Mapping evidence on factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Maternal and child mortality remains a major public health issue in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), with the region having the highest under-five mortality rates, where approximately 1 in 11 children, dies before the age of 5 years. This is nearly 15 times the average in high-income countries (HICs). This scoping review is aimed at mapping evidence on the factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in SSA.
METHODS: This study will be conducted using a scoping review to map existing literature on the factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in SSA. The search will comprise of peer-reviewed and grey literature, using the EBSCOhost platform. Keyword search from electronic databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Science Direct and World Health Organization library, will be conducted. Information will be obtained from the included studies, using a data charting table. We will use NVIVO version 10 software to analyse the data, and the narrative account of the study will be presented by means of a thematic content analysis. DISCUSSION: We expect to find relevant literature that can help us in mapping evidence on the factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in SSA. This study results are anticipated to identify research gaps and in turn, guide the design of future primary studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework registration number (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/XF5VN).

Introduction

Maternal and child mortality is a major public health challenge that is among other things, indicative of poor population health and socio-economic development [1]. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined Maternal death as the demise of a woman during pregnancy or within 42 days of terminating a pregnancy from any cause related to the pregnancy or its management [2]. Child mortality is the death of a child under five years of age [3].

Globally, many women die yearly, as a result of complications related to pregnancy, childbearing, and postnatal, with low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) carrying the heaviest burden of maternal mortality [4]. In 2017, two regions of the world, namely: sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia, reported about 86% (254,000) of maternal deaths, worldwide, with sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia accounting for about 66% (196,000), and 20% (58,000), respectively [2]. Through the two targets of the third Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 3), the United Nations (UN) has committed to reducing maternal and child death worldwide. The goal is that, by 2030, maternal mortality ratio will be decreased to less than 70 per 100,000 live births, globally [5]. This is anticipated to end deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries targeting to reduce neonatal mortality to as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to 25 per 1,000 live births [5].

The leading causes of maternal mortality, which accounts for up to 80% of cases in SSA, are obstetric hemorrhage and labor, ruptured uterus, puerperal sepsis, pregnancy-induced hypertension (including eclampsia), and complications of unsafe abortion [6].

Most maternal and infant deaths occur in the first month after birth, and nearly half of postnatal maternal deaths occur within the first 24 hours [7]. Globally, SSA remains the region with the highest child mortality rates, reporting an average under-five mortality rate of 76 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2019, translating into 1 in 13 children dying before reaching the age of 5 years [8].

The leading causes of under-five deaths in SSA are pre-term birth complications (17%), pneumonia (15%), complications during labour and delivery (11%), diarrhoea (9%), and malaria (7%). Under-nutrition contributes to nearly half of all under-five deaths [9]. Despite universal progress in reducing maternal and child mortality, the rates remain high in SSA. Hence immediate action is needed to meet the ambitious SDG 2030 target, which is to eliminate preventable maternal and child mortality ultimately. It is crucial to map out factors contributing to maternal and child deaths in sub-Saharan African countries to inform the design and implementation of appropriate interventions to confront the challenges of the unyielding high rates of mortality in SSA. Thus, it is anticipated that findings from this scoping review on the factors contributing to maternal and child mortality will inform health experts and policymakers in policy development and interventions to bridge the gap in SSA.

Research question

What is known about the factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa?

Materials and methods

Study design

We will systematically conduct a scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature to map evidence on the factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in SSA. We will adopt the scoping review methods proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [10] by following the outlined steps: (i) identifying the research question, (ii) identifying the relevant studies, (iii) study selection, (iv) charting the data, and (v) collating, summarising, and reporting the results. The review protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework database (registration number: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/XF5VN) and will be drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement [11] (see Checklist as presented in S1 File).

Eligibility criteria

We will use the Population-Concept-Context (PCC) framework (Table 1) to determine the eligibility of the research question.

Table 1

PCC Framework for defining the eligibility of the research question.

Criteria	Determinant
Population	Female participants ≥15 years of ageChildren ≤ 5 years of age
Concept	Articles focusing on the factors contributing to maternal and child mortality
Context	Sub-Saharan Africa

Inclusion criteria

We will include any original research articles reporting on the factors contributing to maternal and child mortality. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals and conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, using any study design to address maternal and child mortality will be included. Only studies published in English language from January 1990 to date will be considered.

Exclusion criteria

We will exclude non-English studies as previous studies have shown that it had a minimal effect on the overall conclusions [12,13]. Correspondences, commentaries, editorials, and case reports will be excluded. Studies published before January 1990 will be excluded since the United Nations (UN) world summit for children was conducted in 1990, and it demonstrated the bond between maternal and child health.

Information sources

To identify relevant studies, the researcher will perform a keyword search with the use of the following electronic databases: PubMed, Google scholar, World Health Organization (WHO) library, EBSCOhost platform (Academic search complete, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and MEDLINE). We will also search for articles through the “Cited by” search on google scholar, as well as citations in the reference lists of included articles. Our search string will comprise of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms such as maternal and child, mortality, factors, and sub-Saharan Africa. We have developed a preliminary search strategy using PUBMED, presented in S2 File. Boolean terms (AND, OR) will be used to separate the keywords during the search.

Study selection

A PRISMA flow chart will be used to summarize the study findings (Fig 1) [14]. All the studies meeting the inclusion criteria will be exported to Endnote X7 software. Title and abstract screening will be conducted by two independent reviewers and all the studies that do not address the study’s research question will be excluded, along with all the duplicates. Full-text articles will be retrieved for all the abstracts that meet the inclusion criteria for full-text screening. If there are articles that are hard to find, assistance from the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) library services will be sought by the researchers. Authors will be contacted to request for full-text copies of articles that are not attainable within the UKZN library. A third reviewer will be requested to resolve any discrepancies if the reviewers cannot reach a consensus on some articles during the screening. Full articles of eligible studies will be used for data extraction.

Fig 1

PRISMA flow-chart.

[Source: Adapted from Moher et al. [14]].

The Preferred Report Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow chart for the selection and screening of studies is shown in Fig 1.

Data extraction and data charting

Once the final list of the articles that meet the inclusion criteria has been agreed upon, one reviewer will extract the data relevant to the objectives of the study. The data set will be entered into an Excel form which will be updated continuously. The form will comprise of the following: author and date, title of the study, country, study aims, study design, study setting, population, outcomes of the study, and key findings (see S3 File).

Collating, summarising, and reporting the results

The findings from the included studies will be presented through a thematic content analysis approach. Data will be retrieved for the following outcomes: maternal and child mortality, and factors contributing to maternal and child mortality. Other emerging themes will be analysed and examined to determine whether the themes answer the research question. The significance of the results with the overall aim of the study and the urgent need for advanced research, new policy, and improved health practices will be discussed by the review team. NVIVO version 10 software will be used to code the data from the included studies [15]. The following process will serve as guidelines:

Data coding

Categorisation of the codes into major themes

Data presentation

Identification of key patterns and sub-themes.

Summarising

Synthesis

The retrieved data obtained from the selected research articles will be examined for emerging themes related to the research questions. The correlation of the findings with the aim of the study and relevance of these findings for future research, new health policies, and health promotion practices will be examined by the reviewers.

Quality appraisal

Quality assessment of selected articles will not be performed in accordance with scoping review methodology. Our study aims to map appropriate literature and identify evidence on the significant factors contributing to maternal and child mortality [10,16].

Discussion

This scoping review findings will reveal gaps and form the basis for refining research questions for future studies. At the time of writing this manuscript, we could not find any similar scoping reviews published on the same issue.

This protocol is designed to outline the plans for the scoping review. The search strategy of various databases and grey literatures as described in this protocol will ensure a thorough literature search to reduce bias.

The review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal upon completion of the study. The findings from this review are expected to raise awareness among policymakers on the urgency for newer and more effective policies and guidelines aimed at reducing maternal and infant mortality. Furthermore, the identified gaps will guide researchers in the design of future primary studies.

PRISMA-P 2015 checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

PubMed search strategy.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Data charting form.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Apr 2022

Mapping evidence on factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.  Nwagbara et al,

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.

It is okay to not include studies published in French, however, you need to justify this.

Please submit your revised manuscript by June 2, 2022. 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,

Akanni Ibukun Akinyemi, PhD

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. 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.

3. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

-   https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-104159/v1

-   https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6092/v1

-   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2288/

-   https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

-   https://www.who.int./mediacentre/news/releases/2014/child_mortality_estimates/en/

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Dear Author, Please consider below suggestions:

1. In the introduction you have given the definition of maternal death. I suggest you give it earlier in the introduction section.

2. In the research question, actually you are searching for the gap of knowledge, and then please mention it properly and mention any potential sub-questions.

3. I do not agree with this type of writing inclusion and exclusion criteria. Actually, it is a kind of repeating the same thing.

4. Please mention the approval of the protocol and funding source.

Reviewer #2: Many thanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript Mapping evidence on factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol.

I think the authors have develop a protocol which to certain extent meets the requirement for a scoping review protocol.

I am missing the search strategy for all the databases which should be in an appendix. I also think that the suggested PubMed search is not build to capture factors contributing to maternal and child mortality e.g. I don’t see the word cause of death etc.

I don’t understand why you are not including studies published in French as SSA has a huge Francophone population.

For the data extraction – what do the authors mean with “most relevant findings”?

For the reviewer it would be very useful if the manuscript has line numbering.

Why women older than 15 years?

The references used are generally very old e.g. World Health Statistics from 2016. A new report is published very year. The same with reference 9.

I don’t think this review adds much to the literature as we already know why women and children are dying in SSA.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ann-Beth Moller

[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.

5 Jul 2022

Author’s response to the reviews.

Manuscript title: Mapping evidence on factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol

Manuscript PONE-D-21-16423

We are very grateful for the reviews provided by the editor and the reviewers of this manuscript. The comments were very useful. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Below is the point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments. Please find attached a revised version of the manuscript with tracked changes highlighted in ‘red’.

Response to reviewers’ queries/ comments

EDITOR’S COMMENTS

# Editor’s comment Authors’ responses Page and Line Number/s

1 It is okay to not include studies published in French, however, you need to justify this. We agree with the reviewer that the justification should have been provided, hence we have now provided it. In short, we will exclude non-English studies as previous studies have shown that it had a minimal effect on the overall conclusions.

Page 6, Lines 114-115

2 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/fil es 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

We have reviewed the style requirements again and we are of the view that our manuscript is complaint Whole Manuscript

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 have added our data Availability statement Page 11, Lines 254-255

4 3. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

- https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-104159/v1

- https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6092/v1

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2288/

- https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

- https://www.who.int./mediacentre/news/releases/2014/child_mortality_estimates/en/

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough. Thanks for the notification as we have carefully rephrased the duplicated texts Whole Manuscript

REVIEWER ONE COMMENT

1 Reviewer #1: Dear Author, Please consider below suggestions:

In the introduction you have given the definition of maternal death. I suggest you give it earlier in the introduction section. Thank you for this good suggestion, we have now moved the definition of maternal death to the earlier part of the introduction, as suggested. Page 3, Lines 49-52

2 In the research question, actually you are searching for the gap of knowledge, and then please mention it properly and mention any potential sub-questions. Thank you for this suggestion, we have now mentioned the gap of knowledge and potential sub-questions properly. Page 4, Lines 85-86

3 I do not agree with this type of writing inclusion and exclusion criteria. Actually, it is a kind of repeating the same thing. Thanks for the observation. We have re-written our inclusion and exclusion criteria in an unrepetitive manner. Pages 5-6, Lines 107-119

4 Please mention the approval of the protocol and funding source. The requested information has now been incorporated, thanks. Page 11, Line 257

REVIEWER TWO COMMENT

1 Reviewers' comments:

Many thanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript Mapping evidence on factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol.

I think the authors have develop a protocol which to certain extent meets the requirement for a scoping review protocol.

Thank for your review and comment.

2 I am missing the search strategy for all the databases which should be in an appendix. I also think that the suggested PubMed search is not build to capture factors contributing to maternal and child mortality e.g. I don’t see the word cause of death etc. Thanks for your observation. We have added a pilot search using the PubMed database and also included the word ‘cause of death’ in the search. Page 10-Lines 238-239

3 I don’t understand why you are not including studies published in French as SSA has a huge Francophone population. We have taken an approach by Reviewer One, suggesting that excluding non-English articles is acceptable, provided that proper justification is provided (please see our response to the related query by Reviewer One).

Page 6, Lines 114-115

4 For the data extraction – what do the authors mean with “most relevant findings”? Upon reflection, we have released that this phrase ‘most relevant findings’ may be confusing, hence we have removed it from our data extraction form and replaced it with ‘key findings’. During the data extraction process we will include the key outcomes from each article included in the study. Page 10, Line 240

5 For the reviewer it would be very useful if the manuscript has line numbering We have inserted line numbering. Whole Manuscript

6 Why women older than 15 years? We chose this age due to the high prevalence of teenage pregnancy in SSA in this age group. The categorisation of 15-24 years or 15-19 years (in the case of studies on teenage issues) is common in scientific papers. So, we expect that most studies reporting on maternal and child health issues may rarely capture ages below 15 years.

7 The references used are generally very old e.g. World Health Statistics from 2016. A new report is published very year. The same with reference 9. Thanks, we have updated the references. Whole Manuscript

8 I don’t think this review adds much to the literature as we already know why women and children are dying in SSA.

This study is trying to challenge the very dismissive perception that we know the problems in SSA and not be opened to observing the emerging trends. Greater emphasis still needs to be paid to maternal and child health issues, as these remain serious public health problems. Unless, this maternal and child health issues remain in the agenda of scientists, policy makers, advocacy groups and interventionists may easily lose sight to these important issues. .

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

19 Jul 2022

Mapping evidence on factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol

PONE-D-21-16423R1

Dear Dr. Nwagbara,

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,

Akanni Ibukun Akinyemi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

29 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-16423R1

Mapping evidence on factors contributing to maternal and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol

Dear Dr. Nwagbara:

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. Akanni Ibukun Akinyemi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE