Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Mar 6;18(3):e0281038. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281038

Determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia based on the 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey: A multilevel analysis

Gossa Fetene Abebe 1,*, Melsew Setegn Alie 2, Desalegn Girma 1, Gosa Mankelkl 2, Ashenafi Assefa Berchedi 2, Yilkal Negesse 3
Editor: Demisu Zenbaba Heyi4
PMCID: PMC9987803  PMID: 36877686

Abstract

Background

Early initiation of the first antenatal care visit provides a critical opportunity for health promotion, disease prevention, and curative care for women and their unborn fetuses. However, in developing countries, including Ethiopia, it is underutilized and most of the pregnant women didn’t attend antenatal care visits during the first trimester (early). Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of early initiation of antenatal care visits and its determinants among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia.

Methods

A secondary data analysis was done based on the 2019 intermediate Ethiopian demographic health survey. The data were weighted by sampling weight for probability sampling and non-response to restore the representativeness of the data and have valid statistical estimates. Then, a total weighted sample of 2,935 women aged 15–49 years who gave birth in the five years preceding the survey and who had antenatal care visits for their last child was included. A multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model was fitted to examine the determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visits. Finally, statistical significance was declared at a p-value < 0.05.

Results

In this study, the overall magnitude of early initiation of the first antenatal care visit was 37.4% (95%CI: 34.6–40.2%). Women who attend higher education (AOR = 2.26: 95%CI; 1.36–3.77), medium wealth status (AOR = 1.80: 95%CI; 1.17–2.76), richer wealth status (AOR = 1.86: 95%CI; 1.21, 2.85), richest wealth status (AOR = 2.34: 95%CI; 1.43–3.83), living in Harari region (AOR = 2.24: 95%CI; 1.16–4.30), and living at Dire-Dawa city (AOR = 2.24: 95%CI; 1.16–4.30) were higher odds of early initiation of first ANC visits. However, women who were rural resident (AOR = 0.70: 95%CI; 0.59–0.93), household headed by male (AOR = 0.87: 95%CI; 0.72, 0.97), having ≥ 5 family size (AOR = 0.71: 95%CI; 0.55–0.93), and living in SNNPRs (AOR = 0.44: 95%CI; 0.23–0.84) were lower odds of early initiation of first ANC visits.

Conclusion

The prevalence of early initiation of first antenatal care remains low in Ethiopia. Women’s education, residence, wealth status, household head, having ≥ 5 family sizes, and region were determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visits. Improving female education and women’s empowerment through economic transitions with special attention given to rural and SNNPR regional state residents could maximize the early initiation of first antenatal care visits. Furthermore, to increase early antenatal care uptake, these determinants should be considered when designing new policies or updating policies and strategies on antenatal care uptake to help increase early attendance, which can help in the reduction of maternal and neonatal mortality and to achieve sustainable development goals 3 by 2030.

Introduction

Maternal and neonatal health has gained a global health priority in the past decades, exemplified by its adoption as the fourth and fifth Millennium Development Goals (MDG) [1, 2] and continued in the third Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) [3]. Nevertheless, the goal to reduce maternal mortality by 75% in the year 2015 was not successful and lagged behind its target among all [1]. Regardless of the 2015 commitment, about 295,000 women died during and following pregnancy and childbirth in 2017 [4] globally. Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia shoulder the highest-burden (86%) of this estimated global maternal deaths, at which Sub-Saharan Africa alone accounted for two-thirds (196, 000) of maternal deaths [4], where the health systems are weak in access and minimum health services utilization [5]. The maternal mortality ratio (MMR) in Ethiopia, one of the Sub-Saharan African countries, is 412 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Also, globally around 2 million stillbirths [6] in the year 2019 and 2.4 million neonatal deaths [7] in the year 2020 were reported. Of which the highest numbers were contributed by Sub-Sahan Africa including Ethiopia and Southern Asia [6, 7].

Sustaining availability, accessibility, and providing quality maternal healthcare services for all pregnant women at all levels is crucial to optimizing the maternal and newborn healths status [810]. Antenatal care is one of the proven maternal care services strategies for reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality directly by the identification and treatment of pregnancy-related illness, or indirectly by detection of women at risk of complications of delivery and counseled them to deliver in an appropriately equipped health facility [11]. Timely (initiated at the first trimester of pregnancy) [12, 13], frequent (four or more visits) [12, 14, 15], and adequate (with proper contents) [12, 14, 15] antenatal care services provided for the mother during the period of pregnancy reduce the risk of complication and death for the mother as well as the unborn fetus [9] and improve the uptake of subsequent maternal health services. The time at which the first antenatal care services were initiated has the utmost merits to ensure optimal health impacts for both woman and their unborn fetus [11]. According to the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) antenatal care recommendation for positive pregnancy outcomes, the first antenatal care visits should be within the first trimester (early) [11]. However, the magnitude of early antenatal care visits is very low (24%) in developing countries as compared to developed countries (81.9%) [16]. Shreds of evidence noted that many pregnant women attend their first ANC visits late (after the first trimester) [1719]. A systematic review study done in Ethiopia by Tesfaye G. et al. identified that the majority (64%) of pregnant women start their first ANC visits late [20].

Early initiation of ANC visits is one of the pillar components of ANC services that aimed to have baseline information on the general well being of the pregnant women, accurate gestational age ascertainment, screening of pre-existing problems of the women such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), syphilis, hepatitis, malaria, anemia, and other chronic medical disorders, and early detection of complications arising during pregnancy [11, 16]. Timely screening and providing appropriate therapy of HIV and syphilis help to halt mother to fetus transmission. If the mothers are left untreated early, a 70–100% probability of transmitting the infection to their unborn fetus, and one-third of pregnancies will end up with stillbirth [21, 22]. Furthermore, early initiation of ANC is a good entry point to discuss birth preparedness and complication readiness plan and to augment awareness of its sign and symptoms between pregnant women and health care providers [17]. It also creates the opportunity to provide immunizations against tetanus, supplementation of iron and folic acid to prevent anemia and neural tube defect, counseling on nutrition, and malaria and worms prophylactic treatments [11]. Early initiation of antenatal care services also has a positive impact on the decrement of poor perinatal outcomes such as low birth weight, preterm birth, and jaundice [23, 24]. In summary, early ANC visits aim to screen complications or predictors for the occurrence of complications which enable timely interventions to handle the negative impacts of such complications on a pregnant woman and unborn fetus [25].

To improve the uptake of ANC services early, the government of Ethiopia in collaboration with other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has implemented different initiatives that expand access such as primary health care expansion, health extension programs, and charge-free maternal health services [2630]. Despite, all these efforts made, in Ethiopia, the early initiation of first ANC visits during the first trimester as recommended by WHO [11] is still low, and most pregnant women attend their first ANC visits late [20]. As reported in the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS) 2016, only 20% of pregnant women were attend their first ANC visit in the first trimester of pregnancy [31] as recommended by WHO [11]. This indicated that there are determinants that became bottlenecks for the increment of early initiation of first ANC visits and need further investigation.

Previously studies done in Ethiopia identified that early initiation of first ANC visits was impending by different determinants such as place of residence [20, 32, 33], maternal educational status [20, 32, 33], husband education status [34], maternal occupation [20], maternal age [20, 33], marital status, household wealth-income [20, 33], parity [20, 32], partner involvement [20], pregnancy intention [20, 32, 33], knowledge on antenatal care service [20, 34], means of approving current pregnancy [20, 34], being advised before starting antenatal care visit [34], exposure to mass media [33], pregnancy complication [20], having a history of abortion or stillbirth [35], covered by health insurance, distance from health facilities [33], and regions [32].

However, most of the previous studies in Ethiopia were conducted in specific areas with small sample sizes, mainly facility-based, and were not nationally representative. Moreover, the previous studies mainly emphasized on individual-level determinants with little attention given to community-level determinants. However, this could underscore the importance of considering contextual determinants when designing appropriate antenatal care service strategies. Thus, for bridging all those gaps, this study used a recent national-level data (2019 Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey data) to determine the current nationwide magnitude, and individual and community-level determinants of early initiation of the first antenatal care visit among reproductive-age women. Therefore, the findings of this study will be invaluable to identify the determinants that impede the early initiation of first ANC visits as a result respective programs are shaped more appropriately towards the identified determinants and will also have paramount importance to show country-level figures, and screen out modified and persistent determinants, which in turn maximize the timely initiation of the first ANC visits, and achievement of the SDG #3 of eliminating maternal and neonatal mortality by 2030.

Methods and materials

Study setting and period

Secondary data analysis was employed based on the 2019 Ethiopian mini-demographic and health survey data, which were done from 21st March/2019 to 28th June/2019. To collect the data, a cross-sectional study design was employed. Ethiopia is located in the horn of Africa, between 3° - 15° North latitude and 33° - 48° East longitudes. It has nine regions and two city administrations. Ethiopia has been conducting Demographic and health surveys (EDHS) started in the year 2000 and then conducted every five years. Two Ethiopian Mini Demographic and Health Surveys (EMDHS) in 2014 and 2019 have been employed. The EMDHS is usually conducted in between the standard EDHS.

Data source/extraction

After permission was secured through an online request by explaining the aim of the study, the data were taken from the Measure Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) website (http://www.dhsprogram.com/).

Population of the study

The source population of the study was all reproductive age women (15–49 years) who gave birth in the five years preceding the survey and who had at least one ANC visit for their last child all over Ethiopia, whereas women who gave birth in the five years preceding the survey and who had at least one ANC visit for their last child and lived in the selected enumeration areas were the study populations.

Eligibility criteria

In this study, all reproductive age women who gave birth in the five years preceding the survey and found in the selected clusters at least one night before the data collection period were included, whereas, women who had no ANC visit and unknown first date of ANC visit were excluded. Accordingly, a total of 2,935 weighted samples of reproductive age women were incorporated (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Schematic presentation showing the sampling and exclusion procedures to identify the final sample size in 2019 EMDHS.

Fig 1

Sampling technique

For all EDHS, a two-stage stratified cluster sampling technique was used. In the first stage, stratification was done by region, and then each region was stratified as urban and rural. In the 2019 EMDHS data, a total of 305 (94 urban, and 211 rural) enumeration areas (EAs) were selected using probability proportional to EA size in in the first stage. In the second stage, households were selected proportionally from each EA by using a systematic sampling method. The detailed method of data collection was accessed at the DHS database [36].

Variables of the study

Dependent variable

The dependent variable was early initiation of first ANC visit which was a binary outcome variable and classified as “early” if a woman attended ANC visit within the first 12 weeks of gestation (coded as “Yes = 1”), and “late” if she attended ANC visit after 12 weeks of gestation (coded as “No = 0”) [11].

Independent variables

The independent variables were classified as individual and community-level variables. The individual-level variables include maternal age, marital status, religion, educational status of women, household wealth status, parity, preceding birth interval, the contraceptive method used, sex of household head, and the number of family size. Whereas, the place of residence and region of the study participants were considered as community-level variables. The detailed information’s about the explanatory factors were presented in Table 1.

Table 1. The description of some of the independent variables.
Variables Definitions/Categories
Age of the mothers (in years) The age of the mother was coded as 15–19, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, 40–44, and 45–49; however, during data cleaning some of the categories lack or have very limited participants, thus, we regrouped into 15–19, 20–29, 30–39, and 40–49
Religion Religion was coded as Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, Catholic, traditional, other. Depending on the number of participants, we sum up Catholic, and Traditional, as “Others”. And, we regrouped into Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, and others
Marital status Marital status was coded as married, never in the union, living with partner, widowed, divorced, and no longer living together/separated; but, participants from the last five were very few, so, we categorized married and unmarried by living married alone and classified all else.
Birth order Birth order was a count number ranging from 1 to 15; however, we regrouped into 1st, 2nd, and third and above
Parity The total number of children ever born was a count number ranging from 1 to 15; however, we regrouped into 1st, and 2nd and above
Preceding birth interval Preceding birth interval was coded from 1 to 219 months in the dataset; however, during data cleaning some of the categories lack or have very limited participants, thus, we regrouped into < 24, 24–36, and >36 months.
Number of a household member The number of household size was a count number ranging from 1 to 24; however, during data cleaning some of the categories lacked or have very limited participants, so, we recoded into ≤ 4 and ≥ 5.
Contraception EMDHS grouped the variable No-method, Traditional method, Modern method

Statistical analysis

The data were extracted from the individual record (IR) file data set using SPSS version 24 software and further analyzed using STATA version 15. By using sample weight the data were weighted for probability sampling and non-response to restore the representativeness of the survey and get reliable statistical estimates. Data editing, cleaning, and coding were done. Descriptive statistics were done and presented by tables. Socio-demographic and other profiles of the study participants were compared using the chi-square test. In this study, two levels of data hierarchy were considered due to the sampling technique applied in EDHS (Multistage stratified cluster sampling). Level one unit was the individual pregnant woman in the households and level two units were enumeration areas. Level one (pregnant women in the households) was nested within units at the next higher level (enumeration areas). The outcome variable was represented by Yij={EarlyinitiationofANCLateinitiationofANC, the category is dichotomous. Therefore, the multilevel mixed effects logistic regression model was fitted to identify the factors influencing early initiation of first antenatal care services at each level (individual level and community level). Four models were fitted for the multilevel logistic regression. The first model (a model without covariate) was fitted to determine the extent of cluster variation in the early initiation of ANC visits. The second model was fitted with individual-level factors alone. The third model was fitted with community-level variables. Lastly, the fourth model was fitted with both individual and community-level factors. Both bivariable and multivariable analyses were employed. Variables that have a P-value of ≤ 0.25 in the bivariable multi-level logistic regression analysis were candidates for multivariable multilevel logistic regression analysis. Then Variables in multilevel multivariable logistic regression were declared to be statistically significant at a P-value of < 0.05. The fitted models were compared based on Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC) and a model with a small AIC value was selected and all interpretations and inferences were made based on this model. The random-effects measure the variation of early initiation of ANC across clusters (EAs) and are determined using the Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), median odds ratio (MOR), and proportional change in variance (PCV) statistics. The ICC determines the variation within-cluster and between-cluster differences. The PCV determines the total variation of early initiation of ANC at the individual- and community-level factors in each model. The MOR measures the MOR of early initiation of ANC at the high-risk cluster (clusters did not attend ANC early) and low-risk cluster (clusters having a high prevalence of early initiation of ANC) when we select randomly two pregnant women during data collection from two clusters. The formulas used to calculate these three measurements are as follows;

ICC = vi/(vi + π2 /3) ~ViVi+3.29, where Vi = between cluster (community) variances and π2 /3 = within-cluster (community) variance [37].

PCV = ViVyVi, where Vi = variances of the null model, where Vy = variance of the model with more terms [37].

MOR = exp.[2×Vz×0.6745] ~ exp.[0.95Vz] where Vz = variance at the community level [37].

Ethical consideration

Ethical approval was obtained from measure Demographic Health Survey (DHS) after filling the requesting form for accessing the data. The data used in this study are freely available, aggregated secondary data that didn’t contain any personal identifiers that can be linked to the study participants (http://www.dhsprogram.com). The requested data were used in strictly anonymous and served only for the study purpose. The full information about the ethical issue was available in the EMDHS-2019 report.

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants

In this study, a total of 2,935 weighted samples of the study participants have participated from all over the country. The overall prevalence of early initiation of antenatal care was 37.4% (95%CI: 34.6–40.2). More than half (55.2%) of the study participants were in the age range of 20–29 (55.2%) years old. Of the total study participants, 2,034 (69.3%) were urban dwellers, 2,691 (91.7%) were married, 1,212 (41.29%) were Muslim religion followers, 1,274 (43.41%) didn’t attend formal education, and 2,359 (79.69%) were from male-headed households (Table 2). The majority of the participants who didn’t initiate first ANC visits early were from the SNNPR regional state (14.88%) followed by the Oromia regional state (11.93%) (Fig 2).

Table 2. Early initiation of first antenatal care visits by sociodemographic characteristics of reproductive-age women in Ethiopia, 2019.

Variable Category Weighted frequency (%) Early initiation of ANC
No (%) Yes (%)
Women age (years) 15–19 170 (5.99) 102 (6.32) 68 (5.56)
20–29 1,567 (55.2) 865 (53.59) 702 (57.35)
30–39 999 (35.2) 579 (35.87) 420 (34.31)
40–49 102 (3.59) 68 (4.21) 34 (2.78)
Residence Urban 901 (30.7) 360 (21.43) 541 (43.11)
Rural 2,034 (69.3) 1,320 (78.57) 714 (56.89)
Marital status Married 2,691 (91.7) 1,552 (92.38) 1,139 (90.76)
Unmarried 244 (8.3) 128 (7.62) 116 (9.24)
Religion Orthodox 1,095 (37.31) 584 (34.76) 511 (40.72)
Muslim 1,212 (41.29) 681 (40.54) 531 (42.31)
Protestant 586 (19.97) 388 (23.10) 198 (15.78)
OthersC 42 (1.43) 27 (1.61) 15 (1.20)
Maternal educational status No education 1,274 (43.41) 843 (50.2) 431 (34.3)
Primary 1,074 (36.59) 602 (35.8) 472 (37.2)
Secondary 359 (12.23) 164 (9.8) 195 (15.5)
Higher 228 (7.77) 71 (4.2) 157 (12.5)
Household wealth status Poorest 598 (20.27) 423 (25.18) 175 (13.94)
Poorer 503 (17.14) 338 (20.12) 165 (13.15)
Middle 458 (15.6) 298 (17.74) 160 (12.75)
Richer 461 (15.71) 281 (16.73) 180 (14.34)
Richest 915 (31.18) 340 (20.24) 575 (45.82)
Sex of household head Female 596 (20.31) 307 (18.27) 289 (23.03)
Male 2,339 (79.69) 1,373 (81.73) 966 (76.97)

ANC: Antenatal care, c catholic or traditional religion follower

Fig 2. The prevalence of early initiation of first ANC visits by regions in Ethiopia, 2019.

Fig 2

Obstetric and reproductive related characteristics of reproductive-age women in Ethiopia, 2019

Of the total study participants, more than two-thirds (64.46%) of the households have had ≥ 5 family members and nearly three fourth (75.9%) were multiparous. The majority (62.49%) of the women had given birth more than two times, 61.32% of the woman have had a birth spacing of 36 months and above, and 57.68% of the women didn’t use contraception (Table 3).

Table 3. Early initiation of antenatal care by different obstetric and reproductive health-related characteristics of reproductive-age women in Ethiopia, 2019.

Variable Category Weighted frequency (%) Early initiation of ANC
No (%) Yes (%)
Parity Primiparous 707 (24.1) 344 (20.48) 363 (28.92)
Multiparous 2,228 (75.9) 1,336 (79.52) 892 (71.08)
Birth order First 1,146 (19.6) 225 (18.89) 171 (19.79)
Second 1,047 (17.91) 228 (19.14) 140 (16.20)
Thrid and above 3,653 (62.49) 738 (61.96) 553 (64)
Preceding birth interval (months) < 24 285 (6.09) 49 (5.11) 40 (5.77)
24–36 1,525 (32.59) 304 (31.7) 196 (28.28)
>36 2,869 (61.32) 606 (63.19) 457 (65.95)
Contraceptive method used No-method 1,693 (57.68) 1,011 (60.18) 682 (54.34)
Modern 1,219 (41.53) 657 (39.11) 562 (44.78)
Traditional 23 (0.78) 12 (0.71) 11 (0.88)
Family member ≤ 4 1,043 (35.54) 536 (31.9) 507 (40.4)
≥ 5 1,892 (64. 46) 1,144 (68.1) 748 (59.6)
Number of antenatal care Once 141 (4.80) 119 (7.08) 22 (1.75)
Two times 353 (12.03) 282 (16.79) 71 (5.66)
Three times 768 (26.17) 526 (31.31) 242 (19.28)
Four and above 1,673 (57) 753 (44.82) 920 (73.31)

ANC; Antenatal care

Random effect and model comparison

The Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in the null model was (0.213), which means that 21.3% of the variability of early initiation of ANC was due to the differences between clusters or unobserved factors at the community level. This indicates that the multilevel logistic regression model is best to estimate early initiation of first antenatal care visits among pregnant women than single-level logistic regression. The Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC) is smallest at model 4 (AIC = 2,008.2) as compared to random intercept only model or null model (AIC = 3821.3), a model with only individual-level factors (AIC = 2038.8), and model with only community-level factors (AIC = 3702.2). Therefore this model is the best-fitted model for the data because it has the smallest AIC as compared to the rest models. Therefore, all interpretations and reports were made based on this model. In addition, the median odds ratio (MOR) in all models was greater than one noted that there is a variation in early initiation of ANC among pregnant women between community levels. The value of MOR (2.44) in the null model depicts that there was a variation of early initiation of ANC between clusters when we randomly select pregnant women from two clusters, women from clusters that have a high prevalence of early initiation of ANC were 2.44 times more likely to attend ANC early as compared to women from low prevalence of ANC utilization cluster. The higher proportional change in variance (PCV) value in the fourth model (0.73) showed that about 73% of the variability of early initiation of ANC visits was explained by both the individual-level and community-level factors (Table 4).

Table 4. Random effect and model comparison for predictors of early initiation of antenatal care among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia, 2019.

Parameter Null (model I) Model II Model III Model IV
ICC 21.3% 10.1% 9.2% 4.6%
Variance 0.89 (0.66, 1.21) 0.37 (0.19, 0.69) 0.33 (0.21, 0.52) 0.15 (0.05, 0.52)
MOR 2.44 1.55 1.48 1.03
PCV Reference 59% 63% 73%
Model fitness
AIC 3821.3 2038.8 3702.2 2,008.2

AIC: Akaike’s information criteria, ICC: Intraclass correlation coefficient, MOR: Median Odds ratio, PCV: proportional change in variance

Determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia, 2019

In the final model (model 4) both individual and community-level factors were added for multilevel analysis, of which, maternal educational status, household wealth status, sex of household head, family size, residence, and region were significantly associated with early initiation of antenatal care visits in Ethiopia at P-value < 0.05 (Table 4). The odds of early initiation of antenatal care visits were two times (AOR = 2.26: 95%CI; 1.36–3.77) more likely among women who attended higher educations as compared to those women who didn’t attend formal education. Women who belong to the household wealth status of medium, richer, and richest were 1.8 (AOR = 1.80: 95%CI; 1.17–2.76), 1.86 (AOR = 1.86: 95%CI; 1.21, 2.85), and 2.3 (AOR = 2.34: 95%CI; 1.43–3.83) times more likely to attend antenatal care visits as compared to women who belong to poorest wealth status, respectively. The odds of the utilization of early ANC was 13% (AOR = 0.87: 95%CI; 0.72, 0.97) less likely among women whose households were headed by a male as compared to their counterparts. Likewise, the odds of attending early ANC was 29% (AOR = 0.71: 95%CI; 0.55–0.93) less likely among women who had ≥ 5 family size as compared to those women who have had less than five family size. Women who resided in rural area was 30% (AOR = 0.70: 95CI; 0.59–0.93) less likely to attend early antenatal care services than women who lived in urban. Women who lived in the Harari region and Dire-Dawa city administration were two (AOR = 2.24: 95%CI; 1.16–4.30), and three (AOR = 3.29: 95%CI; 1.69–6.38) times more likely to attend early antenatal care visits as compared with women lived in Tigray region. Whereas, women who lived in SNNPRs were 66% (AOR = 0.44: 95%CI; 0.23–0.84) less likely to attend early antenatal care visits as compared to their counterparts (Table 5).

Table 5. Multilevel logistic regression analysis to assess determinants of early initiation of first ANC visits among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia, 2019.

Variable Category Null model I Model II
AOR (95%CI)
Model III
AOR (95%CI)
Model VI
AOR (95%CI)
Maternal age (Years) 15–19 - 1 - 1
20–29 - 0.98 (0.60, 1.61) - 1.01 (0.62, 1.65)
30–39 - 1.13 (0.65, 1.94) - 1.21 (0.71, 2.08)
40–49 - 1.15 (0.52, 2.53) - 1.30 (0.60, 2.83)
Marital status Married - 1 - 1
Unmarried - 1.26 (0.67, 2.6) - 1.68 (0.98, 2.62)
Religion Orthodox - 1 - 1
Muslim - 0.94 (0.70, 1.27) - 0.77 (0.53, 1.10)
Protestant - 0.53 (0.37, 0.76) - 0.81 (0.53, 1.24)
Others C - 1.44 (0.53, 3.89) - 2.05 (0.75, 5.57)
Educational status No education - 1 - 1
Primary - 1.21(0.91, 1.59) - 1.32 (1.00, 1.74)
Secondary - 1.30 (0.87, 1.95) - 1.35 (0.90, 2.02)
Higher - 2.37 (1.41, 3.97) - 2.26 (1.36, 3.77)*
Household wealth status Poorest - 1 - 1
Poorer - 1.60 (0.48, 1.38) - 1.52 (0.91, 1.69)
Middle - 1.58 (1.04, 2.04) - 1.80 (1.17, 2.76)*
Richer - 1.70 (1.11, 2.59) - 1.86 (1.21, 2.85)*
Richest - 3.51 (2.34, 5.26) - 2.34 (1.43, 3.83)*
Total number of children ever born One - 1 - 1
2 and above - 0.99 (0.71, 1.36) - 0.99 (0.72, 1.37)
Birth interval (in months) < 24 - 1 - 1
24–36 - 0.73 (0.43, 1.24) - 0 .70 (0.42, 1.17)
>36 - 0.84 (0.51, 1.39) - 0.82 (0.50, 1.36)
Contraceptive method used No-method - 1 - 1
Modern - 1.17 (0.91, 1.49) - 1.24 (0.97, 1.59)
Traditional - 1.84 (0.53, 6.38) - 2.02 (0.58, 7.06)
Sex of household head Female - 1 - 1
Male - 0.66 (0.45, 0.79) - 0.87 (0.72, 0.97)*
Family size ≤ 4 - 1 - 1
≥ 5 - 0.72 (0.55, 0 .94) - 0.71 (0.55, 0.93)*
Community-level variables
Residence Urban - - 1 1
Rural - - 0.48 (0.36, 0 .63) 0.70 (0.59, 0.93)*
Region Tigray - - 1 1
Afar - - 1.05 (0.64, 1.72) 1.58 (0.80, 3.12)
Amhara - - 1.08 (0.69, 1.70) 1.21 (0.71, 2.05)
Oromia - - 0.72 (0.46, 1.14) 0.59 (0.33, 1.07)
Somalia - 0.57 (0.30, 1.10) 1.10 (0.47, 2.59)
B/Gumz - 0.80 (0.50, 1.30) 0.71 (0.39, 1.28)
SNNPR - 0.45 (0.28, .72) 0.44 (0.23, 0.84)*
Gambella - 0 .79 (0.48, 1.28) 0.66 (0.35, 1.23)
Harari - 2.49 (1.51, 4.11) 2.24 (1.16, 4.30)*
Addis Ababa - 1.73 (1.00, 2.98) 1.32 (0.69, 2.52)
Dire Dawa - 2.33 (1.40, 3.88) 3.29 (1.69, 6.38)*

*p-value < 0.05

AOR: Adjusted odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval, 1: Reference, c catholic or traditional religion follower, SNNPR: South Nation Nationality peoples region, B/Gumiz: Benshangul-Gumz region

Discussion

Even though early initiation of antenatal care services is a pillar strategy for achieving good maternal and neonatal health outcomes through early detection and prevention of risks during pregnancy [38, 39], the magnitude of early initiation of ANC services is still alarmingly low in Ethiopia [40]. Therefore, this study provides up-to-date information about the magnitude and predictors of early initiation of antenatal care service in Ethiopia using the 2019 intermediate Ethiopia demographic health survey.

In this study, the magnitude of early initiation of ANC visits was 37.4% (95%CI: 34.6–40.2%). This result was in line with studies done in Ethiopia, for instance, a systematic review done by Gezahegn et. al., (36%) [20], Jimma University specialized hospital (39.9%) [41], and Gondar town (35.4%) [42]. However, this study was higher than studies conducted in Ethiopia like the study done by Teshale A. et. al., (32.69%) [32], Shebedino district (21.71%) [43], Debre Berhan health institutions (26.2%) [44], Kembata Tembaro Zone (31.4%) [35], and Debre Markos town (33.4%) [45]. This divergence might be due to the difference in the gaps in the study period [32, 35, 44], the launching and strengthened functioning of the Health Extension Program (HEP) and women development army, and improving access to health care systems in the country.

On the other hand, the magnitude of early initiations of antenatal care visits was lower than studies done in Ethiopia, for example, Addis Ababa (58%) [46], Bule Hora district (57.8%) [34], Central zone Tigray (41%) [17], Slum resident in Addis Ababa (50.3%) [47], and South Gondar (47.5%) [48]. It was also lower than studies done in Southern Ghana (57%) [49], and Nepal (70%) [50]. Moreover, it was slightly lower than a study conducted in Debre-Berhan town, Ethiopia (40.6%) [40]. The variation could be due to the difference in the study settings (in which the previous studies were done in a single health institution with a small sample size) and study populations; in which most of the participants in the previous studies were urban dwellers whereas more than two-thirds (69.3%) of the mothers who participated in the current study were rural residents. So, the lower prevalence of early initiation of ANC visits reported in this study might be explained by women who lived in rural areas are less likely to have a nearby health facility which in turn exposed to other extra costs for transportation service as well as lack of availability of means of transportations. As a result, they fail to attain ANC services timely. In addition, the other possible justification might be the difference in the operational definition used to classify the outcome variable of early initiation of ANC visit. Most of the previous studies defined “early ANC visits” if the women attend ANC visits within the first 16 weeks of gestations, but, we used 12 weeks as the uppercut of point to classify as early initiation of ANC visits as recommended by WHO [51].

The study revealed that women who attended higher education were two times more likely to start their first ANC visit as compared to those women who didn’t attend formal education. This finding was supported by studies conducted in Ethiopia [20, 32, 40, 52, 53], Myanmar [54], Ghana [49], Nigeria [55], Northern Uganda [56], and Sub-Saharan Africa [33]. This is explained by the fact that educated women are more economically independent, employed, have good levels of knowledge towards the benefits of attending ANC visits, the appropriate timing when it is started, and the negative consequences related to delayed initiation of ANC visits than those women who did not attend formal education [57]. Moreover, educated women might have a high possibility of having information and might have a decision-making ability on their health as well as their unborn fetus and give more attention to their health to attain the highest standards of health for themselves as well as their unborn fetus. As a result, the woman who has being educated were more likely to attend ANC visits early than woman who didn’t attend formal education.

The odds of early initiations of ANC visits and household wealth status were positively associated. The odds of early initiation of ANC visits were 1.8, 1.86, and 2.3 times more likely among women who belong to the household wealth status of medium, richer, and richest as compared to women who belong to the poorest wealth status, respectively. The result was in agreement with studies conducted in Ethiopia [20, 53, 58], Ghana [49], Cameroon [59], and Sub-Saharan Africa [33]. Even though maternal health services (i.e. antenatal care, skilled birth attendants, postnatal care, and immunizations services) are delivered free of charge for all women in Ethiopia at government health facilities, services fees at private health facilities, and non-services related costs like transportation fees [60, 61] are unacceptably high. Moreover, most women are obliged to experience a long waiting time to get the services, going a long distance to and from health facilities. Such types of indirect costs are interrelated with the women’s daily life of which they might go to a farm, market, office, and other workplaces to gain money to cover their daily living. As a result, women belonging to middle, richer, and richest households will be more likely to attend ANC visits early as compared to women belonging to the poorest quantile.

The current study demonstrates that the odds of the utilization of early ANC visits were 13% less likely among women whose households were headed by the male as compared to their counterparts. This finding was in agreement with other study findings at which husbands’ permission had a tremendous impact on the utilization and timing of ANC services [6264]. Another study done by Mulat G., et al. noted that the odds of using ANC visits were more likely among womens’ who had autonomy on their healthcare decision-making as compared to their counterparts [65]. Therefore, the information dissemination and education about the benefit of autonomy of women and empowerment in all dimensions of life should be much strengthened, particularly in their own healthcare decision.

Consistent with studies done in Ethiopia [66], and Rwanda [67], the odds of attending an early ANC visit was 29% less likely among women who have had ≥ 5 family members as compared to those women who have had less than five family members. The possible justification might be the woman who belongs to large family sizes are more likely to be prone to financial deficiency, spend more time on caring for their families, and perform all other household activities than taking care of her health.

In agreement with previous studies done in Africa [20, 32, 54, 58], this study identified that the odds of early initiation of first ANC visits were less likely among women who lived in rural areas as compared to women who lived in urban areas. The possible justification could be due to women who resided in rural areas are being exposed to inadequate availability and accessibility of health facilities, and fewer chances of getting health information as compared to women who lived in urban areas.

Our findings also depicted that women who lived in the Harari region and Dire-Dawa city administration were two and three times more likely to attend early antenatal care services as compared with women who lived in the Tigray region. Whereas, women who lived in SNNPRs were 66% less likely to attend early antenatal care services as compared to their counterparts. The variation could be due to the difference in the study populations; in which only one-fifth (19%) of the total selected participants in the Tigray region were urban dwellers whereas more than half of the nominated participants in the Harari region (54.3%) and Dire-Dawa city administration (58%) were urban residents. Also, only 9.5% of the participants selected in the SNNPR was an urban resident. Therefore, the high chances of early initiation of ANC visits reported in the Harari region and Dire-Dawa city might be explained by most of the participants being from urban areas and they are more likely to have a nearby health facility, and also have available means of transportation.

The clinical and public health implication

This study adds for the existing body of information about modified and persistent determinants that deter women from early initiation of first ANC visits. Therefore, policy makers, and planners will workup on the identified determinates to increase the early initiation of first ANC visits and to decrease the fetomaternal complications as well as bad perinatal outcomes that occurred due to missed opportunities. The Ethiopia federal minister of health in collaboration with other non governmental organizations (NGOs) should give due emphasis to women from large family sizes, women from rural areas, women with no formal education, women from a household headed by husbands, women from poorer household wealth status, and SNNPRs regions to maximize the early initiation of first ANC visits.

Strength and limitation

The study had many strengths, for instance, it used nationality representative data of 2019 intermediate EMDHS with a large sample size, a high response rate, and high-quality data which will reduce a bias related to sampling and measurement. Moreover, we have used an appropriate statistical approach, multilevel mixed-effect analysis, to estimate the cluster effect on early initiation of first ANC visits. Yet, we would like to assure our reader that a few limitations needed to take into account. As a cross-sectional study, the exact cause-effect relationship between early initiation of ANC visits and its predictors doesn’t exist, and recall bias might be introduced. The other limitation was the study failed to assess some important variables like distance to the health facility, pregnancy intention, media exposure and covered by health insurance, which may affect the timing of first ANC visits.

Conclusion

In Ethiopia, despite the WHO recommends to all pregnant women attend the first ANC visits within the first 12th weeks of gestation, only less than two-fifths of the women attended antenatal care within the first trimester of pregnancy. Women who attended higher education, medium wealth status, richer wealth status, richest wealth status, living in the Harari region, and Dire-Dawa city were positively associated with the early initiation of first ANC visits. However, women who were rural residents, the household headed by a male, having ≥ 5 family members, and living in SNNPRs were negatively associated with early initiation of first ANC visits. Therefore, information dissemination should be much strengthened towards the timing of early ANC attendance, its significance for good fetomaternal outcomes, and the negative consequences related to delayed initiation of ANC visits via available media outlets by giving special attention to women who didn’t attend formal education, living in an urban area and belongs to the poorest wealth quantile household. In addition to the provision of ANC services freely for all pregnant women at governmental health facilities, the governmental and non-governmental organizations should try their best to steadily increase the availability and accessibility of health facilities in rural areas to optimize the timely initiation of ANC uptake. Also, ANC services should be provided at all health facilities levels consistently, particularly in rural areas and regions with fewer attendances of early ANC visits like SNNPR. Furthermore, women’s autonomy and empowerment in all dimensions of life, particularly in their own healthcare decision, should need to be given due emphasis. Lastly, the future researcher will consider a qualitative study to explore more unidentified individual, community, and facility-level factors.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Demographic and Health Surveys center for allowing and permitting us to access the data set.

Abbreviations

ANC

Antenatal Care

AOR

Adjusted odds ratio

CI

Confidence Interval

HIV

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

SNNPR

South Nation Nationality Peoples Region

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

The third-party data was obtained for this study from the DHS program. Data are available from the measure DHS website http://www.dhsprogram.com for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Furthermore, the researchers can access the birth record file of the EDHS dataset from https://www.dhsprogram.com/data/dataset_admin/login_main.cfm after securing written consent from the DHS website.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Nations U. Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. [Internet]. New York, New York, USA: United Nations; Available at: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Smith SL, Shiffman J. Setting the global health agenda: the influence of advocates and ideas on political priority for maternal and newborn survival. Social science & medicine. 2016;166:86–93. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Assembly G. Sustainable development goals. SDGs Transform Our World. 2015;2030. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.WHO. Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2017: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and the United Nations Population Division: executive summary. World Health Organization; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Anastasi E, Borchert M, Campbell OM, Sondorp E, Kaducu F, Hill O, et al. Losing women along the path to safe motherhood: why is there such a gap between women’s use of antenatal care and skilled birth attendance? A mixed methods study in northern Uganda. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2015;15(1):1–15. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0695-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.UNICEF: Monitoring the situation of children and women. Available at; https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/stillbirths/ Released at: October 2020.
  • 7.UNICEF: Monitoring the situation of children and women. Available at; https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/neonatal-mortality/ Released at Decemer 2021. 2021.
  • 8.Koblinsky M, Moyer CA, Calvert C, Campbell J, Campbell OM, Feigl AB, et al. Quality maternity care for every woman, everywhere: a call to action. The Lancet. 2016;388(10057):2307–20. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31333-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wondemagegn AT, Alebel A, Tesema C, Abie W. The effect of antenatal care follow-up on neonatal health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Public health reviews. 2018;39(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s40985-018-0110-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Haftu A, Hagos H, Mehari M-A. Pregnant women adherence level to antenatal care visit and its effect on perinatal outcome among mothers in Tigray public health institutions, 2017: cohort study. BMC research notes. 2018;11(1):1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience: World Health Organization; 2016. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Heredia-Pi I, Servan-Mori E, Darney BG, Reyes-Morales H, Lozano R. Measuring the adequacy of antenatal health care: a national cross-sectional study in Mexico. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2016;94(6):452. doi: 10.2471/BLT.15.168302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sinyange N, Sitali L, Jacobs C, Musonda P, Michelo C. Factors associated with late antenatal care booking: population based observations from the 2007 Zambia demographic and health survey. The Pan African Medical Journal. 2016;25. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2016.25.109.6873 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Marchant T, Tilley-Gyado RD, Tessema T, Singh K, Gautham M, Umar N, et al. Adding content to contacts: measurement of high quality contacts for maternal and newborn health in Ethiopia, north east Nigeria, and Uttar Pradesh, India. PloS one. 2015;10(5):e0126840. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126840 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fekadu GA, Ambaw F, Kidanie SA. Facility delivery and postnatal care services use among mothers who attended four or more antenatal care visits in Ethiopia: further analysis of the 2016 demographic and health survey. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2019;19(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Moller A-B, Petzold M, Chou D, Say L. Early antenatal care visit: a systematic analysis of regional and global levels and trends of coverage from 1990 to 2013. The Lancet Global Health. 2017;5(10):e977–e83. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30325-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gidey G, Hailu B, Nigus K, Hailu T, Gerensea H. Timing of first focused antenatal care booking and associated factors among pregnant mothers who attend antenatal care in Central Zone, Tigray, Ethiopia. BMC research notes. 2017;10(1):1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Yaya S, Bishwajit G, Ekholuenetale M, Shah V, Kadio B, Udenigwe O. Timing and adequate attendance of antenatal care visits among women in Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0184934. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jo Y, Alland K, Ali H, Mehra S, LeFevre AE, Pak SE, et al. Antenatal care in rural Bangladesh: current state of costs, content and recommendations for effective service delivery. BMC health services research. 2019;19(1):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tesfaye G, Loxton D, Chojenta C, Semahegn A, Smith R. Delayed initiation of antenatal care and associated factors in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reproductive health. 2017;14(1):1–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Akhtar F, Rehman S. Prevention of congenital syphilis through antenatal screenings in Lusaka, Zambia: a systematic review. Cureus. 2018;10(1). doi: 10.7759/cureus.2078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gomez GB, Kamb ML, Newman LM, Mark J, Broutet N, Hawkes SJ. Untreated maternal syphilis and adverse outcomes of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2013;91:217–26. doi: 10.2471/BLT.12.107623 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Orvos H, Hoffmann I, Frank I, Katona M, Pál A, Kovács L. The perinatal outcome of pregnancy without prenatal care: A retrospective study in Szeged, Hungary. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2002;100(2):171–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tuladhar H, Dhakal N. Impact of antenatal care on maternal and perinatal utcome: a study at Nepal medical college teaching hospital. Nepal journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2011;6(2):37–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kisuule I, Kaye DK, Najjuka F, Ssematimba SK, Arinda A, Nakitende G, et al. Timing and reasons for coming late for the first antenatal care visit by pregnant women at Mulago hospital, Kampala Uganda. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2013;13(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lindtjørn B, Mitiku D, Zidda Z, Yaya Y. Reducing maternal deaths in Ethiopia: results of an intervention Programme in Southwest Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pearson L, Gandhi M, Admasu K. Keyes Eb. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics User fees and maternity services in Ethiopia BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2011;115:310–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.USAID. USAID invests in improving the quality of maternal and child health services across the country. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/ethiopia/global-health/maternal-and-child-health. Released on July 12, 2021.
  • 29.Medhanyie A, Spigt M, Kifle Y, Schaay N, Sanders D, Blanco R, et al. The role of health extension workers in improving utilization of maternal health services in rural areas in Ethiopia: a cross sectional study. BMC health services research. 2012;12(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-352 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wang H, Tesfaye R, Ramana GN, Chekagn CT. Ethiopia health extension program: an institutionalized community approach for universal health coverage: World Bank Publications; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Central statistical agency (CSA)[Ethiopia] and ICF. Ethiopia demographic and health survey, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Teshale AB, Tesema GA. Prevalence and associated factors of delayed first antenatal care booking among reproductive age women in Ethiopia; a multilevel analysis of EDHS 2016 data. PloS one. 2020;15(7):e0235538. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Alem AZ, Yeshaw Y, Liyew AM, Tesema GA, Alamneh TS, Worku MG, et al. Timely initiation of antenatal care and its associated factors among pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa: A multicountry analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys. PloS one. 2022;17(1):e0262411. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262411 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tufa G, Tsegaye R, Seyoum D. Factors Associated with Timely Antenatal Care Booking Among Pregnant Women in Remote Area of Bule Hora District, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Women’s Health. 2020;12:657. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S255009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Tekelab T, Berhanu B. Factors associated with late initiation of antenatal care among pregnant women attending antenatal Clinic at Public Health Centers in Kembata Tembaro zone, southern Ethiopia. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal. 2014;3(1):108–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Institute EPH ICF. Ethiopia mini demographic and health survey 2019: key indicators. Rockville, Maryland, USA: EPHI and ICF. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Merlo J, Chaix B, Yang M, Lynch J, Råstam L. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: linking the statistical concept of clustering to the idea of contextual phenomenon. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2005;59(6):443–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Adjiwanou V, LeGrand T. Does antenatal care matter in the use of skilled birth attendance in rural Africa: a multi-country analysis. Social science & medicine. 2013;86:26–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tunçalp Ӧ, Pena-Rosas JP, Lawrie T, Bucagu M, Oladapo OT, Portela A, et al. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience-going beyond survival. Bjog. 2017;124(6):860–2. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14599 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kolola T, Morka W, Abdissa B. Antenatal care booking within the first trimester of pregnancy and its associated factors among pregnant women residing in an urban area: a cross-sectional study in Debre Berhan town, Ethiopia. BMJ open. 2020;10(6):e032960. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032960 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ewnetu W. Factors associated with late antenatal care initiation in an Ethiopian clinic. Research. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gudayu TW, Woldeyohannes SM, Abdo AA. Timing and factors associated with first antenatal care booking among pregnant mothers in Gondar Town; North West Ethiopia. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2014;14(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Geta MB, Yallew WW. Early initiation of antenatal care and factors associated with early antenatal care initiation at health facilities in southern Ethiopia. Advances in Public Health. 2017;2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Zegeye AM, Bitew BD, Koye DN. Prevalence and determinants of early antenatal care visit among pregnant women attending antenatal care in Debre Berhan Health Institutions, Central Ethiopia. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 2013;17(4). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ewunetie AA, Munea AM, Meselu BT, Simeneh MM, Meteku BT. DELAY on first antenatal care visit and its associated factors among pregnant women in public health facilities of Debre Markos town, North West Ethiopia. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2018;18(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gulema H, Berhane Y. Timing of first antenatal care visit and its associated factors among pregnant women attending public health facilities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiopian journal of health sciences. 2017;27(2):139–46. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v27i2.6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bayou YT, Mashalla YS, Thupayagale-Tshweneagae G. The adequacy of antenatal care services among slum residents in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2016;16(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0930-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wolde HF, Tsegaye AT, Sisay MM. Late initiation of antenatal care and associated factors among pregnant women in Addis Zemen primary hospital, South Gondar, Ethiopia. Reproductive health. 2019;16(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Manyeh AK, Amu A, Williams J, Gyapong M. Factors associated with the timing of antenatal clinic attendance among first-time mothers in rural southern Ghana. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2020;20(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-2738-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Paudel YR, Jha T, Mehata S. Timing of first antenatal care (ANC) and inequalities in early initiation of ANC in Nepal. Frontiers in public health. 2017;5:242. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.World Health Organization. WHO antenatal care randomized trial: manual for the implementation of the new model. World Health Organization; 2002. Report No.: 9241546298. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Emiru AA, Alene GD, Debelew GT. Individual, household, and contextual factors influencing the timing of the first antenatal care attendance in Northwest Ethiopia: a two-level binary logistic regression analysis. International journal of women’s health. 2020;12:463. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S250832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gebrekidan K, Worku A. Factors associated with late ANC initiation among pregnant women in select public health centers of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: unmatched case–control study design. Pragmatic and observational research. 2017;8:223. doi: 10.2147/POR.S140733 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Aung TZ, Oo WM, Khaing W, Lwin N, Dar HT. Late initiation of antenatal care and its determinants: a hospital based cross-sectional study. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2016;3(4):900–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Adekanle D, Isawumi A. Late antenatal care booking and its predictors among pregnant women in South Western Nigeria. Online Journal of Health and Allied Sciences. 2008;7(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Turyasiima M, Tugume R, Openy A, Ahairwomugisha E, Opio R, Ntunguka M, et al. Determinants of first antenatal care visit by pregnant women at community based education, research and service sites in Northern Uganda. East African medical journal. 2014;91(9):317–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Grown C, Gupta GR, Pande R. Taking action to improve women’s health through gender equality and women’s empowerment. The lancet. 2005;365(9458):541–3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17872-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ejeta E, Dabsu R, Zewdie O, Merdassa E. Factors determining late antenatal care booking and the content of care among pregnant mother attending antenatal care services in East Wollega administrative zone, West Ethiopia. Pan African Medical Journal. 2017;27(1). doi: 10.11604/pamj.2017.27.184.10926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Tolefac PN, Halle-Ekane GE, Agbor VN, Sama CB, Ngwasiri C, Tebeu PM. Why do pregnant women present late for their first antenatal care consultation in Cameroon? Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology. 2017;3(1):1–6. doi: 10.1186/s40748-017-0067-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Gong E, Dula J, Alberto C, de Albuquerque A, Steenland M, Fernandes Q, et al. Client experiences with antenatal care waiting times in southern Mozambique. BMC health services research. 2019;19(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Kalu-Umeh NN, Sambo MN, Idris SH, Kurfi AM. Costs and patterns of financing maternal health care services in rural communities in northern Nigeria: evidence for designing national fee exemption policy. International Journal of MCH and AIDS. 2013;2(1):163. doi: 10.21106/ijma.21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Tegegne TK, Chojenta C, Getachew T, Smith R, Loxton D. Antenatal care use in Ethiopia: a spatial and multilevel analysis. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2019;19(1):1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Tewodros B, Dibaba Y. Factors affecting antenatal care utilization in Yem special woreda, southwestern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of health sciences. 2009;19(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Biratu BT, Lindstrom DP. The influence of husbands’ approval on women’s use of prenatal care: results from Yirgalem and Jimma towns, south west Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development. 2006;20(2):84–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mulat G, Kassaw T, Aychiluhim M. Antenatal care service utilization and its associated factors among mothers who gave live birth in the past one year in Womberma Woreda, North West Ethiopia. Epidemiology (sunnyvale) S. 2015;2(003). [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Tola W, Negash E, Sileshi T, Wakgari N. Late initiation of antenatal care and associated factors among pregnant women attending antenatal clinic of Ilu Ababor Zone, southwest Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. Plos One. 2021;16(1):e0246230. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246230 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Manzi A, Munyaneza F, Mujawase F, Banamwana L, Sayinzoga F, Thomson DR, et al. Assessing predictors of delayed antenatal care visits in Rwanda: a secondary analysis of Rwanda demographic and health survey 2010. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2014;14(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jamie Males

8 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-13822A multilevel mixed-effect analysis of determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia; Using the recent 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic health surveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abebe,

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 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. The reviewer has identified a need to provide a clearer explanation of the rationale and motivation for your study, and to clarify aspects of your methods and statistical analyses. Please respond carefully to these and the other points raised by the reviewer when preparing your revisions.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 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,

Jamie Males

Editorial Office

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

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

2. We 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

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

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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: 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: General view:

I would say the authors have submitted an important piece of work in its field of relevance. However, I have few suggestions for the authors to improve this manuscript.

Title

The topic is unattractive. I suggest modification to make the title catchier, attractive and simple.

The title has some repetitions. It should be only multilevel not multilevel mixed effect

The authors said “2019 Ethiopia mini demographic health survey” which is not the right name of survey

Suggested Title “Determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia based on the 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey: A multilevel Analysis”

Abstract

Method: The authors should be more specific and "in order" in describing the methods. Determinants, associated factors, risk factors, please be specific throughout the document. which one do you think is appropriate considering your study design?

“A multilevel mixed logistic regression model” needs to rewritten in a correct way

Introduction

There are a lot of editorial errors in this section needs to be rewritten.

The author stated that “However, those previous studies in Ethiopia were conducted in specific areas with small sample sizes, mainly facility-based and were not nationally representative.” Is this really the case? There are many previous studies conducted with sample sizes and nationally representative (Based on EDHS 2016 may be one example). Hence, I suggest the authors to elaborate more as to why this study is important and what will be the novel contribution of this study.

The gap to this study should be clear. Thus, authors need to convince readers that this is additional information.

Determinant or factors associated please be consistent with this terminology throughout your document. Is it possible to use both terminologies interchangeably?

Methods

The author stated “2019 intermediate Ethiopian mini demography and health survey” is this the correct name of the survey? Please be consistent throughout the document

The way you define your source and study population were seeming incorrect. Please re define your source and study population.

The author stated “in the bivariable two-level binary logistic regression were candidates for multivariable multilevel logistic regression analysis.” Two-level or multi-level you wrote as the two were different and needs to be re-written

Sample size determination was not clear. On what criteria does the final sample size was considered.

Results

Add horizontal line in table, because of your data type it is difficult to see which number corresponding to which variable currently

There are a lot of editorial errors in your result. For instance, (the age range of 20-29 (55.2%) years old., 2,691 (91.7) were married, etc) please work on that

Discussion

The authors should discuss something on the existing policy or programme that target ANC services, and how these findings can be useful for improving the existing programme.

The authors should explore more on the relationship between variable. The authors should also show the implications of the results in more informative and practical way.

The authors should also follow guideline of the journal for in text and list of references

The manuscript has several grammatical and typological flaws that hamper its readability.

Align with this journal manuscript submission guideline

**********

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: Temam Beshir Raru

**********

[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: Comments and Suggestions_ANC_Plos One.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 6;18(3):e0281038. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281038.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Oct 2022

Author response to reviewers

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your email dated 8th September 2022 incorporating the insight of the editor and reviewer’s comments. We, authors, would like to express our gratitude to you for the insightful and constructive review that has led to the great improvement of our paper entitled “Multilevel analysis of determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia; using the recent 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic health survey”. We declared that all the data underlying the results presented in the study are publicly available from the Measure DHS website: http://www.dhsprogram.com. We have carefully reviewed the comments given by the reviewer and revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner for the reviewers' comments using the Author response to reviewer form. If you have any concerns to be addressed, we are happy to consider.

Best regards!

Version 1: PONE-D-22-13822

Date: 10/9/2022

Academic editor comments and a respective author response

Editor comment 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

Author’s Response: Thanks very much for this comment. The whole part of the manuscript was updated as per the PLOSE ONE style templates.

Editor comment 2. 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

Author’s Response: Thanks very much for this constructive comment. The comment has been accepted and revision has been made to the “Data availability statement” (See on the cover letter above).

Editor comment 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information section.

Author’s Response: Thanks a lot dear editor for this insightful comment. We apologize dear editor for the inconvenience that happened when editing the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’. The suggestion of the editor has been fully accepted and corrections have been made in the funding and role of the funder as the author(s) received no specific funding for this work. So the role of the funder is “not applicable”.

Reviewer #1 comments and an author response

Comments

General view:

I would say the authors have submitted an important piece of work in its field of relevance. However, I have few suggestions for the authors to improve this manuscript.

Title

Comment 1: The topic is unattractive. I suggest modifications to make the title catchier, attractive and simple. The title has some repetitions. It should be only multilevel not multilevel mixed effect

The authors said “2019 Ethiopia mini demographic health survey” which is not the right name of survey. Suggested Title “Determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia based on the 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey: A multilevel Analysis”.

Author’s Response: Thanks very much, dear reviewer, for this insightful comment as well as the suggestion. The comment has been accepted and the title has been updated as suggested (See page 1, lines 1-3).

Abstract

Comment 2: Method: The authors should be more specific and "in order" in describing the methods. Determinants, associated factors, risk factors, please be specific throughout the document. which one do you think is appropriate considering your study design?

Author’s Response: Thanks very much for these constructive comments. The comments have been accepted and corrections have been made in the whole document by “Determinants”.

Comment 3: “A multilevel mixed logistic regression model” needs to be rewritten in the correct way.

Author’s Response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this insightful comment. The comment has been accepted and corrected as “A multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model” (See page 2, line 31).

Introduction

Comment 4: There are a lot of editorial errors in this section needs to be rewritten.

The author stated that “However, those previous studies in Ethiopia were conducted in specific areas with small sample sizes, mainly facility-based and were not nationally representative.” Is this really the case? There are many previous studies conducted with sample sizes and nationally representative (Based on EDHS 2016 may be one example). Hence, I suggest the authors to elaborate more as to why this study is important and what will be the novel contribution of this study. The gap to this study should be clear. Thus, authors need to convince readers that this is additional information.

Author’s Response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for these constructive comments. The comments have been accepted and corrections have been made (See page 6, lines 124-132).

Comment 5: Determinants or factors associated please be consistent with this terminology throughout your document. Is it possible to use both terminologies interchangeably?

Author’s Response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this insightful comment. The comment has been accepted and correction has been made throughout the document by “Determinants”.

Methods

Comment 6: The author stated, “2019 intermediate Ethiopian mini demography and health survey” is this the correct name of the survey? Please be consistent throughout the document.

Author’s Response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this insightful comment. The comment has been accepted and corrected as “2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey” (See page 7, line 144).

Comment 7: The way you define your source and study population were seeming incorrect. Please re define your source and study population.

Author’s Response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this insightful comment. The comment has been accepted and an amendment has been made (See page 7, lines 159-163).

Comment 8: The author stated “in the bivariable two-level binary logistic regression were candidates for multivariable multilevel logistic regression analysis.” Two-level or multi-level you wrote as the two were different and needs to be re-written

Author’s response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this comment. The comment has been accepted and correction has been made (See page 12, line 236).

Comment 9: Sample size determination was not clear. On what criteria does the final sample size was considered.

Author’s response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this question. In our study, the sample size was determined based on the eligibility criteria set by considering the primary intentions of the study as a pillar (i.e. To determine the magnitude of early initiation of the first ANC visit and its determinants). In the 2019 EMDHS, a total of 8,885 reproductive-age women were selected and interviewed. Of those women, only 3,979 women gave birth in the last five years preceding the survey. Of those women who gave birth, 1,044 study participants didn’t fulfill the inclusion criteria and they were excluded. Lastly, only 2,935 reproductive-age women who fulfill the inclusion criteria were enrolled in our study (See Fig 1).

Results

Comment 10: Add horizontal line in table, because of your data type it is difficult to see which number corresponding to which variable currently.

Author’s response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this comment. The comment has been accepted and corrected as suggested (See all tables).

Comment 11: There are a lot of editorial errors in your result. For instance, (the age range of 20-29 (55.2%) years old, 2,691 (91.7) were married, etc) please work on that

Author’s response: Thanks very much for this insightful comment. We apologize dear reviewer for the error committed during the edition stage. We accept the comment and appropriate correction has been made (See page 13, line 263)

Discussion

Comment 12: The authors should discuss something on the existing policy or programme that target ANC services, and how these findings can be useful for improving the existing programme.

Author’s response: Thanks very much for this comment and suggestion. The comment has been accepted and correction has been made as recommended (See page 19, lines 334-339).

Comment 13: The authors should explore more on the relationship between variable. The authors should also show the implications of the results in more informative and practical way.

Author’s response: Thanks very much for this comment. The comment has been accepted and revision has been made accordingly (See pages 23-24, lines 428-436).

Comment 14: The authors should also follow guideline of the journal for in text and list of references

Author’s response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this insightful comment. The comment has been accepted. We used the guideline of the journal for in-text and a list of references and revision has been made accordingly.

Comment 15: The manuscript has several grammatical and typological flaws that hamper its readability.

Author’s response: Thanks very much for this constructive comment. We accept the comment and revisions have been made to the whole document to make it grammatically and typologically clear.

Comment 16: Align with this journal manuscript submission guideline.

Author’s response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this constructive comment. The comment has been accepted and alignment has been made to the journal manuscript guideline.

I reserve any further comments until the authors have substantially revised or justified their comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Demisu Zenbaba Heyi

27 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-13822R1A multilevel mixed-effect analysis of determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia; Using the recent 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic health surveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abebe,

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 ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by January 12/2023. 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,

Demisu Zenbaba Heyi, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

[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)

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: There are a lot of editorial errors in this section needs to be rewritten.

for instance, “As far as the researcher search of pieaces of literature concerned, the is no research assessing the determinants of early initiation…”

I suggest the authors to elaborate more as to why this study is important and what will be the novel contribution of this study.

**********

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: Temam Beshir Raru

**********

[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.<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 6;18(3):e0281038. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281038.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Jan 2023

Author response to reviewers

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your email dated 27th December 2022 incorporating the insight of the editor and reviewer’s comments. We, the authors, would like to express our gratitude to you for the insightful and constructive review that has led to the great improvement of our paper entitled “Multilevel analysis of determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia; using the recent 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic health survey”. We have carefully reviewed the comments given by the reviewer and revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner for the reviewers' comments using the Author’s response to the reviewer form. If you have any concerns to be addressed, we are happy to consider them.

Best regards!

Version 1: PONE-D-22-13822R1

Date: 12/29/2022

Reviewer #1 comments and an author response

Comments

Reviewers' comment #1: There are a lot of editorial errors in this section that needs to be rewritten. For instance, “As far as the researcher search of pieces of literature concerned, the is no research assessing the determinants of early initiation…” I suggest the authors to elaborate more as to why this study is important and what will be the novel contribution of this study.

Author’s Response: Thank you very much dear reviewer for this valuable comment. We, the authors, accepted the comment and the correction has been made accordingly as indicated by the reviewer (See pages 6-7, lines 121 – 138).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Demisu Zenbaba Heyi

17 Jan 2023

Determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia based on 2019 the Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey: A multilevel Analysis

PONE-D-22-13822R2

Dear Dr. Abebe,

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,

Demisu Zenbaba Heyi, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

accept

Reviewers' comments:

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Acceptance letter

Demisu Zenbaba Heyi

24 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-13822R2

Determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia based on the 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey: A multilevel Analysis

Dear Dr. Abebe:

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. Demisu Zenbaba Heyi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments and Suggestions_ANC_Plos One.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The third-party data was obtained for this study from the DHS program. Data are available from the measure DHS website http://www.dhsprogram.com for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Furthermore, the researchers can access the birth record file of the EDHS dataset from https://www.dhsprogram.com/data/dataset_admin/login_main.cfm after securing written consent from the DHS website.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES