Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jun 5;20(6):e0324328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324328

Predictors of institutional delivery service utilization among women in Northern region of Ghana

Abdul Gafaru Mohammed 1,*, Ruth Nimota Nukpezah 2, Harriet Bonful 1, Hilarius Paul Asiwome Kosi Abiwu 3, Charles Lwanga Noora 1, Alice Sallar Adams 4, Jennifer Nai-Dowetin 4, Ernest Kenu 1
Editor: Mubarick Nungbaso Asumah5
PMCID: PMC12140280  PMID: 40472014

Abstract

Introduction

An increase in home delivery among expectant mothers may likely lead to high maternal and newborn morbidities and mortalities. Despite the policy on free maternal healthcare in Ghana under the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) since 2007, more than 25% of deliveries still occur outside health facilities in northern Ghana. Use of safe and effective delivery services including place of delivery is an important component of the Safe Motherhood concept. Hence, assessing predictors of institutional delivery could contribute to improving birth outcomes in the Northern Region.

Methods

We conducted a community-based cross-sectional survey of 310 women aged 15–49 years old who had given a live birth between January 2022 and January 2023, using a simple random sampling approach. Using a semi-structured questionnaire, we collected data on mothers’ background characteristics, place of delivery for their most recent birth and reported health facility factors. Descriptive analyses and multiple logistic regression models were performed to identify factors associated with institutional delivery at a 5% significance level.

Results

Of 310 women in the study, the prevalence of institutional delivery was 79%(245) in their most recent births. More than 60%(200/310) of the women were married and 53%(163/310) had no formal education. Being married (adjusted odds ratio {aOR}=2.8, 95%CI:1.48–5.32), the presence of skilled health personnel at post (aOR=2.9, 95%CI:1.54–5.43), reported positive attitude of health workers towards their clients (aOR=1.8, 95%CI:1.03–3.23) and positive community perception of health facility delivery (aOR=3.8, 95%CI:1.64–8.71) were associated with increased odds of institutional delivery.

Conclusions

Our study identified multiple predictors of institutional delivery; marital status, the presence of skilled health personnel at health facilities, the perceived attitude of health workers and community perception. The research team organized discussions on institutional delivery services with community members in five selected districts in the region. We recommend the Ministry of Health should develop well-defined care packages targeting unmarried pregnant women, negative health worker attitudes and negative community perceptions.

Introduction

More than 500,000 women lose their lives annually during pregnancy and childbirth worldwide, majority (94%) of whom are often from developing countries [1]. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) accounts for over 66% of maternal deaths in developing countries [1]. One out of every 26 women in SSA dies from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth [2]. In fact, thirty of the forty countries with the highest maternal death rates globally are from SSA [2].

Home deliveries are still very rampant in developing countries (68.7%), as compared to developed countries (1.3%) [3]. In sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence of health facility delivery ranges from 23% in Chad to 94% in Gabon, with more than half of the countries recording less than 70% [2].

According to the 2022 Demographic Health Survey (DHS) in Ghana, 86% of live births in the 2 years preceding the survey were delivered in a health facility. This implies more than 10% of children are still delivered outside the health facility setting. The Northern region of Ghana continues to experience one of the lowest institutional delivery rates in the country, with only 70.3% of births occurring in health facilities. Surveys conducted in Brong Ahafo region and Chereponi district of northern Ghana, among 138 and 440 women respectively, revealed health facility deliveries ranged from 38–52% [3,4].

Over the years, the government of Ghana has attempted to improve access to maternal health care services. In 2003, the government introduced the waiver of delivery fees, and by 2005, fees on delivery care were abolished in all the country’s regions [5]. This was followed by the introduction of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) in 2005, which allows all pregnant women under the scheme to have free access to maternal health care services, including antenatal care, delivery services, postnatal care, and neonatal care [6].

To achieve target 3.1 of the third Sustainable Development Goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages, it is important to ensure all deliveries occur in the health facility setting.

Use of safe and effective delivery services including place of delivery is an important component of the Safe Motherhood concept [1]. Studies on health facility delivery have demonstrated that multiple factors influence the decision to use such a service. Interestingly, while certain factors are significant in determining the use of skilled delivery services in some studies, these same factors were found to be insignificant in others. Individual factors such as maternal age, education, marital status, parity, household factors such as family size, household wealth, and community and environmental factors such as region, community health infrastructure, available health facilities, and distance to health facilities have been identified to operate in diverse contexts to determine the use of institutional delivery services [3,79].

Increased deliveries outside the health facility setting among women of reproductive age (WRA) may likely lead to high maternal and newborn morbidities and mortalities as a consequence of complications related to the delivery [10]. Despite the established consequences of deliveries outside a health facility among WRA, there is a dearth of knowledge on the prevalence and predictors of health facility delivery in the Northern region. Also, published studies from the region on institutional delivery service utilisation are mostly descriptive studies or focus on particular districts [11,12] and do not thoroughly investigate the correlates of institutional delivery service utilisation at the regional level. Understanding the factors influencing health facility deliveries in the Northern region is crucial for designing targeted interventions to improve maternal health outcomes. This study aims to identify the prevalence and predictors of institutional delivery service utilization at the regional level, providing evidence-based insights that can guide policymakers in formulating strategies to increase health facility deliveries and ultimately reduce maternal and neonatal mortality in the region. The theoretical framework of the study will be guided by the Health Belief Model (HBM) and elements from Andersen’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. These models offer a combined approach to understanding how individual beliefs, social context, and access to resources influence institutional delivery. This framework will guide the study in identifying key predictors of service utilization and provide a basis for designing targeted interventions that address specific barriers and motivators identified in the Northern region of Ghana.

Methods

Study design

We conducted a community-based cross-sectional study among 310 reproductive-age (15–49 years) women in the Northern region of Ghana. We collected data on participants’ background characteristics, choice of place of delivery, and health facility factors using a semi-structured questionnaire. Data was collected from women who had a live birth between January 2022 and January 2023. The data collection period was March 10th – April 2nd 2023. We conducted descriptive analysis and calculated adjusted odds ratios at 95% confidence intervals to identify factors independently associated with health facility delivery.

Study setting

This research was carried out in the Northern region of Ghana. Among Ghana’s 16 regions, the Northern region is one of the most populous, with a projected population of 2,479,461. The region has over 200,000 women of reproductive age [13]. Tamale, the largest city in the region, serves as the capital. The region has 16 administrative health districts. More than two hundred health facilities are licenced to provide health care in the area. These health facilities include hospitals, polyclinics, health centres, Community-based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) and maternity homes. These health facilities provide general medical services including maternal health services to the region’s populace and surrounding areas. All pregnant women in the region registered under the NHIS have free access to maternal health care services.

Study population and eligibility

The study population consisted of women between the ages of 15 and 49 who lived in Ghana’s Northern region. All women aged 15–49 years old who had given a live birth between January 2022 and January 2023 and resided in the region were included in the study. Visitors to the region and those severely ill were excluded from the study. Also, women who met our inclusion criteria but refused to participate for personal or health reasons were excluded from the study.

Study variables

Dependent variable.

The dependent variable in the study was the place of delivery in the most recent birth. The variable was binary (Health facility/Home).

Independent variables.

The independent variables were divided into three groups, sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, health facility-level factors, and community-level factors. The sociodemographic characteristics included occupation, religion, marital status, educational level, income level, husband education, and husband occupation. Health facility-level factors include the availability of a health facility, the attitude of health workers, the presence of health workers at post, and the distance to the nearest health facility. The community-level factors included the availability of TBAs in the community, community perception, the attitude of partners towards health facility delivery, and the availability of transportation to health facilities.

Sample size determination and sampling process

The sample size for the study was estimated using the Cochrane sample size estimation formula [n = (Z2 pq)/d2]. Using Z = the normal distribution at 95% confidence level which corresponds to 1.96, n = minimum sample size, p = prevalence of home delivery = 28% found in a study conducted in Ghana [14], q = (1- p) and d = precision of 5% = 0.05, we estimated a minimum sample size of 310. A multistage sampling approach was used to sample women of reproductive age (WRA) for the study [15]. Eight districts were randomly selected from the 16 districts in the Northern region. In selecting the districts, the names of all 16 districts in the Northern region were written on pieces of paper and placed in a box. The box was shaken vigorously after which 8 pieces of paper were randomly picked from the box. The 8 names on the papers selected were the sampled districts used for the study. Communities in the selected districts ranged from 20–35. The communities were categorized under stratum A (list of urban communities in the district) and stratum B (list of rural communities in the district). In each of the districts, the names of communities in each stratum were written on pieces of paper and placed in a box, shaken and one piece of paper randomly selected from each stratum. This was repeated for each district until 16 communities were randomly sampled for the study. A probability proportionate to size sampling approach was used to determine the number of women to sample from each of the selected communities, using the projected population of WRA for 2021, obtained from the district health directorates. A systematic random sampling approach was used to select the participants’ houses. In each of the selected communities, we started data collection from the town chief or the community leader’s house within the community. If the community had no chief or leader, the starting point was an influential person’s house (a woman or religious leader). Considering the arrangement of building structures from the community leader’s or chief’s house, from the starting point, the next house was the Kth (household selection interval) house away in the southward or northward direction. For each community, the sampling interval (K) was determined as the total number of households divided by the number of women to be sampled from the community. Households were selected in this direction until there were no more households. Then, households were selected westward and then eastward in a zigzag fashion. Households were visited in this sequence until the required respondents were obtained.

The next community (the same classification as the first (urban or rural) was added within the same district in smaller communities where all respondents could not be obtained.

A respondent was recruited at the starting point and every kth household starting from the southward direction was visited. If two or more women in a household met the inclusion criteria, one respondent was randomly selected by balloting from the list of potential respondents (Table 1).

Table 1. Districts and the number of women sampled.

No District Number of women sampled
1 Tamale metropolis 65
2 Tolon district 42
3 Savelugu municipality 48
4 Kumbungu district 39
5 Mion district 31
6 Sagnarigu district 35
7 Tatale district 37
8 Saboba district 41

Training of research assistants and pretesting

Before data collection, five final-year nursing students of the University for Development Studies were recruited and trained for data collection. A 3-day training exercise was conducted by the principal investigator and a resource person (field epidemiologist) from the Ghana Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programme (GFELTP). Research assistants were taken through kobo-collect data collection methods, how to obtain informed consent, and the COVID-19 preventive measures to observe during the data collection process. The designed data collection tool was pretested in the Greater Accra region using 20 sampled respondents. Mistakes detected at the pretesting stage were addressed before the main data collection.

Data collection process

Research assistants administered a structured questionnaire during the data collection. They conducted face-to-face interviews with selected eligible participants in their various communities. The semi-structured questionnaire was designed and deployed in the Kobo-collect toolbar for administration. Sociodemographic variables such as age, marital status, ethnic group, religion, education level, and employment history were obtained using the questionnaire. The choice of place of delivery (home/health facility), the availability of health facilities and distance to the nearest health facility and the attitude of health workers were also elicited.

Data management and statistical analysis

The data was extracted from the Kobo-collect tool in Microsoft Excel format and cleaned. Extracted data with missing information on the place of delivery for their most recent birth were excluded from the analysis. For analysis, data was loaded into STATA software version 16.0. Categorical variables were presented as proportions and frequencies and presented in tables. Cross-tabulations were used to determine prevalence. A logistic regression analysis was employed to establish the degree of the association. The adjusted logistic regression model’s variables were selected using a forward stepwise variable selection approach. The adjusted odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were presented. At a 5% significance level, a significant correlation was determined. Robust standard errors was used to adjust for clustering in the sampling design with community ID used as the clustering variable.

Ethical clearance

The Ghana Health Service Ethics Review Committee granted the ethical clearance for the study (GHS-ERC:025/02/23). All participants provided verbal and written informed consent for participation in the study. Consent was obtained from the parents or husbands of women aged less than 18 years, after which they signed an assent form. Data was collected devoid of personal identifiers such as names and contacts. Collected data was accessible by only the principal investigator and the academic supervisor. All preventive measures against COVID-19 were taken to prevent the spread of the disease between study participants and research assistants.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants, Northern Region

Overall, 340 women were surveyed in the study and 91.2% (310/340) agreed to participate in the study. The average age of the women was 30.9 ± 6.2 years. The majority of women (116; 37.4%) were within the age group 21–30 years and housewives (141; 45.5%). More than two-thirds (263; 84.9%) of the women studied were Muslims, about three-quarters (240; 77.4%) were married and more than half (163; 52.6%) had no formal education (Table 2).

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of reproductive-aged women, Northern Region, 2023.

Variables Frequency (n) Percentages (%)
Participant’s age (years) [mean ± sd] 30.9 ± 6.2
< 21 27 8.7
21 - 30 116 37.4
31 - 40 89 28.7
≤ 41 78 25.2
Occupation
Housewife 141 45.5
Farmer 14 4.5
Trader 133 42.9
State employed 22 7.1
Religion
Christianity 37 11.9
Islam 263 84.9
Traditionalist 10 3.2
Marital Status
Single (Never married) 39 12.6
Divorced 31 10.0
Married 240 77.4
Education
No formal education 163 52.6
Elementary 96 31.0
Secondary 33 10.6
Tertiary 18 5.8
Husband education
No formal education 110 45.8
Elementary 70 29.2
Secondary 22 9.2
Tertiary 38 15.8
Husband occupation
Farmer 129 53.8
State employed 44 18.3
Trader 67 27.9
Monthly Income (GH)
0–100.00 209 67.4
101.00–500.00 78 25.2
>500.00 23 7.4

Health facility-level factors among reproductive-aged women, Northern Region

The majority (250; 80.6%) of the women reported having a health facility situated in their community. More than two-thirds (239; 77.1%) had to travel for 5–10 km to access a health facility. Most women (251; 81.0%) were registered under the national health insurance scheme. Almost all (296; 95.5%) of the women mentioned the availability of skilled health professionals in the health facilities they visit. On their perceived attitude of the health professionals, the majority (201; 65.0%) stated the health professionals demonstrated a good attitude (Table 3).

Table 3. Health facility-level factors, Northern Region.

Variables Frequency (n) Percentages (%)
Availability of health facility
Unavailable 60 19.4
Available 250 80.6
Distance to health facility
<5km 54 17.4
5–10 km 239 77.1
>10 km 17 5.5
National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) ownership
Yes 251 81.0
No 59 19.0
Availability of personnel
Unavailable 93 30.0
Available 217 70.0
Attitude of Health workers
Poor 108 35.0
Good 201 65.0

Choice of place of delivery among reproductive-aged women and community level factors, Northern Region

Almost all (302; 97.4%) of the women interviewed reported the presence of traditional birth attendants in their communities. More than 50% (126) of the women said their husbands perceived health facility delivery to be bad. Regarding the community’s perception of health facility delivery, most (265; 85.8%) of the women said the community perceives health facility delivery positively. On the place of delivery for their most recent birth, 79.0% (95%CI:74.1–83.4) delivered at a health facility (Table 4).

Table 4. Utilization of institutional delivery services and community-level factors, among reproductive-aged women, Northern Region.

Variables Frequency (n) Percentages (%)
Availability of Traditional Birth Attendants (TBAs)
No 8 2.6
Yes 302 97.4
Attitudes of the husband towards facility delivery
Bad 126 52.5
Good 114 47.5
Community perception
Negative 44 14.2
Positive 265 85.8
Availability of transport
No 124 40.0
Yes 186 60.0
Place of delivery
Home 65 21.0
Health facility 245 79.0

Factors associated with the utilization of institutional delivery services among reproductive-aged women, Northern Region

At the multivariate logistic regression analysis level, being married (aOR = 5.54, 95%CI: 3.03–10.14), the presence of skilled health personnel (aOR = 2.65, 95%CI: 1.42–4.94), the positive attitude of health workers towards their clients (aOR = 1.96, 95%CI: 1.08–3.54) and the positive community perception of health facility delivery (aOR = 3.17, 95%CI: 1.34–7.47) were associated with increased odds of delivering in a health facility (Table 5).

Table 5. Logistic regression analysis for factors associated with the utilization of institutional delivery services among reproductive-aged women, Northern Region.

Variables Place of delivery COR (95%CI) P – value AOR (95%CI) P – value
Home
n (%)
Health facility
n (%)
Marital Status
Never married/Divorced 33 (47.1) 37 (52.9) Ref Ref
Married 32 (13.3) 208 (86.7) 5.80 (3.18 10.55) 0.001 5.54 (3.03 10.14) 0.001
Community perception
Negative 22 (50.0) 22 (50.0) Ref Ref
Positive 43 (16.2) 222 (83.8) 1.96 (1.11 3.44) 0.019 3.17 (1.34 7.47) 0.008
Attitude of health workers
Poor 31 (28.7) 77 (71.3) Ref Ref
Good 34 (16.9) 167 (83.1) 1.97 (1.13 3.45) 0.016 1.96 (1.08 3.54) 0.025
Presence of skilled health personnel at health facilities
No 34 (36.6) 59 (63.4) Ref Ref
Yes 31 (14.3) 186 (85.7) 3.45 (1.95 6.10) 0.001 2.65 (1.42 4.94) 0.002

Discussion

The utilization of institutional delivery services by reproductive-age women at the time of delivery is instrumental to the health and well-being of both the mother and the newborn. The government of Ghana has over the years implemented various measures to encourage women in both rural and urban areas to deliver in health facilities and not at home. This study presents a better understanding of the issue of health facility delivery in the Northern region and various factors or indicators that can be targeted to reduce or prevent delivery outside a health facility.

The study revealed that more than 70% of the reproductive-aged women gave birth in a health facility for their most recent birth. The prevalence reported in this study is similar to the findings of the 2017–2018 multiple indicator survey, which estimated institutional delivery in Ghana to be at 73% [16]. The reported prevalence level of health facility delivery in this study is much higher than the prevalence reported by other studies within Africa. In a study conducted in Zala Woreda and Dodota districts, Ethiopia, 77–80% of the women studied reported delivering at home in their most recent delivery [17]. In a study conducted in the Margibi County of Liberia, more than 90% of the women reported that they delivered at home in their most recent birth [18]. Also, a study conducted in Akure, Nigeria, reported that 81.8% of women delivered at home in their most recent delivery [19]. The disparity in the reported prevalence of health facility delivery in these studies compared to our study could be attributed to the study setting and the inclusion criteria used to recruit the study participants. Whereas our study considered women who had given birth in the previous year the other studies recruited women within the reproductive age or expectant mothers as study participants. This implies that the reported prevalence in these studies was the preferred choice of place of delivery by the study participants whereas this study reported the actual prevalence of health facility delivery among the women after it had occurred. The comparatively high prevalence in our current study could also suggest that more women in their reproductive age in Ghana are getting educated on the need to use institutional delivery services and hence are patronizing these services.

The behaviour of health workers towards their clients is instrumental to the success of any healthcare delivery system. Health workers are, by code, required to treat their clients with dignity and respect at all times. When these health workers fail to adhere to their code, clients may seek help for their health issues elsewhere. This study revealed that the attitude of health workers was significantly associated with health facility delivery among reproductive-age women in the region. Women who rate health workers’ attitudes as good had almost two-fold increased odds of delivering in the health facility compared to their counterparts. This finding corroborates the findings of studies conducted in Liberia, among reproductive-aged women where the good attitude of health workers was associated with a 99% odds of decreased home delivery among the women [18]. The attitude of health workers towards their clients, especially expectant mothers, must be explored and improved to increase the utilisation of institutional delivery services. This aligns with the HBM, where perceived benefits (e.g., respectful treatment by health workers and availability of skilled staff) increase the likelihood of seeking institutional delivery. Conversely, negative attitudes of health workers act as barriers, reducing the perceived benefit of facility-based deliveries. Management of health facilities should organise workshops or seminars and educate health workers on human relationships and good behaviours. Also, health nursing institutions such as nursing and medical training institutions should place more emphasis on behavioural science courses where current students will be educated on how to relate to and treat their clients in all situations.

The availability of health workers at various health facilities is instrumental to the utilisation of services offered by the facility. Women who mentioned the availability of skilled health workers at the health facilities in their communities were more inclined to deliver at a health facility compared to those who mentioned the constant unavailability of health workers at the health facilities. This finding is consistent with a similar study conducted in the Oti Region, Krachi Nchumuru District of Ghana, where women mentioned the unavailability of health workers as one of the primary factors influencing home delivery in the district [20]. In a similar study conducted in rural Zambia, the shortage of health workers in rural communities caused women to deliver at home [21]. Another qualitative analysis of home delivery in rural Zambia revealed that women neglect facility delivery due to the unavailability of health workers in health facilities [22]. Receiving care from trained health professionals is one of the reasons why expectant mothers deliver at health facilities, with this singular reason, the unavailability of health workers at post will definitely deter women from delivering in the health facility. To increase the utilisation of institutional delivery services, the Government of Ghana must ensure health workers are posted to all health facilities in the country. Also, health facilities’ management should ensure that health workers under their watch stay at their posts and provide all the necessary services to their clients.

The perception of community members on health facility delivery services was another factor reported to be associated with institutional delivery service utilization among the study participants. In communities where health facility delivery is perceived to be good, more than three times more women are likely to deliver in a health facility compared to communities where health facility delivery services are negatively perceived. This is consistent with recent studies in Tanzania and Ghana which reported increased health facility delivery to be associated with community norms and perceptions [23,24]. To increase health facility delivery service utilization it is important to demystify the negative perceptions held by members of the community regarding health facility deliveries. In recent times, various pregnancy schools in Ghana have contributed to health facility delivery by educating pregnant women, their partners and other family members on the importance of health facility delivery. Examples of these schools include; Altar of Grace Baby Care School, Mothers Pride Academy, and 31st December Women Movement School among others [25]. These pregnancy schools should consider expanding their services to the rural communities in the northern region of Ghana which will help in making more gains in increasing health facility delivery service utilization.

The findings from the study align with the theoretical framework, supporting the idea that health beliefs (under HBM) and enabling resources (under Andersen’s model) significantly affect institutional delivery service utilization. The study’s emphasis on improving health workers’ attitudes and addressing service availability directly targets the barriers identified by these models, which can help increase institutional delivery rates by enhancing perceived benefits, reducing barriers, and improving enabling factors.

The study was not devoid of limitations; the quantitative nature of the study did not allow for the authors to explore the perception of women on the use of institutional delivery services. Also, data was not collected on COVID-19-related factors that could influence institutional delivery services. Also, the use of only the prevalence of institutional delivery estimates in calculating the study sample size without taking into account any of the predictors of institutional deliveries was another limitation of our study. Further research should be conducted to assess the factors influencing institutional delivery service or home delivery using qualitative approaches in the region.

Conclusions

Our study identified multiple predictors of health facility delivery: marital status, presence of skilled health personnel at health facilities, the attitude of health workers and community perception. To increase health facility delivery, we recommend the Ministry of Health should institute a policy reform with a well-defined care package targeting unmarried pregnant women and health workers with a negative attitude and community perception. Also, the government should provide incentives for health workers working in rural communities.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Datafile.

(XLSX)

pone.0324328.s001.xlsx (36.5KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all data collectors and research participants.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This research work was funded by the principal investigator who doubles as the corresponding author. The funder was involved in the design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript drafting, and the decision to publish the work.

References

  • 1.WHO. The global maternal and neonatal sepsis initiative: WHO [cited Mar 14 2021]. [Online]. Available from: https://srhr.org/sepsis/ [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Adde KS, Dickson KS, Amu H. Prevalence and determinants of the place of delivery among reproductive age women in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0244875. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Amangbey E, Akuu JA, Tabase CLM. Factors associated with birth location among reproductive age women in Ghana: a cross-sectional survey. Public Health Research. 2018;8(4):94–100. doi: 10.5923/j.phr.20180804.03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ansah C. Health facility delivery and associated factors in the chereponi district of Northern Ghana. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dalinjong PA, Wang AY, Homer CSE. The implementation of the free maternal health policy in rural Northern Ghana: synthesised results and lessons learnt. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):341. doi: 10.1186/s13104-018-3452-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Twum P, Qi J, Aurelie KK, Xu L. Effectiveness of a free maternal healthcare programme under the National Health Insurance Scheme on skilled care: evidence from a cross-sectional study in two districts in Ghana. BMJ Open. 2018;8(11):e022614. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Berhe R, Nigusie A. Magnitude of home delivery and associated factors among child bearing age mothers in Sherkole District, Benishangul Gumuz regional state-Western-Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):796. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08919-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gudu W, Addo B. Factors associated with utilization of skilled service delivery among women in rural Northern Ghana: a cross sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):159. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1344-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nunu WN, Ndlovu V, Maviza A, Moyo M, Dube O. Factors associated with home births in a selected ward in Mberengwa District, Zimbabwe. Midwifery. 2019;68:15–22. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.09.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Scott S, Chowdhury ME, Pambudi ES, Qomariyah SN, Ronsmans C. Maternal mortality, birth with a health professional and distance to obstetric care in Indonesia and Bangladesh. Trop Med Int Health. 2013;18(10):1193–201. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Baba MI, Kyei KA, Kyei JB, Daniels J, Biney IJK, Oswald J, et al. Diversities in the place of delivery choice: a study among expectant mothers in Ghana. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):875. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-05158-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Alatinga KA, Affah J, Abiiro GA. Why do women attend antenatal care but give birth at home? a qualitative study in a rural Ghanaian District. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0261316. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.GSS. Ghana Population and Housing Census. 2021;21(1): 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dankwah E, Zeng W, Feng C, Kirychuk S, Farag M. The social determinants of health facility delivery in Ghana. Reprod Health. 2019;16(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s12978-019-0753-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gan DRY. Multistage sampling for translational community research: zooming out to hone in on place-based health disparities. Innov Aging. 2022;6(Supplement_1):367–367. doi: 10.1093/geroni/igac059.1451 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kumbeni MT, Apanga PA. Institutional delivery and associated factors among women in Ghana: findings from a 2017-2018 multiple indicator cluster survey. Int Health. 2021;13(6):520–6. doi: 10.1093/inthealth/ihab002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bedilu K, Niguse M. Delivery at home and associated factors among women in child bearing age, who gave birth in the preceding two years in Zala Woreda, southern Ethiopia. J Public Health Epidemiol. 2017;9(6):177–88. doi: 10.5897/jphe2017.0921 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Maximore LS, Mohammed AG, Issahaku GR, Sackey S, Kenu E. Prevalence and determinants of home delivery among reproductive age women, Margibi County, Liberia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):653. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04975-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Adejumo AO, Suleiman EA, Okagbue HI, Oguntunde PE, Odetunmibi OA. Quantitative evaluation of pregnant women delivery status’ records in Akure, Nigeria. Data Brief. 2017;16:127–34. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Djan P, Amu H, Nyarko SH. Factors influencing home births in the Krachi Nchumuru District in the Oti Region, Ghana: a qualitative study. Glob Soc Welf. 2019;7(1):15–22. doi: 10.1007/s40609-019-00163-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sialubanje C, Massar K, Horstkotte L, Hamer DH, Ruiter RAC. Increasing utilisation of skilled facility-based maternal healthcare services in rural Zambia: the role of safe motherhood action groups. Reprod Health. 2017;14(1):81. doi: 10.1186/s12978-017-0342-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sialubanje C, Massar K, van der Pijl MSG, Kirch EM, Hamer DH, Ruiter RAC. Improving access to skilled facility-based delivery services: Women’s beliefs on facilitators and barriers to the utilisation of maternity waiting homes in rural Zambia. Reprod Health. 2015;12:61. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0051-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cofie LE, Barrington C, Cope K, LePrevost CE, Singh K. Increasing health facility childbirth in Ghana: the role of network and community norms. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):265. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05513-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Konje ET, Hatfield J, Kuhn S, Sauve RS, Magoma M, Dewey D. Is it home delivery or health facility? Community perceptions on place of childbirth in rural Northwest Tanzania using a qualitative approach. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):270. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-02967-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.GBC. The Pregnancy School; Making Pregnancy fun and safe for Mothers. Health news; [cited Jul 19 2023]. [Online]. Available from: https://www.gbcghanaonline.com/news/health/the-pregnancy-school-making-pregnancy-fun-and-safe-for-mothers/2022/ [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kwaku Asah-Opoku

18 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-14896Predictors of Institutional Delivery Service Utilization among Women in Northern Region of GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mohammed,

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.

==============================Reviewer 1 comments:Methods:

Page 7 : Sample size determination and sampling process

line 146- 150 ; details on how the 8 districts and two communities were randomly selected should be given

How was the sampling frame of 5 arrived at?

How was the southward direction decided to be followed first until there were no more houses before other directions from the start point?

Discussion: Page 16

Line: 267-271; “ The disparity in the reported prevalence…………….” Explain why recruiting women who have given birth in the previous year would give such different prevalence from the women recruited from the reproductive age or expectant mothers?

Any recent studies from the respective countries referenced in your study? Reviewer 2 comments

PONE-D-23-14896 MANUSCRIPT REVIEWERS COMMENTS

ABSTRACT

Stop first sentence at” morbidity and mortality”

There on free maternal health care but NHIS

Why did you not study the prevalence and predictors of home delivery? Some reasons why they delivered at home may still remain unknown.

Conclusion: What is “availability of skilled personnel”?

LINES 25-39: The comments above also apply to this section

LINES 47-48 When does a woman become A SINGLE MOTHER? Is it when she is pregnancy or after delivery.? Are they unmarried pregnant women? Teenagers? or their husbands travelled while they were pregnant?

LINES 54-73: These definitions are not necessary in the manuscript

LINE 76: ..in the “reproductive process”….this is not clear. You need to it up from the reference 1.

METHODS

LINES 122: Data collected from 10th March- 2nd April 2023 and compare to -lines 31: Jan 2022 to Jan 2023. Put the two sentences together so that it becomes clear what you want to do.

What is community chairman? Chairman of what?

LINE 163: Needs clarity. Respondents were recruited at the starting point and every fifth house was visited.

LINE 172: What about COVID 19? When you are collecting data in March- April 2023.

RESULTS IN THE TABLES

TABLES 1: Differences between divorced and single. Almost 38% (119) were single women in those rural communities yet 245 husbands had positive or negative attitudes as shown in table 4.

That makes total number of husbands 54 more than your study of 310 respondents. Are some of the women having more than a husband or what. In the same table 4, under husband’s occupation total is 320 also more than your study of 310 respondents.

Where from these errors? How do these errors affect your findings and conclusions?

DISCUSSION

LINES 317-344

How is the impact of pregnancy schools relevant in this study which was in a rural population?. Something you found in your study attracts them to health facilities so discuss that more.

CONCLUSION LINES 329-331: The major issue with the conclusion is that there is no clear understanding of who is a single mother.

The data from tables 1 & 4 are conflicting on marital status of the women, attitudes of the husbands and number of husbands in the various occupations listed.

REFEENCES

All references must conform to Journals referencing style/format

Some references are incomplete eg 22 and 23 are not complete

Reviewer 3 comments

Introduction

Use of safe and effective delivery services including place of delivery is an important component of the Safe Motherhood concept. Hence, assessing predictors of institutional delivery could contribute to improving birth outcomes in the study setting.

Minor revisions

1. There are more recent estimates of global maternal mortality. The authors are advised to use these (eg Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2020: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and UNDESA/Population Division. Geneva: WHO 2023).

2. Line 59: The definition given is that of maternal mortality ratio rather the rate.

3. A few sentences need to be edited eg line 95 “…sustainable development goal…” should be written as “…Sustainable Development Goal...”. Lines 139 and 226 should be in the past tense; ie reside and perceive respectively should be in the past tense.

4. Some acronyms were used without defining them at the first instance eg CHPS, DHS, MIS, WHO etc. Acronyms/abbreviations used in Tables should all be defined below the table.

5. Study setting: The authors should state the population of WRA in the region.

6. Methods: The selected districts together with the number of women selected from each district should be stated.

7. Line 188: Although the authors stated that there were some exclusions due to missing data, there is no evidence to support this as the estimated sample size (310) is exactly the same as the number of women surveyed. It appears all women approached agreed and participated in the study. Otherwise, they should state the number of women who were excluded.

8. Ethical considerations: The authors should clearly describe how consent was obtained from minors (ie women <18 years of age)

9. Provide refs for the sampling procedure described on page 8 and pregnancy schools in Ghana (lines 317-324), which could be of interest to readers.

10. The authors should provide the mean age, standard deviation and the range.

11. In Table 4, there is no need to indicate ** against significant p-values as the authors have indicated in the methods section that p<0.05 will be considered statistically significant. I believe all stated p-values in the table will be interpreted in that context. The authors rounded off some ORs from Table 4 in the text (see lines 237-247). The authors should state ORs in the text as they are in the table for ease of reference. They also repeated some ORs with their 95% CIs within the same paragraph and in some instances the ORs were different (eg lines 239 and 244; and 237 and 246). As much as possible, the authors should avoid repeating results especially within the same paragraph. They can make their point without repeating the results.

12. The authors should provide areas for further research in the conclusion.

Major revisions

1. My major concern with the study is the sample size and its estimation. I do not think a sample of 310 is representative enough of the entire population of women of reproductive age (WRA) in the Northern region of Ghana. What is the population of WRA in the region? The stated sample size only estimated a single proportion of home deliveries without incorporating the predictors of home deliveries (such as the proportions and measures of association eg ORs as used in this study). Besides, no adjustments were made for the community-based sampling technique eg could the design effect be modified?

2. In line 193 the authors stated the criteria for inclusion into the multivariable model as p<0.05 in the univariable analysis. Yet in Table 4, several variables with p>0.05 in the univariable analysis were included in the multivariable analysis (age group, religion, educational level, occupation, husband occupation). The multivariable analysis should be re-run without these covariates ie ensuring that only covariates which meet the inclusion criteria are included in the multivariable model.

3. The authors should discuss the limitations of the study.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 01 2023 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,

Kwaku Asah-Opoku

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Methods:

Page 7 : Sample size determination and sampling process

line 146- 150 ; details on how the 8 districts and two communities were randomly selected should be given

How was the sampling frame of 5 arrived at?

How was the southward direction decided to be followed first until there were no more houses before other directions from the start point?

Discussion: Page 16

Line: 267-271; “ The disparity in the reported prevalence…………….” Explain why recruiting women who have given birth in the previous year would give such different prevalence from the women recruited from the reproductive age or expectant mothers?

Any recent studies from the respective countries referenced in your study?

Reviewer #2: ABSTRACT

Stop first sentence at” morbidity and mortality”

There on free maternal health care but NHIS

Why did you not study the prevalence and predictors of home delivery? Some reasons why they delivered at home may still remind unknown.

Conclusion: What is “availability of skilled personnel”?

LINES 25-39: The comments above also apply to this section

LINES 47-48 When does a woman become A SINGLE MOTHER? Is it when she is pregnancy or after delivery.? Are they unmarried pregnant women? Teenagers? or their husbands travelled while they were pregnant?

LINES 54-73: These definitions are not necessary in the manuscript

LINE 76: ..in the “reproductive process”….this is not clear. You need to it up from the reference 1.

METHODS

LINES 122: Data collected from 10th March- 2nd April 2023 and compare to -lines 31: Jan 2022 to Jan 2023. Put the two sentences together so that it becomes clear what you want to do.

What is community chairman? Chairman of what?

LINE 163: Needs clarity. Respondents were recruited at the starting point and every fifth house was visited.

LINE 172: What about COVID 19? When you are collecting data in March- April 2023.

RESULTS IN THE TABLES

TABLES 1: Differences between divorced and single. Almost 38% (119) were single women in those rural communities yet 245 husbands had positive or negative attitudes as shown in table 4.

That makes total number of husbands 54 more than your study of 310 respondents. Are some of the women having more than a husband or what. In the same table 4, under husband’s occupation total is 320 also more than your study of 310 respondents.

Where from these errors? How do these errors affect your findings and conclusions?

DISCUSSION

LINES 317-344

How is the impact of pregnancy schools relevant in this study which was in a rural population?. Something you found in your study attracts them to health facilities so discuss that more.

CONCLUSION LINES 329-331: The major is

Reviewer #3: Introduction

Use of safe and effective delivery services including place of delivery is an important component of the Safe Motherhood concept. Hence, assessing predictors of institutional delivery could contribute to improving birth outcomes in the study setting.

Minor revisions

1. There are more recent estimates of global maternal mortality. The authors are advised to use these (eg Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2020: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and UNDESA/Population Division. Geneva: WHO 2023).

2. Line 59: The definition given is that of maternal mortality ratio rather the rate.

3. A few sentences need to be edited eg line 95 “…sustainable development goal…” should be written as “…Sustainable Development Goal...”. Lines 139 and 226 should be in the past tense; ie reside and perceive respectively should be in the past tense.

4. Some acronyms were used without defining them at the first instance eg CHPS, DHS, MIS, WHO etc. Acronyms/abbreviations used in Tables should all be defined below the table.

5. Study setting: The authors should state the population of WRA in the region.

6. Methods: The selected districts together with the number of women selected from each district should be stated.

7. Line 188: Although the authors stated that there were some exclusions due to missing data, there is no evidence to support this as the estimated sample size (310) is exactly the same as the number of women surveyed. It appears all women approached agreed and participated in the study. Otherwise, they should state the number of women who were excluded.

8. Ethical considerations: The authors should clearly describe how consent was obtained from minors (ie women <18 years of age)

9. Provide refs for the sampling procedure described on page 8 and pregnancy schools in Ghana (lines 317-324), which could be of interest to readers.

10. The authors should provide the mean age, standard deviation and the range.

11. In Table 4, there is no need to indicate ** against significant p-values as the authors have indicated in the methods section that p<0.05 will be considered statistically significant. I believe all stated p-values in the table will be interpreted in that context. The authors rounded off some ORs from Table 4 in the text (see lines 237-247). The authors should state ORs in the text as they are in the table for ease of reference. They also repeated some ORs with their 95% CIs within the same paragraph and in some instances the ORs were different (eg lines 239 and 244; and 237 and 246). As much as possible, the authors should avoid repeating results especially within the same paragraph. They can make their point without repeating the results.

12. The authors should provide areas for further research in the conclusion.

Major revisions

1. My major concern with the study is the sample size and its estimation. I do not think a sample of 310 is representative enough of the entire population of women of reproductive age (WRA) in the Northern region of Ghana. What is the population of WRA in the region? The stated sample size only estimated a single proportion of home deliveries without incorporating the predictors of home deliveries (such as the proportions and measures of association eg ORs as used in this study). Besides, no adjustments were made for the community-based sampling technique eg could the design effect be modified?

2. In line 193 the authors stated the criteria for inclusion into the multivariable model as p<0.05 in the univariable analysis. Yet in Table 4, several variables with p>0.05 in the univariable analysis were included in the multivariable analysis (age group, religion, educational level, occupation, husband occupation). The multivariable analysis should be re-run without these covariates ie ensuring that only covariates which meet the inclusion criteria are included in the multivariable model.

3. The authors should discuss the limitations of the study.

**********

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:  Kareem Mumuni

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-14896 Review comments.docx

pone.0324328.s002.docx (13.1KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 5;20(6):e0324328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324328.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jul 2023

Dear Editor and reviewers,

We appreciate all of the valuable comments from the reviewers of our work. We have revised our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments, questions, and suggestions. We believe that the manuscript has been further improved.

Attached below are detailed responses to all the reviewer’s comments. The responses are shown in green and italicized. Please let us know if you still have any questions or concerns about the manuscript. We will be happy to address them, now promptly

Reviewer 1 comments:

Methods:

Page 7: Sample size determination and sampling process line 146- 150; details on how the 8 districts and two communities were randomly selected should be given. How was the sampling frame of 5 arrived at?

Response

The details on how the sampling of the districts and regions has been included “In selecting the districts, the names of all 16 districts in the Northern region were written on pieces of paper and placed in a box. The box was shaken vigorously after which 8 pieces of paper were randomly picked from the box. The 8 names on the papers selected were the sampled districts used for the study. Communities in the selected districts ranged from 12 – 20. The communities were categorized under stratum A (list of urban communities in the district) and stratum B (list of rural communities in the district). In each of the districts, the names of communities in each stratum were written on pieces of paper and placed in a box, shaken and one piece of paper randomly selected from each stratum. This was repeated for each district until 16 communities were randomly sampled for the study” Line 187 - 195

How was the southward direction decided to be followed first until there were no more houses before other directions from the start point?

Response

Determining the direction to initiate sampling has been included “Considering the arrangement of building structures from the community leader’s or chief’s house, from the starting point, the next house was the Kth (house selection interval) house away in the southward or northward direction. For each community, the sampling interval (K) was determined as the total number of houses divided by the number of women to be sampled from the community. Houses were selected in this direction” Lines 215 – 220

Discussion: Page 16 Line: 267-271; “ The disparity in the reported prevalence…………….” Explain why recruiting women who have given birth in the previous year would give such different prevalence from the women recruited from the reproductive age or expectant mothers?

Response

The reason for the disparity in prevalence based on the participants recruited has been addressed “Whereas our study considered women who had given birth in the previous year the other studies recruited women within the reproductive age or expectant mothers as study participants. This implies that the reported prevalence in these studies was the preferred choice of place of delivery by the study participants whereas this study reported the actual prevalence of health facility delivery among the women after it had occurred” lines 573 – 575

Any recent studies from the respective countries referenced in your study?

Response

Yes, a finding from the 2017 – 2018 multiple indicator survey has been referenced in the study. line 563 - 565

Reviewer 2 comments

ABSTRACT

Stop first sentence at” morbidity and mortality”

Response

The sentence has been revised to effect the change see lines 29 – 30 “An increase in home delivery among expectant mothers may likely lead to high maternal and newborn morbidities and mortalities”

There on free maternal health care but NHIS

Response

The sentence has been addressed to include the NHIS, kindly see lines 30 - 31

Why did you not study the prevalence and predictors of home delivery? Some reasons why they delivered at home may still remain unknown.

Response

This has been stated as an area for further research to be conducted. kindly see lines 660 – 661 “Further research should be conducted to assess the factors influencing institutional delivery service or home delivery using qualitative approaches in the region”

Conclusion: What is “availability of skilled personnel”?

Response

The availability of skilled personnel has been revised to the presence of skilled health personnel at health facilities. Kindly see lines 49 - 50

LINES 25-39: The comments above also apply to this section

LINES 47-48 When does a woman become A SINGLE MOTHER? Is it when she is pregnancy or after delivery.? Are they unmarried pregnant women? Teenagers? or their husbands travelled while they were pregnant?

Response

The single mother as used in the study has been revised to unmarried pregnant women. kindly see line 64 – 66 “We recommend the Ministry of Health should develop well-defined care packages targeting unmarried pregnant women, negative health worker attitudes and negative community perceptions”

LINES 54-73: These definitions are not necessary in the manuscript

Response

The definitions of some indicators as used in this study has been deleted per the review comment

LINE 76: ..in the “reproductive process”….this is not clear. You need to it up from the reference 1.

Response

The phrase reproductive process as used in the background has been revised to “during child birth” kindly see line 71

METHODS

LINES 122: Data collected from 10th March- 2nd April 2023 and compare to -lines 31: Jan 2022 to Jan 2023. Put the two sentences together so that it becomes clear what you want to do.

Response

The two sentences have been kept together to provide more clarity as stated by the reviewer. Kindly see lines 153 – 154 “Data was collected from women who had a live birth between January 2022 and January 2023. The data collection period was March 10th – April 2nd 2023”

What is community chairman? Chairman of what?

Response

The word community chairman as used in the study has been revised to community leader. Kindly see line 214

LINE 163: Needs clarity. Respondents were recruited at the starting point and every fifth house was visited.

Response

How the participants were recruited has been revised to give more clarity to the work. kindly see line 215 – 222 “Considering the arrangement of building structures from the community leader’s or chief’s house, from the starting point, the next house was the Kth (house selection interval) house away in the southward or northward direction. For each community, the sampling interval (K) was determined as the total number of houses divided by the number of women to be sampled from the community. Houses were selected in this direction until there were no more houses in that direction, then houses were selected westward, then eastward in a zigzag fashion. Houses were visited in this sequence until the required respondents were obtained”

LINE 172: What about COVID 19? When you are collecting data in March- April 2023.

Response

The lack of COVID-19 data in the study has been explained as a limitation in the study. kindly see line 658 - 659

RESULTS IN THE TABLES

TABLES 1: Differences between divorced and single. Almost 38% (119) were single women in those rural communities yet 245 husbands had positive or negative attitudes as shown in table 4.

That makes total number of husbands 54 more than your study of 310 respondents. Are some of the women having more than a husband or what. In the same table 4, under husband’s occupation total is 320 also more than your study of 310 respondents.

Where from these errors? How do these errors affect your findings and conclusions?

Response

The differences in the single status and divorced as used in this study have been rectified. Kindly see the revision in line 303, Table 2. Also, the inconsistency in the reported numbers or frequencies has been revised. Table 2 and 4 has been revised to ensure consistency.

DISCUSSION

LINES 317-344

How is the impact of pregnancy schools relevant in this study which was in a rural population?. Something you found in your study attracts them to health facilities so discuss that more.

Response

As recommended, more details on factors such as community perception has been discussed and the statement on the impact of pregnancy schools in the study revised. Kindly see lines 612 - 656

CONCLUSION LINES 329-331: The major issue with the conclusion is that there is no clear understanding of who is a single mother.

Response

The single mother status as used in the conclusion has been revised to unmarried pregnant women. kindly see line 666

REFEENCES

All references must conform to Journals referencing style/format

Some references are incomplete eg 22 and 23 are not complete

Response

References have been revised to ensure consistency. Also, reference 22 and 23 has been completed. Kindly see lines 754 - 763

Reviewer 3 comments

Introduction

Use of safe and effective delivery services including place of delivery is an important component of the Safe Motherhood concept. Hence, assessing predictors of institutional delivery could contribute to improving birth outcomes in the study setting.

Response

The sentence provided by the reviewer has been incorporated into the introduction section of the manuscript abstract to provide more clarity. Kindly see lines 32 – 35

Minor revisions

1. There are more recent estimates of global maternal mortality. The authors are advised to use these (eg Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2020: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and UNDESA/Population Division. Geneva: WHO 2023).

Response

The statement on maternal mortality related to pregnancy and childbirth has been revised to reflect the suggestions made by the reviewer. Kindly see 71

2. Line 59: The definition given is that of maternal mortality ratio rather the rate.

Response

The definitions of key terms used in the study have been deleted from the manuscript as suggested by other reviewers

3. A few sentences need to be edited eg line 95 “…sustainable development goal…” should be written as “…Sustainable Development Goal...”. Lines 139 and 226 should be in the past tense; ie reside and perceive respectively should be in the past tense.

Response

The revisions suggested have been affected. Kindly see line 124 (Sustainable Development Goal) and line 177 (resided) and line 373 (perceived)

4. Some acronyms were used without defining them at the first instance eg CHPS, DHS, MIS, WHO etc. Acronyms/abbreviations used in Tables should all be defined below the table.

Response

All acronyms used in the manuscript have been defined at its first usage. Kindly see the revision line 163 (Community-based Health Planning and Services - CHPS)

5. Study setting: The authors should state the population of WRA in the region.

Response

The population of women of reproductive age in the study area has been stated. Kindly see line 161

6. Methods: The selected districts together with the number of women selected from each district should be stated.

Response

The selected districts and the number of women selected from each district has been presented in Table 1, kindly see line 228

7. Line 188: Although the authors stated that there were some exclusions due to missing data, there is no evidence to support this as the estimated sample size (310) is exactly the same as the number of women surveyed. It appears all women approached agreed and participated in the study. Otherwise, they should state the number of women who were excluded.

Response

Information on the number of study participants who were approached and those who accepted to participate in the study has been stated by the authors. Kindly see lines 297 – 298 “Overall, 340 women were surveyed in the study and 91.2% (310/340) agreed to participate in the study”

8. Ethical considerations: The authors should clearly describe how consent was obtained from minors (ie women <18 years of age)

Response

How consent was obtained from minors in the study has been clearly stated in the ethical consideration section of the manuscript. Kindly see lines 279 – 280 “. Consent was obtained from the parents or husbands of women aged less than 18 years. Also, an assent form was obtained from the minors”

9. Provide refs for the sampling procedure described on page 8 and pregnancy schools in Ghana (lines 317-324), which could be of interest to readers.

Response

References have been provided for the sampling procedure, kindly see line 186. A reference has also been provided for the pregnancy schools stated in the manuscript. Kindly see 624.

10. The authors should provide the mean age, standard deviation and the range.

Response

The variable age was collected as a categorical variable, this makes it impossible to present the summary statistics as proposed by the reviewer

11. In Table 4, there is no need to indicate ** against significant p-values as the authors have indicated in the methods section that p<0.05 will be considered statistically significant. I believe all stated p-values in the table will be interpreted in that context. The authors rounded off some ORs from Table 4 in the text (see lines 237-247). The authors should state ORs in the text as they are in the table for ease of reference. They also repeated some ORs with their 95% CIs within the same paragraph and in some instances the ORs were different (eg lines 239 and 244; and 237 and 246). As much as possible, the authors should avoid repeating results especially within the same paragraph. They can make their point without repeating the results.

Response

Table 4 and its text interpretation has been revised to ensure consistency in the results reported. Always the repetition of ORs has been revised. The ** used in the table to indicate significant p values has been deleted. Kindly see lines 396 - 401

12. The authors should provide areas for further research in the conclusion.

Response

Areas of further research have been provided as suggested by the reviewers. Kindly see lines 660 – 661 “Further research should be conducted to assess the factors influencing institutional delivery service or home delivery using qualitative approaches in the region”

Major revisions

1. My major concern with the study is the sample size and its estimation. I do not think a sample of 310 is representative enough of the entire population of women of reproductive age (WRA) in the Northern region of Ghana. What is the population of WRA in the region? The stated sample size only estimated a single proportion of home deliveries without incorporating the predictors of home deliveries (such as the proportions and measures of association eg ORs as used in this study). Besides, no adjustments were made for the community-based sampling technique eg could the design effect be modified?

Response

The sample size was based on the number of deliveries recorded since our target population was women who had given birth a year prior to the study. So, although there is a large population of WRA in the region, the estimated number of deliveries in the region is much lower. Also, the design effect was adjusted for in the data analysis, where robust standard errors using the type of community as a clustering variable was conducted.

2. In line 193 the authors stated the criteria for inclusion into the multivariable model as p<0.05 in the univariable analysis. Yet in Table 4, several variables with p>0.05 in the univariable analysis were included in the multivariable analysis (age group, religion, educational level, occupation, husband occupation). The multivariable analysis should be re-run without these covariates ie ensuring that only covariates which meet the inclusion criteria are included in the multivariable model.

Response

The strategy used in selecting variables for the adjusted logistic regression analysis has been revised. Kindly see lines 270 – 271 “The adjusted logistic regression model's variables were selected using the stepwise regression approach”

3. The authors should discuss the limitations of the study.

Response

The limitations of the study have been discussed as suggested by the reviewer. Kindly see lines 657 – 661 “The study was not devoid of limitations; the quantitative nature of the study did not allow for the authors to explore the perception of women on

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0324328.s004.docx (22.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Kwaku Asah-Opoku

21 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-14896R1Predictors of Institutional Delivery Service Utilization among Women in Northern Region of GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mohammed,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 05 2023 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,

Kwaku Asah-Opoku

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No more comments

The authors have answered all the questions that were asked in the initial review.

Recommended for publication

Reviewer #3: Thank you very much for carrying out most of the suggested revisions. There are still a few revisions that need to be addressed to further improve the quality of the manuscript.

1. My “introduction” was meant to be a preamble to my review and not meant to be incorporated into the abstract. Hence it was not part of the suggested revisions. However, if the authors find it useful to include it in the introduction of the abstract, that is fine with me. While the authors have included the statements (from my introduction) in the abstract within the main manuscript, the statements not in the abstract that is in the preliminary pages of the manuscript.

2. In response to suggested minor revision # 7 the authors wrote: Kindly see lines 297 – 298 “Overall, 340 women were surveyed in the study and 91.2% (310/340) agreed to participate in the study”.

The authors should kindly state at least some of the reasons why people were excluded.

3. In response to suggested minor revision #10, the authors wrote: “The variable age was collected as a categorical variable, this makes it impossible to present the summary statistics as proposed by the reviewer.”

It is important to state the mean and standard deviation for age as a continuous variable. Age as a continuous variable should not have been categorized/grouped at the data collection stage. The authors should have collected individual ages and grouping/categorization done at the analysis stage. If this was not done, there are still ways of estimating the mean and standard deviation of the data such as using the midpoint of each age group and the respective frequencies. The authors should kindly consult a statistician on how to do this.

4. In response to suggested major revision #1, the authors stated that:

The sample size was based on the number of deliveries recorded since our target population was women who had given birth a year prior to the study. So, although there is a large population of WRA in the region, the estimated number of deliveries in the region is much lower. Also, the design effect was adjusted for in the data analysis, where robust standard errors using the type of community as a clustering variable was conducted.

I think my fundamental point is that a sample estimation for predictors of institutional deliveries that makes use of only the prevalence of institutional deliveries without taking into account any of the predictors of institutional deliveries is problematic and may not be adequately powered to detect these predictors. The use of robust standard errors will not adequately deal with the issue of community-based sampling. Given that the data has already been collected, one way round this is to discuss the inadequately powered sample size as a limitation of the study.

5. In response to suggested major revision #2, the authors stated that:

The strategy used in selecting variables for the adjusted logistic regression analysis has been revised. Kindly see lines 270 – 271 “The adjusted logistic regression model's variables were selected using the stepwise regression approach”.

Which technique was used in adding or eliminating the variables in the stepwise approach? In the two common variable selection approaches in logistic regression (forward selection and backward elimination (selection) methods), the final multivariable model includes variables that are significantly associated with the outcome of interest (based on the authors’ criteria, here p<0.05, using a model fitness test). This will typically exclude all variables that were not significant in the univariable analysis (unless they were considered to be a priori). In addition, it may exclude some variables which were significant in the univariable analysis but were not significantly associated with outcome of interest in the multivariable model based on the model fitness test. Hence, the following variables which were not significant in the univariable model (all p>0.05) should NOT be included in the final multivariable model: age group, religion, educational level, occupation, husband occupation, National Health Insurance Scheme ownership, and attitudes of husbands towards facility delivery.

The authors can please refer to:

Hosmer Jr DW, Lemeshow S and Sturdivant RX (2013). Applied Logistic Regression. 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

**********

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:  Kareem Mumuni

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jun 5;20(6):e0324328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324328.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 Feb 2024

Dear Editor and reviewers,

We appreciate all of the valuable comments from the reviewers of our work. We have revised our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments, questions, and suggestions. We believe that the manuscript has been further improved.

Attached below are detailed responses to all the reviewer’s comments. The responses are shown in yellow and italicized. Please let us know if you still have any questions or concerns about the manuscript. We will be happy to address them, now promptly

Reviewer #3

Thank you very much for carrying out most of the suggested revisions. There are still a few revisions that need to be addressed to further improve the quality of the manuscript.

Comment 1. My “ introduction” was meant to be a preamble to my review and not meant to be incorporated into the abstract. Hence it was not part of the suggested revisions. However, if the authors find it useful to include it in the introduction of the abstract, that is fine with me. While the authors have included the statements (from my introduction) in the abstract within the main manuscript, the statements not in the abstract that is in the preliminary pages of the manuscript.

Response: Thank you to the reviewer for the comment, we found the preamble interesting and applicable to our introduction and thought we could use it. It is appreciated that using these statements is fine by the reviewer. Also, the statement has been included and referenced in the introduction section as recommended by the reviewer. Kindly see lines 75 – 76 “Use of safe and effective delivery services including place of delivery is an important component of the Safe Motherhood concept (1)”

Comment 2. In response to suggested minor revision # 7 the authors wrote: Kindly see lines 297 – 298 “ Overall, 340 women were surveyed in the study and 91.2% (310/340) agreed to participate in the study”.

The authors should kindly state at least some of the reasons why people were excluded.

Response: The reason for which some women were excluded from the study has been stated under the study population and eligibility section of the methods. Kindly see lines 116 – 117 “Also, women who met our inclusion criteria but refused to participate for personal or health reasons were excluded from the study”

Comment 3. In response to suggested minor revision #10, the authors wrote: “The variable age was collected as a categorical variable, this makes it impossible to present the summary statistics as proposed by the reviewer.”

It is important to state the mean and standard deviation for age as a continuous variable. Age as a continuous variable should not have been categorized/grouped at the data collection stage. The authors should have collected individual ages and grouping/categorization done at the analysis stage. If this was not done, there are still ways of estimating the mean and standard deviation of the data such as using the midpoint of each age group and the respective frequencies. The authors should kindly consult a statistician on how to do this.

Response: The research team engaged the services of a statistician and has added the mean and standard deviation of age as suggested by the reviewer. Kindly see line 194 and table 2 for the revision “The average age of the women was 30.9 ± 6.2 years”

Comment 4. In response to suggested major revision #1, the authors stated that:

The sample size was based on the number of deliveries recorded since our target population was women who had given birth a year prior to the study. So, although there is a large population of WRA in the region, the estimated number of deliveries in the region is much lower. Also, the design effect was adjusted for in the data analysis, where robust standard errors using the type of community as a clustering variable was conducted.

I think my fundamental point is that a sample estimation for predictors of institutional deliveries that makes use of only the prevalence of institutional deliveries without taking into account any of the predictors of institutional deliveries is problematic and may not be adequately powered to detect these predictors. The use of robust standard errors will not adequately deal with the issue of community-based sampling. Given that the data has already been collected, one way round this is to discuss the inadequately powered sample size as a limitation of the study.

Response: We have added to our discussion a limitation of inadequately powered sample size in our study as recommended by the reviewer. Kindly see lines 312 – 314 “Also, the use of only the prevalence of institutional deliveries estimates in calculating the study sample size without taking into account any of the predictors of institutional deliveries introduced the limitation of inadequate power in our study”

Comment 5. In response to suggested major revision #2, the authors stated that:

The strategy used in selecting variables for the adjusted logistic regression analysis has been revised. Kindly see lines 270 – 271 “The adjusted logistic regression model's variables were selected using the stepwise regression approach”.

Which technique was used in adding or eliminating the variables in the stepwise approach? In the two common variable selection approaches in logistic regression (forward selection and backward elimination (selection) methods), the final multivariable model includes variables that are significantly associated with the outcome of interest (based on the authors’ criteria, here p<0.05, using a model fitness test). This will typically exclude all variables that were not significant in the univariable analysis (unless they were considered to be a priori). In addition, it may exclude some variables which were significant in the univariable analysis but were not significantly associated with outcome of interest in the multivariable model based on the model fitness test. Hence, the following variables which were not significant in the univariable model (all p>0.05) should NOT be included in the final multivariable model: age group, religion, educational level, occupation, husband occupation, National Health Insurance Scheme ownership, and attitudes of husbands towards facility delivery. The authors can please refer to:

Hosmer Jr DW, Lemeshow S and Sturdivant RX (2013). Applied Logistic Regression. 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Response: A forward stepwise variable selection approach was used in selecting variables for the multivariate logistic regression. Variables such as age group, religion, educational level, occupation, husband occupation, National Health Insurance Scheme ownership, and attitudes of husbands towards facility delivery which were not significant at the univariate level have been excluded from the final multivariate logistic regression model as suggested by the reviewer. Kindly see lines 223 – 228 and Table 4 “At the multivariate logistic regression analysis level, being married (aOR = 5.54, 95%CI: 3.03 - 10.14), the presence of skilled health personnel (aOR = 2.65, 95%CI: 1.42 - 4.94), the positive attitude of health workers towards their clients (aOR = 1.96, 95%CI: 1.08 - 3.54) and the positive community perception of health facility delivery (aOR = 3.17, 95%CI: 1.34 - 7.47) were associated with increased odds of delivering in a health facility.” Also, the use of the forward stepwise approach in selecting the variables has been indicated in the methods section. Kindly see lines 178 – 179 “The adjusted logistic regression model's variables were selected using forward stepwise variable selection approach”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Review Comments.docx

pone.0324328.s005.docx (14.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Martin Agyekum

21 Aug 2024

PONE-D-23-14896R2Predictors of Institutional Delivery Service Utilization among Women in Northern Region of GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mohammed,

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

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR:  Authors should kindly address the following concerns

Introduction

  1. The authors cited the 2019 facility delivery rate in Ghana. Can they look at the current rate from the Ghana Demographic Health Survey and argue from there very well?

  2. Can they also state the regional institutional delivery rate in their argument, especially in the problem statement

  3. The study gap is not very clear. The authors should clearly state some of the articles in the area, especially in Ghana and the Northern part of the country, and their gap.

  4. The authors should indicate the rationale of the study. That piece is missing in the introduction.

  5. There should be a theory for the study.

Methodology

  1. I believe some districts may have more communities than others, so selecting 16 communities from each district would bias the sampling; how did the authors deal with districts with more communities?  

  2. Can the authors state the lowest and highest number of communities for the districts selected?

  3. The authors indicated that the kth interval used in selecting households can be specific on the number.

  4. This statement, “For each community, the sampling interval (K) was determined as the total number of houses divided by the number of women to be sampled from the community, ” and another statement, “A respondent was recruited at the starting point, and every fifth house starting from the southward direction was visited ” are conflicting statements. This statement needs to be well explained. Does this mean that the sampling interval was used differently in each community? The authors should add a supplementary sheet on how the sampling was done concerning the communities and the selection of houses.

  5. There should be a section on the measurement of variables. Clearly describe how the dependent variable and the independent variables were measured.

  6. Authors should state when the data was collected (month and year).

Results

  1. The authors should elaborate clearly on how the variables were selected for the logistic regression (Table 4). What were the criteria for reducing the variables to only 4?

Discussion

Link the theory to the discussion.

Recommendation

“The recommendation of the study is not very strong. For instance, “To increase health facility delivery, we recommend the Ministry of Health should institute a policy reform with a well-defined care package targeting unmarried pregnant women and health workers with a negative attitude and community perception.” Can authors suggest a policy in that direction? They should add other recommendations, especially given the context that most of the communities are rural

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 05 2024 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,

Martin Wiredu Agyekum, PhD

Guest 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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Your manuscript has been appropriately revised and reviewer's comments has been .adequately addressed.

Reviewer #3: No further comments .

**********

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:  Mumuni Kareem

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jun 5;20(6):e0324328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324328.r007

Author response to Decision Letter 2


20 Oct 2024

Dear Editor and reviewers,

We appreciate all of the valuable comments from the reviewers of our work. We have revised our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments, questions, and suggestions. We believe that the manuscript has been further improved.

Attached below are detailed responses to all the reviewer’s comments. The responses are shown in green and italicized. Please let us know if you still have any questions or concerns about the manuscript. We will be happy to address them, now promptly

Introduction

Comment: The authors cited the 2019 facility delivery rate in Ghana. Can they look at the current rate from the Ghana Demographic Health Survey and argue from there very well?

Response: Data from the 2022 Demographic Health Survey has been used as recommended “

According to the 2022, demographic health survey in Ghana, 86% of live births in the 2 years preceding the survey delivered in a health facility. This implies more than 10% of children are still delivered outside the health facility setting” kindly see page 3, lines 61 - 66

Comment: Can they also state the regional institutional delivery rate in their argument, especially in the problem statement

Response: The regional institutional delivery rate has been added the problem statement as suggested “The Northern region of Ghana continues to experience one of the lowest institutional delivery rates in the country, with only 70.3% of births occurring in health facilities (DHS 2022). Surveys conducted in Brong Ahafo region and Chereponi district of northern Ghana, among 138 and 440 women respectively, revealed health facility deliveries ranged from 38 – 52% (4,5).” Kindly see page 3, lines 65 - 68

Comment: The study gap is not very clear. The authors should clearly state some of the articles in the area, especially in Ghana and the Northern part of the country, and their gap.

Response: The articles and their gaps have been included as suggested “Also, published studies from the region on institutional delivery service utilisation are mostly descriptive studies or focus on particular districts (12,13) and do not thoroughly investigate the correlates of institutional delivery service utilisation at the regional level” kindly see page 5, lines 93 - 96

Comment: The authors should indicate the rationale of the study. That piece is missing in the introduction.

Response: The rationale for the study has been included in the introduction “Despite the established consequences of deliveries outside a health facility among WRA, there is a dearth of knowledge on the prevalence and predictors of health facility delivery in the Northern region. Also, published studies from the region on institutional delivery service utilisation are mostly descriptive studies or focus on particular districts (12,13) and do not thoroughly investigate the correlates of institutional delivery service utilisation at the regional level. Understanding the factors influencing health facility deliveries in the Northern region is crucial for designing targeted interventions to improve maternal health outcomes. This study aims to identify the prevalence and predictors of institutional delivery service utilization at the regional level, providing evidence-based insights that can guide policymakers in formulating strategies to increase health facility deliveries and ultimately reduce maternal and neonatal mortality in the region.” Kindly see page 5, lines 90 - 100

Comment: There should be a theory for the study.

Response: The theoretical framework of the study has been included “The theoretical framework of the study will be guided by the Health Belief Model (HBM) and elements from Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. These models offer a combined approach to understanding how individual beliefs, social context, and access to resources influence institutional delivery. This framework will guide the study in identifying key predictors of service utilization and provide a basis for designing targeted interventions that address specific barriers and motivators identified in the Northern region of Ghana.” Kindly see page 5, lines 103 - 106

Methodology

Comment: I believe some districts may have more communities than others, so selecting 16 communities from each district would bias the sampling; how did the authors deal with districts with more communities?

Response: A stratified sampling approach grouping the communities into urban and rural areas was used to enable us to understand the problem in both urban and rural areas “The communities were categorized under stratum A (list of urban communities in the district) and stratum B (list of rural communities in the district). In each of the districts, the names of communities in each stratum were written on pieces of paper and placed in a box, shaken and one piece of paper randomly selected from each stratum.” Kindly see page 7, lines 156 - 159

Comment: Can the authors state the lowest and highest number of communities for the districts selected?

Response: The number of communities in the districts selected has been stated as suggested by the reviewer “Communities in the selected districts ranged from 20 – 35. The communities were categorized under stratum A (list of urban communities in the district) and stratum B (list of rural communities in the district). In each of the districts, the names of communities in each stratum were written on pieces of paper and placed in a box, shaken and one piece of paper randomly selected from each stratum.” Kindly see page 7, lines 156 - 159

Comment: The authors indicated that the kth interval used in selecting households can be specific on the number.

Response: The kth interval varied based on the number of households in each of the communities. We calculated the kth interval for each community

Comment: This statement, “For each community, the sampling interval (K) was determined as the total number of houses divided by the number of women to be sampled from the community,” and another statement, “A respondent was recruited at the starting point, and every fifth house starting from the southward direction was visited” are conflicting statements. This statement needs to be well explained. Does this mean that the sampling interval was used differently in each community? The authors should add a supplementary sheet on how the sampling was done concerning the communities and the selection of houses.

Response: The kth interval varied based on the number of households in each of the communities. We calculated kth interval for each community. Also the statement on the kth household and the fifth household has been revised. Kindly see page 8, lines 170 - 180

Comment: There should be a section on the measurement of variables. Clearly describe how the dependent variable and the independent variables were measured.

Response: “Dependent variable: The dependent variable in the study was the place of delivery in the most recent birth. The variable was binary (Health facility/Home).

Independent variables: The independent variables were divided into three groups, sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, health facility-level factors, and community-level factors. The sociodemographic characteristics included occupation, religion, marital status, educational level, income level, husband education, and husband occupation. Health facility-level factors include the availability of a health facility, the attitude of health workers, the presence of health workers at post, and the distance to the nearest health facility. The community-level factors included the availability of TBAs in the community, community perception, the attitude of partners towards health facility delivery, and availability of transportation to health facilities.” Kindly see page 7, lines 135 - 144

Comment: Authors should state when the data was collected (month and year).

Response: The data collection period, month and year have been added “The data collection period was March 10th – April 2nd 2023”. Kindly see page 6, line 115

Results

Comment: The authors should elaborate clearly on how the variables were selected for the logistic regression (Table 4). What were the criteria for reducing the variables to only 4?

Response: The adjusted logistic regression model's variables were selected using a forward stepwise variable selection approach. Only variables which were significant at the crude level were presented in the table

Discussion

Comment: Link the theory to the discussion.

Response: The discussions have been linked to the Health Belief Model (HBM) and elements from Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. Kindly see page 16

Recommendation

Comment: “The recommendation of the study is not very strong. For instance, “To increase health facility delivery, we recommend the Ministry of Health should institute a policy reform with a well-defined care package targeting unmarried pregnant women and health workers with a negative attitude and community perception.” Can authors suggest a policy in that direction? They should add other recommendations, especially given the context that most of the communities are rural

Response: More recommendations towards improving facility delivery, particularly in the rural communities have been added “Also, the government should provide incentives for health workers working in rural communities.” Kindly see page 20, lines 353 - 354

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_3.docx

pone.0324328.s006.docx (23.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Mubarick Nungbaso Asumah

24 Apr 2025

Predictors of Institutional Delivery Service Utilization among Women in Northern Region of Ghana

PONE-D-23-14896R3

Dear Dr. Mohammed,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Mubarick Nungbaso Asumah, MPhil, Bsc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Mubarick Nungbaso Asumah

PONE-D-23-14896R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mohammed,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Mubarick Nungbaso Asumah

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Datafile.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0324328.s001.xlsx (36.5KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-14896 Review comments.docx

    pone.0324328.s002.docx (13.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0324328.s004.docx (22.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Review Comments.docx

    pone.0324328.s005.docx (14.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_3.docx

    pone.0324328.s006.docx (23.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES