Determinants of obstructed labour and its adverse outcomes among women who gave birth in Hawassa University referral Hospital: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Globally, obstructed labour accounted for 22% of maternal morbidities and up to 70% of perinatal deaths. It is one of the most common preventable causes of maternal and perinatal mortality in low-income countries. However, there are limited studies on the determinants of obstructed labor in Ethiopia. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess determinants and outcomes of obstructed labor among women who gave birth in Hawassa University Hospital, Ethiopia.
METHODS: A hospital-based case-control study design was conducted in Hawassa University Hospital among 468 women. All women who were diagnosed with obstructed labour and two consecutive controls giving birth on the same day were enrolled in this study. A pretested data extraction tool was used for data collection from the patient charts. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to identify determinants of obstructed labor.
RESULTS: A total of 156 cases and 312 controls were included with an overall response rate of 96.3%. Women who were primipara [AOR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07, 0.52] and multigravida [AOR 0.17; 95% CI 0.07, 0.41] had lower odds of obstructed labour. While contracted pelvis [AOR 3.98; 95% CI 1.68, 9.42], no partograph utilization [AOR 5.19; 95% CI 1.98, 13.6], duration of labour above 24 hours [AOR 7.61; 95% CI 2.98, 19.8] and estimated distance of 10 to 50 kilometers from the hospital [AOR 3.89; 95% CI 1.14, 13.3] had higher odds. Higher percentage of maternal (65.2%) and perinatal (60%) complications occurred among cases (p-value < 0.05). Obstructed labour accounted for 8.3% of maternal deaths and 39.7% of stillbirth. Uterine rupture, post-partum haemorrhage and sepsis were the common adverse outcomes among cases.
CONCLUSION: Parity, contracted pelvis, non-partograph utilization, longer duration of labour and longer distance from health facilities were determinants of obstructed labour. Maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality due to obstructed labour are higher. Therefore, improvement of partograph utilization to identify complications early, birth preparedness, complication readiness and provision of timely interventions are recommended to prevent such complications.

Background

Globally, more than 303,000 women die every year from pregnancy and childbirth-related causes. Millions of women also suffer from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth like haemorrhage, hypertensive disorders and obstructed labor. For example, in 2015, direct obstetric causes of maternal mortality (MM) accounted for about 86% of all maternal deaths globally [1, 2]. One of the direct obstetric causes of MM is obstructed labour (OL), which is the failure of descent of the fetus in the birth canal for mechanical reasons despite good uterine contractions [3].

Obstructed labour is one of the leading causes of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Despite a rapid drop in global maternal death in the last decades, obstructed labour is still considered a significant challenge [2, 4]. It has a negative economic impact in developing countries due to long hospitalization and scarce resources budgeted for the healthcare system [1, 5–7]. Obstructed labour affects 3 to 6% of labouring women in developing countries [8].

Obstructed labour is responsible for 22% of obstetrical complications, 9% of all maternal deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries, OL is responsible for 24% of maternal deaths. It is also associated with 9% of maternal and perinatal mortality [9]. The burden of OL in Ethiopia is estimated to be 11.79% [10]. However, the prevalence varies across different regions, 46% in Debre Markos hospital [11], 17.5% in Tigray region [12] and 9.6% in Adama hospital, Oromia region [13]. In Ethiopia, OL is associated with 17% of maternal death and 38.08% of still birth based on recent study [14] and 36% of maternal death when combined with uterine rupture [15]. As the result, the issue of OL and maternal and perinatal survival was one of the main focuses of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [16].

Many of the morbidities and deaths due to obstructed labour are preventable and treatable. However, studies showed that the burden of obstructed labour and its adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes appear to be high and remain a common challenge in Ethiopia [13, 17–23]. Different studies conducted across the countries showed that there were different determinants of obstructed labor such as, maternal age, maternal residence, women’s education status, women’s occupational status [24], distance from the hospital /health center, parity, antenatal visit, weeks of gestation at the first visit of antenatal care [24], age at first birth, fetal presentation, history of pregnancy-related complications and birth weight [13, 19, 25].

Therefore, identification of determinants and outcomes of obstructed labour is essential for the reduction of morbidities and mortality associated with OL. There are limited studies conducted in Ethiopia on the determinants of OL and its adverse outcomes. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess the determinants and adverse outcomes of obstructed labour in Hawassa University comprehensive specialized hospital, Southern Ethiopia.

Methods

Study design, setting and population

Unmatched case-control study was conducted in Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (HUCSH), Hawassa city, the capital of Southern Nations Nationalities and People’s Region (SNNPR). Hawassa city is located 275 km south of Addis Ababa (capital city of Ethiopia). HUCSH is one of the largest hospitals in the region and serves as a specialized and teaching hospital. The hospital is offering a full range of comprehensive emergency obstetric care services. The average numbers of births were around 12,456 in the 3 years period from January 1, 2015, to August 31, 2017.

All women who gave birth in HUCSH in the last 3 years before the data collection period were considered as a source population. Whereas, randomly selected women who gave birth in the last 3 years and fulfilled the inclusion criteria were the study population. Cases were women who were diagnosed to have OL by the most senior person (resident and obstetrician), and controls were women who had no obstructed labour in the hospital on the same day as enrolled cases regardless of their mode of delivery. All women who gave birth after 28 weeks of gestation or weight of at least 1000 gm were included in the study. Cases and controls were selected after reviewing of women’s chart, delivery logbook and operation notes. However, women who gave birth with a scheduled cesarean section were not included in this study.

Sample size and sampling procedure

Openepi version 3.01 software was used to calculate the 3 sample size using double population proportion formula, on the assumption of case to control ratio of 1:2, 95% confidence level, Power of 80% and least extreme odds ratio of 2.00 and the sample size is calculated based on for the first objective/ determinants by considering rural resident as determinant factor of OL according to a study done in Ethiopia making the calculated sample size was 329, but by considering 10% nonresponse rate, 363 sample size was estimated. For the adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, a study done in Uganda [26] as maternal complication and perinatal mortality as adverse birth outcome of OL was used, making the largest sample size of 486 sample (S1 File). Thus, his study included a total of 486 women (162 women for cases and 324 women for controls). For cases, the delivery chart of women who gave birth in the hospital in the last three years was randomly selected. For controls, two women were selected after each case. All women’s charts were retrieved from the hospital record office and were cross-checked with the delivery logbook and operating theatre registers.

Variables and measurements

The dependent variable of this study was obstructed labour. Whereas, the independent variables were categorized as socio-demographic factors, obstetric, health facility and fetal factors. The sociodemographic factors included in this study were age, residency and specific district), and obstetrical factors were parity, previous cesarean section, previous stillbirth, antenatal care utilization, gestational age, membrane status and pelvic status. Health facility factors included were partograph follow up, distance from the health facility, duration of labour and source of referral. Fetal factors include were malpresentation, malposition, and weight of the newborn.

Obstructed labour is the failure of descent of the fetus in the birth canal for mechanical reasons despite good uterine contractions [3]. In addition, the inadequate pelvis was diagnosed when the medical team leader (the residents or obstetricians and gynaecologists) assessed the labouring woman and confirms as feto-pelvic disproportion secondary to the contracted pelvis. A contracted pelvis is defined as a pelvis in which one or more of the pelvic diameters are reduced below the normal and that can interfere with the normal mechanism of labour. It is diagnosed using internal pelvimetry such as the sacral promontory is felt easily, or interspinous diameter is touched by 2 examining fingers simultaneously, or bituberous diameter cannot admit the closed fist of the hand or the ischial spines is prominent or the coccyx is not mobile.

Data collection procedure and quality control

Data were collected by using a pretested data extraction tool by reviewing the obstetric records of women who gave birth. Admission history, labour follow up sheet, delivery summary, antenatal care (ANC) follow up sheet and operation notes were used. The data extraction tool was adapted from different related kinds of literatures [18, 21], and was modified to assess the determinants and adverse outcomes of obstructed labour. The questionnaire was prepared in the English language. Two days of training were given for the data collectors and supervisors on the objectives of the study and ways of data collection. Five BSc midwives as data collectors and one MSc Clinical midwife supervisor were recruited in this study. Collected data were checked on daily for completeness and consistency. Three days of training were given for the data collectors and supervisors, focusing on the objective of the study and data collection process.

Data processing and analysis

Data were checked, cleared and entered on Epi Data version 3.1 software and exported to Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software version 20 for further analysis. The proportion of the cases and controls were computed. Variables in bivariable logistic regression with p-value < 0.25 were entered into multivariable logistic regression. Model fitness was checked using Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit test statistics, and it showed that the model was fitted, p-value = 0.46. After the regression analysis, variables with a p-value < 0.05 were used as statistically significant factors and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to measure the strength of association. Maternal and perinatal outcomes of obstructed labour were also examined.

Results

Sociodemographic and prenatal characteristics

A total of 156 out of 162 cases (96.3% and 312 out of 324 controls (96.3%) were included. The Mean age of the women was 26.9 years (SD ± 5.6). In addition, 64% of cases and 217 (69.6%) of controls were in the age group of 20–34 years. Almost 77% of cases and 56.1% of controls reside outside Hawassa. Similarly, 59% of cases were Oromo ethnic group, and fifty-nine (37.8%) of cases were grand-multiparous. Likewise, 66% of cases and 236 (76.4%) of controls had antenatal care visits during the current pregnancy ().

Intrapartum, fetal and health facility-related characteristics

Twenty eight percent of cases had contracted pelvis and 124 (91.1%) of cases had ruptured membranes during labour after admission to the hospital. The progress of labour among 62 (39.7%) of cases and 87 (27.9%) of controls were not monitored using partograph. Nearly 58% of cases were admitted to the hospital for more than 24 hours during labour. Seventy-four (47%) of cases were referred to the hospital from other health institutions and 121 (38.8%) of controls were self-referred (). Cephalopelvic disproportion (38.5% vs. 11.5%) and malpresentation (32.3% vs. 19.9%) were common among cases than controls, respectively. Similarly, 59% of cases and 33.6% of controls were delivered through cesarean section, and 35.9% of cases were delivered by laparatomy (). During laparotomy, total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) was done for 39 (25.7%) of the cases, subtotal hysterectomy was performed for 3 (2%) of cases, and 6 (3.9%) of the cases had uterine repair with bilateral tubal ligation (BTL).

Determinants of obstructed labour

In bivariate analysis, 11 variables were significant and were fitted for multivariable logistic regression with a p-value of < 0.25. After controlling of confounding effect, only 6 variables (parity, pelvic status, partograph utilization, delay of seeking care and estimated distance from the facility) were the significant determinants of OL (). Primiparous women were 81% times [AOR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.52] and multigravida women were 83% times [AOR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.41] less likely to have OL than grand multiparous women. Similarly, women who had contracted pelvis were about 4 times more likely to have the chance of obstructed labour than those who had adequate pelvis [AOR = 3.98, 95% CI: 1.68, 9.42]. Moreover, women whose progress of labour was not monitored with partograph were five times more likely to encounter OL than their counterparts [AOR = 4.93, 95% CI: 0.76, 13.7]. The odds of OL was 7.61 times [AOR = 7.61, 95% CI: 2.98, 19.8] higher among women who had a longer duration of labour (> 24 hrs) before reaching the hospital than those reaching the hospital < 12 hours. The odds of OL were 3.89 times more likely among women who reside within 10–50 kilometers estimated distance from the facility than those who reside below 10 kilometers distance [AOR = 3.89, 95% CI: 1.14, 13.3].

Maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes of obstructed labour

Almost 65% of women who had OL developed at least one form of maternal complications when compared with 56 (17.9%) among women who had no obstructed labour, which accounts for 8.3% of the case fatality ratio (p-value < 0.05). The most common morbidities among women who had OL were long hospital admission (48.9%), uterine rupture (38.5%), post-natal anemia (37.8%), PPH (29.5%) and sepsis (14%), p-value < 0.05. A perinatal complication occurred among 60% of cases and 40% of the controls. Of those, 39.7% of cases and 19.6% of controls had stillbirths, and 20.6% of cases and 23% of the controls had a low Apgar score ().

Discussion

The study assessed the determinants of obstructed labour and its adverse outcomes in southern Ethiopia. Accordingly, different factors that affect the occurrence of obstructed labour were identified. Lower birth order was a protective factor of obstructed labour. In contrary to this finding, previous studies done in Nigeria [27], Rwanda [28], Uganda [26] and Sudan [29] revealed that primiparity was associated with OL. A study conducted in LMICs [30] also showed that gravidity ≥ 2 was protective of OL. This variation might be due to socio-demographic differences and more risk of malpresentation and malposition among primigravida women. Moreover, those women who have lower gravidity may utilize maternal health services than grand multipara women. Hence, women with lower birth order utilize skilled birth attendants earlier than women who had higher birth order and this could consequently improve the health care seeking ability of the woman to prevent obstructed labour. Additionally, it might be also due to higher odds of obesity and macrosomia among women with higher birth order due to decreased levels of physical activity and higher energy intake [31-34]. Moreover, obesity could directly increase the risk of fetal macrosomia [32, 35–37].

Women who had contracted pelvis were more likely to develop OL than women with the adequate pelvis. This finding is supported by other studies [38, 39]. This might be due to mechanical obstruction of the passage of the fetus due to an ill fit between maternal pelvic dimensions and neonatal size at delivery and poor fetal head-to-cervix contact. This might be due to the high burden of malnutrition in childhood in Oromia and SNNPR [40, 41]. Stunting causes a small, flattened pelvis, and being obese in the later life and development of her offspring, might make OL genetically predisposed [42]. Hence, improvements in maternal and child nutrition are essential to prevent OL and improve reproductive outcomes [43-45].

This study also showed that the absence of partograph utilization was significantly increased OL. This is supported by different studies in Ethiopia [19, 25]. This might because partograph helps the health care provider in identifying the slow progress of labour and provides an early warning system for early referral and may also help to initiate appropriate interventions. Hence, proper partograph utilization improves labour outcomes and reduces obstructed labour [46-49]. The study also demonstrated that the odds of OL were higher among women with longer duration of labour (more than 24 hours) before arrival to the health facility than women with shorter duration (less than 12 hours). This finding is consistent with the study done in Oromia, Ethiopia [13]. This might be due to the fact that delay of health-seeking care is known factor of OL due to absence of appropriate timely interventions of prolonged labour or abnormal labor.

In addition, the study also indicated that the higher odds of obstructed labour among women who reside within 10–50 kilometers compared to those who reside below 10 kilometers. This finding is in line with studies done in Tanzania [50] and Ethiopia [24, 25]. This might be due to the fact that women living close to hospitals get life-saving obstetric information and services in labour earlier, reduce delays from referral and treatment, and reduce maternal morbidity.

The study also assessed the adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes among cases and controls. Accordingly, nearly two-thirds of women with OL encountered at least one form of adverse maternal outcomes. This finding is higher than studies done in Nigeria [27], Uganda and Mizan Tepi, Ethiopia [51]. The possible variation might be due to delays in referral and treatment of OL, prolonged labour, study setting, sample size and methodological differences between the studies. However, the finding of this study is lower than studies done in Bangladesh [52], India [53, 54], Suhul hospital, Ethiopia [20], and Metu Karl hospital, Ethiopia [18]. This might be due to the commitment of the hospital to improve maternal healthcare provision, safe surgery with the senior obstetrician and EMONC service.

Besides, this study showed that OL resulted in 8.3% of maternal deaths among cases. This figure is higher than a study done in India, [53, 54], Uganda, [26], Sudan, [29], Nigeria, [55], Tanzania, 2% [50], Bangladesh, [52] and Ethiopia, [20]. However, the findings of the current study were lower than a similar study in Sudan, [56]. This might be due to the high burden of morbidity (uterine rupture, severe anaemia, postpartum haemorrhage and sepsis) among cases, delay in referral and treatment and variation in the study setting. Because the current study was conducted in a tertiary hospital and the number of referred cases may be higher. Moreover, improved diagnosis, transfer, and treatment for OL reduce the rate of maternal mortality [57] by preventing the progression of prolonged labour to OL. Additionally, one-third of women with cases did not get ANC service, therefore, prevents getting birth preparedness and complication readiness (BPCR) intervention. Previous studies conducted in Ethiopia also showed a low percentage of BPCR in Oromia, [58] and SNNPR, [59].

Uterine rupture was also the commonest adverse maternal outcome among cases in the current study than controls. This could be because of prolonged duration of labour, higher previous cesarean section and multiparty among cases than controls. Moreover, above half of women with cases had a longer duration of labour above 24 hours, 34% had previous CS and 56% of women were multiparous in the current study. As the duration of labour increases, the uterus becomes exhausted and the uterine muscle loses its integrity mainly for multiparous and previous CS. This leads to uterine rupture when the condition is exacerbated by a delay in receiving care due to a longer distance from clinical facilities. This is supported by other studies in 40 low-income countries [9], Ethiopia [18–20, 60], Uganda [26] and Sudan [29]. Postpartum anemia is higher in case of obstructed labour due to antepartum and postpartum haemorrhage when it is encountered with uterine rupture [60].

Furthermore, the findings of this study showed that stillbirth was the commonest adverse perinatal outcome among cases (39.7%). This is in line with studies done in Suhl Hospital, Ethiopia [20], Metu Karl hospital, Ethiopia [18] and Sudan [29]. This is likely attributed to difficulties in delivering the fetus during caesarean section. Because the fetal head is impacted in the pelvis and needs a longer operation time. The highest proportion of maternal morbidity, intrapartum asphyxia, delay of referral and lower ANC visit, limited BPCR results in adverse perinatal outcomes. Hence, stillbirth is related with maternal morbidity [61-63] and mortality [64, 65]. But, it is lower than studies done in Pakistan [66] and Ethiopia [19]. This might be due to variation in the study setting, study period and improvements of the care provision. Thus, the provision of a timely maternal and perinatal continuum of care should be an area of improvement to reduce stillbirth.

The study has certain strengths and limitations. Due to the use of a case-control study design, the study was able to determine causal relations between the outcome variable and independent variables and included a relatively larger sample size. However, the findings of this study should be interpreted with some inevitable limitations. The retrospective nature of the study might prevent data collection for some variables like educational level, type of delays, socioeconomic status, nutritional status, and infrastructure of the health facilities as these variables were not registered in women’s obstetric cards. There might be also subjectivity in the diagnosis of OL and in estimating distance from home to health facility. Additionally, the study might underestimate adverse perinatal outcomes. Because, the study was unable to assess some perinatal outcomes mainly neonatal death due to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission and after discharge.

Conclusions

Parity, contracted pelvis, partograph utilization, duration of labour and longer distance from the health facility was significantly associated with obstructed labour. Obstructed labour increased maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Prolonged admission, uterine rupture, post-partum haemorrhage and sepsis were the commonest adverse outcomes of obstructed labour. Encouraging the use of family planning, improving partograph utilization, birth preparedness and complication readiness plan, early referral, diagnosis of OL is recommended. Additionally, community mobilization on the need of complication readiness plan and training for healthcare providers on prevention of obstructed labour at all health facilities is essential.

The sample size determination for determinants and adverse outcomes of obstructed labour.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

The STROBE statement for determinants of obstructed labour.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

14 Oct 2021

Determinants of obstructed labor and its adverse outcomes among women who gave birth in Hawassa University Referral Hospital: A case control study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Desta,

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 respond to the reviewers' thoughtful comments. In particular, please include a description of all the determinants of obstructed labour reported previously in other studies in the background section; elaborate on the sample size; and rewrite the Discussion section . Please correct grammatical and spelling errors.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 25 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,

Nancy Beam, PhD

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "The study protocol was reviewed and approved by Hawassa University, College of Medicine and Health Science Institutional Review Board (IRB) committee with a Ref. No IRB/163/10. Official letter of cooperation was obtained from College of Medicine and Health Science to Hawassa specialized Hospital and permission was secured from medical director. The consent was ***consent was waived by an IRB ***. All study participants charts were reviewed and returned after data extraction. Information obtained in the study was stored confidentially. ".

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee that approved your specific study / waived the need of consent..

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. 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.

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

5. 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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Good study on determiants of OL and its outcomes in Hawassa University Referral Hospital.

Abastract:

In the methods area mention should be made of the fact that the study was based on patient records/charts.

Background:

Authors ought to refer to a similar study conducted by Mulugeta et al. 2020. Reasons as to why the study was done in Hawassa?

Results:

Well presented though the tables appear vebe very long.

Discussion:

Please authors include freference to a study by Mululeta Dile et al. (2020) titled: Determinants of obstructed labour among women attending intrapartum care in Amhara Region NW Ethiopia: a hospital based unmatched case-control study.

In the the limitations there is no mention about missing data which is common iin use of secondary data.

Conclusion:

Strong recommendation on the use of family planning though relevant but does not come directly from the data.

General comment: authors should try and correct the spelling and grammatical errors.

Reviewer #2: 1. Generally, the article is very important to share with the wider community as it addresses determinants of obstructed

labour which is one of the direct causes of maternal deaths. Knowing the determinants of obstructed labour will help to put measures that will improve maternal health and ultimately reduce maternal mortality.

2. The abstract is more than 300 words based on journal guidelines, try to reduce redundant words.

3. There were a lot of grammatical errors throughout the documents. Needs to revise the whole document.

4. Background: The authors need to unpack and describe all the determinants of obstructed labour reported previously in other studies in the background section,.

5. Ethic: In Ethics statement line 4, correct repeated word, “consent was”

6. Sample size: The sample size calculation is not well computed; This is a case control study and decided to take a ratio of 1:2, how did you arrive with a total number of 486 women (162 women for cases and 324 women for controls)?. This should be well elaborated

7. Methods: In the Method section, under “Study design, setting and population” line 14..This sentence is not clear, “All women who gave birth after 28 weeks of gestation or weight of at least 1000 gm were included in the study”

8. Discussion: In this section: For the reader to follow, it is best to give the summary of key important findings in the first paragraph, and in the subsequent paragraphs to continue discussing your findings by comparing with other previously reported studies. It is also important to minimize repeating describing your findings in the discussion section. The discussion of your findings should be explicitly discussed since then all your results have been well elaborated in your results section. Eg. “The absence of partograph utilization observed in this study as one of the major determinant factors of OL was also reported in other studies in Ethiopia”. In addition, avoid reporting the odds ratio, percentages ( %), CI, P-Values in the discussion part. Just report in wording the interpretation of your findings and compare them with other previous studies. Prefer to speak, half of.., a third of.. rather than 50.3%, etc.

9. Some abbreviations have not been fully expressed at first use like “NICU”

10. Conclusion support the data presented in the study

11. For Table 3: (Determinants of obstructed labour in Hawassa Referral Hospital, Ethiopia); since it is long, no need for the subheading, just leave it for it to continue as it is.

12. Maintain continuity of the layout of all tables as instructed by the journal, Table 4 has a different layout compared with other tables.

13. It is advisable to follow the journal guidelines: For the PLOS one, the manuscript should be double spaced, with line numbers etc…

14. Revise your reference list to be consistent, eg. Number 50. The authors' list has small capitals.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

24 Nov 2021

Dear editors and reviewers

We would like to extend our deepest appreciation for devoting your time to review our manuscript entitled " Determinants of obstructed labor and its adverse outcomes among women who gave birth in Hawassa University Referral Hospital: A case control study”. Globally, obstructed labour accounted for 12% of maternal death and most of the maternal morbidity and perinatal mortality. It is one of the most common preventable causes of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in developing countries.

Many of deaths and morbidities due to obstructed labour are entirely preventable and treatable. For this, the Ethiopian government had performed different activities. However, studies showed that adverse feto- maternal outcomes appear to be high and a common challenge in Ethiopia , the leading cause of maternal mortality in the with uterine rupture. Even though, the predictors associated with obstructed labour are scarce in Ethiopia. Determining the determinants of obstructed labor, maternal and perinatal outcomes of obstructed labour in our setting remains paramount to reduce the mortality and its morbidity. This study may be used for policy makers and a means of achieving the SDG target fetomaternal deaths from 2030. Therefore, this study was aimed to assess determinants of obstructed labor and its adverse outcomes of obstructed labor among women who gave birth in Hawassa teaching hospital, Southern Ethiopia.

Dear reviewer, there has been a major revision of this manuscript (Abstract, introduction, methods, results discussion and conclusions). The language has been extensively examined to correct grammatical and spelling inconsistencies and the whole structure of the manuscript has been revised. We hope now the manuscript is clear and more acceptable than its previous version. We have tried to present the paper in proper manner according to your comment what to supposed to do so. For this, here we have given our responses to each of the concerns you raised, highlighted by red color. Again, we would like to remind our strongest gratitude for your effort for the improvement of this manuscript and all the points were addressed below.

Regards

Reviewer # 1

General comment: authors should try and correct the spelling and grammatical errors.

Response: thank you for your scholarly comments and suggestions.

Abstract: In the methods area mention should be made of the fact that the study was based on patient records/charts.

Response: accepted, the fact that the study was based on patient records/charts was putted.

Background: authors ought to refer to a similar study conducted by Mulugeta et al. 2020. Reasons as to why the study was done in Hawassa?

Response: Thanks for the scholarly comments. Actually, the paper published by Mulugeta D et al. was published in 2020, access in the year 2020, while our study was conducted in 2018. Again, there was difference in the study setting in which that was mulugeta’s was in Amhara region referral hospitals and ours was in Southern region.

Discussion: Please authors include reference to a study by Mulugeta Dile et al. (2020) titled: Determinants of obstructed labour among women attending intrapartum care in Amhara Region NW Ethiopia: a hospital based unmatched case-control study.

Response: accepted and revision was made.

In the limitations there is no mention about missing data which is common in use of secondary data.

Response: accepted and it is already included as “The retrospective nature of the study might prevent data collection for some variables like educational level, type of delays, socioeconomic status, nutritional status, and infrastructure of the health facilities as these variables were not registered in women’s obstetric cards.”

Conclusion: Strong recommendation on the use of family planning though relevant but does not come directly from the data.

Response: Accepted, but the recommendations is an area of implications based on the findings. Hence, low birth order is a prevention for obstructed labor, top reduce multiparity utilization of family planning is paramount and better to be recommended.

Reviewer #2: 1. Generally, the article is very important to share with the wider community as it addresses determinants of obstructed labour which is one of the direct causes of maternal deaths. Knowing the determinants of obstructed labour will help to put measures that will improve maternal health and ultimately reduce maternal mortality.

Response: thank you for your interest on the area of interest.

2. The abstract is more than 300 words based on journal guidelines, try to reduce redundant words.

Response: accepted and revision was made.

3. There were a lot of grammatical errors throughout the documents. Needs to revise the whole document.

Response: Thank you very much and overall revision of the document was made.

4. Background: The authors need to unpack and describe all the determinants of obstructed labour reported previously in other studies in the background section.

Response: accepted and remained determinants were incorporated.

5. Ethic: In Ethics statement line 4, correct repeated word, “consent was”

Response: accepted and repeated word was removed.

6. Sample size: The sample size calculation is not well computed; This is a case control study and decided to take a ratio of 1:2, how did you arrive with a total number of 486 women (162 women for cases and 324 women for controls)? This should be well elaborated.

Response: description of sample size calculation was narrated.

7. Methods: In the Method section, under “Study design, setting and population” line 14...This sentence is not clear, “All women who gave birth after 28 weeks of gestation or weight of at least 1000 gm were included in the study”.

Response: we tried to explain to describe the deliveries after viability in Ethiopia context that is deliveries after 28 weeks or live births weights 1000 gm.

8. Discussion: In this section: For the reader to follow, it is best to give the summary of key important findings in the first paragraph, and in the subsequent paragraphs to continue discussing your findings by comparing with other previously reported studies. It is also important to minimize repeating describing your findings in the discussion section. The discussion of your findings should be explicitly discussed since then all your results have been well elaborated in your results section. Eg. “The absence of partograph utilization observed in this study as one of the major determinant factors of OL was also reported in other studies in Ethiopia”. In addition, avoid reporting the odds ratio, percentages ( %), CI, P-Values in the discussion part. Just report in wording the interpretation of your findings and compare them with other previous studies. Prefer to speak, half of.., a third of.. Rather than 50.3%, etc.

Response: Thank you for the highly scholarly comments and revision was made. We have putting the interpretation of the findings and compare them with other previous studies and the odds ratio, percentages ( %), CI, P-Values in the discussion part is avoided.

9. Some abbreviations have not been fully expressed at first use like “NICU”

Response: accepted and revision was made.

10. For Table 3: (Determinants of obstructed labour in Hawassa Referral Hospital, Ethiopia); since it is long, no need for the subheading, just leave it for it to continue as it is.

Response: accepted and subheadings were removed from the Table 3.

12. Maintain continuity of the layout of all tables as instructed by the journal, Table 4 has a different layout compared with other tables.

Response: accepted and revision was made. we have make the layout of Table 4 similar with other tables seems like.

13. It is advisable to follow the journal guidelines: For the PLOS one, the manuscript should be double spaced, with line numbers etc…

Response: accepted and revision was made and line number was provided.

14. Revise your reference list to be consistent, eg. Number 50. The authors' list has small capitals.

Response: It is corrected and revised.

Submitted filename: Reviewer respnose for Plos .docx

Click here for additional data file.

19 Jan 2022

Determinants of obstructed labour and its adverse outcomes among women who gave birth in Hawassa University Referral Hospital: A case-control study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Melaku Desta,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 05 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Veneranda Masatu Bwana, MD, MSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. Congrats to the authors for improving the manuscript. However, some of the comments from the reviews have not been satisfied.

2. The abstract is still more than 300 words. The abstract has a number of irrelevant words which could be omitted. Eg, in the Methods paragraph, words like… “ odds ratio/CI/ Statistical significance was declared when the p-value was less than 0.05” are not necessary to mention here. I will advise the authors to revisit the abstract again to be clear, short, and precise to comply with the journal requirements.

3. Some grammatical errors and tenses have not yet been satisfied, eg. “…sample size is …” instead of “…sample size was….”. Revise the whole document to clear all the minor spelling and tenses.

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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: Determinants of obstructed labour_comments.doc

Click here for additional data file.

4 Feb 2022

Dear editors of PLOS one

We would like to extend our deepest appreciation for devoting your time to review our manuscript entitled " Determinants of obstructed labor and its adverse outcomes among women who gave birth in Hawassa University Referral Hospital: A case control study”. Globally, obstructed labour accounted for 12% of maternal death and most of the maternal morbidity and perinatal mortality. It is one of the most common preventable causes of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in developing countries.

Many of deaths and morbidities due to obstructed labour are entirely preventable and treatable. For this, the Ethiopian government had performed different activities. However, studies showed that adverse feto- maternal outcomes appear to be high and a common challenge in Ethiopia , the leading cause of maternal mortality in the with uterine rupture. Even though, the predictors associated with obstructed labour are scarce in Ethiopia. Determining the determinants of obstructed labor, maternal and perinatal outcomes of obstructed labour in our setting remains paramount to reduce the mortality and its morbidity. This study may be used for policy makers and a means of achieving the SDG target fetomaternal deaths from 2030. Therefore, this study was aimed to assess determinants of obstructed labor and its adverse outcomes of obstructed labor among women who gave birth in Hawassa teaching hospital, Southern Ethiopia.

Dear reviewer, there has been a minor revision of this manuscript. The reference list has been extensively reviewed to ensure its completeness and to correct inconsistencies. We hope now the manuscript is clear and more acceptable than its previous version. We have tried to present the paper in proper manner according to your comment what to supposed to do so. For this, here we have given our responses to each of the concerns you raised, highlighted by red color. Again, we would like to remind our strongest gratitude for your effort for the improvement of this manuscript and all the points were addressed below.

Regards

Submitted filename: Final response for Plos .docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 May 2022

Determinants of obstructed labour and its adverse outcomes among women who gave birth in Hawassa University Referral Hospital: A case-control study

PONE-D-21-03875R2

Dear Dr. Desta,

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,

Veneranda Masatu Bwana, MD, MSc, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #3: Title: Determinants of obstructed labour and its adverse outcomes among women who gave birth in Hawassa University Referral Hospital: A case-control study

�  It is an interesting topic in developing countries.

Abstract:

�  Is ok. Except for the recommendation part that needs revision.

Background:

�  The last statement of the 1st paragraph … obstructed cases, must be corrected as Obstetric causes.

�  Second paragraph.. In Ethiopia, OL is associated with 3% of maternal death, 37.5% to 70% of perinatal deaths [9], and 36% of maternal death in Ethiopia. Why is this variation in the contribution of OL to maternal death? Which one is more likely true to cite?

�  The background is better rewritten as first the global perspective, then regional and national. In this case, it is not organized in this way. More recent literature on the title has to be included.

Method:

�  The study population is stated as… “Randomly selected women who gave birth in the last 3 years and fulfilled the inclusion criteria were the study population” how many OL was in the past three years to randomly collect the study population from?

�  How were the cases and controls identified? This must have been described in the data collection procedure part.

�  The criteria put under the definition of OL and clinical pelvimetry are not correct and confusing, and it has to follow only the standard definition that is put under the introduction.

�  Why were preterm included? It is less likely to have obstructed labor in preterm.

Result:

�  Why 156 out of 162? The reason has to be explained. Was the information incomplete or what?

�  Terms like more than half, two-third, etc, have to be avoided and the exact figure has to be described

�  The finding..More than one-fourth (28.2%) of cases had contracted pelvis.. is an unusual finding. It is overinflated.

�  The classification of gestational age in table 2 to <42 wks and > or =42 wks is not appropriate. Further classification is needed. You may consider <37 wks, 37 to 42 wks, and >42 wks. Similarly, you have to choose one classification for birth weight. The latter is appropriate (Table3). Do all the women know their gestational age or LNMP? You didn’t use another surrogate to estimate gestational age.

�  What would be the explanation for the finding…. Primiparous women were 81% times [AOR= 0.19, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.52] and multigravida women were 83% times [AOR = 0.17, 95 % CI: 0.07, 0.41] less likely to have OL than grand multiparous women. Is primigravida not at risk of having OL than multigravida?

�  Another query..Similarly, women who had contracted pelvis were about 4 times more likely to have the chance of obstructed labour than those who had adequate pelvis [AOR = 3.98, 95% CI: 1.68, 9.42].. Do you mean that there are no women with contracted pelvis who didn’t develop OL? Women with contracted pelvis will have 100% OL if it is not intervened timely. That is why I said the diagnosis of the contracted pelvis is overinflated. Could there be a diagnosis difficulty, the skill to diagnose??

�  What about those far than 50 KMs? …. The odds of OL were 3.89 times more likely among women who reside within 10-50 kilometers estimated distance from the facility than those who reside below 10 kilometers distance [AOR= 3.89, 95% CI: 1.14, 13.3]. you may need to reclassify as >/=10KMs and do the analysis again.

How was it possible to get the distance in KMs from the retrospective review?

Discussion:

This discussion in the first paragraph needs correction….A study conducted in LMICs [31] also showed that gravidity ≥ 2 was protective of OL. This variation might be due to socio-demographic differences and the lower risk of malpresentation and malposition among primigravida women… We rather expect more malpresentation and malposition in primigravida.

The discussion part needs revision and the content must be seen carefully.

Conclusion:

Must be shortened and specific.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #3: No

14 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-03875R2

Determinants of obstructed labour and its adverse outcomes among women who gave birth in Hawassa University Referral Hospital: A case-control study

Dear Dr. Desta:

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. Veneranda Masatu Bwana

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Sociodemographic and antenatal characteristics of women who gave birth in HUCSH from 2015–2017.

Sociodemographic and prenatal characteristics of participants in HUCSH, 2018.

Variables	Category	Case (%)	Control (%)	P-value
Age	< 20 year	30 (19.2)	48 (15.4)	0.056
	20–34 year	100 (64.1)	217 (69.6)
	≥ 35 year	26 (16.4)	47 (15.1)
Residence	Outside Hawassa	120 (76.9)	175 (56.1)	0.004
	Hawassa	36 (23.1)	137 (43.9)
Ethnicity	Sidama	45 (28.8)	144 (46.2)	0.34
	Oromo	92 (59)	124 (39.7)
	Amhara	17 (10.9)	30 (9.6)
	Others	2 (1.3)	14 (4.5)
Parity	One	41 (26.3)	114 (36.5)	0.0001
	2–4	56 (35.9)	144 (46.2)
	≥ 5	59 (37.8)	54 (17.3)
Previous scar	Yes	40 (34.8)	71 (35.9)	0.54
	No	75 (65.2)	127 (64.1)
Previous stillbirth	Yes	21 (18.3)	10 (5.1)	0.27
	No	94 (81.7)	188 (94.9)
Diabetes in recent pregnancy	Yes	8 (5.1)	16 (5.1)	0.086
	No	148 (94.9)	296 (94.9)
ANC visit	Yes	103 (66)	236 (76.4)	0.035
	No	53 (34)	73 (23.6)
Frequency of ANC	< 4 visit	62 (60.2)	103 (42.9)	0.001
	≥ 4 visit	41 (39.8)	133 (57.1)

Others—Gurage, Gedeo, wolayita

Table 2

Intrapartum and health facility factors of obstructed labour among women who gave birth in HUCSH from 2015–2017.

Intrapartum, and health facility characteristics of obstructed labour in HUCSH, 2018.

Variables	Category	Cases (%)	Controls (%)	P-value
Gestational age	< 42 week	126 (83.7)	239 (85.7)	0.054
	≥ 42 week	21 (16.3)	40 (14.3)
Pelvis status	Contracted	44 (28.2)	35 (11.2)	0.004
	Unknown	28 (17.9)	36 (11.5)
	Adequate	84 (53.8)	241 (77.2)
Fetal membrane status	PROM	14 (9)	39 (12.5)	0.001
	Rupture in labour	142 (91.1)	121 (38.8)
	Intact	0	152 (48.7)
Sex of newborn	Male	108 (69.2)	182 (58.3)	0.46
	Female	48 (30.8)	130 (41.7)
Birth weight	< 4000 g	119 (76.3)	278 (87.4)
	≥ 4000 g	37 (23.7)	40 (12.8)	0.02
Partograph utilization	Yes	13 (8.3)	140 (44.9)	0.0001
	Unknown	81(51.9)	85 (27.2)
	No	62 (39.7)	87 (27.9)
Duration of labour	> 24 hr	90 (57.7)	62 (19.9)	0.02
	12–24 hr	50 (32.1)	103 (33)
	< 12 hr	16 (10.2)	147 (47.1)
Source of referral	Self	21 (13.5)	121 (38.8)	0.37
	Healthcenter	61 (39.1)	117 (37.5)
	Hospital	74 (47.4)	74 (23.7)
Estimated distance from home to facility	< 10 km	17 (10.9)	130 (41.7)	0.007
	10–50 km	46 (29.5)	79 (25.3)
	> 50 km	93 (59.6)	103 (33)

Table 3

Determinants of obstructed labour in Hawassa referral Hospital, among women who gave birth in HUCSH from 2015–2017.

Determinants of obstructed labour in HUCSH, southern Ethiopia, 2018.

Variables	Category	Cases	Controls	COR [95%CI]	AOR [95%CI]
Resident	Outside Hawassa	120	175	2.6 (1.69, 4.03)*	0.43 (0.17, 1.03)
	Hawassa	36	137	1	1
Gravidity	One	41	114	0.33 (.19, 0.55)*	0.19 (0.07, 0.52)
	2–4	56	144	0.35 (0.22, 0.58)*	0.17 (0.07, 0.41)
	≥ 5	59	54	1	1
ANC visit	yes	103	236	0.6 (0.39, 0.92)*	1.03 (0.04, 25.3)
	No	53	73	1	1
Frequency of ANC	< 4 visit	103	62	1.99 (1.25, 3.18)*	1.23 (0.61, 2.46)
	≥ 4 visit	137	41	1	1
Gestational age	< 42 week	126	239	1.0041(0.06, 1.34)	0.39 (0.02, 0.59)
	≥ 42 week	21	40	1	1
pelvic status	Contracted	44	35	3.61 (2.17, 5.99)*	3.98 (1.68, 9.42)
	Unknown	28	36	2.23 (1.28, 3.88)*	1.79 (0.67, 4.79)
	Adequate	84	241	1	1
Sex	Male	108	182	1.6 (1.07, 2.42)*	0.92 (0.45, 1.88)
	Female	48	130	1	1
Birth weight	2500–4000 g	119	278	0.47 (0.39, 1.05)*	0.71 (0.31, 1.63)
	≥ 4000 g	37	40	1	1
Partograph utilization	Yes	13	140	1	1
	Unknown	81	85	10.2 (5.38, 19.5)*	4.93 (0.76, 13.7)
	No	62	87	7.67 (3.98, 14.7)*	5.19 (1.98, 13.6)
Duration of labour	> 24 hr	90	62	13.4 (7.25, 24.5)*	7.61 (2.98, 19.8)
	12–24 hr	50	103	4.46 (2.41, 8.26)*	1.39 (0.57, 3.39)
	< 12 hr	16	147	1	1
Source of referral	Self	21	121	0.17 (0.09, 0.31)*	1.06 (0.32, 3.58)
	Healthcenter	61	117	0.52 (0.33, 0.82)*	1.33 (0.59, 2.98)
	Hospital	74	74	1	1
Estimated distance	< 10 km	17	130	1	1
	10–50 km	46	79	4.45 (2.39, 8.29)*	3.89 (1.14, 13.3)
	> 50 km	93	103	6.9 (3.87, 12.3) *	3.89 (0.91, 16.6)

* Shows variables selected for multi variable logistic regression at p< 0.25

Significant factors at p-value < 0.05

Table 4

Maternal and perinatal outcomes of obstructed labour in Hawassa University specialized Hospital, Southern Ethiopia.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes of obstructed labour in Hawassa University specialized Hospital, Southern Ethiopia.

Variables	Cases (%)	Controls (%)	P-value
Maternal complication	102 (65.2)	56 (17.9)	0.01
Maternal death	13 (8.3)	6 (1.9)	0.035
Post partum haemorrhage	64 (29.5)	13 (4.2)	0.045
Sepsis	22 (14)	16 (5.3)	<0.0001
uterine rupture	60 (38.5)	28 (9)	0.023
Bladder rupture	3 (1.9)	1(0.03)	0.06
Post-natal anemia	59 (37.8)	38 (12.2)	0.17
Shock	33 (21.2)	21(6.7)	0.25
Fistula	13 (8.3)	4 (1.3)	<0.001
Transfusion	37 (23.7)	31 (9.9)	0.18
Hysterectomy	52 (33.3)	28 (9)	0.0057
Long hospital admission	70 (48.9)	63 (21.4)	0.039
Perinatal complication	94 (60)	128 (40)	0.0035
Stillbirth	72 (46.2)	51 (16.3)	0.023
Low Apgar score	57 (23.1)	19 (20.6)	0.35
NICU admission	12 (12.5)	27 (10)	0.46