 28.2
Administration 2.9 3.5 1.3 2.6 17.4 2.9
Continuous Medical Education 15.2 0 0.7 0 0.6 0
Unproductive 2 0 1.7 8.4 11.7 0.9
Miscellaneous 49.2 16.7 52.4 52.6 48.6 68.1
Other 0 0 12.7 5.1 1.3 0
Meetings 17.5 79.8 0 3.4 0 0

Nurses positioned in rural health centers spent more time than those working in urban settings on–most notably − miscellaneous activities (6.6% versus 4.4%), but less on administration (20.6% versus 26.1%) and meetings (0.6% versus 1.2%) (Table 3) (see confidence intervals in S1 Table).

Nurses of rural health post-ambulatories spent more time compared to those working in urban areas on–most notably − unproductive activities (50.2% versus 40.7%), but less on administration activities (15.5% versus 28.0%) (Table 3). Furthermore, nurses in rural settings spent more time on outreach compared to nurses in urban ones (Table 4).

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that doctors and nurses of PHC facilities spend the largest proportion of their time on unproductive activities (40.7%), one fourth on service provision (25.3%) and 18.7% on administrative activities. The work-time allocation patterns among the professionals assessed differ, with nurses spending more time on unproductive, administrative and outreach activities and less on all other activities compared with doctors.

Previous studies conducted in PHC facilities in Sweden, as well as other settings, such as surgical centers, nursing homes and community centers in USA and Brazil have also reported that nurses spend a substantial proportion of the work time on administrative activities [36–41]. The effort required for the administrative tasks in this study is illustrated by the fact that there are 58 registers and forms to be filled in by staff of PHC facilities [42] often asking for overlapping information. One reason for this duplicated effort is that the HWs of PHC report separately to two different institutions: the regional entities of the Compulsory Health Care Insurance Fund and the Local Health Care Units of the Health Operator. Moreover, most of the documentation is paper based. Improving the health information practices for PHC workers, through better coordination between central institutions, more investment in digitalization [15, 27, 29], and training of staff on gaining skills on such digitalized health services could improve the efficiency of PHC operations. However, these entail a redesign of reporting requirements, financial investments in training of the HWs, equipping the health centers with computers and ensuring stable access to internet [15].

The substantial share of work time spent on unproductive activities observed in this study (41%) is in line with previous work. Two recent reports, e.g., have reached similar conclusions revealing that nurses of PHC in Albania are under-used [see S1 and S2 Texts]. In Tanzania, nurses in reproductive and child health clinics were observed to work productively only at 57% of the time present at the facility [12], whereas in Punjab the auxiliary nurse midwives spent only 62% of their time productively [25]. In Cameroon, the proportion of time that nurses spent unproductively reached 73% [26]. As for the doctors, the amount of time that they allocated to unproductive activities in the current study was 20%-24% more than what is reported as personal time among PHC doctors, internists and hospitalists in other studies in USA and Germany [22, 23, 28, 43].

Our study showed that doctors spent most of their time on service provision (45%), a bulk of which is dedicated to administering patients’ forms (21%), leaving 24% for direct patient contact. Studies in the USA and Germany focusing on primary care doctors, hospitalist, internist and hospitalist have reported a high amount of time spent on patient documentation, from 21% to 49% [22, 23, 27, 28, 43]. Additionally, in these studies the observed doctors spent between 17% and 55% on direct patient care.

In the current study doctors spent more time than nurses on service provision to patients (45% versus 14%), as well as direct patient contact (24.5% versus 9.7%). As in other settings, nurses do not have the authority and competencies as well as the self-confidence to conduct certain activities, especially the ones involving more complex skills and clinical reasoning [44] [see S1 and S2 Texts]. Indeed, Albania, as other countries [see S2 Text], has a long tradition of doctor-centered health care with limited scope of nurse practice, upon whom a secretarial role is imposed. In addition, the Basic Package of Care despite outlining the required skills for family doctors and nurses at PHC facilities, does not give a clear description of their roles. Clear role descriptions establish a ground for respect and trust among health providers, thus, facilitate and improve teamwork [45] and they are associated with improved performance [5]. It is indeed an objective of the upcoming Strategy on the Development of PHC in Albania 2020–2025 to reassess, reformat and improve PHC professionals’ job descriptions [see S1 Text].

In the light of the results of this study, better management of PHC services in terms of planning of HWs’ activities is needed. It is necessary to train the HWs in work-time organization [see S1 Text], as this is an important skill that PHC staff should develop in order to use their work time efficiently. A future study, using the MOST method, could determine the processes of a clinical consultation and provide insights to optimize these processes [17–19]. Further, implementing an appointment system for patients, namely those with a chronic condition regularly visiting a PHC service, could contribute to optimize the use of work time and reduce time periods where HWs wait for patients.

Additionally, several other measures to improve efficiency could be taken i.e. nurses’ empowerment in PHC through training and education programs, nurses’ extension area of work by granting them more responsibility and more equilibrated shares between doctors and nurses [45–47] and evolvement of nurses’ roles by adapting the legislation and education structures [48].

We assumed that 17% of the working hours were accounted for as absenteeism in the workplace, which was caused by, e.g., late arrival to the workplace, leaving early and being absent for full working days. Various reports have described HWs’ absenteeism in the workplace. A multicountry survey, conducted in several low and middle Income countries reported rates of absenteeism of PHC workers ranging from 25% to 40% [49]. According to this survey, factors such as irregular supervision, inadequate working conditions, logistics to get to work, rural location and absence of staff houses influenced the high rates of absenteeism. To reduce absenteeism in workplace, Manzi et al. suggested improvement of HWs’ management through adequate supervision, improved supplies of essential goods and on the job training [12].

Study limitations

This study had several limitations. To begin with, time motion studies impose the risk of the Hawthorne effect [50]. In the current study, HWs were shadowed by an observer, which may have altered their working behavior and reduced the level of absenteeism and unproductive work. If so, the main conclusion in terms of work-time use would however not altered and patterns in terms of inefficient use of work-time would rather look more unfavorable. As an attempt to decrease the effect of the observer by allowing them to become acclimated to the presence of the observer HWs were observed for several days.

Second, for logistical reasons it was impossible to obtain the observations in the afternoon hours while some of the nurses conducted home visits, for example administering injections to patients; resulting in lower registered time allocated to outreach activities.

Third, we believe that similar work-time patterns as observed in the chosen facilities in Fier and Diber are found across both regions. Nevertheless, we did not account for clustering effects during the analysis, thus the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Further, these findings should not be generalized in a whole country context as in urban regions such as Tirana or Durres, the work-time allocations patterns might differ substantially.

Fourth, we only assessed the time allocation of health providers at one point during the year, in winter time, and therefore this may not be representative of yearly utilization patterns. In other warmer periods of the year utilization rates of health centers may be higher leading then also to altered time allocation patterns i.e.: more time allocated to service provision and administration, leading eventually to less unproductive time.

In spite of its limitations, this study offers valuable insight on work-time patterns of doctors and nurses in urban and rural settings, health centers and health posts in the two regions of Albania.

Conclusion

This study indicates that HWs devote a substantial amount of work time to unproductive, service provision to users and administrative activities. Consequently, there is potential to make better use of the available working time of doctors and nurses working at PHC level in Albania. Also, we found that work-time patterns differ among cadres, with nurses spending less time, compared to doctors, on all activities except for unproductive and outreach activities. Additionally, our findings revealed that work-time allocation patterns were similar between urban and rural settings.

Our results suggest that there is potential for efficiency gains in PHC workers’ time allocation. Improved health information system practices, appointment system establishment, empowered nurses and clear share of responsibilities might contribute to more efficient use of time.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Categories of activities to observe.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Overall time allocation and 95% confidence intervals on categories of activities by health workers.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Percentage of overall time allocation (including outreach time) and 95% confidence intervals by doctors at rural and urban settings.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Percentage of overall time allocation (including outreach time) and 95% confidence intervals by nurses at rural and urban settings.

(DOCX)

S1 Text. Analysis of the context in the view of development and implementation of new job profiles and roles for family nurses in Albania.

(DOCX)

S2 Text. Nurse profiles and master in family nursing.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr Besim Nuri and the team of the “Health for All Project” (Projekti “Shëndet për të Gjithë”) for their support on the field work. Special thanks to Manuela Murthi, Arti Cicolli and all of the observers for their outstanding contributions. Additionally, we are extremely thankful for the valuable support of Dr Aurelio Di Pasquale and Dr Marek Kwiatkowski. Finally, we would like to thank the family doctors and nurses of Diber and Fier for participating in our study.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly as it contains information that could compromise the privacy of research participants. Data are available upon request from the authors (contact via the corresponding author and Dr. Kaspar Wyss, Deputy Head of Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, kaspar.wyss@swisstph.ch) or from non-author point of contact (via Malin Ziehmer-Wenz, malin.ziehmer-wenz@swisstph.ch).

Funding Statement

The study has been conducted in the frame of the Health for all Projekt (Projekti HAP http://www.hap.org.al/) funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and implemented by the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (contract agreement number 81059430). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kanchanachitra C, Lindelow M, Johnston T, Hanvoravongchai P, Lorenzo FM, Huong NL, et al. Human resources for health in southeast Asia: shortages, distributional challenges, and international trade in health services. The Lancet. 2011. Feb 26;377(9767):769–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Miseda MH, Were SO, Murianki CA, Mutuku MP, Mutwiwa SN. The implication of the shortage of health workforce specialist on universal health coverage in Kenya. Hum Resour Health [Internet]. 2017. Dec 1 [cited 2019 Jun 26];15. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5710014/ doi: 10.1186/s12960-017-0253-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.WHO | Reversing a global health workforce crisis [Internet]. WHO. [cited 2019. Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.who.int/workforcealliance/media/news/2015/reversing_crisis/en/ [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Al-Sawai A, Al-Shishtawy MM. Health Workforce Planning. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2015. Feb;15(1):e27–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Weltgesundheitsorganisation, editor. Working together for health. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2006. 209 p. (The world health report). [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dussault G, Dubois C-A. Human resources for health policies: a critical component in health policies. Hum Resour Health. 2003. Apr 14;1:1. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-1-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dussault G, Franceschini MC. Not enough there, too many here: understanding geographical imbalances in the distribution of the health workforce. Hum Resour Health. 2006. May 27;4:12. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-4-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tangcharoensathien V, Travis P, Tancarino AS, Sawaengdee K, Chhoedon Y, Hassan S, et al. Managing In- and Out-Migration of Health Workforce in Selected Countries in South East Asia Region. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017. May 8;7(2):137–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.WHO | Immigrant health workers in OECD countries in the broader context of highly skilled migration [Internet]. WHO. [cited 2019 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.who.int/workforcealliance/knowledge/resources/oecd_migration_highskilled/en/ [Google Scholar]
  • 10.International Migration of Health Workers: improving international co-operation to address the global health workforce crisis [Internet]. AP Migration. [cited 2019 Jun 26]. Available from: http://apmagnet.ilo.org/resources/international-migration-of-health-workers-improving-international-co-operation-to-address-the-global-health-workforce-crisis
  • 11.Koduzi G, Kongjonaj A, Lazarevik V. Why Do Albania Doctors Migrate? European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. 2017. Jan 21;3(2):60–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Manzi F, Schellenberg JA, Hutton G, Wyss K, Mbuya C, Shirima K, et al. Human resources for health care delivery in Tanzania: a multifaceted problem. Hum Resour Health. 2012. Feb 22;10:3. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-10-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bratt JH, Foreit J, Chen PL, West C, Janowitz B, de Vargas T. A comparison of four approaches for measuring clinician time use. Health Policy Plan. 1999. Dec;14(4):374–81. doi: 10.1093/heapol/14.4.374 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Finkler SA, Knickman JR, Hendrickson G, Lipkin M, Thompson WG. A comparison of work-sampling and time-and-motion techniques for studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1993. Dec;28(5):577–97. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bonenberger M, Aikins M, Akweongo P, Bosch-Capblanch X, Wyss K. What Do District Health Managers in Ghana Use Their Working Time for? A Case Study of Three Districts. PLoS One [Internet]. 2015. Jun 11 [cited 2020 Jun 26];10(6). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465977/ doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Almeida D, Ferreira J. Analysis of the Methods Time Measurement (MTM) Methodology through its Application in Manufacturing Companies. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jain R, Gupta S, Dangayach GS. Optimization of Labour Productivity Using MOST Technique.:10. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Karim ANM, Kays HME. Improvement of Workflow and Productivity through Application of Maynard Operation Sequence Technique (MOST).: 10. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Viharos ZJ, Bán B. Comprehensive Comparison of MTM and BasicMOST, as the Most Widely Applied PMTS Analysis Methods.: 9. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lopetegui M, Yen P-Y, Lai A, Jeffries J, Embi P, Payne P. Time Motion Studies in Healthcare: What are we talking about? J Biomed Inform. 2014. Jun;0:292–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.02.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Burke TA, McKee JR, Wilson HC, Donahue RM, Batenhorst AS, Pathak DS. A comparison of time-and-motion and self-reporting methods of work measurement. J Nurs Adm. 2000. Mar;30(3):118–25. doi: 10.1097/00005110-200003000-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pizziferri L, Kittler AF, Volk LA, Honour MM, Gupta S, Wang S, et al. Primary care physician time utilization before and after implementation of an electronic health record: a time-motion study. J Biomed Inform. 2005. Jun;38(3):176–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2004.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tipping MD, Forth VE, O’Leary KJ, Malkenson DM, Magill DB, Englert K, et al. Where did the day go?—a time-motion study of hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2010. Aug;5(6):323–8. doi: 10.1002/jhm.790 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.McElwee E, Cresswell JA, Yao C, Bakeu M, Cavallaro FL, Duclos D, et al. Comparing time and motion methods to study personnel time in the context of a family planning supply chain intervention in Senegal. Hum Resour Health. 2018. Nov 19;16(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12960-018-0328-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Brar S, Purohit N, Prinja S, Singh G, Bahuguna P, Kaur M. What and how much do the community health officers and auxiliary nurse midwives do in health and wellness centres in a block in Punjab? A time-motion study. Indian Journal of Public Health. 2021. Jul 1;65(3):275. doi: 10.4103/ijph.IJPH_1489_20 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bryant M, Essomba RO. Measuring time utilization in rural health centres. Health Policy Plan. 1995. Dec 1;10(4):415–22. doi: 10.1093/heapol/10.4.415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gottschalk A, Flocke SA. Time Spent in Face-to-Face Patient Care and Work Outside the Examination Room. Ann Fam Med. 2005. Nov;3(6):488–93. doi: 10.1370/afm.404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Weigl M, Müller A, Zupanc A, Angerer P. Participant observation of time allocation, direct patient contact and simultaneous activities in hospital physicians. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009. Jun 29;9:110. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gabrani J, Schindler C, Wyss K. Factors associated with the utilisation of primary care services: a cross-sectional study in public and private facilities in Albania. BMJ Open. 2020. Dec 1;10(12):e040398. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Strategjia kombetare e shendetesise 2016–2020 (draft). 2017 Feb.: 99. Available from: http://staging.nationalplanningcycles.org/sites/default/files/planning_cycle_repository/albania/draft_strategt_albania_2016-2020.pdf
  • 31.Al Ahmeti. Public Health Administration and Management in Albania.: 21. Available from: https://www.nispa.org/files/conferences/2003/wg_7/Ahmeti.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mallidou AA, Cummings GG, Schalm C, Estabrooks CA. Health care aides use of time in a residential long-term care unit: a time and motion study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013. Sep;50(9):1229–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Qian S, Yu P, Hailey DM, Zhang Z, Davy PJ, Nelson MI. Time spent on daytime direct care activities by personal carers in two Australian residential aged care facilities: a time-motion study. Aust Health Rev. 2014. May;38(2):230–7. doi: 10.1071/AH13161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Thorpe-Jamison PT, Culley CM, Perera S, Handler SM. Evaluating the Impact of Computer-Generated Rounding Reports on Physician Workflow in the Nursing Home: A Feasibility Time-Motion Study. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2013. May 1;14(5):358–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Westbrook JI, Li L, Georgiou A, Paoloni R, Cullen J. Impact of an electronic medication management system on hospital doctors’ and nurses’ work: a controlled pre–post, time and motion study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013. Nov;20(6):1150–8. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Anderson DR, St Hilaire D, Flinter M. Primary care nursing role and care coordination: an observational study of nursing work in a community health center. Online J Issues Nurs. 2012. May 31;17(2):3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bonfim D, Fugulin FMT, Laus AM, Peduzzi M, Gaidzinski RR. [Time standards of nursing in Primary Health Care: an observational study]. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2016. Feb;50(1):121–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gardner G, Gardner A, Middleton S, Della P, Kain V, Doubrovsky A. The work of nurse practitioners. J Adv Nurs. 2010. Oct;66(10):2160–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05379.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Possari JF, Gaidzinski RR, Lima AFC, Fugulin FMT, Herdman TH. Use of the nursing intervention classification for identifying the workload of a nursing team in a surgical center. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2015. Oct;23(5):781–8. doi: 10.1590/0104-1169.0419.2615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Anskär E, Lindberg M, Falk M, Andersson A. Time utilization and perceived psychosocial work environment among staff in Swedish primary care settings. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018. Dec;18(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hendrich A, Chow MP, Skierczynski BA, Lu Z. A 36-Hospital Time and Motion Study: How Do Medical-Surgical Nurses Spend Their Time? Perm J. 2008;12(3):25–34. doi: 10.7812/tpp/08-021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Primary health care in Albania: rapid assessment (2018) [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 Jun 24]. Available from: http://www.euro.who.int/en/countries/albania/publications/primary-health-care-in-albania-rapid-assessment-2018
  • 43.Sinsky C, Colligan L, Li L, Prgomet M, Reynolds S, Goeders L, et al. Allocation of Physician Time in Ambulatory Practice: A Time and Motion Study in 4 Specialties. Ann Intern Med. 2016. Dec 6;165(11):753–60. doi: 10.7326/M16-0961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Racic M, Pavlovic J, Hadzivukovic N, Ivkovic N. Perceptions, attitudes, and expectation of baccalaureate nurses toward position of nursing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management. 2019;34(2):e1223–35. doi: 10.1002/hpm.2767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hämel K, Vössing C. The collaboration of general practitioners and nurses in primary care: a comparative analysis of concepts and practices in Slovenia and Spain. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2017. Sep;18(5):492–506. doi: 10.1017/S1463423617000354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Joshi R, Alim M, Kengne AP, Jan S, Maulik PK, Peiris D, et al. Task Shifting for Non-Communicable Disease Management in Low and Middle Income Countries–A Systematic Review. PLoS One [Internet]. 2014. Aug 14 [cited 2020 Aug 26];9(8). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133198/ doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Maier CB, Aiken LH. Task shifting from physicians to nurses in primary care in 39 countries: a cross-country comparative study. Eur J Public Health. 2016. Dec;26(6):927–34. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckw098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hämel K, Toso BRG de O, Casanova A, Giovanella L. Advanced Practice Nursing in Primary Health Care in the Spanish National Health System. Ciênc saúde coletiva. 2019. Dec 20;25:303–14. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232020251.28332019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Chaudhury N, Hammer J, Kremer M, Muralidharan K, Rogers FH. Missing in Action: Teacher and Health Worker Absence in Developing Countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2006. Feb 1;20(1):91–116. doi: 10.1257/089533006776526058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Franke RH, Kaul JD. The Hawthorne Experiments: First Statistical Interpretation. American Sociological Review. 1978;43(5):623–43. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hanna Landenmark

1 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-01564Work time allocation at primary health care level in two regions of AlbaniaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Muho,

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 see the comments of one reviewer below. Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible.  Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 14 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,

Hanna Landenmark

Staff 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. 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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

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 objective of this study is to assess the work-time allocation patterns of PHC workers in two regions of Albania and to compare the patterns between doctors and nurses and between urban and rural facilities. This study offers valuable insight on work-time patterns of doctors and nurses in urban and rural settings, in the two regions of Albania where the research took place.

I have the following comments, questions and suggestions:

1. For some activities the differences between rural and urban facilities are rather small, but the authors report that one group spends more time on the activity than the other group. For example: line 230: “meetings (3.4% versus 3.3%)”. It is recommended that the size of the differences is also taken into account.

2. Related to the previous comment, the observations are based on a sample. Is it not possible to calculate confidence intervals around the point estimates?

3. The authors mention several limitations. It would be interesting to discuss more the implications of the limitations for the results. To what extent can the limitations influence the result?

4. In each of the two study regions, nine health centers were included and at the health center level, one doctor, one nurse and one nurse at the affiliated health post-ambulatory. This should result in 54 HWs (2*9*3=54). However only 48 HWs participated in the study. Could be clarified which category of HWs are missing and why? I suggest to split in table 1 the category nurses in 'nurses at the health center' and 'nurses located at the affiliated health post-ambulatories'.

5. The added value of figure 2 escapes me since this information can also be found in table 2. Furthermore, the legend of figure 2 stated a category that cannot be found in the figure.

6. Table 2 is very important, however, the presentation of the categories is not clear. For example, the categories ‘other’, ‘meetings’, ‘administration’ are mentioned several times.

**********

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: Yes: Wim Peersman

**********

[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. 2022 Oct 26;17(10):e0276184. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276184.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Jul 2022

Response to the first reviewer's comment: We acknowledge this comment and agree. Consequently reworded the respective section. We indicate now that for a number of categories differences between urban and rural being small, but also indicate those categories where differences are being observed (lines 234-242).

Response to the second reviewer's comment: Thank you for bringing this important point to our attention. We now have calculated the confidence intervals for each of the categories of activities for doctors and nurses, in urban and rural settings, respectively. So not to overload the tables and to keep them well understandable, the confidence intervals are presented into three new tables as supporting information (reflected in the lines 508-513) under the titles: S4 Table, S5 Table, S6 Table. In text citation referring to the confidence intervals in supporting information are added (lines 212-213, 233, 241-242).

Response to the third reviewer's comment: We agree with the reviewer. Consequently we updated the limitation section accordingly (lines 326-327, 332-333, 337, 341-342) and hope it meets the reviewer’s requests.

Response to the fourth reviewer's comment: Thank you for this valid point and for the suggestion. We updated in the revised version of the manuscript table 1 and the narrative of the sampling so to better clarify why there is only 48 HWs and not 54. Indeed, there are only two urban health post ambulatories sampled per region, thus there are four nurses less from these facilities (changes in the lines 115-116). Further, we split the category nurses in four sub-categories in Table 1 i.e.: ‘nurses at urban health center’, ‘nurses at rural health center’, ‘nurses at urban health post-ambulatories’ and ‘nurses at rural health post-ambulatories’ (line 179).

Response to the fifth reviewer's comment: We would like to acknowledge reviewer’s observation about the similarities that figure 2 and table 2 present. However, we believe that figure 2 adds to the clarity and visibility of our manuscript, making it easy for the reader to interpret the data. We hope it being acceptable to keep both tables included. Further, apologies for the typo in the legend. The category of activity from the legend of figure 2 the reviewer refers to in the comment, has been replaced accordingly (from ‘Direct patient care’ to ‘Service provision to users’).

Response to the sixth reviewer's comment: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We believe that this information can be found under the ‘Data collection section’ and we tried to further clarify it by adding an explanatory sentence (see lines 148-150). Further, we placed a footnote under Table 2 (lines 207-209) and we hope it meets the reviewer’s requests.

Response to the first journal's requirement: Requirement acknowledged. We reviewed our reference list and there is no article that has been retracted so far. However, we did noticed that in the first submission we had missed to number one of the references (reference number 41, line 483). Subsequently, all the references after this one in the reference list, increased their number by one. Only one change was made in the text due to this (line 311).

Response to the second journal's requirement: We thank the editor for bringing this point to our attention. We added a header to table 4 (line 248) in order to make the reading of the table more understandable.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Dragan Pamucar

12 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-01564R1Work time allocation at primary health care level in two regions of AlbaniaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Muho,

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 Oct 27 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,

Dragan Pamucar

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.

[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 #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: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: My comments have only been partially answered.

Comment 2 (concerning the confidence intervals): in the tables S4, S5, S6, the point estimate is a percentage and the confidence intervals are proportions. It would be more clear to report the confidence intervals also as a percentage.

Comment 4 (concerning the number of HWs that participated): table 1 is very clear, but is it possible that the narrative is not entirely correct?

Comment 5 (concerning figure 2): the legend of figure 2 stated a category (‘main category’) that cannot be found in the figure.

Reviewer #2: This Manuscript is good and quite innovative. It clears the clarity of the reader. It is well structured and well written. The author does an excellent job of presenting a highly technical and complicated process in an easy-to-understand manner.

Although here are few of the observations:

1. To have an unbiased view in the paper, there should be some discussions of the various other work measurement methods like MOST, MTM-1, etc.

2. The discussion and conclusions should be extended with more future work discussion and comparison of related literature findings with above methods.

3. Justify the reason for choosing the proposed methodology.

**********

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: Yes: Wim Peersman

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. 2022 Oct 26;17(10):e0276184. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276184.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 Sep 2022

Response to reviewer 1:

1- Thank you for bringing this point to our attention. We have now changed the confidence intervals in the table S4, S5, S6, from proportions to percentages.

2-We agree with the reviewer. Consequently we updated the study sampling section accordingly (line 122) and hope it meets the reviewer’s requests.

3- We would like to acknowledge reviewer’s observation on the difference between figure 2 and its legend. The typo in the legend has been removed.

Response to reviewer 2:

We thank the reviewer for recognizing the innovation and the clarity of the manuscript.

1- The concern of the reviewer is well acknowledged. Accordingly we have extended introduction section and provide reference to the methods for analyzing work processes (MOST and MTM), (lines 60-65). We also provide a rational why these methods were not the most suitable for addressing the research questions.

2- Thank you for bringing this aspect to our attention. The discussion has been updated accordingly, providing future work recommendations (lines 313-314).

3- This a valid point and thus thanks for raising this point. We have added a rational why a time motion method was considered the best approach for analyzing worktime allocation patterns at PHC level (lines 74-76).

Journal requirements response:

1- Requirement acknowledged. We reviewed our reference list and there is no article that has been retracted so far.

Additionally, to compile with the second reviewer’s comments about presenting other methods applied for studying work processes, we added four new references supporting the updated sections (references number 16, 17, 18, 19, lines 422-429). Subsequently, all the references after these ones in the reference list, increased their number by four. Changes were made throughout the text due to this (lines 62, 64, 67, 69, 71, 74, 82, 83, 85, 86, 90, 130, 270-272, 278, 287, 288, 291, 296, 301, 307, 314, 321, 322, 327, 335).

Decision Letter 2

Dragan Pamucar

2 Oct 2022

Work time allocation at primary health care level in two regions of Albania

PONE-D-22-01564R2

Dear Dr. Muho,

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,

Dragan Pamucar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thanks for making changes. All comments have been addressed by the authors in this version of manuscript.

**********

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: Yes: Wim Peersman

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Dragan Pamucar

5 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-01564R2

Work time allocation at primary health care level in two regions of Albania.

Dear Dr. Muho:

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. Dragan Pamucar

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 Table. Categories of activities to observe.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Overall time allocation and 95% confidence intervals on categories of activities by health workers.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Percentage of overall time allocation (including outreach time) and 95% confidence intervals by doctors at rural and urban settings.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Percentage of overall time allocation (including outreach time) and 95% confidence intervals by nurses at rural and urban settings.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Text. Analysis of the context in the view of development and implementation of new job profiles and roles for family nurses in Albania.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Text. Nurse profiles and master in family nursing.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly as it contains information that could compromise the privacy of research participants. Data are available upon request from the authors (contact via the corresponding author and Dr. Kaspar Wyss, Deputy Head of Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, kaspar.wyss@swisstph.ch) or from non-author point of contact (via Malin Ziehmer-Wenz, malin.ziehmer-wenz@swisstph.ch).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES