Utilization of maternal waiting home and associated factors among women who gave birth in the last one year, Dabat district, Northwest Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Maternal mortality and adverse pregnancy outcomes are still challenges in developing countries. In Ethiopia, long distances and lack of transportation are the main geographic barriers for pregnant women to utilize a skilled birth attendant. To alleviate this problem, maternity waiting homes are a gateway for women to deliver at the health facilities, thereby helping towards the reduction of the alarming maternal mortality trend and negative pregnancy outcomes. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the utilization of maternity waiting homes in the study area. Therefore, this study aimed to assess utilization of maternity waiting home services and associated factors among mothers who gave birth in the last year in Dabat district, northwest Ethiopia.
METHODS: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from January 5 to February 30, 2019. A total of 402 eligible women were selected using a simple random sampling technique. Data were collected using a structured, pre-tested, and interviewer-administered questionnaire through face-to-face interviews. Data were entered into EPI info version 7.1.2 and exported to SPSS version 20 for analysis. Both bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted. Statistically significant associations between variables were determined based on the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with its 95% confidence interval and p-value of ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS: Maternity waiting home utilization by pregnant women was found to be 16.2% (95% CI: 13, 20). The mothers' age (26-30 years) (AOR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08,0.69), primary level of education (AOR = 9.05; 95% CI: 3.83, 21.43), accepted length of stay in maternity waiting homes (AOR = 3.15; 95% CI: 1.54, 6.43), adequate knowledge of pregnancy danger signs (AOR = 7.88; 95% CI: 3.72,16.69), jointly decision on the mother's health (AOR = 2.76; 95% CI: 1.08,7.05), and getting people for household activities (AOR = 2.59, 95% CI: 1.21, 5.52) had significant association with maternity waiting home utilization.
CONCLUSION: In this study, maternity waiting home utilization was low. Thus, expanding a strategy to improve women's educational status, health education communication regarding danger signs of pregnancy, empowering women's decision-making power, and shortening the length of stay at maternity waiting homes may enhance maternity waiting home utilization.

Introduction

Maternity waiting homes (MWH) are temporary residences in which high-risk pregnant women or women residing far from healthcare facilities can wait in their last few weeks of pregnancy before giving birth. It is an effective strategy to promote safe delivery by a skilled health provider and help rapidly access emergency obstetric care when a complication arises [1].

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the majority of births have been attended without a skilled healthcare provider. As a result, in 2017, there were about 196, 000 maternal deaths in the region, which accounts for 66% of the global maternal death rate [2]. Ethiopia is also one of the SSA countries with low maternal health service utilization and a high maternal mortality ratio. Thus, the facility’s birth rates are as low as 28%, and about 1400 maternal deaths occur annually [2].

Although there has been a remarkable decrement in maternal mortality ratio (from 871 in 2000 to 401 per 100, 000 live births in 2019), Ethiopia is still among the top countries having the highest maternal death record globally [3]. Furthermore, maternal health service coverage has increased only slightly, with antenatal care (ANC) and skilled birth attendant coverage increasing by 62% and 26%, respectively, in 2016 [4]. However, there is a mismatch between ANC and skilled birth attendance coverage. This suggests that women receiving ANC were giving birth at home for a variety of reasons, including long distances to reach a health facility, delayed transportation, and/or family influences [5-8]. According to available evidence, 70% of health centers in Ethiopia and 73% in the Amhara region had MWHs [9], which is close to the Ethiopian reproductive health strategic plan (RHSP). The RHSP was targeted to equip 75% of health centers with MWH by 2020 [10]. However, the availability and utilization of MWHS are limited, in that, only 44% of women utilize MWHS in Ethiopia [9].

Even though the risk of pregnancy varies from one mother to another, any woman may develop unexpected complications during pregnancy and childbirth [11]. So, for timely and appropriate intervention, expanding MWHS utilization is a precious strategy. As a result, the establishment of MWH at each health center is strongly recommended and supported by the World Health Organization (WHO), particularly in developing countries [12]. Studies have shown that MWHS have a significant role in reducing maternal and perinatal mortalities [8, 13]. It has been evidenced that utilization of MWHS reduces maternal mortality by 80% and stillbirth rates by 73% in developing countries [8]. Another study in Ethiopia found that hospitals with MWHS reduced perinatal mortality by 47% and direct obstetric complications by 49% [14]. In addition, it urges women to use maternal healthcare services like skilled birth attendants and other comprehensive emergency obstetrics care, thereby reducing negative pregnancy outcomes [13, 15, 16]. Moreover, MWHS can decrease the gap between urban-rural maternal health service utilization [5].

In Ethiopia, there are limited governmental reports and published studies on actual MWHS utilization. Some of the published studies focus merely on the physical establishment of MWH at health institutions rather than utilization [9, 14]. Some other studies focus on the intention to use rather than the actual utilization of MWHS [17-21]. Although some other studies conducted on the utilization of MWHS, they collected the data at health institutions [22], and failed to address the reasons for the non-utilization of MWHS for home-delivered women. As a result, this study will add further important information on the utilization of MWH to be revised timely at every level to fill the possible gaps. Therefore, the current study was aimed to assess the utilization of MWHS and associated factors in northwest Ethiopia.

Method and materials

Study design, setting, and period

A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from January 5 to February 30, 2019. The study was conducted in Dabat district, Amhara regional state, northwest Ethiopia, which is located about 245 km northwest of Bahir Dar (the capital city of Amhara regional state), and 70 km away from Gondar city. Dabat district has six administrative sub-divisions. Besides, there are a total of six health centers (one in each subdivision) in which only the four sub-divisions have maternity waiting homes.

Study population

All women who gave birth in the last year before the study period in the selected clusters were the study population. Women who were seriously ill throughout the data collection period were excluded.

Sample size determination and sampling procedure

The sample size for this study was determined by using a single proportion formula by considering the following assumptions; the prevalence of MWHs, 38.7%[18], 95% level of confidence, and a 5% margin of error. Therefore, . Where, n = required sample sizes, α = level of significance, z = standard normal distribution curve value for 95% confidence level = 1.96, p = proportion of maternity waiting home utilization, and d = margin of error. By considering a 10% non-response rate, the final minimum adequate sample size was 402. Dabat district has 6 administrative subdivisions, of these, only four of the subdivisions have MWH. A survey was conducted in the four subdivisions of the district with the assistance of health extension workers to identify women who were eligible for the study. Following the identification of the study population, a sampling frame was designed by compiling the list of all women in the four districts. Proportional allocation was done to each of the four subdivisions to draw the final sample size. Lastly, the study subjects were selected by using a simple random sampling technique (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Schematic presentation of the sampling procedure among women who gave birth in the last one year prior to the study period in Dabat District, North West, Ethiopia, 2019.

Study variables

Dependent variable

Utilization of MWHS (utilized/ not utilized)

Independent variables

Socio-demographic characteristics; Age of the mother, religion, marital status, occupation, educational status, partner’s educational status, time taken to reach health facilities, transportation access to the health facilities, affordability of transport cost, way of transportation.

Reproductive health and obstetrics related; Decision power of mother on own health, number of live birth, history of stillbirth, the birthplace of the last child, number of ANC visits of the last pregnancy, planned or unplanned pregnancy, place of ANC visit, information on birth preparedness plan, knowledge of danger sign during pregnancy, and awareness of expected date of delivery.

Social and behavioral factors: possibility of getting people for household activities, getting people for a chilled caregiver, perceived the two-four weeks’ duration stay before labor at MWH is acceptable, the possibility of being away from the work.

Operational definitions

Maternity waiting home utilization

Those women who stayed in the MWH before delivery starting from 24 weeks of pregnancy duration and above in the last pregnancy [1].

Knowledge on danger sign of pregnancy

A woman who list out three and more danger signs of pregnancy (Vaginal bleeding, gush of fluid per vagina, severe abdominal pain, high grade fever, fainting, decreased fetal movement, blurred vision, severe headache, edema or body swelling) was considered as knowledgeable [23-25].

Accepted length of stay

Women’s perception of the length of two-four weeks is optimal.

Data collection tools and procedures

Data were collected using a pre-tested, semi-structured, and interviewer-administered questionnaire through face-to-face interviews. The study tool was prepared by reviewing related literature [18, 23, 26]. The questionnaire was first developed in English and then translated into the Amharic language, and then back to English to keep its consistency. Four diploma and one BSc midwives were employed for data collection and supervision, respectively.

Data quality assurance

Before the actual date collection period, a pretest was done on 5% of the calculated sample size outside of the study area. Data collectors were trained on data collection techniques for one day. Supervision was followed regularly during the data collection period, and the collected data were checked daily for completeness and consistency.

Data processing and analysis

Data cleaning was performed to check for accuracy, completeness, consistencies, and missing values. After the data had been checked for completeness and accuracy, it was coded manually and then entered into Epi-Info version 7.1.2 and exported to SPSS version 20 for analysis. Descriptive data were presented by tables, graphs, charts, frequencies, and proportions. Binary logistic regression was used to identify statistically significant independent variables, and variables having a p-value of ≤0.25 in the bivariable logistic regression analysis were included in the multivariable logistic regression analysis to adjust for possible confounding factors. The adjusted odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval was used to determine the degree and direction of association between covariates and the outcome variable. The level of significance in the last model was declared at a p-value of ≤ 0.05.

Ethical consideration

Ethical clearance was obtained from the school of midwifery Ethical Review Committee under the delegation of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Gondar with reference number (SMIDW/19/498/2018). A formal letter of approval was taken from Dabat district administrative health office. The purpose of the study was explained to the study participants, and written informed consent was obtained from every study participant before data collection. For participants aged <18, written informed assent was taken from their parents.

Result

Socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants

A total of 402 women were participated in this study, with a response rate of 100%. The mean age of the study participants was 29.58 years (SD ±7.9) and 110 (27.4%) of them were in the age group of 26–30 years. The majority, 343 (85%) of the study participants and 208 (51%) of their husbands have no formal education. About 95 (23.6%) mothers traveled for more than two hours to reach the nearest health facility (Table 1).

Table 1

Sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants in Dabat district northwest Ethiopia, 2019.

Variable	Number	Percent
Age
≤20	14	3.5
21–25	103	25.6
26–30	110	27.4
31–35	90	22.4
≥36	85	21.1
Marital status
Unmarried	30	7.5
Married	372	92.5
level of education
No formal education	343	85.3
Primary education	47	11.7
Secondary and above	12	3
Mothers occupation
Marchant	132	32.84
Farmer	249	61.94
Employee	21	5.22
Husband/father of child/ Level of education
No formal education	208	51.74
Primary education	124	30.85
Secondary and above	70	17.41
Time taken to the nearest Health center
≤ 30 min	82	20.40
31-60min	84	20.90
61–90 min	91	22.63
91-120min	50	12.44
≥121 min	95	23.63
Accessibility of transportation
Easy to gate	67	16.7
Hard to gate	335	83.3
Affordability of transport cost
Affordable	307	76.4
Not affordable	95	23.6
Way of transport if childbirth complications happen
By car or Ambulance	182	45.3
Traditional means of transport	220	54.7

Reproductive and obstetrics related variables

One hundred ninety-one (47.5%) of the study participants had a joint decision with their husbands on their health. More than one-third, 148 (36.8%) of the study participants had three to four children, and 102 (25.4%) of the study participants had a history of stillbirth. Three-hundred fifty (81.7%) study participants had two or more ANC visits in their most recent pregnancy, and 167 (41.5%) women gave their last birth at home. Two-hundred fifty-eight (64.2%) of the study participants had planned pregnancies. However, only 145 (35.8%) of the study participants know about the danger signs of pregnancy (Table 2).

Table 2

Reproductive and obstetric related factors of the study participants in Dabat district, north west Ethiopia, 2019.

Variable	Number	Percent
Decision on maternal health
Mother	89	22.1
Husband	122	30.3
Jointly	191	47.5
Total live birth
≤2	129	32.1
3–4	148	36.8
≥5	125	31.1
Total no of pregnancy
1–3	187	46.5
4–5	112	27.9
≥6	103	25.6
History of IUFD/Stillbirth
NO	300	74.6
YES	102	25.4
Number of ANC visit
One or no ANC visit	52	12.9
Two and more ANC Visit	350	87.1
Awareness on EDD
No	128	31.8
Yes	274	68.2
Last pregnancy status
Planed	258	64.2
Not planed	144	35.8
Information on Berth preparedness plan
Yes	316	21.4
No	86	78.6
Knowledge on Danger signs of pregnancy
Not knowledgeable	257	63.9
Knowledgeable	145	35.8
Birth place for the current child
Health institution	235	58.5
Home	167	41.5

Social and behavioral characteristics

One hundred forty-nine (37.1%) study participants perceived the specified waiting time at MWHS as an acceptable time. About 71.9%, 71.6%, and 62.5% of the study participants could not easily get any person for the household activities, child caregiver, and attendant at MWHS, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3

Social and behavioral factors for MWHs utilization, Dabat district, northwest Ethiopia, 2019.

Variable	Number	Percent
Acceptability of two-four weeks waiting time
Acceptable	149	37.1
Not acceptable	253	62.9
Possibility of getting people for house holed activities
Possible	113	28.1
Not possible	289	71.9
Possibility of getting people for a child caregiver
Possible	114	28.4
Not possible	288	71.6
Possibility of getting attendants at MWHS
Possible	140	34.8
Not possible	262	65.2

Information on maternity waiting home service

Three hundred eleven (77.4%) study participants have information on the maternity waiting home service. However, more than one-fourth (26.6%) of the study participants didn’t know the location of maternity waiting homes (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Information about Utilization of maternity waiting home among women who gave birth in the last on year prior to the study period in Dabat District, north west Ethiopia, 2019.

Maternal waiting home utilization

Of the total study participants, only 16.2% (95% CI: 13, 20) of women used MWHS during their most recent pregnancy

Factors associated with maternal waiting home utilization

Bivariable and multivariable logistic regressions were fitted to identify factors associated with MWHS utilization. From the multivariable logistic regression analysis, maternal age, level of education, maternal knowledge on dangers signs of pregnancy, decision on mother’s health, the possibility of getting people for household care, the possibility of getting people for child care and acceptability of waiting time at MWH had an association with the utilization of MWHS. Those mothers whose age category was aged between 26–30 years old were 76% less likely to utilize MWHS than those women whose age category was 36 and above (AOR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.087, 0.69). Mothers attending a primary level of education were 9.05 times more likely to utilize MWHS as compared to mothers who had no formal education (AOR: 9.05, 95% CI: 3.83, 21.43). Similarly, mothers having adequate knowledge of pregnancy danger signs were 7.88 times more likely to utilize MWHS than those women having less knowledge of danger signs of pregnancy (AOR: 7.88, 95% CI: 3.72,16.69). Likewise, mothers who had a shared decision-making power on their health status with their husbands were 2.76 times more likely to utilize MWHs than those who decide on their health condition by themselves (AOR: 2.76, 95% CI:1.08, 7.05). The odds of utilizing MWHS were 2.56 times higher among mothers who had people cover the household activities compared with their counterparts (AOR: 2.59, 95%CI: 1.21, 5.52). Lastly, mothers who accepted the specified duration of waiting time were 3.15 times more likely to utilize MWHs than those mothers who did not accept the specified waiting time duration (AOR: 3.15, 95% CI: 1.54, 6.43) (Table 4).

Table 4

Factor associated with maternal waiting home utilization, Dabat district, north west Ethiopia, 2019.

Variables	MWH utilize	MWH non utilize	COR(95%CI)	AOR(95%CI)	p-value
Age
≤20	5	9	1.59(.48,5.26)	2.22(0.47,10.4)	0.313
21–25	19	84	.648(.32,1.29)	0 .55(0.159,1.1)	0.200
26–30	11	99	.318(.44,.70)	0 .24(0.087,0.69)	0.008
31–35	8	82	.279(.117,.669)	0 .36(0.13,1.02)	0.057
≥36	22	63	1	1	0.021
level of education
No formal education	38	305	1	1	0.000
Primary level of education	25	22	9.12(4.7,17.73)	9.05(3.83,21.43)	0.000
Secondary and above level of education	2	10	1.6(.34,7.6)	4.86(0.86,27.59)	0.074
Husband’s Level of education
No formal education	29	179	1	1	0.569
Primary level of education	19	105	1.117(.59,2.1)	1.21(.52,2.81)	0.657
Secondary and above level of education	17	53	1.98(1.01,3.87)	1.76(0.62,5.02)	0.289
History of stile birth or IUFD
No	42	258	1	1
Yes	23	79	1.78(1.01,3.15)	1.24(0.58,2.67)	0.577
Pregnancy status
Un Planed	36	222	1
planed	29	115	1.55(.908,2.66)	1.19(0.59,2.44)	0.619
No of ANC
≤1	3	49	1	1
≥2	62	288	3.51(1.06,11.6)	3.07(0.67,14.08)	0.149
Knowledge on danger signs of pregnancy
Not Knowledgeable	14	243	1	1
Knowledgeable	51	145	9.4(4.9,17.81)	7.88(3.72,16.69)	0.000
Awareness on EDD
Not aware	16	122	1	1
Aware	49	225	1.52(.83,2.8)	1.16(0.51,2.67)	0.718
Decision on mother’s health
mother	10	79	1	1	0.027
husband	12	110	.862(.35, 2.09)	1.09(0.37,3.25)	0.879
Jointly	43	148	2.29(1.09,4.8)	2.76(1.08,7.05)	0.034
Getting people for house holed activities
Possible	30	83	2.65(1.52,4.5)	2.59(1.21,5.52)	0.014
Not possible	35	254	1	1
Getting chilled caregiver
Possible	25	89	1.74(.99, 3.03)	0.74(0.31,1.77)	0.499
Not possible	40	248	1	1
Acceptable waiting time at MWH(2-4wks)
Acceptable	42	107	3.92(2.24,6.85)	3.15(1.54,6.43)	0.002
Not Acceptable	23	230	1	1

Discussion

The public health importance of this study is to provide information for health managers, health care providers, and concerned stakeholders, and to identify the factors affecting MWHS utilization. Utilizing MWHS will create an opportunity for facility-based delivery, thereby decreasing maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess the utilization of MWHS and associated factors among mothers who gave birth in the last year in Dabat district, northwest Ethiopia.

Accordingly, the study revealed that MWH service utilization was 16.2%. This finding is lower than studies conducted in Ethiopia, including Jimma district (38.7%) (18), Bench Maji zone (39%) [27], and Arsi zone(23.6%) [22]. This finding is also lower compared to two studies conducted in Zambia, in which (27.3%) and (31%) of women used MWHS [16, 28]. The discrepancies might be due to the differences in study settings, in which the aforementioned studies were conducted at a facility level, whereas the current study was community-based. For instance, the study in the Jimma district included all women who gave birth in health facilities, so the chances of obtaining MWH- users might be high among those women. But in the current study, 41.5% of the participants gave birth at home for their most recent pregnancy, and no MWH-users were identified among women who gave birth at home. It is believed that admission into the MWH increases the chances of women giving birth at health facilities.

In contrast, the MWHS utilization of the current finding is higher than in another study conducted in the Jimma Zone, Ethiopia (7%) [26]. The possible discrepancy might be due to differences in the population background, wherein among the total study participants in the Jimma zone, only (30%) of them lived remotely from the health facilities (the distance from homes to the nearest health center takes 30 minutes and more). However, in this study, 67.6% of the participants traveled for more than an hour to reach the nearby health facilities. Although distance did not show an association with the MWHS utilization in this study, evidence revealed that distance from the nearby health facility is one determinant factor for MWHS utilization [22]. The other explanation for the higher proportion might be the time gap. Nowadays, maternal health is a global priority area, and special focus might be given to increasing MWHS utilization.

The present study indicates that maternal age is one significant factor for MWHs utilization. Thus, mothers in the age category of 26–30 were 76% less likely to utilize MWHS than those women aged above 36 years old. This might be due to the fact that aged mothers might have matured children, which may have overtaken the overall household activities. In addition, those older mothers may have had past bad obstetric experiences and be worried about a recurrence of history, thereby utilizing MWHS. This conclusion is supported by other studies in Ethiopia [17, 18] and Zambia [29]. Also, older women have a greater chance of visiting health institutions and may get contacted with healthcare providers, thereby getting adequate information about maternity health services, including MWHS. Moreover, older women may have higher decision-making autonomy in the household on maternal and children health-related issues [30], so they will decide to utilize every maternal health service, including MWHS.

This study also revealed that mothers attending the primary level of education were 9.05 times more likely to utilize MWHS compared with their counterparts. This finding is supported -by a study done in the Hadya zone, southern Ethiopia, which showed that educated mothers were more likely to intend to utilize MWHs than non-educated ones [21]. This might be due to the reality that education increases the likelihood of risk perception, level of understanding, and easy acceptance of health-related information and advice. As a result, educated women will take care of their health and their pregnancy.

Another relevant finding of the current study is that women having adequate knowledge of pregnancy danger signs were 7.88 times more likely to utilize MWHS as compared to women who had no adequate knowledge. This might be justified as mothers having a better knowledge of the danger signs of pregnancy will have a high perception of the occurrence of danger signs and will consider utilizing MWHS as one preservative method. In this regard, health care providers at ANC services and health extension workers during home-to-home visits should emphasize educating and counseling about the danger signs of pregnancy for pregnant women.

The present study affirmed that women who had shared decisions with their husbands regarding their health were 2.76 times more likely to utilize MWHs as compared to their counterparts. The reason might be that women who have their husbands involved in their health and who receive support on different household duties will use MWHS freely. Previous studies support this finding in which women who had experienced disagreements or challenges from their husbands or other family members were not able to utilize MWHS [9].

Moreover, this study found that mothers who had gotten people to cover household activities were 2.59 times more likely to use MWHS than women who had not gotten people to cover household activities. This is because women who had an additional person replace their work at home may have free time and can easily access health care services [31].

Lastly, this study revealed that mothers who had accepted the specified duration of waiting time were 3.15 times more likely to utilize MWHS than those mothers who hadn’t accepted the specified waiting time duration. According to evidence, pregnant women preferred shorter lengths of stay (less than 14 days) at MWHS [32]. This is due to the fact that the women’s concerns might arise from a lack of caregivers for their children or household chores while waiting for a long time in the MWH. Admitting pregnant women to MWH far from their expected date of delivery might be challenging to fulfill basic facilities, and their families face difficulties.

Strength and limitations of the study

This study has its own strengths and limitations. We believe that this study will have good input on the existing gap regarding MWHS utilization and will help reduce maternal and perinatal mortalities. However, the study has some limitations in which the readers need to consider during interpretation. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study may not clearly show the effect of the suggested predictors on MWHS utilization. Second, the study tried to illustrate quantitative factors, but behavioral, social, and cultural factors which by nature need qualitative research were not assessed. In this regard, further qualitative researches might be needed.

Conclusion

The magnitude of maternity waiting home-service utilization was low in this study. Primary level of education, accepting length of stay, knowing danger signs of pregnancy and a mother who decided on her health jointly with her husband were all positively associated with MWH-service utilization, whereas maternal age 26-30-year-old was a negative associated with MWH-service utilization. Thus, health education communication regarding danger signs of pregnancy, empowering the woman’s decision making, educating the adults at list the primary level of education, and shortening the length of stay at MWH may enhance MWHS utilization.

English and Amharic versions of the questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

SPSS dataset.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

19 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,

Godwin Otuodichinma Akaba, MBBS,MSc,MPH,FWACS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

3. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concern: Please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

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

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

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“university of Gondar, Ethiopia”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“This study was sponsored by the University of Gondar.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“university of Gondar, Ethiopia”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

Abstract

Background

Item: page 1,lies 3-4:To alleviate this problem, maternity waiting homes are a get way for women to deliver at health facility thereby help in reducing the alarming

Comment: Change to: gateway for women to deliver at health facility thereby helping towards the reduction of the alarming……

Item: Page 1, line 6: However, there is a paucity of evidence in this regard in the study area

Comment: The author has not described the evidence that is lacking which has heralded the study. Please rephrase to: However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the utilization of these facilities by pregnant women in the study area.

Introduction

Item:Page 10,lies 7-9: Ethiopia is also one of the SSA countries with low maternal health services utilization and high materiality mortality. Thus, the facility birth rates are as low as 28 % and about 1400 maternal deaths were occurred annually (2)

Comment: Paraphrase to: Ethiopia is also one of the SSA countries with low maternal health services utilization and high maternal mortality ratio. Thus, the facility birth rates are as low as 28 % and about 1400 maternal deaths occur annually (2)

Item;page 11,lies 7-11: In addition, it urges women to use maternal healthcare service like skilled birth attendants and other comprehensive emergency obstetrics care thereby reducing negative pregnancy outcomes apart from maternal mortality and timely utilization of MWHs effectively negative pregnancy outcomes(12,14,15). Moreover, MWHs can decrease the gap between urban-rural maternal health service utilization (5).

Comment: delete the last part of the paragraph ad paraphrase to:

In addition, it urges women to use maternal healthcare service like skilled birth attendants and other comprehensive emergency obstetrics care thereby reducing negative pregnancy outcomes (12,14,15). Moreover, MWHs can decrease the gap between urban-rural maternal health service utilization (5).

Item: page 11,lines 12-14: Some of the published studies focus merely on the physical establishment of MWHs at health institutions rather than the utilization , some other studies focus on the intention to use rather than actual utilization of MWHs

Comment: Please provide the references for the above statements.

Item:Page 12:Independent variables: Socio-demographic characteristics; Age of mother, religion, marital status, Mother's Occupation, Mother's Education, Partner's Education. Distances to the health facilities, Transportation access to the health facilities, affordability of transport cost, way of transportation

Comment: Start other words apart from the first in small letters.

Socio-demographic characteristics; Age of mother, religion, marital status, occupation, educational status, partner's educational status. distance to the health facility, transportation access to the health facility, affordability of transport cost, type of transportation

Item: Reproductive health and obstetrics related; Decision power of mother on own health, number of live birth, History of stillbirth, Birthplace of the last child, No ANC visits of the last pregnancy, planed or un planed pregnancy, place of ANC visit, information on Birth preparedness plan, Knowledge of danger sign during pregnancy, Awareness of expected date of delivery

Comment: Start other words apart from the first in small letters(see previous comment above).

Operational definitions

Item: Knowledge on danger sign of pregnancy: a woman who list out three and more danger signs of pregnancy (Vaginal bleeding, gush of fluid per vagina, severe abdominal pain, high grade fever, fainting, decreased fetal movement, blurred vision, severe headache, edema or body swelling) considered as knowledgeable (19).

Comments: Why should a woman who mentions three out of nine listed danger signs be termed as knowledgeable. In all forms of assessment 33% cannot be termed as knowledgeable.

Item: Accepted length of stay: women’s perceived to the length of two-four weeks’ duration is optimal time.

Comment: This statement is ot clear. Please paraphrase

Item:page 13,lines 17-18: To maximize the reliability and validity of the variables in the study, special attention was given gave to the construction of the questionnaire,

Comment: To maximize the reliability and validity of the variables in the study, special attention was given to the construction of the questionnaire,………..

Method

Why was the p value for variables to be included in the multivariate logistic analysis set at p <0.2 and not 0.05? It would have been nice to see how many variables that would have been favoured if it was 0.05.The reduction to 0.2 implied that almost all the variables were part of the multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results

Item: Page 14, lines 21-23: and half (51%) of their husbands has no formal education. More than one fourth (23.6%) of mothers two hour and more time taken to reach the nearest health institution….

Comment: Authors should write the absolute figure before the percentage in bracket. In the above statement half is not 51% but 50%. Similarly, more than one fourth implies that it is more than 25%.

All aspects of the results should be written in the suggested format(y%) instead of the current style of approximate statements before the percentage.

Discussion

This section has a lot of grammatical errors that need to be extensively revised. I have highlighted some, but authors should please go through the remaining paragraphs in the manuscript to correct these errors.

Item: page 16,line: The discrepancies might appeared from the differences in study setting,…..

Comment: Paraphrase to: The discrepancies may be due to the differences in study setting,…….

Item: Page 16,lines 17-19: was community-based For instance, the study in Jimma district includes all women who were gave birth in health facilities, so the chances to obtain MWH- users might be high among those women

Comment: Paraphrase to : was community-based. For instance, the study in Jimma district included all women who gave birth in health facilities, so the chances to obtain MWH- users might be high among those women.

Item: Page 16,lines 21-22: It is believed that once they admitted to the MWHs, they had a great chance of giving birth at the health facilities.

Comment: Paraphrase to: It is believed that admission into the MWHs increases the chances of the women giving birth at the health facilities.

Strengths and limitations

These are missing in this manuscript and should be added in the revised manuscript.

Table 1: Mothers occupation

Comment: The total percent for the above variable in the table is 99.9% instead of 100%.

Table 1: Husband/father of child/ Level of education

Comment: The total percent for the above variable in the table is 99.9% instead of 100%.

Time takin to the nearest Health center

Comment: The total percent for the above variable in the table is 99.9% instead of 100%.

These challenges may have been resolved if the approximation was to two decimal points.

Table 4: Factor associated with maternal waiting home utilization, Dabat district, north west Ethiopia,2019

Comment: Please include a column for the p-values

Table 4:

Gaining people for house holed activities: Getting people for household activities

Gating chilled care giver: Getting childcare giver

References

Authors have not adopted the Vancouver referencing style in this manuscript. The reference section should be extensively revised to conform with the recommended refencing style for the journal.

Figure 1: know the plase of mwh

Comment: Patient knows the location of mwh

Figure 2:Is not relevant and can be deleted.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: This is an interesting study aimed at assessing the utilization of maternity waiting home services

and factors associated among mothers who gave birth in the last one year prior to the

study period in Dabat district.

The manuscript needs a language editor.

TITLE

This is ok.

ABSTRACT

What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria? what are the outcome measures?

INTRODUCTION

This is well written. However, the authors should beef up the justifications for the study.

METHODS

There are so many typographical errors.

Eg:' Sample size determination and sapling procedure '. It is supposed to be sampling.

RESULTS

The authors should begin with stating how many were assessed for eligibility and how many were excluded with reasons.

The authors should include a flowchart to illustrate the participants flow.

DISCUSSION

What are the strengths and limitations

CONCLUSION . This is OK.

References

This is ok.

Reviewer #2: Thank you authors for the great work. As this was a population based study the findings could be generalizable. However, it is not clear how household or individuals were selected. Did you do cluster sampling? in stages or what? Please in a sentence address your sampling procedure clearly.

There a countless grammatical/spelling errors in both heading and texts. Sampling is typed as Sanpling; population as pollution, etc.

The discussion has not been robust. Authors should restate their main objective in this discussion section and attempt addressing same.

There is no clear cut strength and limitation of this study.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: George Uchenna Eleje

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.

2 Apr 2022

Uploaded as a separate file

Submitted filename: Response To Reviwor.docx

Click here for additional data file.

30 May 2022

6 Jun 2022

attached as separate file

Submitted filename: response to reviwer.docx

Click here for additional data file.

24 Jun 2022

Utilization of maternal waiting home and associated factors among women who gave birth in the last one year, Dabat district, Northwest Ethiopia

PONE-D-21-25855R2

Dear Dr Tiguh,

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,

Godwin Otuodichinma Akaba, MBBS,MSc,MPH,FWACS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

29 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-25855R2

Utilization of maternal waiting home and associated factors among women who gave birth in the last one year, Dabat district, Northwest Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Tiguh:

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. Godwin Otuodichinma Akaba

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE