Perinatal care in Western Uganda: Prevalence and factors associated with appropriate care among women attending three district hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Perinatal mortality remains high globally and remains an important indicator of the quality of a health care system. To reduce this mortality, it is important to provide the recommended care during the perinatal period. We assessed the prevalence and factors associated with appropriate perinatal care (antenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum) in Bunyoro region, Uganda. Results from this study provide valuable information on the perinatal care services and highlight areas of improvement for better perinatal outcomes.
METHODS: A cross sectional survey was conducted among postpartum mothers attending care at three district hospitals in Bunyoro. Following consent, a questionnaire was administered to capture the participants' demographics and data on care received was extracted from their antenatal, labour, delivery, and postpartum records using a pre-tested structured tool. The care received by women was assessed against the standard protocol established by World Health Organization (WHO). Poisson regression with robust standard errors was used to assess factors associated with appropriate postpartum care.
RESULTS: A total of 872 mothers receiving care at the participating hospitals between March and June 2020 were enrolled in the study. The mean age of the mothers was 25 years (SD = 5.95). None of the mothers received appropriate antenatal or intrapartum care, and only 3.8% of the participants received appropriate postpartum care. Factors significantly associated with appropriate postpartum care included mothers being >35 years of age (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 11.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8-51.4) and parity, with low parity (2-3) and multiparous (>3) mothers less likely to receive appropriate care than prime gravidas (aPR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.9 and aPR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.8 respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum care received by mothers in this region remains below the standard recommended by WHO, and innovative strategies across the continuum of perinatal care need to be devised to prevent mortality among the mothers. The quality of care also needs to be balanced for all mothers irrespective of the age and parity.

Introduction

Improvement in the quality of perinatal care is essential in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality, and is required in order to meet the Sustainable Development Goal three target aimed at: 1) reducing the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) to less than 70 deaths/100,000 live births by 2030; 2) reducing the neonatal mortality rate (NMR) to less than 7/1000 live births by 2035; and 3) reducing the number of still births to less than 8 still births/1000 total births [1-3]. Sub Saharan Africa bears the highest burden of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, contributing 55% of the global stillbirths [4], 66% of the global maternal mortality [5], and 46% of the neonatal mortality [6]. In these same settings, countries also struggle with achieving the set standards of quality care for pregnant women [3].

Uganda is one of the countries that face challenges in provision of quality perinatal care [7-11]. According to the latest 2016 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), only 60% of the women surveyed had attended the recommended four antenatal visits during the pregnancy leading to their most recent birth, and less than one third had their first visit during the first trimester of pregnancy [7]. In addition, only 39% of the women had had a urine sample taken, and even though 74% of childbirths were attended by skilled health personnel, only 54% of the women and 56% of the newborns received a postnatal check within 2 days of delivery. In an independent study evaluating antenatal care among 299 mothers in eastern Uganda 53% of the mothers did not have essential tests conducted, 62% were not offered sulphadoxine pyrimethamine (SP) for intermittent treatment of malaria (IPTp), and 72% were not offered folic/ferrous sulphate supplement [8]. Similar findings were reported in other studies across the country [9-11]. Furthermore, education, occupation, age, parity, being wealthy and caesarian section as a mode of delivery were found to be associated with perinatal care [12-14].

Bunyoro, a region in western Uganda is being supported by a number of quality improvement projects in order to reduce the risk of maternal and infant mortality including: 1) the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) that has continued to equip and build the capacity of the health system to ably manage, deliver and sustain improvements in reproductive, maternal, new born, child and adolescent health programming since 2007 [15]; 2) the Ministry of Health reproductive, maternal, and child health improvement project (URMCHIP) which aims at improving the utilization of essential reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health services [16]; and 3) Saving Mothers Giving Life project (SMGL), a health system strengthening project that ran from 2012 to 2014. The SMGL’s aim was to address the three delays in health care including the delay in decision to seek care, in reaching care, and in receiving adequate and appropriate health care [17]. Despite this support, the region registered the nation’s lowest scores on several indicators of maternal health care in the 2016 DHS survey with the number of mothers attending the recommended four antenatal visits at 44.5%, proportion of women who had a urine sample examined during antenatal visits at 27.5%, and proportion of women who had no post-natal checks within 48 hours of delivery at 63.8% [7].

Since the last national evaluation of maternal care as part of the 2016 DHS survey, the World Health Organization (WHO) has updated its guidelines on maternal health care [18]. These new WHO guidelines were adopted and rolled out in Uganda in 2018 [19], however, no survey has evaluated the quality of care especially in the underperforming regions of the country since their role out. This study assessed the prevalence and factors associated with appropriate perinatal care at the three district hospitals in Bunyoro region. The study findings document the current quality of maternal care in the region following the support received from the different implementing partners (URMCHIP and CHAI) and change in the national guidelines.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

A facility based cross-sectional study was conducted between March and June 2020 in three public district hospitals of Bunyoro region, Uganda. The region is comprised of eight districts that include Kakumiro, Kibaale, Kagadi, Kikuube, Hoima, Masindi, Buliisa, and Kiryandongo [20]. The region’s population was estimated at 2,028,500 million people in the 2014 National Demographic and Population Census [21]. Bunyoro region has one of the highest fertility rates (7.5) in the country, and has a high proportion of both teenage pregnancies (10.6%) and early marriages (19%) [22]. The region has three district hospitals (Kagadi, Kiryandongo and Masindi). A district hospital is the highest-level public health facility in any given district and covers a catchment population of approximately 500,000 people. The district hospital offers preventive, promotive, and both in and out patient curative services in all areas of child and adult medicine [23]. It is also responsible for supervising and planning for all the lower-level facilities within the district. An average of 300 deliveries are registered at these hospitals in any given month.

Study population

Postpartum mothers in the three participating district hospitals were screened at discharge for eligibility to join the study. A mother was eligible for inclusion if: 1) she attended antenatal care in the study hospitals; 2) she gave birth in the study hospitals; 3) delivery was conducted by a skilled health professional; 4) she provided written informed consent to participate in the study; and 5) she had a health record indicating care received during the antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum periods.

Sample size and sampling

We hypothesized that the quality of care would be different between educated and less educated mothers and therefore computed sample size using formula for comparison of two proportions. The estimated proportions among less educated (64.1%) and educated women (24.7%) were based on a study done in Nepal [24]. We further assumed 5% level of significance, 80% power, design effect of 2 to cater for clustering at health facility level, and non-response of 10% which gave an estimated sample size of 755 mothers. Using probability sampling proportionate to size, we determined the mothers to be enrolled from each hospital and used consecutive sampling within each of the hospitals.

Study variables

The variables of the study included antenatal care, intrapartum care, and postpartum care. Antenatal care was assessed as the number of antenatal contacts, initiation of antenatal care, examinations during every contact, tests conducted, preventive drugs, ultrasound scan, tetanus toxoid, and health education. The intrapartum care aspects assessed included use of a partograph, monitoring the fetal heart rate, monitoring progress of labour (cervical dilatation, descent of presenting part, and uterine contractions), and monitoring of the maternal blood pressure and maternal pulse rates. Finally for postpartum care, the monitoring of the uterine contraction, vaginal bleeding, fundal height, blood pressure, pulse rate, temperature, and urine voiding were assessed as the parameters of care.

Data collection

At each hospital, data was collected by qualified midwives fluent in the local language of the area (Runyoro) and not directly involved in the patient care. Postpartum mothers were identified using the ward registers and screened for eligibility to join the study. Following the consent process, a questionnaire was administered to collect socio-demographic data from participants. Data on care received at the different stages of perinatal care was extracted from their hospital notes using a pre-tested structured data extraction tool designed using the Open Data Kit (ODK) software. Data extracted included the participants’ information on preventive medications received, any health education, diagnostic tests and results, and examinations received by the mothers during their pregnancy.

Data management and analysis

Data collected was downloaded into a CSV file format for cleaning, and exported to STATA version 13 for analysis. Outcomes of interest were assessed using the standard protocols established by WHO recommendations on antenatal care [18], intrapartum care [25], and postpartum care [26]. Care which reached the standard recommended by the WHO was coded as “yes” and given a score of 1 while “no” and score 0 was used for care that did not reach the recommended standards. The standard of care was grouped into three categories: 1) “no care” which was defined as a total care score of zero (the minimum possible score); 2) “appropriate care” which was defined as a total score of 8 for antenatal, 6 for intrapartum care, and 7 for postpartum care (the maximum possible score); and 3) “inappropriate care” which referred to the range of scores between the minimum and maximum total care scores.

Levels of care were summarized and presented as proportions with 95% confidence intervals, stratified by the hospital. Modified poisson regression with robust standard errors was used to assess for factors associated with appropriate postpartum care. At bivariate analysis, all variables that had p-value of less than or equal to 0.20 were considered for multivariate analysis and logical model building was used to generate the final model. Education level and health facilities attended were confounding this model while the mother’s income is a known confounder and all three were included in the final model even when not statistically significant. The measures of associations are presented as prevalence ratio (PR) with their 95% confidence intervals and p-values. A p-value of <0.05 is considered significant.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Makerere University School of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee (REC REF# 2019–137) and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (HS483ES). Written informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants prior to enrolment in the study, and unique identifiers and not personal names were used for participant identification.

Results

Description of the study population

A total of 3,320 women were screened for eligibility to join the study, and 872 (26.3%) were enrolled. The commonest reason for exclusion was having not attended antenatal care at the study hospitals (2,371, 96.9%). Other reasons for exclusion included patients being referred to study hospitals from lower facilities due to intrapartum complications, mothers arriving at the facility after birth (birth before arrival (BBA)) and declining consent to participate in the study. Fig 1 provides details of the participants flow stratified by health facility.

Fig 1

Flowchart.

ANC = antenatal care; BBA = birth before arrival.

The mean age of the participants was 25 years (SD = 5.95). Majority of the participants were married or in a stable relationship (n = 782, 89.7%), and more than half (n = 453, 52%) had never received any education. Although many of the participants had two or more children (n = 615, 70.5%), almost all (n = 846, 97%) earned less than 500,000 Uganda Shillings ($140) per month. Table 1 provides details of the characteristics of the study participants stratified by health facility.

Table 1

Characteristics of the study population.

Characteristic (n = 872)	Kagadi	Kiryandongo	Masindi	Total
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Number of participants	329	207	336	872
Age category of the mother
< 20	60 (18.2)	46 (22.2)	59 (17.6)	165 (18.9)
20–35	252 (76.6)	148 (71.5)	248 (73.8)	648 (74.3)
>35	17 (5.2)	13 (6.3)	29 (8.6)	59 (6.8)
Marital status
Married/Stable relationship	290 (88.2)	194 (93.7)	298 (88.7)	782 (89.7)
Single/divorced/separated	39 (11.8)	13 (6.3)	38 (11.3)	90 (10.3)
Education level
None/Primary	187 (56.8)	137 (66.2)	129 (38.4)	453 (52.0)
Secondary	93 (28.3)	65 (31.4)	168 (50.0)	326 (37.4)
Tertiary	49 (14.9)	5 (2.4)	39 (11.6)	93 (10.6)
Occupation
None	16 (4.9)	73 (35.3)	209 (60.2)	298 (34.2)
Informal employment	280 (85.1)	125 (60.4)	89 (26.5)	494 (56.6)
Formal employment	33 (10.3)	9 (4.3)	38 (11.3)	80 (9.2)
Income
<100, 000/ =	75 (22.8)	105 (50.7)	240 (71.4)	420 (48.2)
100,000–500,000/ =	237 (72.0)	101 (48.8)	88 (26.2)	426 (48.8)
>500,000/ =	17 (5.2)	1 (0.5)	8 (2.4)	26 (3.0)
Parity
Primigravida (1)	93 (28.3)	61 (29.5)	103 (30.7)	257 (29.5)
Low parity (2–3)	133 (40.4)	76 (36.7)	124 (36.9)	333 (38.2)
Multipara (>3)	103 (31.3)	70 (33.8)	109 (32.4)	282 (32.3)

Prevalence of appropriate perinatal care

The majority of the participant’s care was classified as inappropriate care with 863 (99.0%) mothers receiving inappropriate care in the antenatal phase, 690 (79.1%) receiving inappropriate care in the intrapartum phase, and 795, (91.2%) receiving inappropriate care in the postpartum phase of care (Table 2). None of the participant’s care in the antenatal or intrapartum period met the criteria of appropriate care. Appropriate care was only observed in the postpartum phase of care with 33/872 (3.8%) mothers’ care meeting the WHO criteria for appropriate care. Kagadi hospital which contributed 329 (37.7%) of the study participants had no mother fulfilling the criteria for appropriate care in any of the three phases of care (Table 2). Masindi and Kiryandongo hospitals contributed almost equally to the proportion of participants that received appropriate care in the postpartum phase (51.5% versus 48.5% respectively p = 0.807). Of the 872 mothers enrolled, nine (1.0%) received no care in the antenatal phase, 182 (20.9%) received no care in the intrapartum phase, and 44 (5.1%) received no care in the postpartum phase of care.

Table 2

Prevalence of inappropriate perinatal care.

Characteristic	Kagadi	Kiryandongo	Masindi	All
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Number of participants (N)	329	207	336	872
Classification of Antenatal care received
No care	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	9 (2.7)	9 (1.0)
Inappropriate care	329 (100)	207 (100)	327 (97.3)	863 (99.0)
Appropriate	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Classification of intrapartum care received
No care	29(8.8)	12 (5.8)	141 (42.0)	182 (20.9)
Inappropriate care	300 (91.2)	195 (94.2)	195 (58.0)	690 (79.1)
Appropriate care	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Classification of Postpartum care received
No care	21 (6.4)	3 (1.5)	20 (6.0)	44 (5.1)
Inappropriate care	308 (93.6)	187 (90.3)	300 (89.3)	795 (91.2)
Appropriate care	0 (0.0)	17 (8.2)	16 (4.7)	33 (3.8)

Although overall prevalence of inappropriate care was high, the majority of the participants received at least 1 dose of tetanus toxoid (85%), received health education at least once during antenatal care (87.7%), had their labour monitored using a partograph (71.4%), had their partograph use initiated in the active first stage (78.3%), and had their vital signs assessed 24 hours after delivery (61.1%). The commonest components contributing to inappropriate antenatal care included: 1) mothers receiving less than the recommended eight antenatal visits (863, 99%); 2) initiating care after the 1st trimester (799, 91.6%); 3) missing the recommended physical exams (blood pressure, weight, checking for pallor, fetal heart rate, fundal height exam and checking for fetal lie and position) during the visits (858, 98.4%); 4) missing the recommended laboratory tests during the antenatal contacts (872, 100%); and 5) no ultra-sound scan before 24 weeks of amenorrhea (797, 91.4%) (Table 3). For labour and delivery, none of the mothers had the fetal heart, contractions, and pulse rate monitored every 30 minutes and only 23 (2.4%) mothers had cervical dilation, descent of presenting part, and maternal blood pressure monitored every 4 hours. Finally, the commonest factors contributing to inappropriate care in the postpartum phase included lack of an abdominal examination within 24 hours after delivery (807, 92.6%), and absence of vaginal examination/urine voiding assessment within 24 hours post-delivery (794, 91.1%).

Table 3

Perinatal care received by mothers.

Characteristic	Kagadi	Kiryandongo	Masindi	All
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
N	329	207	336	872
Antenatal care Documentation
Nature of ANC record
Health passport/ANC card	107 (32.5)	86 (41.6)	93 (27.7)	286 (32.8)
Exercise book/Papers	222 (67.5)	121 (58.4)	243 (72.3)	586 (67.2)
Completeness of ANC records
Complete	24 (7.3)	182 (87.9)	202 (60.1)	408 (46.8)
Incomplete	305 (92.7)	25 (12.1)	134 (39.9)	464 (53.2)
Antenatal care visits
Number of ANC contacts
< 8 contacts	329 (100)	205 (90.0)	329 (97.9)	863 (99)
8 or more contacts	0 (0.0)	2 (1.0)	7 (2.1)	9 (1.0)
Initiation of Antenatal care
1st trimester	25 (7.6)	21 (10.1)	27 (8.0)	73 (8.4)
After 1st trimester	304 (92.4)	186 (89.9)	309 (92.0)	799 (91.6)
Levels of Antenatal care received
Recommended exams conducted during every contact (Maternal status–BP, Wt, Pallor; Fetal status–FHR, Lie, & Position; FH)
No	327 (99.4)	197 (95.2)	334 (99.4)	858 (98.4)
Yes	2 (0.6)	10 (4.8)	2 (0.6)	14 (1.6)
Tests carried out during contacts as recommended (Hb, HIV, Syphilis, Urine glucose & Protein)
No	329 (100)	207 (100)	336 (100)	872 (100)
Yes	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
At least 1 Ultrasound scan done before 24 weeks
No	279 (84.8)	200 (96.6)	318 (94.6)	797 (91.4)
Yes	50 (15.2)	7 (3.4)	18 (5.4)	75 (8.6)
Preventive drugs given during contacts as recommended (Iron/Folic, Fansidar)
No	223 (67.8)	112 (54.1)	111 (33.0)	446 (51.2)
Yes	106 (32.2)	95 (45.9)	225 (67.0)	426 (48.9)
At least 1 Tetanus toxoid dose given at first contact
No	42 (12.8)	9 (4.3)	80 (23.8)	131 (15.0)
Yes	287 (87.2)	198 (95.7)	256 (76.2)	741 (85.0)
Health Education received at least once during any contact
No	15 (4.6)	3 (1.4)	89 (26.5)	107 (12.3)
Yes	314 (95.4)	204 (98.6)	247 (73.5)	765 (87.7)
Labour and delivery care documentation
Partograph use
No	30 (9.1)	13 (6.3)	206 (61.3)	249 (28.6)
Yes	299 (90.9)	194 (93.7)	130 (38.7)	623 (71.4)
Completeness of Partograph
Complete	98 (32.8)	143 (73.7)	15 (11.5)	256 (41.1)
Incomplete	201 (67.2)	51 (26.3)	115 (88.5)	367 (58.9)
Initiation of partograph use
Latent first stage (< 5cm)	61 (20.4)	47 (24.2)	27 (20.8)	135 (21.7)
Active first stage (5cm or more)	238 (79.6)	147 (75.8)	103 (79.2)	488 (78.3)
Levels of labour and delivery care received
Recommended exams monitored every 4 hours during labour (Cervical dilatation, descent of the presenting part, maternal blood pressure)
No	317 (96.4)	196 (94.7)	336 (100)	849 (97.4)
Yes	12 (3.6)	11 (5.3)	0 (0.0)	23 (2.4)
Recommended exams monitored every 30 minutes during labour (Fetal heart rate, uterine contractions, maternal pulse rate)
No	329 (100)	207 (100)	336 (100)	872 (100)
Yes	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Levels of Postnatal care received
Recommended Vital signs assessment within 24 hours after delivery (Blood pressure, pulse rate, and temperature)
No	26 (7.9)	17 (8.2)	296 (88.1)	339 (38.9)
Yes	303 (92.1)	190 (91.8)	40 (11.9)	533 (61.1)
Recommended abdominal examinations within 24 hours after delivery (Uterine contraction and fundal height)
No	326 (99.1)	190 (91.8)	291 (86.6)	807 (92.6)
Yes	3 (0.9)	17 (8.2)	45 (13.4)	65 (7.4)
Recommended vaginal bleeding and urine voiding assessment within 24 hours after delivery
No	329 (100)	173 (83.6)	292 (86.9)	794 (91.1)
Yes	0 (0.0)	34 (16.4)	44 (13.1)	78 (8.9)

Factors associated with appropriate perinatal care

Factors significantly associated with appropriate care at multivariable analysis included maternal age and parity of the mother. The proportion of mothers having appropriate care increased with increasing maternal age (aPR = 2.7, 95% CI 0.9–8.5, p = 0.09 for mothers aged 20–35 years: and aPR = 11.9, 95% CI 2.8–51.4, p<0.001 for mothers >35 years). On the other hand, the proportion of mothers with appropriate care reduced with increasing parity. The prevalence of appropriate care was 70% lower in mothers with two-three children and those with more than three children compared to prime gravidas (aPR = 0.3 95% CI 0.1–0.9, p = 0.03, and aPR = 0.3 95% CI 0.1–0.8, p = 0.02 respectively). Mothers who sought care from Kiryandongo were more likely to receive appropriate care than those from Masindi although the association is of borderline significance (aPR = 1.9 95% CI 0.9–3.7, p = 0.06). Although the education level of the mother has previously been associated with the level of care they receive during the perinatal period [7, 27], the association was not significant in this study. Table 4 provides the details of the factors associated with appropriate postpartum care.

Table 4

Factors associated with appropriate postpartum care.

Characteristic		n/N (%)	Unadjusted PR(95% CI)	P-value	Adjusted PR (95% CI)	P-value
Age category of the mother	< 20	5/165 (3.0)	1.0		1.0
	20–35	21/648 (3.2)	1.1 (0.4–2.8)	0.891	2.7 (0.9–8.5)	0.085
	>35	7/59 (11.9)	3.9 (1.3–11.9)	0.016	11.9 (2.8–51.4)	0.001
Marital status	Married/Stable relationship	32/782 (4.1)	1.0
	Single/divorced/separated	1/90 (1.1)	0.3 (0.04–1.9)	0.197
Education level	None/primary	19/453 (4.2)	1.00		1.00
	Secondary	11/326 (3.4)	0.8 (0.4–1.7)	0.559	0.7 (0.3–1.5)	0.325
	Tertiary	3/93 (3.2)	0.8 (0.2–2.6)	0.667	0.7 (0.2–3.1)	0.681
Occupation	None	17/298 (5.7)	1.0
	Informal employment	13/494 (2.6)	0.5 (0.9–1.1)	0.032
	Formal employment	3/80 (3.8)	0.7 (0.9–1.1)	0.494
Income	<100, 000/ =	20/420 (4.8)	1.0		1.0
	100,000–500,000/ =	12/426 (2.8)	0.6 (0.3–1.2)	0.143	0.9 (0.5–1.8)	0.777
	>500,000/ =	1/26 (3.8)	0.8 (0.1–5.8)	0.832	1.6 (0.2–10.1)	0.632
Parity	Prime gravida (1))	13/257 (5.1)	1.0		1.0
	Low parity (2–3)	8/333 (2.4)	0.5 (1.0–1.1)	0.092	0.3 (0.1–0.9)	0.027
	Multipara (>3)	12/282 (4.3)	0.8 (1.0–1.1)	0.659	0.3 (0.1–0.8)	0.018
Health Facility	Masindi	16/336 (4.8)	1.0		1.0
	Kiryandongo	17/207 (8.2)	1.7 (0.9–3.3)	0.106	1.9 (0.9–3.7)	0.062
	Kagadi	0/329 (0.0)	0	N/A	0	N/A

Discussion

Improved perinatal care is essential in reducing maternal deaths and improving birth outcomes. In this study we described the prevalence and factors associated with appropriate perinatal care in Bunyoro region, Uganda. The study found that no participant received appropriate care in the antenatal and intrapartum periods of care, and only four in every one hundred participants received appropriate care in the postpartum period. Increasing maternal age and reducing parity were significantly associated with appropriate care.

Appropriate perinatal care in this setting is still limited and the study findings show that the performance of the region regarding the set minimum standards for perinatal care are still below the national averages [7]. In this study no mother received appropriate care in the antenatal and intrapartum period and only a few mothers received appropriate care in the postpartum period. Poor perinatal care increases the risk of poor maternal and birth outcomes [28], and the findings from this study could explain the high maternal mortality rates observed in the region [29]. Although health care providers schedule antenatal contacts for mothers, the time of initiating antenatal care and the total number of antenatal visits one has during a pregnancy are individual driven factors and represent the level of health care utilization in the region which has been shown to be consistently low [7, 22, 29], the other factors contributing to inappropriate care are health system driven suggesting poor health service delivery in the region. The incomplete/inappropriate records, missed physical examinations, and missed laboratory tests as observed in this study may lead to delays in appropriate decision making, timely interventions, and communication among the care providers which may cost both the lives of the mother and the baby.

The high levels of inappropriate care observed in the region may be attributed to shortage of resources like medical supplies, equipment, drugs, and staffing in hospitals as well as differences in competences of the health care providers, which are common occurrences in low income countries [30, 31]. The degree of this shortage and difference in competences may vary from facility to facility which creates a difference in care provision. However, in this setting several projects have been established to address the gaps in care due to shortage of resources by establishing effective, low-cost interventions. As part of the SMGL initiative and in collaboration with the Uganda Ministry of Health, the region received upgrade for number of public and private facilities to provide clean and safe basic delivery services and had its supply chains for essential supplies and medicines strengthened [17]. These efforts were supplemented by the Clinton Health Access Initiative and the URMCHIP that have equipped the health facilities in the region to ably manage, deliver and sustain improvement in reproductive, maternal, new born, child and adolescent Health in the region [15, 16]. With these interventions it is anticipated that shortages of resources would be limited in the country. In other low income countries, use of clinical mentorship, training, facility quality improvement teams, and quality of care reviews have been used to improve the quality of perinatal care with positive results over the study periods [32-34]. Similarly, in Uganda, SMGL implemented facility infrastructure upgrades, procured essential medical equipment, supplies and medications, trained and mentored health care providers, recruited health care providers, and strengthened maternal and perinatal mortality surveillance in parts of this region. As a result, availability of facility electricity and water increased, use of partograph in monitoring labour increased, and the proportion of facilities with no stock outs also increased [35]. Sustainability of such interventions beyond the study periods maybe important to consider for continued improvement.

Increasing maternal age was significantly associated with appropriate care with a clear dose effect relationship observed. Maternal age has been linked to demand for services, with increased age being able to demand for better services than those with lower age [7]. Findings from this study could attest to this explanation. The good care provided to older women in this study may lead to reduced adverse birth outcomes that are common in this age group [36].

Reducing parity was significantly associated with appropriate care. Mothers below 20 years of age are perceived to be at risk of having pregnancy related complications [37-40], which explains why mothers of that age group in this study could have received appropriate care. As a result, primigravida mothers could have had improved maternal and birth outcomes.

Much as higher education and income are associated with better care, this study did not find them significantly associated with appropriate postpartum care. The difference in findings may be attributed to the fact that the study sites were public hospitals where care is provided free of charge and mothers do not have to pay for most of the services. In addition, mothers with higher education and income are likely to seek private services instead of general services that are often provided to most of the mothers in public hospitals [7]. This could result in having less complications during childbirth.

This study had some limitations. First, it was a cross sectional study that merely provided a snapshot of the care processes in these facilities. Conducting a follow up study with both observational and extracted data could have provided a better assessment of the quality of care received by mothers. However, the findings are still valid as they highlight gaps and make suggestions on what could be done differently, which provides a basis for further studies. Secondly, this study extracted the data on care from patient records. It is possible that information recorded did not exactly reflect the care provided to mothers during these periods of care. In addition, there is no data on direct observation of the care processes which would have explained or validated the data extracted from the patient records. The source of data also makes it hard to appreciate the in-depth factors affecting care including personal factors like beliefs, values, experiences, and ability to access services as well as determine the usage of the data in patient care. However, exit interviews were held with mothers and care providers to understand the nature of care provided. Thirdly, the study excluded women who were referred for childbirth from other facilities and did not attend antenatal care in the study hospitals. This could have reduced the study’s ability to assess care provided to postpartum women by other facilities in this region. Therefore, findings of this study may not be entirely generalizable to Bunyoro region. Lastly, the study did not capture information on type of pregnancy and existing co-morbidities which could have influenced the nature of care provided to mothers.

Conclusion

In summary, we found that antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care provided to mothers was below the standard recommended by WHO and Ministry of Health in Bunyoro, Uganda. Increased age and reduced parity influenced the extent to which mothers were cared for during the postpartum period. Therefore building the capacity of healthcare providers on the recommended perinatal care; as well as provision of required supplies, equipment and drugs; and provision of appropriate infrastructure by government could motivate health care providers to provide quality care. Mothers also can be empowered through health education to demand for care. There is need to develop sustainable strategies that could produce lasting impact on the quality of care. Developing an appropriate tool for assessing quality of care in this setting may also help researchers in assessing quality of care in similar settings.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLS)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLS)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLS)

Click here for additional data file.

4 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,

Ammal Mokhtar Metwally, Ph.D (MD)

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

As this study is focusing on the ” Perinatal care in Western Uganda: Prevalence and factors associated with appropriate care among women in three District Hospitals”, so it is essential to consider enriching your discussion of the best intervention practices to use for improving and providing the appropriate care from countries with similar context, e.g. Enhancing the value of women's reproductive rights through community based interventions and strengths of community and health facilities based interventions in improving women care seeking behaviors…. etc..

However, this should be considered in addition to the reviewers’ remarks

[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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: Overall, this paper was well presented. However, I struggled with reviewing the paper since the survey was not provided and detailed information on the WHO criteria was not included. This information should be included as part of the material. There was also no discussion about what might be the reasons for differences between the hospitals. Also, did the authors consider personal factors? Might there be some personal factors that may have impacted the results? Was this considered in the survey? For example, mother's beliefs, values, experiences, ability to access services (transport), spouse etc.?

Reviewer #2: Give greater attention to results in Table 3. They do provide some good news. For example, 49% of women got at least one preventive drug, 85% got tetanus toxoid, 88% got some health education, 71% had a partograph (although 59% were incomplete), 61% of those delivering had vital signs taken. By just citing aggregate scores in the summary, the article implies that women weren’t getting much of any services. You say that none of the mothers received appropriate antenatal or intrapartum care. True by your aggregate scores but some mother did receive some services. A professional health care provider might feel that you were saying that they weren’t doing anything!

What are the implications of 53% of ANC records incomplete. Could this lead to somewhat of an undercount of services or otherwise cast questions on results?

The article frequently uses the term quality of care. Actually it is more in Quantity of care (presence or absence of a task). For example, one indicator is whether a urine test is taken. But if it is, that is just the beginning. Was it tested? Correctly? Results communicated to the right people? Any relevant action taken?

Same with partograph— maybe it was drawn but did anyone use it to make important decisions? Some health practices may be more like rituals than action items…

No innovative strategies are mentioned although they are referred to several times…

This article indirectly raises the question of whether the WHO items are totally appropriate for rural Uganda? Are 8 perinatal visits essential? Which of the items are the most important? It would also be interesting to see if any of the WHO maternal care staff or advisors could provide all these services themselves in a setting like rural Uganda…."? I also wondered if Ugandan staff were providing other services (such as comforting women, food, water) that don’t appear in the list of items which are all health technologies rather than tender loving care. You might guess that I am a social scientist/public health person rather than a clinician…

We now refer to patients declining consent rather than refusing it.. it is their right to decline…

Was the 2016 Dhs the most recent one? Misspelling in Footnote 20.

A nice, well written paper and amazing collaboration… I suppose the article would be useful as a very rough baseline to for studying local improvements over the years. But if I were doing this work, I would seek feedback from local health staff about which items they thought were most practical and most likely to improve the health of mothers and babies and then drill down hard on these tasks. Cheers!

Reviewer #3: Well-done on your submission. This is a much needed study on an important topic. Please see below my comments:

Introduction

1) In the first paragraph of the introduction, there is no need to list out SDG 3, this is easily accessible. A reference would do.

2) In the second paragraph of the introduction, please provide a reference for this statement "Uganda is one of the countries that face challenges in provision of quality perinatal care".

3) In the second paragraph of the introduction, you wrote "According to the latest Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (DHS),......". Which is the latest Uganda DHS?

4) The introduction does not contain enough information to validate the rationale for the study. The introduction should provide a snapshot of the available knowledge on the topic and highlight the gap in the existing knowledge which this present study seeks to address. I would recommend a proper literature review of the prevalence and factors associated with perinatal care should be done. This will provide a better buildup to the study rationale.

Discussion

5) The authors confirmed that appropriate perinatal care was limited in the study setting and that "the performance of the region regarding the set minimum standards for perinatal care are still below the national averages". Then what is the basis of the study results when the study setting does not meet the set minimum standards? It would have made more sense if the study was on factors associated with (in)appropriate care among women in three District Hospitals. I am of the opinion that the study findings is skewed by the fact that the study setting does not meet the set minimum standards for perinatal care.

6) What are the strengths of the study?

7) What are the policy implications 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: No

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.

17 Feb 2022

REVIEWER: 1

GENERAL COMMENTS

GENERAL COMMENT 1:

Overall, this paper was well presented. However, I struggled with reviewing the paper since the survey was not provided and detailed information on the WHO criteria was not included. This information should be included as part of the material

RESPONSE:

Thank you for pointing this out to us. The survey questionnaire had two sections, with the first section covering the biodata for the women and the second section eliciting the care received by the women during antenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum periods as seen in their patient records. The study used three forms of WHO recommendations: 1) recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience which describes the recommended care for women during pregnancy, how it should be given, 2) intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience which provides the standard care to be given to women during labour and childbirth, and 3) recommendations on postnatal care of the mother and newborn that describe the standard care to be given to women and their babies during the six weeks after childbirth. The questionnaire and all the WHO recommendations used in the study have been included among the materials uploaded with the revised manuscript.

GENERAL COMMENT 2:

There was also no discussion about what might be the reasons for the differences between the hospitals.

RESPONSE:

The differences observed in the quality of care in the different hospitals may be due to the differences in staffing levels and competences and availability of medicines, supplies, and equipment. The manuscript discussion has been revised to include the possible reasons for the differences between hospitals (Page 20 Line 289-292).

GENERAL COMMENT 3:

Also, did the authors consider personal factors? Might there be some personal factors that may have impacted the results? Was this considered in the survey? For example, mother's beliefs, values, experiences, ability to access services (transport), spouse etc.?

RESPONSE:

The study used medical records as the primary source of data to answer the study objectives. As part of the data collection, participant demographics including age, marital status, education, occupation, income, and parity were collected and have been included in the factors assessed. Unfortunately, based on the source of data, we were unable to collect in-depth information on other personal factors like beliefs, values, experiences and ability to access services. This has been included as part of the limitations to the study (Page 22, lines 335-337).

REVIEWER: 2

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

SPECIFIC COMMENT 1:

Give greater attention to results in Table 3. They do provide some good news. For example, 49% of women got at least one preventive drug, 85% got tetanus toxoid, 88% got some health education, 71% had a partograph (although 59% were incomplete), 61% of those delivering had vital signs taken. By just citing aggregate scores in the summary, the article implies that women weren’t getting much of any services. You say that none of the mothers received appropriate antenatal or intrapartum care. True by your aggregate scores but some mother did receive some services. A professional health care provider might feel that you were saying that they weren’t doing anything!

RESPONSE

Yes, it is true that women received some care. Majority of the participants received at least 1 dose of tetanus toxoid (85%), received health education at least once during antenatal care (87.7%), had their labour monitored using a partograph (71.4%), had their partograph use initiated in the active first stage (78.3%), and had their vital signs assessed 24 hours after delivery (61.1%). However composite variables for antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum constituting of various care components as per the WHO recommendations were created. A response of “yes” was given to mean that care was provided in its totality. Care provided in partiality to the mentioned recommendations was regarded as “no.” The manuscript has been revised to include findings of some care received by women (Page 13, line 224 - 228).

GENERAL COMMENTS

GENERAL COMMENT 1:

What are the implications of 53% of ANC records incomplete? Could this lead to somewhat of an undercount of services or otherwise cast questions on results?

RESPONSE

Yes, we agree that the high percentage of incomplete records could have led to an undercount of services provided. We have acknowledged this as part of the limitation of the study (page 21, line 332-333).

GENERAL COMMENT 2

The article frequently uses the term quality of care. Actually it is more in Quantity of care (presence or absence of a task). For example, one indicator is whether a urine test is taken. But if it is, that is just the beginning. Was it tested? Correctly? Results communicated to the right people? Any relevant action taken?

Same with partograph— maybe it was drawn but did anyone use it to make important decisions? Some health practices may be more like rituals than action items…

RESPONSE

It is true that the term quality of care goes beyond presence or absence of a task to include results and how the results influenced care. It is for this reason that the study derived evidence of care provided from the women hand held cards/passport/files and not the facility registers. The women files indicated whether care had been provided, when it was provided, and the results in case of a test. When care was not provided, it was not documented at all. Therefore a response of “yes” was given to mean that care was provided and results were recorded in case of a test. It was assumed that once care is recorded in that particular woman’s record, then it has been communicated to her and has influenced the care decisions made. The study could however not rule out errors in documentation neither could it ascertain the accuracy of the test taken since care was being studied retrospectively in units of care and not the laboratory. The study scope did not include action taken or decisions taken much as some were documented. We have acknowledged this as part of the limitation of the study (page 22, line 337-338).

GENERAL COMMENT 3

No innovative strategies are mentioned although they are referred to several times…

RESPONSE:

Innovative strategies like clinical mentorship, training, use of facility quality improvement teams, and quality of care reviews have been used to improve care received by women during the perinatal period in developing countries. The discussion section of the manuscript has been revised to include these best practices (Page 20 line 301-310).

GENERAL COMMENT 4

This article indirectly raises the question of whether the WHO items are totally appropriate for rural Uganda. Are 8 perinatal visits essential? Which of the items are the most important? It would also be interesting to see if any of the WHO maternal care staff or advisors could provide all these services themselves in a setting like rural Uganda…."?

RESPONSE:

We agree that the WHO questionnaire may not yet be appropriate tool for assessing care in resource limited settings like Uganda, however, given that; 1) the recommendations for care in the country are based on the WHO guidelines; 2) the country has not developed any other tools for assessing care standards; 3) other studies have used the same tool for assessing care and using it allows for comparison, we believe the findings are still valid to inform practice and improvement in care.

GENERAL COMMENT 5

I also wondered if Ugandan staff were providing other services (such as comforting women, food, water) that don’t appear in the list of items which are all health technologies rather than tender loving care. You might guess that I am a social scientist/public health person rather than a clinician…

RESPONSE:

The recommendations for care in the country are based on the WHO guidelines and the country has not developed any other additional guidelines in regard to provision of routine care to women during the perinatal period. The recommendations for care do not provide for comforting women nor provision of food and water to the women by the health care providers.

GENERAL COMMENT 6

We now refer to patients declining consent rather than refusing it. It is their right to decline…

RESPONSE:

Thank you for the correction. The manuscript has been edited and area with this phrase has been replaced with “declining consent” (Page 10 Line 191).

GENERAL COMMENT 7

Was the 2016 DHS the most recent one? Misspelling in Footnote 20.

RESPONSE:

Yes, 2016 demographic health survey (DHS) is the most recent survey in Uganda. Reference 23 (Page 25, line 434-436) has been edited to remove the misspelling in the term “services.”

GENERAL COMMENT 8

A nice, well written paper and amazing collaboration… I suppose the article would be useful as a very rough baseline to for studying local improvements over the years. But if I were doing this work, I would seek feedback from local health staff about which items they thought were most practical and most likely to improve the health of mothers and babies and then drill down hard on these tasks. Cheers!

RESPONSE:

Thank you for this valuable recommendation. The research team agrees with you and has already considered this very important question in their next study on developing an improved care delivery model for women during the perinatal period.

REVIEWER: 3

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

SPECIFIC COMMENT 1

In the first paragraph of the introduction, there is no need to list out SDG 3, this is easily accessible. A reference would do.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for this comment. We have discussed the benefits and risks of having the 3rd SDG and agree that although referenced, some of the audience may not have the time to check reference and since it does not alter the message, we have decided to maintain it.

SPECIFIC COMMENT 2

In the second paragraph of the introduction, please provide a reference for this statement "Uganda is one of the countries that face challenges in provision of quality perinatal care.”

RESPONSE:

Thank you for your comment. The reference to this is reference 7 to 11. The manuscript has been edited to include the references (Page 4, line 65).

SPECIFIC COMMENT 3

In the second paragraph of the introduction, you wrote "According to the latest Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (DHS),......" Which is the latest Uganda DHS?

RESPONSE:

The manuscript has been edited to include the year “2016” as the latest Uganda DHS (page 4, line 65)

SPECIFIC COMMENT 4

The introduction does not contain enough information to validate the rationale for the study. The introduction should provide a snapshot of the available knowledge on the topic and highlight the gap in the existing knowledge which this present study seeks to address. I would recommend a proper literature review of the prevalence and factors associated with perinatal care should be done. This will provide a better buildup to the study rationale.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for the recommendation. There is limited literature on the prevalence and factors associated with perinatal care in Uganda, however, we have made attempts revising the manuscript to include the literature we have come across (pg 4, line 75-76).

SPECIFIC COMMENT 5

What are the strengths of the study?

RESPONSE:

The biggest strength of the study was that it highlights gaps and makes suggestions on what could be done differently, which provides a basis for further studies. The manuscript has been revised to indicate the strength of the study (pg 21, line 330-331).

SPECIFIC COMMENT 6

What are the policy implications of the study?

RESPONSE:

The findings have significant policy implications including; 1) The need to ensure availability of trainings for health care providers, supplies, medicines, support supervision, and appropriate infrastructure to improve care, 2) the need to develop an appropriate tool for assessment of quality care in this setting, and 3) the need to develop sustainable strategies that may produce lasting impact on quality of care. The manuscript has been revised to include the policy implications of the study (pg 22, line 354-356).

GENERAL COMMENTS

GENERAL COMMENT 1

The authors confirmed that appropriate perinatal care was limited in the study setting and that "the performance of the region regarding the set minimum standards for perinatal care are still below the national averages". Then what is the basis of the study results when the study setting does not meet the set minimum standards? It would have made more sense if the study was on factors associated with (in)appropriate care among women in three District Hospitals. I am of the opinion that the study findings is skewed by the fact that the study setting does not meet the set minimum standards for perinatal care.

RESPONSE

The importance of the study was to: 1) To highlight the challenges of care provision in the region, 2) make the challenges in care provision known to the policy makers and other stakeholders, and 3) support the design of an improved and appropriate care package for the setting using the study results.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT:

As this study is focusing on the ” Perinatal care in Western Uganda: Prevalence and factors associated with appropriate care among women in three District Hospitals”, so it is essential to consider enriching your discussion of the best intervention practices to use for improving and providing the appropriate care from countries with similar context, e.g. Enhancing the value of women's reproductive rights through community based interventions and strengths of community and health facilities based interventions in improving women care seeking behaviors…. etc..

RESPONSE:

Thank you for this thoughtful comment. The discussion section of the manuscript has been revised to include the best practices that have been used to improve care received by women during the perinatal period in developing countries (Page 20, line 301-310).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-21-34017.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Apr 2022

Perinatal care in Western Uganda: Prevalence and factors associated with appropriate care among women attending three District Hospitals

PONE-D-21-34017R1

Dear Dr. Muwema,

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,

Ammal Mokhtar Metwally, Ph.D (MD)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

A great effort was made by the authors to utilize the feedback that was provided for them to correct for resubmission

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #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. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I believe that this paper will be useful for future researchers looking at the same topic in Uganda or similar

countries. It demonstrates the pitfalls of using uncritically WHO standards in a rural setting in Uganda and not delving into quality and appropriateness of care.

It points out the need for Ugandan standards of care appropriate for more rural settings. Ultimately, one needs to know which elements of care are given, which ones are relevant and have impact on mortality and morbidity. As such, it is a very first step from which others can learn.

Of course, women coming to hospitals may not be typical of the broader population. For example, there may be more emergency cases and possibly better off women who can afford care.

It shows how challenging this kind of research is. The authors responded well to the suggestions of the reviewers. Dont get discouraged! It is important research.

**********

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: Yes: NANCY E WILLIAMSON

13 May 2022

PONE-D-21-34017R1

Perinatal care in Western Uganda: Prevalence and factors associated with appropriate care among women attending three District Hospitals

Dear Dr. Muwema:

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

Professor Ammal Mokhtar Metwally

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE