Clients satisfaction at primary healthcare facilities and its association with implementation of client service charter in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Client service charter (CSC) provides information about what people can expect in a facility's services; what is expected of clients and service providers. Tanzania implemented Star Rating Assessment (SRA) of primary health care (PHC) facilities in 2015/16 and 2017/18 using SRA tools with 12 service areas. This paper assesses the status of service area 7, namely client focus that checked if client was satisfied with services provided and implementation of CSC through three indicators-if: CSC was displayed; CSC was monitored; client feedback mechanism and complaints handling was in place.
METHODS: We extracted and performed a cross-sectional secondary data analysis of data related to clients' focus that are found in national SRA database of 2017/2018 using STATA version 15. Client satisfaction was regarded as dependent variable while facility characteristics plus three indicators of CSC as independent variables. Multivariate logistic regression with p-value of 5% and 95% confidence interval (CI) were applied.
RESULTS: A total of 4,523 facilities met our inclusion criteria; 3,987 (88.2%) were dispensaries, 408 (9.0%) health centres and 128 (2.8%) hospitals. CSC was displayed in 69.1% facilities, monitored in 32.4% facilities, and 32.5% of the facilities had mechanisms for clients' feedback and handling complaints. The overall prevalence of clients' satisfaction was 72.8%. Clients' satisfaction was strongly associated with all implementation indicators of CSC. Clients from urban-based facilities had 21% increased satisfaction compared rural-based facilities (AOR 1.21; 95%CI: 1.00-1.46); and clients from hospitals had 39% increased satisfaction compared to dispensaries (AOR 1.39; 95%CI: 1.10-1.77).
CONCLUSION: The implementation of CSC is low among Tanzanian PHC facilities. Clients are more satisfied if received healthcare services from facilities that display the charter, monitor its implementation, have mechanisms to obtain clients feedback and handle complaints. Clients' satisfaction at PHC could be improved through adoption and implementation of CSC.

Introduction

The Astana Declaration emphasizes empowering individuals and communities through their participation in the development and implementation of policies and plans that impact health; protection and promotion of solidarity, ethics and human rights [1]. Unlike the Alma-Ata declaration held 40 years earlier (1978); the Astana declaration addresses the wider scope of primary healthcare, the scope that goes beyond building primary healthcare systems by considering current health challenges, embracing universal health coverage initiatives and political involvement [2].

Clients attending primary health care (PHC) facilities have been experiencing inadequate quality services, especially in the aspects of interpersonal quality in terms of communication. For example, the analysis of the data in demographic and health surveys and the service provision assessment surveys which aimed at comparing the quality of care in public hospitals and health centres, has found that “hospital users were more likely to report experiencing problems with the amount of explanation received from their provider and with their ability to discuss concerns [. Also, more clients (81.3%) in health centres, reported being very satisfied with the services received, compared with 74.7% in hospitals [3].

This paper discusses service area number seven (7) of the star rating assessment (SRA) tools, namely client focus. Area 7 is one of 12 areas of the SRA tool; others are Legality (Licensing and Certification), Health Facility Management, Use of Facility Data for Planning and Service Improvement, Staff Performance Assessment, Organization of Services, Handling Emergencies and Referral, Social Accountability, Facility Infrastructure, Infection Prevention and Control (IPC), Clinical Services, and Clinical Support Services [4, 5]. The performance from the 12 areas from each PHC facility are aggregated and computed to form a Star that could be assigned to that facility; as described in detail by Talhiya Y and Mohammed M [4].

The client charter is the document that provides information about what people can expect from their treatment in these services. It also outlines what is expected of clients and the service providers [6]. Client charter also helps to nudge health workers to provide services in a way that upholds ethics and observes patient rights in their interaction with patients [7, 8]. In situations where client’s rights are not well disseminated and known by citizens, patients attending primary health care facilities may not be able to complain or voice a concern [9]. In Uganda, a study involving a network of faith-based facilities found that out of all client satisfaction dimensions assessed, the dimension of rights scored low due to “dissatisfaction of clients in the way health providers engaged with them in informing them of their entitlements and in the decision-making process” [10]. The Tanzanian client charter includes a list of services the facility provides like paediatrics, obstetrics, gynaecology, types of insurances allowed, types of tests/investigation and time of services provision, e.g., daytime or throughout the day (i.e., 24/7). From a star rating perspective, the client charter aimed to look at the following: if client services charter was displayed; client services charter was monitored; client feedback mechanism and complaints handling was in place; and checking if the client was satisfied with services provided by the health facility, as shown in .

Implementation of the client service charter can increase accountability in health facilities by stimulating actions from both supply–and demand sides [11]. Implementation of patient’s rights as stipulated in client service charter is also aligned with the efforts to improve the quality of health services delivery based on the fact that the listed rights match with the dimensions of quality [12-15]. It is in the understanding that there is a need for action on both supply-side (service providers) and demand-side (patients/external clients) that the client service charter has to cover both the rights and responsibilities of patients as well as rights and responsibilities of health workers [16].

In Kenya, several challenges have been reported that affect the use of client service charter which include health workers not adhering to the charter, lack of time on the side of community members to read and understand the charter, and sociocultural issues [17].

Assessment of utilization of the client service charter launched by the Ministry of Health in Tanzania in 2005, found that most respondents had not heard of it, indicating that its distribution was inadequate, due to production of inadequate copies, lack of implementation strategy, advocacy and monitoring plan [18]. With the efforts put in place after the assessment to ensure its coverage, this paper aimed to use the available star rating dataset to establish extent of availability and implementation of the client service charter in PHC facilities (dispensaries, health centres and level one hospitals) both for public and private and determine if its availability and implementation is associated with client’s satisfaction. PHC facilities account for more than 95% of all Tanzanian healthcare facilities. These are widely distributed in each and every 26 regions and 184 district councils of the country. There are about 60 million population in the country with equal access to services from PHC facilities regardless of gender, or ethnicity [19].

The results of this paper will contribute in filling some of the evidence gaps in PHC policy and governance, in particular gaps in–“interventions to improve accountability for better governance in PHC; interventions to ensure transparency in local level decision making and governance; and role of user–provider communication in PHC to increase awareness and demand from user end which ensure better service and governance” [20].

The study’s main objective was to determine clients’ satisfaction at PHC facilities and its association with the status of CSC implementation in Tanzania. Specifically, the objectives were to determine the: status of CSC implementation in Tanzanian PHC facilities using the SRA dataset of 2017/18; the proportion of PHC facilities whose clients were satisfied with services provided during a day of assessment; and predictors of clients’ satisfaction at Tanzanian PHC facilities.

Methods

Conceptual framework

Implementation of policy guidelines such as client service charter require managers to be aware of organizational context (culture and trust), relationship management and negotiation of values in order to get support of health workers [21]. Health workers’ non-adherence to the provisions of client service charter has been found to affect client’s use of the charter, which means that there is a need of a strong mechanism for monitoring its implementation [16, 17]. Also, display of client service charter in health facilities alone is not enough, it requires to be innovative in coming up with ways that will raise awareness of clients on their rights and responsibilities depending on the local context [22]. In Tanga Region, an intervention in two hospitals, that consisted of implementation of the client service charter and a facility-based quality improvement process was found to have the potential for addressing disrespectful care during childbirth [23]. We conceptualized that availability of a client service charter that is displayed in various services delivery points, with a strong monitoring of its implementation, coupled with availability of a feedback and complaints handling system (all taking place in a context influenced by organizational culture and trust), will lead into improved implementation of a patient/client-centred care [24] leading to client satisfaction. Taking into account the difference between patient centered care and person-centered care in which the latter is broader capturing the “goal of organizing care around the total (preventive and curative) needs and circumstances of each person, not merely around a disease category” [15], we adopted the term person-centered care as intermediate outcome in the framework. The conceptual framework is shown in

Study design

We extracted and performed a cross-sectional secondary data analysis of data related to clients’ focus that are found in the national SRA database of 2017/2018.

Study population

All PHC facilities registered in Tanzania were included in the SRA assessment of 2017/2018 and were the target for this study [4]. However, during data extraction, some had missing data and were excluded from the analysis.

PHC facilities are categorized in three levels in order of increasing capacity of healthcare service delivery; dispensary, health centre and hospital level 1 [25]. Dispensaries provide exclusively outpatients’ services to approximately 10,000 population while health centres are referral points for dispensaries that provide a broader range of services including inpatient services, Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric, and Newborn Care (CEmONC) to about 50,000 population [25]. The hospital at level 1 serves about 250,000 population and receives referral from the low levels [25].

These PHC facilities are distributed widely in all 184 country’s local government authorities shortly referred to as councils. Based on social-economic status, the councils are classified as to rural or urban councils [25]. Furthermore, PHC facilities are either publicly owned or privately owned. Publicly owned facilities include military facilities, police facilities, prisons facilities, parastatal facilities or council facilities. Private owned facilities are either non-government organizations, faith-based organization or private-for-profit organizations [4].

Study variables and collection of data

Data sources

The data for this study was extracted from the DHIS2 database in Microsoft Excel Sheets format. The sheets were checked for data quality and cleaned before use. The database at the national level is managed by the Health Services Inspectorate and Quality Assurance Section of the then Health Quality Assurance Division, which is currently the Health Quality Assurance Unit (HQAU) of the Ministry of Health [13].

Data collection from each facility was done by at least four trained personnel; each from all healthcare administrative levels, i.e., national, regional, council and facility-level to ensure transparency and fairness [4].

Dependent variable

Client satisfaction was the main dependent variable of interest for this study. To determine whether a client was satisfied with their visit at the facility; a structured exit interview of clients selected from various service points was conducted. Three clients were randomly selected at each dispensary and five at health centres and hospital level 1. If there were more than one client exiting the facility, the first client to be interviewed was randomly selected by using a lottery system. In this system, each client was assigned a number and thereafter each number was written on each piece of paper. All papers were shuffled well and one paper was picked randomly to obtain the first interviewee. After returning from an interview, the data collector selected the next patient entering the consultation room until the targeted sample size was achieved. This way of conducting exit interviews is regarded by scholars as less biased and most operationally efficient [26]. The 10-point exit interview was used to score client satisfaction. A facility was considered satisfying clients if a reported average satisfaction score for all clients interviewed was at least 8 out of 10. This cut-off point is provided in the National Guidelines for Recognition of Implementation Status of Quality Improvement Initiatives in Health Facilities [27]. The content of the structured exit interview is shown in

Independent variables

Three indicators of client service charter namely display of client services charter, monitoring of client charter and presence of client feedback mechanism and complaints handling were considered independent variables to client satisfaction. The indicator for the client service charter was regarded implemented only if all verification questions scored “Yes “for that particular indicator The detailed assessment criteria and scoring scale of these indicators is presented in

Other independent variables were facility’s characteristics such as location (rural or urban), health facility level (dispensary, health centre or hospital level 1) and health facility ownership (public or private).

Analysis

The data were checked for completeness manually, entered into Epi-info version 7.2.2.6 and then transferred into STATA version 15 for analysis. Status of client service charter implementation was presented by after calculating the proportion of PHC facilities that scored “yes” in each of the three indicators. The clients were satisfied in the facilities that scored “yes”. This was presented as the proportion of facilities whose at least 80% of their clients were satisfied with service delivery on assessment day. Based on this cut point, a binary variable was created with two values; yes-for the facilities whose clients are satisfied and no-for those whose clients were not satisfied. The binary variable was used to determine the predictors of the clients’ satisfaction that was used to determine an association between the facilities’ client satisfaction and independent variables.

GIS software version 2.8.6 was used to display the spatial distribution of the Proportion of Tanzanian Primary Health Facilities whose clients were satisfied with services. The shapes file that was used to construct the map is unrestrictedly available at the National Bureau of Statistic’s website: https://www.nbs.go.tz/index.php/en/census-surveys/gis

Ethics statement

The SRA was conducted under ethical approval granted independently from this study. This study did not require additional approval as it was a secondary analysis of anonymised data.

Results

Description of health facilities under study

By 2017 Tanzania had 7,289 PHC facilities that were all involved in SRA assessment of year 2017/2018. A total of 4,523 of the assessed facilities met our inclusion criteria and therefore used for final analyses. These included 3,987 (88.2%) dispensaries, 408 (9.0%) health centres and 128 (2.8%) hospitals. 952 (21%) of facilities were located at urban-settings while 3,571(79%) were found at rural. Out of 4,523; 3,714 (82.1%) and 809 (17.9%) were public-owned and private-owned respectively. A separate analysis was done and found no significant difference among excluded facilities and those involved in this study (Table 4).

Table 4

A separate analysis output for 2766 (38%) PHC facilities that were excluded from final analysis.

Variable	%Facilities involved in data collection	%Facilities included in the analysis	p-value*
Facility type
Health Centre	3.0	2.8	1.0
Hospital	12.0	9.0
Dispensary	85.0	88.2
Ownership
Private	19.0	17.9	1.0
Public	81.0	82.1
Location
Urban	22.4	21.0	1.0
Rural	77.6	79.0

*p-value was calculated from paired t-test

Status of client’s service charter implementation in PHC facilities

The clients’ service charter was displayed in 69.1% facilities, monitored in 32.4% facilities, and 32.5% of the facilities had mechanisms for clients’ feedback and handling complaints (

Clients satisfied with services provided at PHC facilities

About seventy-two (72.2%) of PHC facilities had their clients satisfied with services provided on a day of assessment as shown in . Prevalence of satisfaction among public-owned facilities was 72.4% and 74.5% in private-owned facilities. Overall, clients from hospitals had the highest prevalence of satisfaction followed by dispensaries and health centres (76.6% versus 73.0% versus 69.1%, respectively).

Predictors of clients’ satisfaction at PHC facilities

shows the results of bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions with client’s satisfaction at PHC as the dependent variable and PHC characteristics and performance indicators of client’s service charter as the predictor variables. With reference to dispensaries, clients who received services in hospitals were more likely to be satisfied with services (AOR 1.39; 95% CI: 1.10–1.77) but not clients from health centres (AOR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.58–1.53). Those who received services from urban-based PHC facilities were more likely to be satisfied compared to those received services from rural-based facilities (AOR 1.21; 95% CI: 1.00–1.46).

There was no significant difference in clients’ satisfaction between clients who received services in private facilities and in public facilities. All indicators of client service charter’s performance (i.e., display of charter, charter monitoring and presence of client feedback mechanism and complaints handling) were significantly associated to clients’ satisfaction.

Discussion

Status of clients’ service charter implementation in PHC facilities

A client service charter is a document that sets out information on the services provided, the standards of service that customers can expect from the facility, and how to make complaints or suggestions for improvement” [28, 29]. Therefore, improved implementation of a patient/client-centred healthcare relies on display of the charter in various services delivery points, effective charter monitoring, and availability of a feedback and complaints handling system [24].

Findings of this study show the charter was displayed at slightly above two-thirds of the facilities (69.1%), nevertheless monitored in about one-third of these facilities (32.4%). This means two-thirds of the facilities understudy never implemented the charter fully. The findings are congruent with those found in a nearby country, Uganda whereby the charters were displayed on the walls of the facilities; yet, implementation of the charter was not done because patients were not aware of their rights [22]. Contrary to our findings, studies from other low and middle-income countries have indicated the challenge of adoption of the service charter whereby less than half of the facilities had charter displayed [30, 31]. In Tanzania for example, findings before the conduct of this study had concluded that client service charter in Tanzania was not a reality rather a myth [32]. We presume the situation improved due to impact of implementing SRA system initiatives since 2015 that (among others) focus on improving implementation of client service charter in PHC facilities [4, 33].

Implementation of the charter is strangled by lack of motivation among healthcare workers, interference from political leaders, culture, and inadequate work force and finances [34-36]. According to Thomassen et al. [29], a good performance in client charter requires that employees are motivated and stimulated over the charter. Findings from Tanzania [37] and other neighbouring countries Kenya [35] and Uganda [36] suggest staff in medical field are less psychologically and economically motivated to implement the charter and therefore motivation should target the economic and psychological needs of this group. Psychological motivation may be achieved through regular workshop and trips, while economy and morale could be raised through staff appraisal and promotions [35, 38]. In Tanzania, healthcare workers could even take ten years in service without any promotion [38]; and some of them believe that clients satisfaction comes after employees satisfaction [39]. Despites financial constraints that lead to motivational challenges in low and middle income countries; we suggest the use of alternative but more effective bottom-top strategies of motivation such as rewarding best performers at facility level and improved working environment [40].

Our findings reveal that there was neither mechanisms for obtaining feedback from the clients nor mechanisms for handling the complaints should they arise in majority of the facilities. The facility was considered using the feedback mechanisms if there were records of client’s complaints lodged through either suggestion box, client help desk, phone or short text message (SMS) over the period of past six months before the day of an assessment. According to our assessment criteria, facilities were required to either invite community members during opening of suggestion boxes or share to community leaders the clients’ complaints obtained through other methods than suggestion boxes. The involvement of opinion leaders in implementing the charter was expected to bring in the power which could be used to achieve the goals and content of the charter by employees [29]. However, community participation in Tanzanian health system has been politicized and influenced by leaders who are inflexible, tardy, non-cooperative and corrupt [34-36]. These attributes weaken community engagement that leads to poor management of the client service charter. Community participation could be improved through effective preparation of the meetings, providing community representatives with timely feedback and set the funds needed to facilitate such gathering and improved working environment [41].

Healthcare workers have a big role to play in effective implementation of the charter. Healthcare workers are reported to lack knowledge and patient-centred culture needed to implement the client service charter [29]. Orientation of health workers on client’s service charter and strengthening complaints management system needs would improve implementation of client service charter in primary health facilities in Tanzania [42].

Client’s satisfaction at PHC facilities and the associated predictors

Satisfaction among clients who visited the facilities was as high as 72.8%, nevertheless below the recommended minimum value of 80%. The prevalence reported in our study could be considered among the higher prevalence that has ever been reported in low and middle-income countries [43-46]. The high satisfaction scores in Tanzania could be attributed to SRA initiatives that commenced four years prior to the conduct of this study. These initiatives include instruction to facilities on developing and implementing individual client service charters. The impact of the initiatives was to be revealed in the next assessment of which its findings are presented in this study. Previous studies that were done before SRA showed lower satisfaction [43-46].

All three indicators of charter performance (i.e., display of client services charter, monitoring of client charter, and presence of client feedback mechanism and complaints handling) were significant predictors of clients’ satisfaction. This means improving any of the indicators of the client service charter is likely to result in increased clients’ satisfaction. Implementation of the charter’s indicators increases commitment among healthcare providers to providing quality services and therefore increases clients’ satisfaction [43-46].

Unexpectedly, we found no significant difference in clients’ satisfaction among clients that obtained services from private and those from public owned facilities. Other studies have reported higher satisfaction among clients who attended at private facilities compared to those from public-owned facilities [43, 47]. Higher satisfaction within private facilities has been linked with availability of equipment, materials, infrastructures, commodities and motivated staff [48] and thus readiness for customer service compared to public facilities [49]. In contrary to the above, there is an emerging evidence that clients from developing countries such as Tanzania are cost-conscious and therefore are likely to be satisfied from facilities that cost services at cheaper prices [43-46].

Our findings show clients were likely to be satisfied from hospital-level services but not from health centre services, considering dispensaries as the reference. In Tanzania, health centres unlike dispensaries; are intended to provide addition of inpatient services plus Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care services (CEmONC) [25]. However, majority of the health centres operate basically as dispensaries since they do not provide CEmONC services [45, 50–52]. Provision of safe deliveries in Tanzania, the main objective of CEmONC, has been hugely associated with clients’ satisfaction [45, 50–52]; therefore, we can associate low client satisfaction at health centres with inadequate quality services. In nutshell, we learned that clients satisfaction is more related to the services provision rather than facility level [44, 47].

Clients were likely to be satisfied from facilities based in urban settings compared to those based in rural areas. The findings are in agreement with those from other low and middle income countries in which urban-based facilities were likely to be more customer-focused and equipped with more equipment and commodities [49], human and financial resources [52, 53], and service bundles [54] compared to rural-based facilities.

Ecological zone is a known predictor of client satisfaction [55]. Clients from different zones could have varied education level and expectation from the services provided at health facilities and hence different in level of satisfaction [56]. shows regions scored more or less equally in proportion of facilities that had clients satisfied from service provision. Few regions that on average achieved the recommended scores in clients’ satisfaction (labelled in green) came from different ecological zones that had no equal pattern of either socio-economic status or activities.

The implication of the study

This paper has three policy implications. First, the Ministry published a “National Client’s Service Charter for Health Facilities” in 2018 aiming at providing guidance to health facilities on how to adapt the charter for use at all areas of service delivery. The results have provided a baseline and lessons for the Ministry to closely assess, monitor and evaluate implementation of client’s service charter in health facilities [16]. Second, the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has exacerbated the already weak health systems in low- and middle- income countries threatening to disrupt services [57]. The COVID-19 poses a direct risk to health facilities compliance to client service charter. Therefore, these finding will help the Ministry and all stakeholders to further collaborate in strengthening PHC facilities to implement their client service charter in order to improve the quality of health care services provided. Third, investing in strengthening implementation of client service charter will help to improve the PHC facilities responsiveness to client’s needs and expectations and hence, improving person-centred care. A study conducted in four low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) has shown that improvements in person-centred care are essential for a high quality health system [58].

Strengths and limitations

This is the first Tanzanian study on client focus assessment having National coverage of PHC facilities. The findings will allow fair comparisons with similar studies elsewhere thus informing policy makers and health planners globally.

Our dataset had limited information on patients’ characteristics therefore we were unable to determine if these characteristics were associated to clients’ satisfaction. Nevertheless, previous studies have shown no significant association between socio-demographic predictors and client satisfaction [55].

Our findings that show relatively high reported clients satisfaction level should be translated with caution as the results could have been biased by the data collection method, i.e., exit interview. The ‘white coat effect’ introduced by exit interviews could have exaggerated the values of the results since a client is likely to not say anything bad against the facility which he/she gets service from [59]. However, data collectors were instructed to conduct exit interviews outside the facilities’ compound during data collection.

Finally, three to five may not be the right representative number of clients to conclude on clients’ satisfaction at a given facility. However, the experience during data collection showed the number of clients attending at the majority of the facilities i.e. dispensaries was very low to the extent that it would be impossible to get an extra interviewee at some facilities. The findings of this study are presented as “satisfaction on a day of the visit” and should be translated with such a precaution.

Conclusion and recommendations

The status of implementation of client service charter is very low among Tanzanian PHC facilities. Majority facilities had the charter displayed at facilities but not monitored. Furthermore, the proportion of PHC facilities whose clients were satisfied with services provided during a day of visit is very convincing though falls below the recommended value of 80%. Clients were likely to be satisfied if received healthcare services from facilities that display the charter, monitor the implementation of the charter and from the facilities that have mechanisms to obtain clients feedback and handle complaints that arise from service delivery.

Moreover, clients had higher satisfaction if were served from the facilities that are based in urban areas and by highest level PHC facilities included in this study, i.e., hospital-level. According to Tanzanian context; these kind of PHC facilities are likely to offer better services so do higher clients satisfaction. Therefore, more effort in improving quality of services should target health centres and PHC facilities that are based in rural areas.

The implementation of the client service charter among facilities is low compared to how clients are satisfied. We assume there is a huge improvement in the clients experience towards healthcare delivery since inception of the SRA initiatives.

The client service charter is an approved tool for managing performance and quality of service delivery in Tanzania [32]. Poor performance in client service indicates that PHC facilities were providing services below the expected level of patient-centeredness and focus and therefore more efforts is needed to improve the situation.

Recommendations

In order to improve the implementation of client service charters in primary health facilities in Tanzania, the orientation of health workers on client’s service charter and strengthening complaints management system needs to be taken into account [42]. It is also important for the Ministry to embed implementation research in implementation of the SRAs in PHC facilities in order to learn along the process and hence develop a learning health system in Tanzania [60].

26 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,

Wen-Wei Sung, M.D., Ph.D.

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: During the time of baseline and reassessment as well as during write up of the study – JH, EE and TY were with the Health Quality Assurance Divison (now called Health Quality Assurance Unit) and were responsible for the implementation of SRA and QIPs folllow-up.]

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Manuscript should be revised by a native English speaker. Can you tell some reasons for facilities not being available in the data base? How was random selection of persons to interview organized? List of references could be shortened.

Thanks for your efforts!

Reviewer #2: DEAR Author,

The study’s topic, “Clients satisfaction at primary healthcare facilities and its association to the status of client service charter implementation in Tanzania” it’s interesting, but some sections should be clarified.

-The methodology is unclear, such measure tool or scare lack references support, and lack reliability and validity, and “Explain the purpose of this 5-minute interview to the client…” how to mention the Questionnaire could be measured.

-In addition, the study’s satisfaction score points present dichotomy, only yes or no, why result could be presented percentage.

-Result section, Figure 2: the satisfaction with services data why lower more than 80%, suggest author address more.

-“Table 4. Predictors of clients’ satisfaction at healthcare facilities during SRA of 2017/18.” incorrectly presented, samples could not match the study’s text, please check.

-For more contributions, suggest authors should clarify each clients satisfaction item and analyze the samples which clients satisfaction item is more meaningful to be improved. Such as patient characteristics or facilities health workers’ quality care.

-The discussion section should be reworded based on the incorrect analysis result.

-Page 18, “Second, the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has exacerbated the already weak health systems in low- and middle- income countries threatening to disrupt services…” it does not include the study range, so I am confused because page 11 authors presented “….By 2017 Tanzania had 7,289 PHC facilities that were all involved in SRA assessment of the year 2017/2018.”

Thank you for your effort.

Reviewer #3: Introduction

Those who are not familiar with primary healthcare do not really know what the Astana Declaration is. Please elaborate a bit more in detail.

Patient satisfaction in primary care is a controversial outcome as international studies have shown ceiling effects. Please discuss.

On page 4 it is stated „This paper discusses service area number seven (7) of the star rating assessment (SRA) tools, namely client focus.“ without explaining the SRA tools. Therefore, the reader is not able to follow the context.

It is not clear why the SRA dataset of 2017/18 was used. Why was there no newer data?

Methods

In the Conceptual Framework the details of the content and implementation of the client service charter should be described. Is there a SOP which describes how to implement the CSC? How is it measured if a CSC is implemented or not?

„due to one reason or another, facilities whose results were not found in the database were excluded from the analysis.“ => These reasons have to be explained in detail. Otherwise you have a sample with unknown selection criteria which influence your results.

Table 3: „Client service charter was implemented if all three indicators were met.“ Does this mean that all the displayed questions in Table 3 had to be answered with „Yes“ ? Please explain.

The Analysis section has to be much more detailed. Statistical measures used have to be justified and described. The binary variable regarding patient satisfaction should be explained more clearly. Those who scored 8/10 were considered to be satisfied with the service?

Results

There are 2766 (38%) PHC facilities not included in the analyses. A missing analysis regarding their characteristics has to be performed in order to demonstrate if you have a selective sample or not.

Table 4:

As far as I have understood the authors have performed single-variable regressions first with each of the listed predictors and then included them all in one multivariate analyses. Please explain more precisely. Please give an indicator of model performance, e.g. McFadden´s R-square.

Discussion

Important points were raised for the future of the PHC system in Tanzania. Please explain further the discrepancy between the relatively low implementation of client service charter and the relatively high satisfaction of patients.

Reviewer #4: The logical comments are as below.

1. The authors defined "Three clients were randomly selected at each dispensary and five at health centers and hospital

level 1" as the facilities clients was satisfied with, and potential factors were examined for the associations with the client-satisfying facility. Three or five clients are not enough to evaluate the facilities in terms of client satisfaction. The authors should analyze the associations between client satisfaction and factors, not between facilities evaluated by a limited number of clients and factors.

2. The authors did not describe the method of random selection of clients. The readers cannot judge whether the clients were sampled randomly or not.

3. The characteristics of clients were not described. The readers cannot understand whose evaluation was the base of satisfaction.

4. The characteristics and qualification of interviewers were not described.

5. Figure 2 is hard to be interpreted. The title says "Proportion of primary health facilities whose clients are satisfied". For example, what did the author mean for the proportion of "Charter displayed?"?

The technical comments are as follows.

1. The abbreviation must be defined at the first appearance with the full spelling, and the abbreviation should be used thereafter. For example, "CSC".

2. In Table 2, delete "=" after "Wait less than 60 minutes".

3. In Table 4, COR of 1.125 should be replaced with "1.13". The term "Ref" is dropped at four parts.

Reviewer #5: Dear authors

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this well-written manuscript entitled “Clients satisfaction at primary health-care facilities and its association to status of client service charter implementation in Tanzania”. The main objective of the study was to determine clients’ satisfaction at PHC facilities and its association with status of client service charter implementation in Tanzania. This work is well designed and well written manuscript that can improve the delivering PHC services. Therefore, I think the manuscript can be considered seriously for publishing. I have just one comment:

1. I would like to see some information regarding Tanzania such as population, socio-economic status, and PHC in the introduction.

Best wishes

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Nobuyuki Hamajima

Reviewer #5: Yes: Abbas Mardani

[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.

29 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-39135

Clients satisfaction at primary health-care facilities and its association to status of client service charter implementation in Tanzania

PLOS ONE

Dear editor, we humbly submit the responses to comments raised by the reviewers including you. Thank you again for giving us the opportunity.

Additional Journal requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

As per guidelines, all headings for major sections in the manuscript have been increased in font size from 16 to 18.

As per guidelines, all headings for sub-sections of major sections in the manuscript have been increased in font size from 14 to 16.

As per guidelines, all headings for level 3 in the manuscript have been increased in font size from 12 to 14.

An extension “.tif” has been added to each figure name.

Figures are now cited as “Fig 1”, “Fig 2” and “Fig 3” instead of “Figure 1”, “Figure 2” and “Figure 3” respectively.

Figures are now captioned as “Fig. 1”, “Fig. 2” and “Fig. 3” instead of “Figure 1”, “Figure 2” and “Figure 3” respectively.

Figure titles are now bolded but not italicized.

All titles have been written in sentence case

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: During the time of baseline and reassessment as well as during write up of the study – JH, EE and TY were with the Health Quality Assurance Divison (now called Health Quality Assurance Unit) and were responsible for the implementation of SRA and QIPs folllow-up.]

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Thank you. The statement is included in the cover letter as instructed.

3. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Figure 3 is our own construction and was not accessed from other sources than us, authors.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Reviewer #1: Manuscript should be revised by a native English speaker. Can you tell some reasons for facilities not being available in the data base? How was random selection of persons to interview organized? List of references could be shortened.

Thanks for your efforts!

It is not true that some facilities were not available in the database, the true statement should have been “some facilities had missing/incomplete data”. We targeted all facilities that were assessed through Star Rating Assessment (SRA). However , some had missing data during data extraction and were excluded from the analysis. The methodology section has added this statement to clarify the previous statement.

How was random selection of persons to interview organized?

We have added a description (in data sources-dependent variable subsection) on how clients for exit interviews were randomly selected in the current version.

“If there was more than one client exiting the facility, the first client to be interviewed was randomly selected by using a lottery system. In this system, each client was assigned a number and thereafter each number was written on each piece of paper. All papers were shuffled well and one paper was picked randomly to obtain the first interviewee. After returning from an interview, the data collector selected the next patient entering the consultation room until the targeted sample size was achieved.” The reference for the methodology is provided as well.

List of references could be shortened.

We have refined some references

Reviewer #2: DEAR Author,

The study’s topic, “Clients satisfaction at primary healthcare facilities and its association to the status of client service charter implementation in Tanzania” it’s interesting, but some sections should be clarified.

-The methodology is unclear, such measure tool or scare lack references support, and lack reliability and validity, and “Explain the purpose of this 5-minute interview to the client…” how to mention the Questionnaire could be measured.

We have added some references to support our methodologies. Details on how the exit interview was conducted have been added as well.

-In addition, the study’s satisfaction score points present dichotomy, only yes or no, why result could be presented percentage.

“Yes” and “No” were the possible values for each question. To obtain the proportion (in percentage) of the facilities scoring yes for each question; the number of facilities scoring “yes” was the numerator and the total number of facilities included in the analysis was the denominator.

-Result section, Figure 2: the satisfaction with services data why lower more than 80%, suggest author address more.

Yes, 72.2% of PHC facilities had their clients satisfied with services provided on a day of assessment. This finding is below the target value of 80%.

-“Table 4. Predictors of clients’ satisfaction at healthcare facilities during SRA of 2017/18.” incorrectly presented, samples could not match the study’s text, please check.

Some corrections have been made.

-For more contributions, suggest authors should clarify each clients satisfaction item and analyze the samples which clients satisfaction item is more meaningful to be improved. Such as patient characteristics or facilities health workers’ quality care.

-The discussion section should be reworded based on the incorrect analysis result.

Thank for the comment. We have improved some of the paragraphs in this section.

-Page 18, “Second, the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has exacerbated the already weak health systems in low- and middle- income countries threatening to disrupt services…” it does not include the study range, so I am confused because page 11 authors presented “….By 2017 Tanzania had 7,289 PHC facilities that were all involved in SRA assessment of the year 2017/2018.”

It is true the results of this study were obtained before the onset of the covid-19 pandemic. However, given the current situation in Tanzanian facilities and what we have learned after the covid-19 outbreak, we thought it was good to advise the government and stakeholders what could be the implication of the past findings in the current situation. And therefore they need to put in place robust systems to protect health care consumers from merging and re-emerging outbreaks/harm in the future.

Thank you for your effort.

Reviewer #3: Introduction

Those who are not familiar with primary healthcare do not really know what the Astana Declaration is. Please elaborate a bit more in detail.

Details on the declaration has been added.

Patient satisfaction in primary care is a controversial outcome as international studies have shown ceiling effects. Please discuss.

A ceiling effect is said to occur when a high proportion of subjects in a study have maximum scores on the observed variable. We have discussed this as one of the limitations to our findings in manuscript text. The reference has been added as well.

On page 4 it is stated „This paper discusses service area number seven (7) of the star rating assessment (SRA) tools, namely client focus.“ without explaining the SRA tools. Therefore, the reader is not able to follow the context.

We have added a description on the SRA tool to help readers get a link between SRA tool, a star award and area 7 which is client focus.

It is not clear why the SRA dataset of 2017/18 was used. Why was there no newer data?

SRA dataset of 2017/18 is the newest nation-wide dataset so far. We have just started the third phase of SRA this year (2021/2022) by reaching out 10 among 26 regions available in the country. This is very expensive task and we are not sure yet if we will complete the task to all regions. The first SRA was conducted in 2015/16, however, it was not possible to maintain a quality database by that time.

Methods

In the Conceptual Framework the details of the content and implementation of the client service charter should be described. Is there a SOP which describes how to implement the CSC? How is it measured if a CSC is implemented or not?

As a country we have a guideline titled “National Client’s Service Charter for Health Facilities” in which chapter 4 describes on how to monitor and evaluate how facilities perform on implementing CSC.

Monitoring is conducted on quarterly basis through customer satisfaction surveys. The same tool that was used to collect data for this study is used for the surveys.

„due to one reason or another, facilities whose results were not found in the database were excluded from the analysis.“ => These reasons have to be explained in detail. Otherwise you have a sample with unknown selection criteria which influence your results.

The statement has been modified to make it clearer, thank you so much for the observation. The previous statement was not presenting the actual thing we did. We targeted all facilities that were assessed through Star Rating Assessment (SRA). However, some had missing data during data extraction and were excluded from the analysis.

Table 3: „Client service charter was implemented if all three indicators were met.“ Does this mean that all the displayed questions in Table 3 had to be answered with „Yes“ ? Please explain.

Thank you for the observation. To be more precise, the statement has been modified to “The indicator for the client service charter was regarded implemented if all verification questions scored “Yes” for that particular indicator”

The Analysis section has to be much more detailed. Statistical measures used have to be justified and described. The binary variable regarding patient satisfaction should be explained more clearly. Those who scored 8/10 were considered to be satisfied with the service?

More details have been added in different sub-sections of the Methodology section. Specifically, clarification on a binary variable has been made.

Results

There are 2766 (38%) PHC facilities not included in the analyses. A missing analysis regarding their characteristics has to be performed in order to demonstrate if you have a selective sample or not.

A sensitivity analysis was done and realized that excluded data had similar characteristics to those that were included. To clarify more, we have included a table numbered 4 that describe the characteristics of missing facilities.

Table 4: (currently Table 5)

As far as I have understood the authors have performed single-variable regressions first with each of the listed predictors and then included them all in one multivariate analyses. Please explain more precisely. Please give an indicator of model performance, e.g. McFadden´s R-square.

Thank you for the nice comment. However, there is a mixing understanding of the rationale for reporting indicators of model performance. For example, Giselmar et al (https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124116638107 ) in their study explain the following “the McFadden values are not appropriate in cases with large sample sizes (n > 200) and/or strongly asymmetric distribution of observations to categories (ν > 1.6)”

Therefore, we opted to include not the values to avoid potential confusion. However, we are ready to comply with the reviewer’s comment if he/she insists.

Discussion

Important points were raised for the future of the PHC system in Tanzania. Please explain further the discrepancy between the relatively low implementation of client service charter and the relatively high satisfaction of patients.

Thank you for the comment. We have added explaination in discussion and third paragraph of conclusion section to explain further the discrepancy between the relatively low implementation of client service charter and the relatively high satisfaction of patients.

Reviewer #4: The logical comments are as below.

1. The authors defined "Three clients were randomly selected at each dispensary and five at health centers and hospital level 1" as the facilities clients was satisfied with, and potential factors were examined for the associations with the client-satisfying facility. Three or five clients are not enough to evaluate the facilities in terms of client satisfaction. The authors should analyze the associations between client satisfaction and factors, not between facilities evaluated by a limited number of clients and factors.

We agree with the reviewer; three to five clients are few to evaluate client satisfaction at the facility. However, However, the experience during data collection showed the number of clients attending the majority of facilities i.e. dispensaries was very low to the extent it was difficult in some instances to achieve the required number of interviewees. The findings of this study are presented as “satisfaction on a day of the visit” and should be translated with such a precaution. We have included this as one of the limitations of the study in the manuscript text.

2. The authors did not describe the method of random selection of clients. The readers cannot judge whether the clients were sampled randomly or not.

We have added a description (in manuscript text) on how clients for exit interviews were randomly selected in the current version.

“If there was more than one client exiting the facility, the first client to be interviewed was randomly selected by using a lottery system. In this system, each client was assigned a number and thereafter each number was written on each piece of paper. All papers were shuffled well and one paper was picked randomly to obtain the first interviewee. After returning from an interview, the data collector selected the next patient entering the consultation room until the targeted sample size was achieved.”

3. The characteristics of clients were not described. The readers cannot understand whose evaluation was the base of satisfaction.

This is one of the limitations of the study, we have it in the manuscript text. The database we used does not contain the characteristics of the clients interviewed.

4. The characteristics and qualification of interviewers were not described.

We have added a special sub-section named “data sources” under “Study variables and collection of data”. In the second paragraph (with the reference), we have described the characteristics and quality of data collectors.

5. Figure 2 is hard to be interpreted. The title says "Proportion of primary health facilities whose clients are satisfied". For example, what did the author mean for the proportion of "Charter displayed?"?

The figure has been revised both structurally and descriptive to make it clearer. Thank you for the comment.

The technical comments are as follows.

1. The abbreviation must be defined at the first appearance with the full spelling, and the abbreviation should be used thereafter. For example, "CSC".

The document has been reviewed and corrections made as per reviewer’s comment.

2. In Table 2, delete "=" after "Wait less than 60 minutes".

The symbol has been omitted, thank you for the observation.

3. In Table 4, COR of 1.125 should be replaced with "1.13". The term "Ref" is dropped at four parts.

Thank you for the comment, changes have been made.

Reviewer #5: Dear authors

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this well-written manuscript entitled “Clients satisfaction at primary health-care facilities and its association to the status of client service charter implementation in Tanzania”. The main objective of the study was to determine clients’ satisfaction at PHC facilities and its association with the status of client service charter implementation in Tanzania. This work is well designed and well well-written script that can improve the delivering PHC services. Therefore, I think the manuscript can be considered seriously for publishing. I have just one comment:

1. I would like to see some information regarding Tanzania such as population, socio-economic status, and PHC in the introduction.

Best wishes

I thank the reviewer for the positive comments. The recommendations have been incorporated in the introduction section.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Jul 2022

Clients satisfaction at primary healthcare facilities and its association with implementation of client service charter in Tanzania

PONE-D-21-39135R1

Dear Dr. Erick S. Kinyenje,

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,

Wen-Wei Sung, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: Dear Author,

Thanks for your work. My part that you had response my concerns, I have no other suggestion.

Reviewer #5: I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the revised version of this manuscript. The authors addressed my comment sufficiently.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Abbas Mardani

**********

5 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-39135R1

Clients satisfaction at primary healthcare facilities and its association with implementation of client service charter in Tanzania

Dear Dr. Kinyenje:

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. Wen-Wei Sung

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Service area 7—client focus.

7	Client Focus	Indicator
	7.1. Client services charter	Client services charter displayed
		Client services charter is monitored
		Client feedback mechanism and complaints handling
	7.2. Client satisfaction	Clients satisfied with services provided

Table 2

An exit interview tool used during the Star Rating Assessment of 2017/18 in Tanzania.

CLIENT EXIT INTERVIEW: client over age 18 or representative if client under 18Client number 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Explain the purpose of this 5 minute interview to the client (or the client’s representative in the case of minors) and obtain consent.Purpose: “We are here to give a star rating for this facility. May I ask you a few questions to know if your visit was satisfactory?”
	Interviewer code |___|___|___|___| Time (HH:MM) |___|___|: |___|___|
	Client age	Years |___|___|
	Client sex	Male / Female
1	What time did you arrive at the facility?How long did you wait before you were seen by a health worker? (total wait from arrival time until time seen by health worker),	Time |___|___|: |___|___| Minutes |___|___| Wait <60 minutes? Yes / No	HH:MMWait less than 60 minutes Yes = 1 point
2	Was the waiting time acceptable to you?	Yes / No	Yes = 1 point
3	Did the health worker examine you?	Yes / No	Yes = 1 point
4	Did the health worker explain about your care, or illness, and about any tests or treatment?	Yes / No	Yes = 1 point
5	Did you receive all the prescribed medicines?	Yes / No	Yes = 1 point
6	Did you understand how to take the medicines? [probe]	Yes / No	Yes = 1 point
7	Were the health workers polite and respectful?	Yes / No	Yes = 1 point
8	Did you have enough privacy during your visit?	Yes / No	Yes = 1 point
9	Did you find the facilities clean and in order?	Yes / No	Yes = 1 point
10	Are the fees and charges fair and affordable to you? [Q also applies to CHF/ NHIF members]	Yes / No	Yes = 1 point
		SCORE |___|___| points	(out of 10 points)
	Was your visit satisfactory overall?If not satisfactory, please explain:	Yes / No	Not scored.Record comments
	What would you like to see improved?		Record comments
	If not all medicines received, what do you do?		Record comments

Thank the person for their participation.

Table 3

Assessment criteria and scoring scale for client service charter indicators during SRA 2017/28.

NO.	INDICATOR	QUESTION & VERIFICATION METHOD	RESPONSES (Y = yes; P = partial; N = no)
7.1	Client Service Charter
7.1.1	Client service charter displayed	1. Is the client service charter available at this facility?	Y. Client charter availableN. Client charter not available
		2. Is the client service charter displayed in a public area, and visible to clients	Y. Client charter well displayedN. Client charter not well displayed
7.1.2	Client service charter is monitored	1. Does the facility management team measure compliance with the client service charter?Check if documented within the last six months	Y. Compliance with client charter is assessed and measured by the facility management teamN. No assessment or measurement of compliance with the client charter
7.1.3	Client feedback mechanism and complaint handling	1. Is any method for client feedback in place at the facility?Any of the following will qualify: suggestion box, client help desk, display of contact details for phone or SMS feedback. Specify the method(s) in use.	Y. Feedback method in placeN. No feedback method placeIf ‘Y’ specify the methods in place: ________________________________
		2. Is the feedback mechanism in use?Check records of complaints/ suggestions over the last 6 months	Y. Records indicate a feedback mechanism is usedN. No records in the last 6 months, feedback mechanism not working
		3. Has there been any action on suggestions for improvement, or to address complaints from the feedback mechanism?Check documentation on actions and any improvement.	Y. There is a record of actions to take up suggestions/ address the complaintsN: There is no record of action or no feedback mechanism
		4. Is there any community participation and engagement arising from the feedback mechanism?Check if WEO, HFGC members, or CHW are present for opening of the suggestion box, or information provided to HFGC or community from feedback mechanism.	Y. Community engaged or information sharedN: No engagement or sharing of information

Table 5

Predictors of clients’ satisfaction at primary healthcare facilities during SRA of 2017/18.

	Clients satisfaction				Bivariate			Multivariate
Variable	Yes	%	No	%	COR	95% CI	p-value	AOR	95% CI	p-value
Facility type
Health Centre	282	69.1	126	30.9	0.83	0.55–1.25	0.373	0.94	0.58–1.53	0.817
Hospital	98	76.6	30	23.4	1.21	0.97–1.51	0.093	1.39	1.10–1.77	0.006
Dispensary	2,911	73.0	1,076	27.0	Ref			Ref
Ownership
Private	603	74.5	206	25.5	1.12	0.94–1.33	0.211	1.19	0.97–1.46	0.095
Public	2,688	72.4	1,026	27.6	Ref			Ref
Location
Urban	710	74.6	242	25.4	1.13	0.96–1.32	0.156	1.21	1.00–1.46	0.043
Rural	2,581	72.3	990	27.7	Ref			Ref
Charter displayed?
Yes	2,368	78.4	651	21.6	1.91	1.66–2.20	<0.001	1.62	1.39–1.89	<0.001
No	885	65.6	465	34.6	Ref
Charter monitored?
Yes	1,150	82.3	248	17.7	1.92	1.64–2.25	<0.001	1.47	1.23–1.75	<0.001
No	2,059	70.7	852	29.3	Ref
Feedback mechanism &complaint handling
Yes	1,120	77.2	330	22.8	1.35	1.16–1.56	<0.001	1.45	1.23–1.72	<0.001
No	2,154	71.6	855	28.4	Ref

p- Values are calculated using chi square test

*Predictors whose association were found significant in the final logistic regression model

COR = Crude/unadjusted Odds Ratio, AOR = Adjusted Odds Ratio, Ref = Reference group