Erratum
In the publication of this article [1], the following percentage symbols were accidentally missed out from the ‘Results’ and ‘Discussion’ sections:
Results
2. Becoming an auxiliary midwife: the pathways
…as 89 % reported…
3. AMW: contributions of and supports to AMW
…about 9 % of the respondents…
…such as technical supervision (99 %), refresher course (99 %), replenishment of AMW kits (96 %)…
4. AMW: Intention to stay
…if they needed to change their domicile (21 %)
Discussion
…Naturally in Myanmar, 39 % of AMWs…
In addition to the above, some figures in Table 4 were misaligned. The updated Table 4 is presented below:
All the above have been updated in the original article.