Midwifery centers as enabled environments for midwifery: A quasi experimental design assessing women’s birth experiences in three models of care in Bangladesh, before and during covid

Jennifer Rebecca Stevens; Lora L. Sabin; Monica A. Onyango; Malabika Sarker; Eugene Declercq

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278336

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 13, 2022
8 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Hannah Tappis, Editor PONE-D-22-07498Midwifery centers as enabled midwifery: Centering women’s experience of care with a human rights based approach before and during a crisisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Stevens, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please carefully consider constructive comments from both reviewers, particularly requests for clarification and suggestions for strengthening structure and clarity from reviewer #1. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 22 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Hannah Tappis, DrPH, MPH 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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Dear authors, thanks for the opportunity for reviewing your manuscript on “Midwifery centers as enabled midwifery: Centering women’s experience of care with a human rights based approach before and during a crisis”. It is an interesting paper and fits the readers of PLOS ONE. I have a few comments to be considered before being published. Title: a suggestion is to include the method used and in which country the study takes place in the title Introduction Overall, the introduction is well written, and fits well for a thesis, but it is far too long for a scientific paper. First the authors report from the Lancet maternal health series, WHO standards, Lancet series on midwifery, human rights approach, midwifery models of care and Covid, and Bangladesh, and it takes 6 pages before the readers come to the aim of the study. As a reader I wonder, what the problem statement is of your study? If this is defined, it would help you to build your introduction in a shorter and more to the point. A suggestion is to shorten the introduction to be no longer than 1-2 pages. Page 6, line 77-80: According to the ICM, by using the term midwife indicates that the person who has successfully completed a midwifery education programme that is based on the ICM Essential Competencies for Midwifery Practice ICM Definitions (internationalmidwives.org). Suggest that you refer to the persons not meeting the training standards of the International Confederation of Midwives for example nurse-midwives. This, as it will be less confusing when you talk about midwives on page 6 in relation to midwifery care. Page 6-7, line, 103-107, the term fully enabled midwifery model (FEM), is this an accepted term? The reference which you use, talk about free standing midwifery unit Page 7, line122, spell out NGO Page 9, line 166, the aim mentions three models of care, but the introduction it talks only about one model. There needs to be a short sentence about that there are different models of care. Method Page 10, line 174-179: the three models; FEM, MAM and NOM, as a reader I am curious about these models, are they established in Bangladesh and are these terms and abbreviations being used there? Page 10, line 183: How were the selected facilities invited? For the reader to understand the different models, It is suggested to short describe the different care levels that exists in Bangladesh, and how these are being distributed in the provinces. Page 11, line 190, add a reference related to midwives in Bangladesh which there are several articles published on. Page 13, line 235, the phone-administered questionnaire consisting of 31 closed-ended, and 11 open-ended questions, was this a validated instrument being used, or what questionnaire is this? Discussion Page 19, Line349-388, Usually the discussion starts with a short summary of key findings, and thereafter being discussed again the literature. This is missing in this paper, and the discussion in its current form is partly a repetition of the results. Please add a conclusion Reviewer #2: Midwifery centers as enabled midwifery: Centering women’s experience of care with a human rights based approach before and during a crisis is a well written manuscript. I suggest the last section on implementation could be divided into two with one heading named conclusion as it is very long and the reader must find the way in the text to find the conclusions in this section. I suggest to correct type errors. The dot should come after every bracket with references, the heading to the left. Good luck and I consider this minor revision. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278336.r001
Revision 1
26 Oct 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Dear Reviewers, Thank you for taking the time to read my article and offer your consideration. I found the comments helpful and often reflected thoughts I had as well. Please find your comments below in black, with my response to each in blue. Reviewer #1 comments: Title: a suggestion is to include the method used and in which country the study takes place in the title Thank you, I agree. I have modified the title as suggested. Introduction. Overall, the introduction is well written, and fits well for a thesis, but it is far too long for a scientific paper. First the authors report from the Lancet maternal health series, WHO standards, Lancet series on midwifery, human rights approach, midwifery models of care and Covid, and Bangladesh, and it takes 6 pages before the readers come to the aim of the study. As a reader I wonder, what the problem statement is of your study? If this is defined, it would help you to build your introduction in a shorter and more to the point. A suggestion is to shorten the introduction to be no longer than 1-2 pages. I agree. I was concerned my reader would not understand the foundations of this research- a HRBA to care, the history of focusing on access to care, the shift that has occurred around quality of care and valuing a woman’s experience of care, and the unique models of midwifery care and midwifery centers. I have cut it back as much as I can and still present these clearly. Page 6, line 77-80: According to the ICM, by using the term midwife indicates that the person who has successfully completed a midwifery education programme that is based on the ICM Essential Competencies for Midwifery Practice ICM Definitions (internationalmidwives.org). Suggest that you refer to the persons not meeting the training standards of the International Confederation of Midwives for example nurse-midwives. This, as it will be less confusing when you talk about midwives on page 6 in relation to midwifery care. Thank you, this is a very important concept to be clear about. I tweaked the language to be as clear as possible. In many LMIC, midwives are called nurse-midwives as they are nurses who have had additional training to deliver babies. Many do not meet the ICM criteria. What we call them matters. I used the term “professional midwife” to identify them, not just “midwife” (a term that is used very often for health workforce cadres meeting a wide range of educational backgrounds, if they provide care during birth) and I chose the term “non-standardized midwife” for any cadre who does not meet the ICM standard. I hope this makes it as clear as possible, without offending anyone, yet clearly identifies that between the FEM and MAM models, I am comparing midwives who meet same ICM standard of education. (see line 71-74) Page 6-7, line, 103-107, the term fully enabled midwifery model (FEM), is this an accepted term? The reference which you use, talk about free standing midwifery unit. These models were currently in place throughout Bangladesh, but identified and named for this research. I made this clearer when they are first introduced and later in the design section. (see line 103-110, 162-164) Page 7, line122, spell out NGO Thank you, done. Page 9, line 166, the aim mentions three models of care, but the introduction it talks only about one model. There needs to be a short sentence about that there are different models of care. This was added. (see line 97-110) Method Page 10, line 174-179: the three models; FEM, MAM and NOM, as a reader I am curious about these models, are they established in Bangladesh and are these terms and abbreviations being used there? As mentioned above, this was expanded and explained in a few places. (see line 162-164) Page 10, line 183: How were the selected facilities invited? This was added. (see line 168-171) For the reader to understand the different models, It is suggested to short describe the different care levels that exists in Bangladesh, and how these are being distributed in the provinces. I hate adding length to the paper, but I agree. This was added. (see line 135-141) Page 11, line 190, add a reference related to midwives in Bangladesh which there are several articles published on. Thank you, I agree. (see line 182) Page 13, line 235, the phone-administered questionnaire consisting of 31 closed-ended, and 11 open-ended questions, was this a validated instrument being used, or what questionnaire is this? The questionnaire was 3 surveys- 2 validated, one modified from an Ebola survey. This was specified in the article. (see line 225-236) Discussion Page 19, Line349-388, Usually the discussion starts with a short summary of key findings, and thereafter being discussed again the literature. This is missing in this paper, and the discussion in its current form is partly a repetition of the results. The discussion section was revised. (see line 337-380) Please add a conclusion Identified (see line 403-431). Reviewer#2 Comments: I suggest the last section on implementation could be divided into two with one heading named conclusion as it is very long and the reader must find the way in the text to find the conclusions in this section. Thank you. This section was revised with a clear conclusion identified at the end of the paper. I suggest to correct type errors. The dot should come after every bracket with references, the heading to the left. Thank you. This was revised throughout the article. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 4 Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278336.r002
15 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Hannah Tappis, Editor Midwifery centers as enabled environments for midwifery: A quasi experimental design assessing women’s birth experiences in three models of care in Bangladesh, before and during covid. PONE-D-22-07498R1 Dear Dr. Stevens, 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, Hannah Tappis, DrPH, MPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278336.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Nov 2022 Acceptance Letter - Hannah Tappis, Editor PONE-D-22-07498R1 Midwifery centers as enabled environments for midwifery: A quasi experimental design assessing women’s birth experiences in three models of care in Bangladesh, before and during covid. Dear Dr. Stevens: 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. Hannah Tappis Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278336.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .