PONE-D-20-23864

What influences home delivery among women who live in urban areas in Ghana? Analysis of 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey data

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Budu,

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.

Three experts in the field handled your manuscript, and we are very thankful for their time and efforts. Although interest was found in your study, some comments arose the need addressing in your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 21 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

• The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript
• A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)
• A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication, which needs to be addressed:

- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0220970&type=printable

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Background information, the following are missing

1. Clear definition of home birth is missing

2. What is situation in Ghana, does home birth = unskilled assistance

3. How does this study define unskilled birth assistance?

4. It must come clearly why urban? The expectation is urban home birth may invite skilled attendant as compared to rural? 5. Are there traditional birth attendants in urban?

The paper is about predictors of home birth but authors have to say something on the proportion of home birth vs health facility birth.

Reviewer #2: Review report ( Dr. Habtamu Tolera)

The manuscript reports the findings regarding “What influences home delivery among women who live in urban areas in Ghana? Analysis of 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey data (PONE-D-20-23864). This kind of study is much relevant in context of LMICs like Ghana. The sample size is adequate and the analyses is really very rigorous and well done. I have found that authors strongly need to rework on the background and methodology sections. They also need to avoid long sentences used across the manuscript. Here below in my report I have tried to review some points or concerns that need authors to further rework on them to improve the power of this manuscript to get published in PLoS One Journal. Authors can also refer to the attached pdf file.

Affiliation:

Corresponding author's E-mail address is enough. So, remove others’ email addresses from the front page of the manuscript

Background:

• I have found the sentences in the first paragraph of the “Background” section of this study (page # 2, Lines 73-84) were too long and lacks clarity. Thus, I advise authors: (1) avoiding long sentences from this section and elsewhere across the manuscript, (2) clarify all so that they convey the correct information for potential readers of the manuscript.

• See Page # 3, line 97. If this is so, why do the author(s) interested to urban Ghana than rural Ghana in this study? authors need to give justifications for selection criteria.

• See also sentences on page 3, lines 103 through 110. They were not clearly stated for potential international readers, all have been needed to be rewritten.

• Page 3, Lines 110-112 said like this, “However, these studies focused more on rural areas, ignoring the fact that a considerable number of women in urban areas still use home delivery service” This needs authors to acknowledge (cite) supporting evidences to say so. So that they may convince the readers.

• Finally, your “Background” section needs more detail. I suggest that authors improve the description at "Background" section to provide more justification for their study (specifically, you should expand upon the knowledge gap being filled). I also recommend authors to read and review adequate empirical works on home delivery elsewhere in LMICs to enrich also their "Background" section. Why did you stick to works done in Ghana alone? They need to read vast works beyond urban Ghana and describe the contexts, background pictures (international or local pictures of the problem) of the topic; empirical/theoretical/methodological gaps observed with regard to the issue/the problem under study as well. Authors again need to state the benefits of this research findings (for program/policy interventions) in the last sentence of the "background" section or somewhere in this section.

Methods and materials

• I understand that authors analyzed GDHS or survey data collected by government. However, I have found that important methodological subsections/elements or components were missing in this study. So, authors need to add "Study setting", "study design", "Sampling procedure/sample size determination", "Data collection/quality assurance", "Data processing procedures and analyses". They need to customize these methodologies from GDHS "survey they used for this study. These are mandatory to be included under the methodological sections to be published in PLoS ONE.

• On Page 3, lines 119 through 121 Under “Data Source” section, it was stated/listed like this, “The survey targets core maternal and child health indicators such as unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use, skilled birth attendance, immunization among under-fives, and intimate partner violence”. Did these variables were captured/considered in the report/ analyses of this study? I have not they found them. If not relevant, please remove it If were not well addressed or if they were inserted by mistake.

• Line 133, better if you label it like this, "Variables studied" or “Measurements”

• Sentences from Lines 135 through 140, is not clear. The current phrasing makes comprehension difficult. so, have been rewritten.

• A sentence from Lines 135-38, were put like this, “The outcome variable employed for this study was “home delivery” which was obtained from the 136 question, “Where did you deliver?” Responses to this question were coded respondent’s home, other home, government hospital, government health centre/clinic, government health post/CHPS, other public, private hospital/clinic, maternity homes, and others”. My concern is that, under which category did authors assign or grouping "maternity home” in this coding of categories of the outcome variable, delivery choice status of study subjects. They need to recheck the coding

Results:

• Authors need to insert a new column in Tables 1 and 2 to report the frequency and the proportion of both home delivery and Non-home delivery statuses of women. Readers need to get these two values together AOR, CI, P-values, etc.

• Finally, some texts and paragraphs need editorial problems and authors need to rewrite with clear and plain language

Reviewer #3: This is an informative piece of work.

However, it would do better with inclusion of recent studies on home delivery in the introduction and or discussion to make it stronger.

Summarize all the key findings at the beginning of the discussion to get the reader a better perspective vs the discussion of results separately in fragmented style

The conclusion can still be strengthened, made more clearer and indicative.

Take care of references to ensure consistency, providing key links for critical documents and when these were accessed.

**********

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: Yes: Habtamu Tolera

Reviewer #3: No

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

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Final HOME DELIVERY_Vancouver copy.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Gahan paper PONE-D-20-23864_reviewer.pdf

PONE-D-20-23864R1

What influences home delivery among women who live in urban areas in Ghana? Analysis of 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey data

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Budu,

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.

Carefully proof your manuscript to correct grammar or spelling errors.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 24 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Authors have addressed the raised comments as required,

Minor revisions on the abstract and some typographical errors

Reviewer #2: I hope authors did all best. I appreciate your commitments. I have any concerns. I have finished in my side.

Reviewer #3: All concerns have been duly addressed. Information and narrative provided is sufficient. The data provided supports the conclusion provided.

**********

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: Habtamu Tolera Deressa

Reviewer #3: No

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

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

What influences home delivery among women who live in urban areas in Ghana? Analysis of 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey data

PONE-D-20-23864R2

Dear Dr. Budu,

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,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE