Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 6;18(2):e0281242. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281242

Knowledge of postpartum complications and associated factors among women who gave birth in the last 12 months in Arba Minch Town, Southern Ethiopia, 2019: A community-based cross-sectional study

Godana Yaya Tessema 1,*, Gistane Ayele 2,#, Kassahun Fikadu Tessema 1,#, Gebresilasea Gendisha Ukke 1,#, Wanzahun Godana Boynito 2,#
Editor: Tesera Bitew3
PMCID: PMC9901784  PMID: 36745601

Abstract

Introduction

The knowledge of women about obstetric complications can helps them to seek health care earlier before obstetric complications arise. Most maternal deaths occur due to the poor health care seeking behavior after childbirth, but little is done on maternal knowledge of postpartum complications. Therefore this study aimed to assess knowledge of postpartum complications and associated factors among women who gave birth in the last 12 months in Arba Minch Town, Sothern Ethiopia.

Methods

A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted on 418 women from December 01 to 15, 2019. A multi-stage sampling method was applied to reach study units. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect the data using face-to-face interviews. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression was applied to examine the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Statistical significance was declared at a P-value ≤ 0.05 with the corresponding 95% confidence level.

Results

Knowledge of women on postpartum complications was 23.9%. Secondary and above educational level (AOR = 3.82, 95% CI: [1.70, 8.65]), Grand multiparity (AOR = 2.31, 95% CI: [1.13, 4.71]), having four and above ANC visit (AOR = 2.04, 95% CI: [1.10, 3.81]) and self-decision making power to seek care (AOR = 3.68, 95% CI: [2.21, 6.11]) were statistically significant factors.

Conclusion and recommendation

Mothers’ knowledge of postpartum complications was low in this study area. Improving women’s educational level, decision-making power to seek health care, and counseling during ANC follow-up may be useful approaches to increase their knowledge of postpartum complications.

Introduction

The postpartum period is a time that starts one hour after delivery and extends up to 42 complete days postpartum. It is a critical phase in the lives of mothers and newborns. During this time, a wide range of postpartum complications have been reported, including excessive or prolonged postpartum bleeding, breastfeeding problems, urinary incontinence, constipation, depression, psychoses, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, fatigue, constipation, and sleep disorders [1, 2].

Even though major changes and complications that threaten the lives of mothers and newborns occur during this period, there is a lack of appropriate care during this period, which results in maternal morbidity and mortality. The majority of maternal deaths occur within the first month of childbirth, with nearly half occurring within the first 24 hours and 66% occurring within the first week [3].

In 2015, around 303, 000 women died due to pregnancy and childbirth-related complications in the world. Almost all (99%) maternal deaths occur in developing countries, of which 66% of maternal deaths occur in Sub-Saharan African countries, which are estimated to have 546 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Most of these deaths could have been prevented if mothers had sought health care before complications worsened [4, 5].

The new transformative agenda set by the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) is planned to reduce the global maternal mortality ratio (MMR) to less than 70 per 100,000 live births by 2030 [6].

Among pregnancy and childbirth-related complications, hemorrhage was the leading direct cause of maternal death worldwide, representing 27.1% of maternal deaths. Postpartum hemorrhage alone accounted for 19.7% of total maternal deaths due to hemorrhage. Hypertension was the second most common direct cause worldwide. Maternal mortality due to sepsis was 10.7% and other deaths were due to other direct causes [7].

According to the Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey (EDHS), the estimated pregnancy-related mortality ratio is 412 deaths per 100,000 live births. In Ethiopia, for every 1,000 live births, approximately four women die during pregnancy, childbirth, or within 2 months after childbirth. Although Ethiopia is one of the countries that makes progress toward achieving Mellenium Development Goal (MDG) 5, still Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) in the country is high [5, 8].

The postpartum period is associated with significant biosocial changes in women’s lives. When these changes occur, they can be associated with problems such as vaginal bleeding foul-smelling vaginal discharge, constipation, tenderness and pain in the perineum, breast problems, burning during urination, wound breakdown, self-consciousness, and loneliness. If these problems progress, they can lead to complications that can negatively affect women’s health and daily life after the postnatal period. Women’s knowledge of these associated problems is deemed necessary to lower postpartum complications [9].

Many factors influence the outcome of pregnancy starting with the onset of any obstetric complications. Delayed treatment has the greatest negative impact on the outcome, which is due to a variety of factors, including a lack of information and adequate knowledge about complications. According to one study, 80 percent of maternal deaths in Ethiopia occurred at home [10].

"Type 1 Delay " is the leading cause of maternal mortality in Ethiopia, and the main cause of "type 1delay" is a lack of knowledge about pregnancy-related issues. Women’s knowledge is important for seeking medical care before complications arise and has a crucial influence on the reduction of maternal morbidity and mortality [11].

Despite several types of research being conducted on maternal knowledge of obstetric complications and associated factors, little is done on three separated phases of obstetrics, i.e., pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum periods. In this phase, maternal health care as well as their knowledge of complications specific to this specific period is different. Therefore, this study was focused on women’s knowledge of postpartum complications and associated factors.

Methods & material

Study area and period

The study was conducted from 1st December to 15th December 2019 in Arba Minch town. Arba Minch is the administrative town of Gamo Zone, South Nation Nationality People Region (SNNPR), and Ethiopia. It is found at an elevation of 1285 meters above sea level and is located 505 km away from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. People with different ethnic groups and religions reside in the town. The town is divided into four sub-cities, namely, Abaya, Sikela, Nech-Sar & Shecha. The town consists of 11 kebeles (the smallest administrative unit) with a total population of 112, 724. There are 26, 265 reproductive age group (15–49) women who reside in the town out of which 4428 were pregnant. The total number of mothers who gave birth at the facility preceding the study period was 3992. There is one governmental General Hospital, two Health Centers, 17 primary care clinics, and 14 medium-sized private clinics in the town [12].

Study design

A community-based cross-sectional study.

Population

All women who gave birth in the last 12 months before the start of the study and lived in Arba Minch town for six months were chosen. Individual mothers were systematically selected and interviewed in four randomly selected kebeles, with a total of 1475 mothers eligible for the study sample allocation. Mothers who were critically ill and unable to participate in the interviews were excluded from the study. As a result, the study included those mothers who had given birth within the previous year before the study period.

Sample size determination and sampling procedures

Sample size determination

The sample size was calculated by using a single population proportion formula with the assumption of, a 95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, 5% non-response rate, 1.5 design effect, and expected population proportion of mothers who were knowledgeable about postpartum complications was 22.1% [13].

n=(z2)2.p(1p)d2

Where,

n = sample size

Z = standard normal distribution value at 95% confidence level of 2 = 1.96

P = women’s knowledge of postpartum complications = 22.1% [13].

d = margin of error = 5%

n=(1.96)2×22.1(10.221)0.052

n = 265

Based on the assumptions the final calculated sample was: n = 418

Sampling procedures

Arba Minch town was purposively selected as a study area. The study participants were chosen using a multistage sampling process. There were 11 kebeles in the town, so kebeles were divided into 11 clusters. Using a simple random sampling procedure, four kebeles (Bere, Ediget-Ber, Wuha-Minch, and Dilfana) were chosen, and mothers who gave birth in the previous 12 months in each kebele were identified by contacting kebele health extension workers (HEW) for the updated register. The overall number of mothers who gave birth in the four kebeles was N (estimated total number of deliveries in four kebeles) 1475 (Bere = 331, Ediget-ber = 471, Wuha-Minch = 371 & Dilfana = 302 ladies). Using a proportional allocation formula, the sample assigned to a specific kebele was considered. The calculated samples for Bere, Ediget Bere, Wuha Minch, and Dilfana were 94, 133, 105, and 86 mothers, respectively, based on the proportion to size allocation. The ’K’-value was calculated by dividing the number of mothers who gave birth in the previous 12 months in each selected kebele by the sample allocated to that kebele, yielding the following results: 3.52, 3.54, 3.53, and 3.51 for Bere, Ediget Ber, Wuha Minch, and Dilfana, respectively. By chance, the rounded k-value of all of the chosen kebeles was 3. The first mother was discovered by randomly selecting one household on the kebele’s outskirts with the assistance of HEW and the leaders of specific kebeles. Then, for every three mothers, a systematic random sampling technique was used to obtain study participants, which was repeated until the sample was complete. If more than one mother was found in a single household using the lottery method, only one mother was chosen.

Data collection tools and procedures

The data were collected by face-to-face interviews using a semi-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was adapted from previously approved types of literature considering the study objectives [17, 18]. It consists of socio-demographic variables, obstetric factors, and postpartum complications knowledge measuring questions. The questionnaire was prepared in English and was translated to Amharic (working language of the study area) and then, back to English for consistency.

Three female diploma midwives who are fluent in speaking the Amharic language were involved in data collection. Two males who have Bachelors of Science degrees in midwifery’ health professionals were recruited as supervisors.

Study variables

Dependent variable

Women’s knowledge of postpartum complications.

Independent variables

Socio-demographic variables. Maternal age, marital status, occupational status, educational status, monthly income & access to media.

Obstetric factors & health service use. Parity, Antenatal care visit, information on the pregnancy-related problem, place of delivery, self-decision making autonomy to seek health care.

Operational definition

Knowledgeable

Mothers who spontaneously mentioned three and above postpartum complications were declared as knowledgeable about postpartum complications [13, 14].

Data quality management

The quality of the data was maintained before, during, and after data collection.

A semi-structured questionnaire was adapted from different types of previously published literature. Then pretesting of the questionnaire was carried out on 5% of the sample that was, on 21 mothers in Mirab Abaya town, Gamo Zone, Ethiopia, and any necessary amendments were done.

Intensive training of three days duration about the objective of the study, questionnaire, and ethical issues was given to data collectors and supervisors.

During the data collection period, questionnaires were checked for completeness and consistency immediately by data collectors.

After data collection, the principal investigator and supervisors rechecked the collected data for its completeness, and corrective measures were taken accordingly. Then, data was entered to epi info version 3.5.1 and 5% of the data set was double entered to check the accuracy of the entered data.

Data processing and analysis

After data collection was complete, each questionnaire was coded and entered into Epi info version 3.5.1 and then, it was exported to SPSS Version 20 window compatible software for cleaning and analysis. By using simple frequency tables and cross-tabulation data were checked for completeness.

A descriptive statistical method such as frequency tables, graphs, and mean with standard deviation was used to present different characteristics of study participants.

Bivariable logistic regression was done and variables with P-value ≤ 0.25 and all other variables that had an association in previously approved kinds of literature and assumed to have scientific relevance to the study were selected as candidate variables for multivariable logistic regression analysis to control the effect of confounders. A backward stepwise logistic regression method was used for the analysis. Model fitness was checked by Hosmer and Lemeshow’s goodness of model fit test (P = 0.434).

Finally adjusted odds ratio with corresponding 95% CI and p-value ≤ 0.05 was taken as a statistical association between the dependent and independent variables.

Ethical consideration

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from Arba Minch University, College of Medicine and Health Sciences Institutional Research Review Board (IRB/132/12 dated December 27, 2019). A formal letter of permission to conduct the study was obtained from Gamo Zone Health Department, Arba Minch Town Health Office. The verbal consensus was made with mothers after an explanation of the purpose of the study, and the part they took in the research by data collectors to assure their right to refuse or participate in the study. Mothers were also told that the data obtained will be kept confidential & had the right to withdraw from the study at any time during the interview.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants

A total of 418 women who gave birth in the twelve months preceding the study period were recruited to participate and resulting in a 100% response rate. The respondents’ average age was 28.35 (SD 5.84) with a minimum and maximum of 18 and 42 ages respectively. The majority of respondents 202(48.3%) and 181(43.3%) were Orthodox and Protestant, respectively, and 400(95.7%) were married. The majority of respondents, 267 (63.9%), were of Gamo ethnic group and 238 (56.9%) were housewives. In terms of level of education, 222 (53.1%) of respondents have completed Secondary School or higher. Among the total study participants, 367 (87.8%) had access to mass media, with television being the most commonly used medium 335 (80.1%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents in Arba Minch town, Southern Ethiopia, December 2019 (n = 418).

Variables Frequency(n = 418) Percent (%)
Age 15–19 Years 18 4.3
20–24 years 97 23.2
25–29 years 136 32.5
≥ 30 years 167 40
Religion Orthodox 202 48.3
Protestant 181 43.3
Muslim 35 8.4
Marital status Married 400 95.7
Others* 18 4.3
Ethnicity Gamo 267 63.9
Amhara 35 8.4
Konso 31 7.4
Derashe 24 5.7
Gofa 21 5
Zeyissie 18 4.3
Others** 22 5.3
Occupation Gov’t employee 74 17.7
Merchant 80 19.1
Housewife 238 56.9
Other** 26 6.2
Income < 500 ETB 278 66.5
500–1000 ETB 43 10.3
1001–1500 ETB 18 4.3
≥ 1501 ETB 79 18.9
Women’s educational Not attend formal education 96 23
Primary 100 23.9
Secondary &above 222 53.1
Have media Yes 367 87.8
Medias used by mothers Television 335 80.1
Radio 148 35.4
Newspaper 16 3.8

*include Widowed, Divorced **Gurage, Oromo, Wolaita, Silte, & Kore, **Student.

Obstetric characteristics of mothers and health service utilization

Among the 418 mothers polled, 188 (45%) were multiparous, and 100 (23.9%) were grand multiparous. 411 (98.3 percent) of the total study participants attended ANC follow-ups for their most recent pregnancy. 283 (67.7 percent) of mothers who had a history of ANC visits had attended four or more times. The majority of the attendees had visited government facilities, with only 6 (1.4 percent) having visited a private clinic. Participants in the study were also asked whether or not health care providers provided information on pregnancy-related issues during visits to the ANC clinic. 275 (65.8 percent) of respondents received information about pregnancy-related problems from a health care provider, while 136 (32.5 percent) did not. The vast majority of mothers, 392 (93.8%), gave birth in a health facility, while 26 (6.2%) gave birth at home. Women were also asked if they were the primary decision-makers in their families when it came to seeking medical attention for pregnancy-related issues. Only 127 (30.4 percent) of total respondents were self-decision makers, and 291 (69.6 percent) of women’s decisions were accompanied by their husbands and other family members (Table 2).

Table 2. Obstetric characteristics and health service utilization of the respondents in Arba Minch town, Southern Ethiopia, December 2019.
Variables Frequency(n = 418) Percent(%)
Parity Primiparous 130 31.1
Multiparous 188 45
Grand Multipara 100 23.9
Have ANC visit Yes 411 98.3
No 7 1.7
Frequency of ANC visit ≥ 4 visit 283 67.7
1–3 visit 128 30.6
Institution of ANC visit Hospital 221 52.9
Health center 192 45.9
Private clinic 6 1.4
Informed on pregnancy-related problem Yes 275 65.8
No 136 32.5
Place of delivery Health institution 392 93.8
Home 26 6.2
Decide to seek health care Self 127 30.4
Husband/Family 291 69.6

Knowledge of postpartum complications

Even though the majority of the study participants 260(62.2 percent) had heard about postpartum complications before the study, only 100 (23.9 percent) of 418 women had Knowledge of postpartum complications (knew three or more postpartum complications). The main sources of information mentioned by respondents were: health personnel during ANC follow up 180 (43.1 percent), HEW (health extension workers) discussions on maternal health 143 (34.2 percent), mass media 83 (19.9 percent), school 18 (4.3 percent), and had previous history of obstetric complication 9 percent (2.2 percent). Severe vaginal bleeding (240, or 57.4 percent) was the most frequently mentioned postpartum complication, followed by pregnancy-induced hypertension after childbirth (121, or 28.9 percent). Breast complications were mentioned by 75 (17.9%), blurred vision and weakness were mentioned by 73 (17.5%), foul-smelling vaginal discharge was mentioned by 71 (17%), convulsions were mentioned by 14 (3.3%), and postpartum psychoses and blues were mentioned the least by 4 (1%) of the respondents. The majority of respondents who had heard about postpartum complications expressed a desire to visit health care facilities if complications arose (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Postpartum complications mentioned by women who gave birth in the last 12 months in Arba Minch town, Southern Ethiopia, December 2019.

Fig 1

Factors associated with women’s knowledge of postpartum complications

After multivariable logistic regression was done; some variables such as secondary and above educational status, grand multipara, four and above the frequency of ANC visit and decision making power of mothers to seek health care utilization were significantly associated with maternal knowledge of postpartum complications.

The educational status of the mothers showed statistical association with knowledge of postpartum complications, (AOR = 3.82, 95% CI: [1.70–8.65]).

Grand multipara mothers also had an association with the dependent variable, (AOR = 2.31, 95% CI: [1.13–4.71]). Similarly, frequency of antenatal care was another significant predictor of women’s knowledge of postpartum complications, (AOR = 2.04, 95% CI: [1.10–3.81]).

Another variable that was associated with maternal knowledge of postpartum complications was the decision-making power of mothers to seek health service utilization, (AOR = 3.68, 95% CI: [2.21, 6.11]) (Table 3).

Table 3. Factors associated with mothers’ knowledge of postpartum complications in Arba Minch town, Southern Ethiopia, 2019 (n = 418).
Variables Categories Knowledge of postpartum complications COR (95% CI) AOR(95%CI)
Yes No
Age 15–19 Years 2 16 1 ***
20–24 years 16 81 1.58(0.33–7.56)
25–29 years 35 101 2.32(0.61–8.82)
≥ 30 years 47 120 3.13(0.69–14.16)
Occupation Gov’t employee 27 47 1.92(0.69–5.35) ***
Merchant 20 60 1.11(0.39–3.15)
Housewife 47 191 0.82(0.31–2.16)
Other**** 6 20 1
Income < 500 ETB 56 222 1 ***
500–1000 ETB 10 33 1.20(0.56–2.58)
1001–1500 ETB 5 13 1.53(0.52–4.46)
≥ 1501 ETB 29 50 2.30(1.34–4.00)
Educational status Not attend formal education 9 87 0.20(0.10–0.43) 3.82(1.70–8.65)*
Attend primary school 16 84 0.37(0.20–0.68) 2.12(1.10–4.01)
Secondary school and above 75 147 1 1
Access for media Yes 95 272 3.21(1.24–8.33) ***
No 5 46 1
Parity Primpara 25 105 0.64(0.35–1.20) 2.31(1.13–4.71)
Multipara 48 140 0.93(0.54–1.61) ***
Grand multipara 27 73 1 1
ANC visit Yes 99 312 1.69(0.23–10.43) ***
No 1 6 1
Frequency of ANC ≥ 4 82 201 1 1
1–3 17 111 0.38(0.21–0.67) 2.04(1.10–3.81) **
Place of birth Health institution 98 294 4.00(0.93–17.23) ***
Home 2 24 1
Decision making power 1 = self 54 73 1 1
2 = family and husband 46 245 0.25(0.16–0.41) 3.68(2.21–6.11)*

*Statistically significant variable at p-value < 0.01; ** significant variable at p-value <0.05; ***Variables which are not statistically significant in multivariable logistic regression ****Students.

Discussion

This study reported that 23.9% of the study participants were knowledgeable on postpartum complications.

This study finding is much higher than a similar study conducted in Western Bengal of the Indian state, in 2011, in which the percentage of mothers who were knowledgeable on postpartum complications was 1.1% [15]. This difference could be due to variation in socio-demographical and time duration of the study.

The finding of a cross-sectional study carried out in rural area Gurage Zone, Ethiopia that reported 20.3% of mothers had mentioned two and above complications after childbirth, but in this study, 23.9% of mothers had mentioned three and above postpartum complications [16]. This study discrepancy might be due to the difference of study areas.

This study finding is slightly similar to cross-sectional studies conducted in two districts of the country; the Goba and Raya Kobo districts of Ethiopia that showed 22.1% & 26.4% of the mothers were knowledgeable on postpartum complications respectively [13, 14]. This consistence might be due to the similarity of the studies; in declaring mothers who had mentioned three and above complications after childbirth as knowledgeable.

The study finding is also less as compared with studies conducted in different parts of Ethiopia, such as Aleta Wondo Sidama (37.7%), Fango district Wolita (55.8%), & Debre Birhan Amhara (77.2%) [1719]. This difference might be because mothers who could mention two and above complications were considered as knowledgeable in the previous study. But in the current study mothers were declared as knowledgeable if they mentioned three and above complications after childbirth.

This study revealed that severe vaginal bleeding was the most commonly known postpartum complication mentioned by study participants followed by hypertension, breast complication & foul-smelling discharge. This result is slightly in line with different research findings conducted in other countries as well as in Ethiopia [2022]. The least mentioned complication was postpartum psychoses and blues which were never mentioned in other research findings. This might be due to maternal history of previous experience of the complication.

In this study; educational status, being grand multiparity, the number of ANC visits and the decision-making power of mothers to seek health care were predictors of maternal knowledge of postpartum complications.

The educational status of the mothers showed a statistical significant association with knowledge of postpartum complications. Women who attended secondary and above educational level were about 4 times (AOR = 3.82, 95% CI: [1.70, 8.65] more likely to be knowledgeable than mothers who didn’t attend formal education. This was consistent with a research finding of Raya Kobo, Ethiopia [14].

Similarly, the frequency of antenatal care visit was another predictor of women’s knowledge of postpartum complications. And women who had four and above ANC follow up were 2 times (AOR = 2.04, 95% CI: [1.10, 3.81]) more likely to be knowledgeable on postpartum complications than women who had three or fewer ANC visits. This study finding is similar to different studies conducted in Ethiopia [23, 24].

Being grand multiparity also has a relationship with maternal knowledge of postpartum complications. Grand multipara mothers were 2 times (AOR = 2.31, 95% CI: [1.13, 4.71]) more likely to have knowledge of complications of childbirth than primipara mothers. This is similar to the institutional-based cross-sectional study finding of Mechekel East Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia [25].

Another very important variable that was associated with maternal knowledge of postpartum complications, with a p-value of < 0.001 was the decision-making power of mothers to seek health service utilization. Mothers who decide health service utilization in their household had 4 times (AOR = 3.68, 95% CI: [2.21, 6.11]) a likelihood to be knowledgeable than mothers who depend on the decision of other family members.

This is in line with study findings conducted in Arba Minch town, Ethiopia; that studied knowledge of obstetric danger signs and associated factors [24].

Limitation & strength of the study

Due to the nature of the cross-sectional study design, this study couldn’t establish cause and effect relationships. This is the main limitation of the study.

As a strength, the study was conducted at the community level, which increases the generalizability to the entire urban area.

Conclusion and recommendations

Conclusion

According to this result mother’s knowledge of postpartum complications is low. The most known complication after childbirth was severe vaginal bleeding followed by hypertension. Educational status, being grand multipara, the number of ANC visits and the decision-making power of mothers to seek health care were statistically associated variables that will predict maternal knowledge of postpartum complications.

Recommendations

Improving women’s educational status and decision-making power to seek health care before complications happened is needed. Increasing information delivery system about specific postpartum complications during antenatal follow-up is the recommended intervention. Based on the study findings the following concerned bodies should be recommended to improve and strengthen women’s knowledge of postpartum complications.

  • Health personnel and health extension workers should strengthen awareness creation activities by conducting maternal discussion forums at the community level.

  • The Ministry of health should continue to encourage pregnant mothers to attend four and above antenatal visits.

  • Health extension workers and community leaders should mobilize the society about the advantage of women’s self decision-making power to seek health care at the household level.

  • The Ministery of education Should continue to encourage women’s education.

  • Further research supported with qualitative data will be needed.

Supporting information

S1 File. English & Amharic version questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to all the participants who invested their time and perspectives with us.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. But if there is additional data required, I can able to provide details of any required data elsewhere, without limitations. ORCID ID-0000-0002-4673-6975.

Funding Statement

Author received specific funding from Arba Minch University for this work.

References

  • 1.Health FMo. Management protocol on selected obstetrics topics. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Huang K, Tao F, Liu L, Wu X. Does delivery mode affect women’s postpartum quality of life in rural China? Journal of clinical nursing. 2012;21(11‐12):1534–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03941.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Organization WH. WHO recommendations on postnatal care of the mother and newborn: World Health Organization; 2014. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alkema L, Chou D, Hogan D, Zhang S, Moller A-B, Gemmill A, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and trends in maternal mortality between 1990 and 2015, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis by the UN Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-Agency Group. The lancet. 2016;387(10017):462–74. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00838-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Organization WH. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990–2015: estimates from WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and the United Nations Population Division: World Health Organization; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lee BX, Kjaerulf F, Turner S, Cohen L, Donnelly PD, Muggah R, et al. Transforming our world: implementing the 2030 agenda through sustainable development goal indicators. Journal of public health policy. 2016;37(1):13–31. doi: 10.1057/s41271-016-0002-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tunçalp Ö, Moller A-B, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. The Lancet global health. 2014;2(6):e323–e33. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Demographic C. health survey of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Central Statistical Agency. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nazik E, Eryilmaz G. The prevention and reduction of postpartum complications: Orem’s Model. Nursing science quarterly. 2013;26(4):360–4. doi: 10.1177/0894318413500402 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Abdella A. Maternal mortality trend in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development. 2010;24(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Berhan Y, Berhan A. Commentary: reasons for persistently high maternal and perinatal mortalities in Ethiopia: part III–perspective of the “three delays” model. Ethiopian journal of health sciences. 2014;24:137–48. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Office: AMtH. Report of district health department;. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bogale D, Markos D. Knowledge of obstetric danger signs among child bearing age women in Goba district, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2015;15(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0508-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bililign N, Mulatu T. Knowledge of obstetric danger signs and associated factors among reproductive age women in Raya Kobo district of Ethiopia: A community based cross-sectional study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2017;17(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1253-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mukhopadhyay DK, Mukhopadhyay S, Bhattacharjee S, Nayak S, Biswas AK, Biswas AB. Status of birth preparedness and complication readiness in Uttar Dinajpur District, West Bengal. Indian Journal of public health. 2013;57(3):147. doi: 10.4103/0019-557X.119827 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zepre K, Kaba M. Birth preparedness and complication readiness among rural women of reproductive age in Abeshige district, Guraghe zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia. International journal of women’s health. 2017;9:11. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S111769 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hailu M, Gebremariam A, Alemseged F. Knowledge about obstetric danger signs among pregnant women in Aleta Wondo District, Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian journal of health sciences. 2010;20(1). doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v20i1.69428 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gebre M, Gebremariam A, Abebe TA. Birth preparedness and complication readiness among pregnant women in Duguna Fango District, Wolayta Zone, Ethiopia. PloS one. 2015;10(9). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137570 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Akibu M. Prevalence and Associated Factors of Postnatal Care Utilization. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Echoka E, Makokha A, Dubourg D, Kombe Y, Nyandieka L, Byskov J. Barriers to emergency obstetric care services: accounts of survivors of life threatening obstetric complications in Malindi District, Kenya. The Pan African medical journal. 2014;17(Suppl 1). doi: 10.11694/pamj.supp.2014.17.1.3042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ekabua JE, Ekabua KJ, Odusolu P, Agan TU, Iklaki CU, Etokidem AJ. Awareness of birth preparedness and complication readiness in southeastern Nigeria. ISRN obstetrics and gynecology. 2011;2011. doi: 10.5402/2011/560641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Karkee R, Baral OB, Khanal V, Lee AH. The role of obstetric knowledge in utilization of delivery service in Nepal. Health education research. 2014;29(6):1041–8. doi: 10.1093/her/cyu059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Maseresha N, Woldemichael K, Dube L. Knowledge of obstetric danger signs and associated factors among pregnant women in Erer district, Somali region, Ethiopia. BMC women’s health. 2016;16(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s12905-016-0309-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Workineh Y, Hailu D, Gultie T, Degefu N, Mihrete M, Shimeles M, et al. Knowledge of obstetric danger signs and its associated factors in Arba Minch town, Ethiopia. Am J Health Res. 2014;2(5):255–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Amenu G, Mulaw Z, Seyoum T, Bayu H. Knowledge about danger signs of obstetric complications and associated factors among postnatal mothers of Mechekel District Health Centers, East Gojjam Zone, Northwest Ethiopia, 2014. Scientifica. 2016;2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/3495416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Godwin Otuodichinma Akaba

24 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-29865Knowledge of postpartum complications and associated factors among women gave birth in the last 12 months in Arba Minch Town, Southern Ethiopia, 2019: Community Based Cross-Sectional StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yaya,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by  Mar 10 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,

Godwin Otuodichinma Akaba, MBBS,MSc,MPH,FWACS

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. Please amend your current ethics statement and your Methods to clarify whether written or verbal consent was obtained. Thank you.

3. 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://aje.com/go/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)

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

We would like to acknowledge Arba Minch University College of Medicine and Health Sciences in providing with necessary financial & material and making the work successful.   

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

The author(s) 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. 

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately.  These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

8. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

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

Additional Editor Comments:

Abstract:

Title: Knowledge of postpartum complications and associated factors among women gave birth in the last 12 months in Arba Minch Town, Southern Ethiopia, 2019: Community Based Cross-Sectional Study

Comment: Paraphrase to : Knowledge of postpartum complications and associated factors among women who gave birth in the last 12 months in Arba Minch Town, Southern Ethiopia, 2019: Community Based Cross-Sectional Study

Conclusion and recommendation: Conclusion and recommendation: Mother’s knowledge of postpartum complications was low in this study area. Empowering women educational level, decision making power to seek health care and counseling during ANC follow up will needed.

Comment: Paraphrase to: Mother’s knowledge of postpartum complications was low in this study area. Improving women’s educational level, decision making power to seek health care and counseling during ANC follow up may be useful approaches to increasing their knowledge of postpartum complications.

Introduction

This section has not been properly written as focus has not been adequately placed on knowledge of postpartum complications and its contribution to maternal mortality in Ethiopia.

I suggest that authors should revise this section as follows:

-A standard definition of the postpartum period.

-A highlight of the contribution of deaths in this period to maternal mortality globally, regionally and in Ethiopia.

-Description of the possible associated factors to deaths during this period including the relevance of knowledge about possible complications that could arise particularly life-threatening conditions occurring withing the first 24 hours of delivery and thereafter.

-Mention and cite previous literatures on the subject in Ethiopia and their limitations which justifies the need for the current study in Ethiopia.

-A statement on the objective of the current study

METHODS & MATERIAL:

Item: Study area and Period

Comment: Please paraphrase to:

The study was conducted from December 1- 15/ 2019 in Arba Minch town. Arba Minch is the administrative town of Gamo Zone, South Nation Nationality People Region (SNNPR), and Ethiopia. It is found at an elevation of 1285 meters above sea level and located 505 km away from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. People with different ethnic groups and religions reside in the town. The town is divided into four sub cities, namely, Abaya, Sikela, Nech-Sar & Shecha. The town consists of 11 kebeles (the smallest administrative unit) with a total population of 112, 724. There are 26, 265 reproductive age group (15-49) women who reside in the town out of which 4428 were pregnant. The number of facility childbirth was 3992. There is one governmental general hospital, two health centers and 17 primary, 14 medium private clinics in the town [12]

Study Design

Population

Item: All women who gave birth in the last 1 year in Arba Minch town were taken as source population. From four randomly selected Kebeles, individual mothers were selected by systematical and interviewed.

Comment: Paraphrase to: All women who gave birth in the last 1 year preceding the date of commencement of the study and reside in Arba Minch town were taken as source population. From four randomly selected Kebeles, individual mothers were systematically selected and interviewed. Mothers who were severely ill and unable to respond to the interviews were excluded from the study.

Comment: Please clearly state the number of women who were eligible for this study in the area of study (women who delivered in the last one year). This will be important in determining the sampling frame and systematic selection of participants as mentioned above. in How many of these mothers who were severely ill were actually excluded from the study? Is it possible these women may have had even poorer knowledge and thus may have affected the final results?

Item: Eligibility criteria Inclusion criteria

� Mothers who gave birth in the last 1 year Months preceding the study period.

� Who live in Arba Minch town for at least six Months?

Item: Exclusion criteria � Mothers those are severely ill and unable to respond.

Comment: Please delete the subsequent statements on eligibility and exclusion criteria as they may be seen as repetitions.

Item: Sample size determination

Comment: Please include the formula for sample size calculation and reference.

Item: Sampling procedures

. Among the Kebeles four Kebeles (Bere, Ediget-Ber, Wuha-Minch & Dilfana) were selected by simple random sampling method as a starting sampling technique.

Comment: It is not clear what authors meant by a ”starting sampling technique”.

Item: Firstly the number of mothers who gave birth in last 12 months in each selected Kebeles was determined contacting kebele health extension workers (HEW) for update registry. Then proportion to size allocation to each selected Kebeles was done.

Comments: What was the total number of women who gave birth in all the Kebeles? What is the number for each of the 4 kebeles? These needs to be included to help the reader appreciate how the allocation and sampling were carried out.

Study variables

Item: Operational definitions

Knowledgeable: Mothers who spontaneously mentioned three and above postpartum complications were declared to have knowledge about postpartum complication.

Comment: It is not clear how knowledge about three or more postpartum complications qualifies to be adequate knowledge. Apart from the quoted study, what informed the decision to peg it at three and not five? For most purposes and standards, a universal scoring system should have been applied. For example, using the academic rating scales of assessing students passing or failing an examination etc? Also list the total number of complications presented to patient in the questionnaire?

Item: Data quality management

Pretesting of the questionnaire was carried out on 5% (21) of sample in Mirab Abaya town, Gamo Zone, Ethiopia and any necessary amendments were done.

Comment: Please clarify on the (21) above.

Data processing and analysis

Item: Bivariable logistic regression was done and variables with P- value ≤ 0.25 and all other variables that had association in previously approved literatures were selected as candidate variables for multivariable logistic regression analysis to control the effect of confounders.

Comment: Please explain the rationale for inclusion of variables with P- value ≤ 0.25 instead of P- value ≤ 0.05 with relevant references. Also clarify regarding the quality of the previous studies that had variables with associations that were included in the multiple regression analysis.

Item: Ethics consideration

Comment: In the Ethics statement form on page 3, authors declared that written informed consent was taken from participants, ‘The letter of ethical clearance was obtained from Institutional Review Board (IRB) of College of Medicine & Health Sciences, Arba Minch University, Ethiopia. Also written consent was taken from study participants during data collection”.

In the ethics consideration section of the manuscript, it is noted that the authors have declared differently that verbal informed consent was obtained from mothers.

It is not clear which of the two was done at this point. Authors should clearly highlight this important point in the revision.

RESULT

Item: A total of 418 women who gave birth in the last twelve months preceding the study period were designed to participate in the study, this gives 100% response rate.

Comment: From the above comment it appears that they were enlisted to participate in the study. Is 418 the total number of women who gave birth during the study period? Did all participate in the study? Please describe the patient’s recruitment and participation using a flow chart as figure 1.

Result

This section needs to be revised taking into consideration the need to correct grammatical errors and delete abbreviations like &.

Item: Knowledge on postpartum complications

Majority of the study participants 260(62.2%) had information about postpartum complications.

Comment: It is not clear the information about postpartum complications that is being referred to here. What is the authors definition of having information? Is it the same as knowledge? How was this variable ascertained?

Perhaps it is better to say: Majority of the study participants 260(62.2%) had heard about postpartum complications before the study.

Discussion

This section lacks in-depth analysis of study findings particularly as it relates to the objectives of the study. Authors have not considered a critical evaluation of the studies they have tried to compare their studies with to find out if there are similar patients characteristics, sample sizes, similar assumptions etc but have majorly attributed difference or similarities in findings to either location, sociodemographic etc. They have not identified possible specific factors for example in sociodemographic characteristics that are different or similar. Public health implication for the study area and Ethiopia should be highlighted.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The study is relevant in assessing the complication readiness and birth preparedness of expectant mothers. The significance here is that arrangements can be put in place transport to hospital before complications set in. Also source of additional funds can be identified and blood donors put on standby. The study provides strategy for reducing maternal mortality.

Reviewer #2: 1. There are methodological issues that needs to be addressed by the Authors. Detail explanation can be found in the attached file

2. Yes, although further explanation has to be provided for the sake of clarity

3. Yes

4. No, requires serious proofreading and English proficiency service

**********

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: Review comments.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 6;18(2):e0281242. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281242.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Mar 2022

Dear editors and reviewers, Thank you for your helpful and constructive comments. I have a great appreciation for ideas you raised during review time. Responses to the specific reviewer and editor comments were fully explained in the rebuttal letter, which labeled as 'Response to the Reviewer' and uploaded separately.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Godwin Otuodichinma Akaba

24 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-29865R1Knowledge of postpartum complications and associated factors among women gave birth in the last 12 months in Arba Minch Town, Southern Ethiopia, 2019: Community Based Cross-Sectional StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yaya,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: :

The Manuscript has undergone extensive revsion but still requires Enflish Language editing.Additonally,the reference section should be revised and ensure all references are written according to the Vancouver referencing style.Also ensure journames names are properly abbrevaited as they appear in the list of index medicus

.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 23rd July 2022. 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,

Godwin Otuodichinma Akaba, MBBS,MSc,MPH,FWACS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript has undergone some extensive revisions but will still need English Language editing. Additionally, the references should be revised in conformance to the vancouver referencing style. The journal names should be listed as they appear in the list of index medicus.

[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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.

I still strongly recommend the review of this manuscript by a proofreading service or by a fluent English researcher. It still requires an extensive proofreading before publication.

Reviewer #3: 1. typographical errors present

2. the reference style is not uniform for all the references

3. Tables and charts not seen

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: Dr Aishat Ahmed review on PLOS ONE manuscript.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-29865_R1.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 6;18(2):e0281242. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281242.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


21 Jul 2022

Dear editors and reviewers, Thank you for your helpful and constructive comments. I

have a great appreciation for ideas you raised during review time. Responses to the reviewer and editor comments were fully explained in the rebuttal letter, which

labeled as 'Response to the Reviewer' and uploaded separately

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Godwin Otuodichinma Akaba

21 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-29865R2Knowledge of postpartum complications and associated factors among women gave birth in the last 12 months in Arba Minch Town, Southern Ethiopia, 2019: A Community Based Cross-Sectional StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yaya,

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. Thank you for revising your manuscript.I observed that there are still issues raised during the last revsiuons which you have not yeet addressed.Additonally,the journal names have not yet been properly as they appear in the list of index medicus.One of the reviwers have also highlighted the need to conpletely resolve the grammatical errors noted in the manuscript.You will need to properly adress these issues. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 05 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,

Godwin Otuodichinma Akaba, MBBS,MSc,MPH,FWACS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

Additional Editor Comments:

Abstract

Comment: Please delete: 2019: Community-Based cross-sectional Study

Data collection: and was translated……….

Data quality management: Before data collection, a semi-structured questionnaire was adapted from previously published kinds of literature.

Comment: Please correct to: Before data collection, a semi-structured questionnaire was adapted from previously published literature.

Comment: Also reference the literature accordingly

Results

. Breast complications were mentioned 75 (17.9 percent), blurred vision and weakness were mentioned 73 (17.5%), foul-smelling vaginal discharge was mentioned 71 (17%), convulsions were mentioned 14 (3.3%), and postpartum psychoses and blues were mentioned the least 4 (1%).

Comment: Paraphrase to “. Breast complications were mentioned in 75 (17.9 %), blurred vision and weakness; 73 (17.5%), foul-smelling vaginal discharge; 71 (17%), convulsions ;14 (3.3%), and postpartum psychoses and blues were mentioned the least in 4 (1%).

Discussion

Page 9: This difference might be mothers who could mention two and above complications were considered as knowledgeable.

Comment: Paraphrase to: This difference might be because mothers who could mention two and above complications were considered as knowledgeable in the previous study.

Page 10: This is similar to the institutional-based cross-sectional (2014) study finding of Mechekel East Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia [25].

Comment: Paraphrase to : This is similar to the institutional-based cross-sectional study finding of Mechekel East Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia [25].

Page 10, last line: This is in line with study findings conducted in Arba Minch town, Ethiopia; that test association for general knowledge of obstetrical complications of the three periods [24].

Comment: Change to: This is in line with study findings conducted in Arba Minch town, Ethiopia; that studied knowledge of obstetric danger signs and associated factors [24].

References:

The journal names in the quoted references have not been written properly as they appear in the list of index medicus as previously recommended in the last decision to authors

[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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: No

**********

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 #3: 1. There are still quite a few grammatical errors.

2. The methodology needs to be a little bit more explicit.

3. The results needs to be worked on further.

4. The discussion is not in depth.

**********

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 #3: 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. 2023 Feb 6;18(2):e0281242. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281242.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


9 Nov 2022

All of your comments were constrictive, and which were built my article. More over, I have wrote my response in the response to the reviewers letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Tesera Bitew

19 Jan 2023

Knowledge of postpartum complications and associated factors among women gave birth in the last 12 months in Arba Minch Town, Southern Ethiopia, 2019: A Community Based Cross-Sectional Study

PONE-D-21-29865R3

Dear Dr. Yaya,

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,

Tesera Bitew, PhD

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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #3: The writers have made the necessary corrections. The typographical and grammatical errors have been corrected. The statistical analysis has also been done well.

**********

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 #3: No

**********

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. English & Amharic version questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Dr Aishat Ahmed review on PLOS ONE manuscript.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-29865_R1.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. But if there is additional data required, I can able to provide details of any required data elsewhere, without limitations. ORCID ID-0000-0002-4673-6975.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES