To assess the determinants of family planning uptake among women of reproductive age in rural settings, Morogoro Region, Tanzania. Protocol for a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Maternal health outcomes in Tanzania had continued to be of great concern. According the Tanzania Demographic and Health surveys, maternal mortality is still unacceptable higher. Effective use of family planning is reported to prevent maternal deaths by more than 30%. However, the prevalence of family planning uptake is still lower especially in rural areas of this country despite the fact that family planning services are provided freely and at a subsidized cost in all public and private health care facilities respectively. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: The broad objective is to assess the determinants of family planning uptake among women of reproductive age in rural settings, Morogoro Region, Tanzania.
METHODS: This study will be a cross-sectional study that will be conducted in rural areas of Morogoro Region. Study population will be women of reproductive age. Qualitative and quantitative approaches will be used to collect the data. Sampling techniques will involve stratification of urban and rural wards, simple and systematic random sampling for selection wards and households respectively and kish selection table for the selection one participant from a household. Purposive sampling will be applied to get participants for qualitative data. Data collection will be done by using semi-structured questionnaire and interview guide. Frequencies, percentages, chi-square test and logistic regression will be used to analyze the quantitative data whereas codes and themes formation will be used to analyze the qualitative data.

Introduction

Maternal health outcomes in Tanzania had continued to be of great concern. According the Tanzania Demographic and Health survey (TDHS), there are 556 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, which is unacceptable higher [1]. The family planning uptake information and services are fundamental to the health and human rights of all individuals [2]. Effective use of family planning is reported to prevent maternal deaths by more than 30% [3]. In Tanzania, the uptake of family is still low despite that there is slight steady increase. For instance, data from three consecutive Tanzania and Demographic Health surveys reports; 2004–05, 2010 and 2015–16 shows that the uptake of family planning had remained low 20%, 27% and 32% respectively [1]. This is only half way based on the national target of 60% of family planning uptake by 2020 for women in need [4]. The uptake of family planning is much lower in rural areas compared to urban areas [5]. According to 2017 estimates, about 214 million women of reproductive age in developing regions have an unmet need for contraception [2]. Few previous studies done in sub-Saharan Africa have demonstrated several factors associated with family planning uptake including; marriage, limited access to contraception, long distances to the health facility, a limited choice of methods, a fear or experience of side-effects, cultural or religious opposition, poor quality of available services and gender-based barriers [2, 6–8].

The government of Tanzania, had put various strategies to ensure that individuals have an access to the contraceptive information and services. Such strategies include; Integrating family planning services as a component of the reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health interventions provided by the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly, and Children (MoHCDGEC) [9]. Furthermore, in the Health Sector Strategic Plan (HSSP-IV), the government is committed in ensuring family planning commodities are available and freely accessible to all women of reproductive age at all public health care facilities [9]. In addition, family planning services are also offered in private facilities at a subsidized cost [10]. However, despite the government efforts of ensuring adequate supply of FP commodities to all public health facilities at free cost to all medically eligible women, and deployment of skilled healthcare providers [10], the flow of FP services uptake is still low and particularly in rural settings [7, 11].

Morogoro is among 31 regions of Tanzania. The region has a total of seven districts which include one municipal council (Morogoro Municipal Council) and six district councils (Kilosa District Council, Morogoro District Ccouncil, Kilombero District Council, Ulanga District Council, Mvomero District Council and Gairo District Council. The six district councils are predominantly rural [12]. More than 71% of its population are farmers located in rural settings [13]. According to the information from the office of the Medical Officer In charge, Morogoro Rural has a total of 391 health facilities (15 hospitals, 42 health centers and 334 dispensaries). All these health care facilities provide family planning services. Maternal mortality rate (415/100,000) per live birth, fertility rate (4.6) and average number of children per woman (5.1) [1] are considerably high in the Region. Morogoro is among the regions with high proportion (94%) of women of reproductive age (15–49 years) with an exposure to sexual intercourse and high prevalence (38.5%) of teenagers who have started childbearing [1]. Further, the study conducted in rural setting of Morogoro Region reveal that the fertility rate and average number of children per woman were 6.1 and 8.0 which are higher than that of the Region [14] and the prevalence of family planning uptake is still low [15]. Therefore, the broad objective of this study is to assess the determinants of family planning uptake among women of reproductive age in rural areas of Morogoro Region. To achieve this broad objective, the specific objectives are:

To determine the prevalence of family planning uptake among women of reproductive age in rural areas of Morogoro Region.

To determine the socio-cultural factors associated with family planning uptake among women of reproductive age in rural area of Morogoro Region.

To determine the maternal related factors associated with family planning uptake among women of reproductive age in rural area of Morogoro Region.

To explore challenges, barriers and opportunities of family planning uptake among women of reproductive age in rural areas, Morogoro Region.

The results from this study will help programme planners and policy makers to plan for effective intervention strategies for increasing awareness and uptake on family planning among women of reproductive age. It is expected that the findings of this study will help towards reducing infant and maternal death, unwanted pregnancy and teenage pregnancy for sustainable development goals 3.1 and 3.2. The findings of this study will also serve as the baseline information for the future scholars regarding family planning in Tanzania and other similar settings worldwide.

Methods

Study area

Morogoro Region has total number of seven districts namely; Morogoro Municipal Council, Morogoro District Council, Kilosa District Council, Kilombero District Council, Mvomero District Council, Ulanga District Council and Gairo District Council. The Region has a total population of 2,218,492 and an annual growth rate of 2.4% [12]. The main ethnic groups are Wandamba, Wapogoro, Wasagara, Waluguru, Wakaguru. The Region is geographically bordered by the Tanga Region to the North, Coastal Region to the East, Ruvuma Region to the South and Iringa and Dodoma Regions to the West [16].

The Region maternal mortality rate is 415/100,000 per live birth, fertility rate is 4.6 and average number of children per woman is 5.1. About 94% of women (15–49 years) had an exposure to sexual intercourse, 38.5% of teenage have started childbearing [1]. The region is among the top 5 regions with highest prevalence of adolescent pregnancies (39%) [1, 16] in the country. The overall prevalence of family planning uptake in Morogoro Region is low (32%) [1].

More than 71% of the region is rural settings comprising farmers and livestock keepers [13]. Morogoro Rural has a total of 391 health facilities (15 hospitals, 42 health centers and 334 dispensaries). All these health care facilities provide family planning services.

Research design

The study design will be a cross-sectional. The study will use both quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess the determinants of family planning uptake and among women of reproductive age in rural areas, Morogoro Region.

Study population

The population for this study will be women of reproductive age from 15 to 49 years. The followings will be excluded from this study; pregnant women, women with less than three months in the study area and women with mental illness.

Sample size calculation and sampling techniques

Quantitative data

The minimum sample size (N) for this study will be estimated by using the formula whereby: n = minimum sample size, z = 1.96, e = 5% and p = 28% (prevalence of family planning use in Morogoro District Council [16].

. The calculated sample size will be further adjusted for 10% attrition and the final calculated sample size will be n = 344.4. Therefore, an estimated total of 345 will be enrolled for this study.

Stratified sampling technique will be used to get rural and urban predominant districts. Simple random sampling by using rotary method will be used to select two rural districts. Six wards will be selected by using Microsoft excel random number generator. Households for the study will be selected by systematic random sampling technique whereby for each day of the study, first household will be selected by simple random sampling and thereafter every third household was selected until the end of the day. Kish selection table will be used to select one participant from the list of eligible participants in each selected household.

Qualitative data

The number of participants for qualitative part of this study will be determined by the saturation level of the required information from the participants. A purposive sampling will be employed to select key informants to participate in this study. Those key informants will be identified during the interview for quantitative data. The criteria will include the number of years on family planning uptake whereby at least those with more than three months on family planning will be included. Another criteria will be those who do not currently use family planning because of various reasons and those who seem to be familiar with many issues regarding family planning based on interview.

Data collection tools and methods

Data will be collected by using a developed semi-structured questionnaire (see S1 Appendix). The questionnaire has been adapted from TDHS [1] and modified to suit this study. The questionnaire has been organized into four parts; Part 1: Demographic and obstetric information, Part II: Family planning uptake, Part III: Cultural factors on family planning uptake, and Part IV: Challenges on family planning uptake. Participant’s information will be obtained through face to face interview. Data collection will be done by trained research assistants who will be a nurse practitioner. Prior to interview, researchers/research assistants will establish the rapport and explain the purpose of the study to the study participants. Participants will be assured of confidentiality and freedom of participation in the study. Written or verbal informed consent will be sought from participants before the interview. The interview will take the duration of 10 to 20 minutes.

In-depth interview will be conducted to collect the information. An interview guide (S2 Appendix) has been developed to guide the interviewer during the interview. The guide consists of 16 open-ended questions. The questions have been structured to capture the information regarding the challenges, barriers and opportunities for women to utilize family planning services. The tool has been developed inorder to expand the information from the participants after the quantitative interview. Informed consent (both verbal and written) will be sought from the participant before the interview. To ensure confidentiality of the information the following will be done; Firstly, interview will be conducted at a comfortable place where there is maximum privacy. Secondly, participant’s quote will be referred by the pseudo names that will be assigned by the researcher. The actual names will not be used. The in-depth interview will be conducted by the principal researcher for uniformity and inorder to minimize biases. The interview will be recorded by special tape recorder and it is expected to last for 45–60 minutes. The informant will be interviewed only once.

Dependent variable (Family planning uptake) The dependent variable for this study will be family planning uptake. Family planning uptake will be defined as the participant who will report to use any type of contraceptive method within the current three months and be able to mention it.

Independent variables The independent variables for this study will be: demographic and obstetrics characteristics, utilization of ANC and postnatal services, socio-cultural factors, challenges, barriers and opportunities of family planning uptake.

Data analysis

Data collected will be coded, cleaned and transformed by using the SPSS version 26 for WINDOWS computer program (SPSS Inc. Chicago). Descriptive analysis will be carried out to present frequency distributions for demographic and obstetric characteristics and family planning practices of the study participants. Chi-square test for independence will be conducted to compare prevalence of family planning uptake according to participants’ selected characteristics. Thereafter, univariable and multivariable logistic regressions will be conducted to determine the associates of family planning uptake. All independent variables with p-value less than or equal to 0.25 at binary logistic regression models will be included in the multivariable logistic regression model. All probabilities will be two-tailed and independent variables with p-values < 0.05 will regarded as significant.

Data will be analyzed by thematic analysis. NVivo software may be used to facilitate qualitative data analysis. Data will be closely examined to identify common themes- topic, ideas and patterns of meaning that come up repeatedly. Analysis will follow the following steps; Familiarization, coding, generating themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming

Familiarization. The researcher gets to know the data. This was done through transcribing audio reading through the text and taking initial notes, and generally looking through the data to get familiar with it.

Coding. Researcher generate codes from the data. Coding will be done through highlighting sections of text usually phrases or sentences and coming up with shorthand labels or “codes” to describe their content.

Generating themes. Themes are generally broader than codes. The researcher combined several codes into a single theme. The researcher looked over the codes created, identify patterns among them, and start coming up with few themes.

Reviewing themes. Researcher will make sure that themes generated are useful and accurate representations of the data. This will be done through returning to the data and compare themes against data. Looking if themes are really present in the data or if there is anything to change to make themes work better.

Defining and naming themes. After having a final list of themes, the researcher will name and define each of them.

Defining themes involves formulating exactly what will mean by each theme and figuring out how it helps in understanding the data.

Writing up. Finally, the researcher will write up the report of the analyzed data.

Dissemination of results

The findings of this study will be presented at the followings; University of Dodoma, Morogoro Medical officer in-Charge office, Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children. Furthermore, manuscript will be prepared and submitted at a peer reviewed journal for publication and presented at local and international conference.

Ethical clearance and consent to participate

This study was submitted to the Directorate of Research, Publications and Consultancy of the University of Dodoma for ethical approval. The ethical committee has assessed and given the ethical approval for this study Ref. No. MA.84/261/02/185. Furthermore, the permission to conduct this study will be sought from the office of Morogoro Regional Administrative Secretary, District Medical Officer and ward respectively.

The participants will have the absolute right and freedom to withdraw from the study at any time with no effect to them. Confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained by use of code numbers on the questionnaire rather than names. Women who will be in need of family planning and those with related health challenges will be referred to the nearby health center for consultation and follow-ups.

Discussion

The prevalence of family planning uptake in Tanzania is still low (32%) despite the government strategies to ensure at least 60% of people in need uses family planning by 2020 [4]. According the WHO reports, there are various factors which may lead to low family planning uptake particularly in developing world. Such factors includes; limited access to contraception, a limited choice of methods, a fear or experience of side-effects, cultural or religious opposition, poor quality of available services and gender-based barriers [2]. However, these factors may not be the same in all settings. Inorder to plan for cost effective interventions one need to understand the local context factors. For instance, previous scholars from different countries in Africa have shown that, among the factors that contributes to low family planning uptakes includes, poverty, low education, less exposure to media, rural residence, antenatal visits and delivery at the health care facility [5-8]. In Tanzania, there are limited information regarding the reasons for low family planning uptake in the country. Therefore, this study is aiming to assess the determinants associated with family planning uptake particularly in rural settings of the country. Morogoro Region is among the regions with higher maternal mortality rate 415/100,000 per live birth, fertility rate 4.6% and large family size (5.119) [1, 3, 12]. Further, the region has high proportion (94%) of women (15–49 years) reported to have had an exposure to sexual intercourse and high rates (38.5%) of teenage who have started childbearing [1]. Therefore, conducting this study in this region is important inorder to plan appropriate interventions to improve this situation.

This study is designed to be conducted in rural settings because of the following reasons; In Tanzania rural population comprised more than 60% of the total population. For Morogoro Region where this study will be conducted, the rural population comprises more than 71% of the total population in the region [13]. Previous studies had shown that family planning uptake is much lower in rural than urban settings [1, 2, 11]. Further, the prevalence of teenage childbearing and family size are relatively higher in rural settings. Furthermore, a study that was conducted in Morogoro showed that, the family planning uptake in the rural part of the region is very low (28%) [16]. Therefore, this study will help to inform the stakeholders about the factors that hinder family planning uptake in rural settings of Morogoro Region and also other similar settings in the country and elsewhere globally.

This study will use both quantitative and qualitative approaches (mixed approaches) to collect the data. The use of mixed approaches will help collection of many information which will adequately inform the stakeholders about the family planning uptake in the study area. Previous studies on family planning uptake in Tanzania have used quantitative approach [11, 16]. The use of qualitative approach will help to generate more factors that may not be adequately generated through the quantitative data.

The study will be conducted among women of reproductive age 15–49 years. This age group regardless of their status will give an opportunity of exploring determinants of family planning uptake to the more diverse groups of women including students, married and no married, nulliparaous and multipara etc. This is the most group that suffers the consequences of low utilization of family planning because it is biologically the sexually active and child bearing age. This group comprise of adolescent girls and young women who may not have completed their education and those who are still struggling to achieve their life goals. The prevalence of teenage childbearing (27%) [1] and the rate of abortion [17] are still unacceptable high in our country. In Morogoro Region where this study is expected to be conducted, it is among the regions with high prevalence of teenage child bearing (39%) [1]. Further, the region has high prevalence (94%) of women (15–49 years) who had an exposure to sexual intercourse [1]. Effective use of family planning is reported to reduce the rates of unintended pregnancies hence reduces HIV infection transmissions, unsafe abortion and improve maternal health [2]. This will benefit this group through enabling girls to complete their education and create opportunities for women to participate more fully in society, including paid employment [2]. Therefore, understanding the determinants of family planning uptake in this wider group will help the stakeholders to come up with the appropriate interventions.

Limitations

The followings are the limitations to this study;

This study will be a cross sectional study hence not useful at establishing causal relationship between family planning uptake and their predictors.

All assessments will depend on self-reports by the participants with likely cause biases in some of the information.

The study participants will be females only. This will bias the information as males are also important group in family planning issues

Questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

In-depth interview guide.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

20 Oct 2021

ASSESSING DETERMINANTS OF FAMILY PLANNING USE AMONG WOMEN OF REPRODUCTIVE AGE IN RURAL AREAS, MOROGORO, TANZANIA. MIXED CROSS-SECTIONAL  PROTOCOL STUDY.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. machange,

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 Dec 02 2021 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,

Paola Viganò

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The Authors need to address the issues raised by the two Reviewers. More details on the study design, sampling procedure and data collection are required. Moreover, limitations should be described.

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible.

3. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section.

4. Please include a copy of the interview guide to be used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously.

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

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

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

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

6. 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

7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments to the authors

I enjoyed reading the study protocol, and it is an important topic and well presented. This protocol manuscript is also well written. However, I do have some points that require the authors' attention.

�  The discussion section must be added. This section should include the any issues involved in performing the study that are not covered in other sections. These can include: limitations of the study design & dissemination plans.

Sincerely,

Tesfalem Tilahun

Reviewer #2: The reviewer believes additional work would improve the quality of the manuscript before its publication.

ABSTRACT: Methodology

Authors indicate Objectives 1 through 3. However, readers do not know which objective you refer to 1, 2, or 3. Adding these numbers in the "Objective of the study" is recommended. Also, there is only one objective in the main text. Authors may consider including three specific objectives in the main text.

Keywords: "Women of Reproductive Age" would be more suitable than "Reproductive age."

Citation: Please be thorough on the citation format. Sometimes authors use (author, reference number), which is not consistent.

Introduction:

Women of Reproductive Age (WRA) appears first on this page. Please add an acronym where it first appears and be consistent in using it in subsequent text.

Authors define WRA are those aged 18-49. WHO and other UN agencies use the definition of WRA (15-49 years). Please provide annotation or explanation.

TDHS: where it first appears on page 4; please spell it out.

CycleBeads® is one word.

Literature review: it is suggested that authors add a review of more literature on contraceptive use among WRA in Tanzania (esp. Morogoro or neighboring regions) as many studies have already been conducted. By doing this, the authors will have a much more vigorous justification for conducting this study (including highlighting why this study has to be conducted among WRA in Morogoro and those residing in rural areas).

METHODS

Study Area: More description on Morogoro Region (the number of Districts within the Region, among which how many Districts are considered "rural," and how authors define "rural" in this study.

Research design: Do authors consider this study as a mixed-methods study? If so, please describe which design of a mixed-methods study the authors employ with its justification.

Sampling Procedure for Qualitative Approach

Please describe in more detail which approach of purposive sampling the authors adopt for this study.

How do authors determine key informants from the results of the quantitative study?

Data Collection Methods for Quantitative Approach

What kind of questionnaire do the authors plan to use for this study? Has it been validated?

Data Collection Methods for Qualitative Data

No details are known, but the authors' interview method in this manuscript would be key informant interviews rather than in-depth interviews.

Please also indicate whether recording and transcriptions are made, how long does each interview would take, and if the authors plan to interview the informants only once or iteratively.

Definition and Measurement of Variables

Would the dependent variables any FP use, rather than modern methods use?

During the qualitative interviews, authors should highlight on positive aspects of FP use rather than just focusing on the challenges.

**********

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: Tesfalem Tilahun Yemane

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Review.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 Dec 2021

POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you all, editors and reviewers from PLOS ONE We have appreciated all the comments given in order to improve the manuscripts. We have thoroughly responded to all reviewers’ comments. The table below is a summary of responses for the reviewers.

Comments to the authors Authors’ Response

Authors had revised the whole document for grammar check and clarity

1 Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible. The questionnaire description has been revised. The questionnaire has been adapted from the Demographic Health Surveys questionnaire. We only selected the questions related to family planning for this particular study. Minor modification has been done.

The questionnaire has been uploaded as additional file (Appendix 1) (Page 6)

2 Please state whether you validated the questionnaire. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section. The questionnaire was not validated because it was extracted from a standard questionnaire that is normally used for country wide survey.

However minor modifications has been made

3 Please include a copy of the interview guide to be used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously. A copy of interview guide has been added and uploaded as additional file

Submitted filename: PROTOCOL REVIEWERS RESPONSE Plos.doc

Click here for additional data file.

13 Jan 2022

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,

Paola Viganò

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

From the authors' response, it is unclear whether the Authors have addressed all the Reviewers' comments. One of the reviewer was not satisfied. The Authors should present a rebuttal letter with responses to all the issues raised and not only to some of them. The presentation of the manuscript completely highlighted did not help. It would have been much more useful to highlight only changes. All the Reviewers and Editorial issues need to be addressed.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In general, the author has made a good revision. I enjoyed reading the revised study protocol, and the comments what we give also addressed and well presented.

Reviewer #2: I understand that my comments have been shared with the authors. However, I do not think the authors have seen my previous comments as I do not see any changes in the manuscript. If authors have seen my comments, and if they do not agree with them, I would appreciate it if they state why they do not agree with my comments/suggestions in the next "author's response" in a "point-by-point" manner.

**********

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: Tesfalem Tilahun Yemane

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

28 Feb 2022

POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS’ AND EDITOR’S COMMENTS

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you all, editors and reviewers from PLOS ONE We have appreciated all the comments given in order to improve the manuscripts. We have thoroughly responded to all reviewers’ comments. The table below is a summary of responses for the reviewers.

Comments to the authors Authors’ Response

General Authors had revised the whole document for grammar check and clarity

1.0 Second Round Reviewer’s comments

Reviewer #1

1.1 In general, the author has made a good revision. I enjoyed reading the revised study protocol, and the comments what we give also addressed and well presented. Noted, Thank you

Reviewer #2

1.2 I understand that my comments have been shared with the authors. However, I do not think the authors have seen my previous comments as I do not see any changes in the manuscript. If authors have seen my comments, and if they do not agree with them, I would appreciate it if they state why they do not agree with my comments/suggestions in the next "author's response" in a "point-by-point" manner. The comments were received. Authors worked on all the comments and the responses are given below serial number 3 of this document

The corresponding revisions are highlighted in respective sections of the document

2.0 Editor’s comments

2.1 Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible. The questionnaire description has been revised. The questionnaire has been adapted from the Demographic Health Surveys questionnaire. We only selected the questions related to family planning for this particular study. Minor modification has been done.

The questionnaire has been uploaded as additional file (Appendix 1) (Page 6)

2.2 Please state whether you validated the questionnaire. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section. The questionnaire was not validated because it was extracted from a standard questionnaire that is normally used for country wide health and demographic survey.

However minor modifications has been made to match with the current study

2.3 Please include a copy of the interview guide to be used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously. A copy of interview guide has been added and uploaded as additional file (Page 7)

3.0 First Reviewer’s comments

Reviewer #1

3.1 The discussion section must be added.

This section should include the any issues involved in performing the study that are not covered in other sections. These can include: limitations of the study design & dissemination plans • The discussion part has been added (Page 10 - 12)

• Limitation of the study design and dissemination plans added page 12

• Dissemination plan has been added on page 9

Reviewer # 2

3.2 ABSTRACT:

Methodology

Authors indicate Objectives 1 through 3. However, readers do not know which objective you refer to 1, 2, or 3. Adding these numbers in the "Objective of the study" is recommended. Also, there is only one objective in the main text. Authors may consider including three specific objectives in the main text. The section has been revised accordingly to accommodate the comments.

The broad objective has been maintained at the abstract section Page 2 and at the end of the introduction section page 4

The specific objective have been stated in numbers on page 4

3.3 Keywords: "Women of Reproductive Age" would be more suitable than "Reproductive age." The keyword has been revised. Page 2 and the word has been revised throughout the document

3.4 Citation: Please be thorough on the citation format. Sometimes authors use (author, reference number), which is not consistent. The citation format has been revised. Numbering style (Vancouver style) has been used throughout the document

3.5 Introduction:

Women of Reproductive Age (WRA) appears first on this page. Please add an acronym where it first appears and be consistent in using it in subsequent text.. • We have agreed to maintain the long form of the term women of reproductive age because the abbreviation is not standard and we are trying to reduce the abbreviations

Authors define WRA are those aged 18-49. WHO and other UN agencies use the definition of WRA (15-49 years)? Please provide annotation or explanation • We have revised the section and agreed to use the standard definition of Women of reproduction age as per WHO, UN i.e 15 – 49 years Page 5

3.6 TDHS: where it first appears on page 4; please spell it out. It has been revised and the acronym has been written in long from first before the acronym Page 1

3.7 CycleBeads® is one word. This word has been removed

3.8 Literature review:

It is suggested that authors add a review of more literature on contraceptive use among WRA in Tanzania (esp. Morogoro or neighboring regions) as many studies have already been conducted. By doing this, the authors will have a much more vigorous justification for conducting this study (including highlighting why this study has to be conducted among WRA in Morogoro and those residing in rural areas). The literature review has been added in the introduction section. – Introduction section page 2 - 4

3.9 METHODS

Study Area:

More description on Morogoro Region (the number of Districts within the Region, among which how many Districts are considered "rural," and how authors define "rural" in this study. Revised accordingly pages 3 – 4

The definition of rural is based on the current classification of these districts as per Report of Basic Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile of 2014

3.10 Research design: Do authors consider this study as a mixed-methods study? If so, please describe which design of a mixed-methods study the authors employ with its justification. Revised accordingly pages 5. This study will be cross-sectional with mixed approaches namely qualitative and quantitative

3.11 Sampling Procedure for Qualitative Approach

Please describe in more detail which approach of purposive sampling the authors adopt for this study.

How do authors determine key informants from the results of the quantitative study?

Data Collection Methods for Quantitative Approach Described accordingly Methods section pages 5 - 6

3.12 What kind of questionnaire do the authors plan to use for this study? Has it been validated? The questionnaire has been adapted from the Demographic Health Surveys questionnaire. We only selected the questions related to family planning for this particular study. Minor modification has been done.

The questionnaire has been uploaded as additional file (Appendix 1) (Page 6)

3.13 Data Collection Methods for Qualitative Data

No details are known, but the authors' interview method in this manuscript would be key informant interviews rather than in-depth interviews.

Please also indicate whether recording and transcriptions are made, how long does each interview would take, and if the authors plan to interview the informants only once or iteratively. Revised on page 7

3.14 Definition and Measurement of Variables

Would the dependent variables any FP use, rather than modern methods use? Definition of variables are provided on page 8

3.15 During the qualitative interviews, authors should highlight on positive aspects of FP use rather than just focusing on the challenges. The qualitative part is meant to explore both positives and negative aspects for broad understanding. Page 7

Submitted filename: PROTOCOL REVIEWERS RESPONSE.doc

Click here for additional data file.

1 Apr 2022

To assess the determinants of family planning uptake among women of reproductive age in rural settings, Morogoro Region, Tanzania. Protocol for a cross-sectional study

PONE-D-21-12824R2

Dear Dr. Machange,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Paola Viganò

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for responding to the previous questions in a point-by-point manner, which is well reflected in the improved quality of the manuscript. The reviewer wishes the best to the authors for implementing this study.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

7 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-12824R2

To assess the determinants of family planning uptake among women of reproductive age in rural settings, Morogoro Region, Tanzania. Protocol for a cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Machange:

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

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Paola Viganò

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE