Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Mar 15;18(3):e0282819. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282819

The magnitude and associated factors of immediate postpartum anemia among women who gave birth in east Gojjam zone hospitals, northwest- Ethiopia, 2020

Getachew Altaseb Agmassie 1, Genet Degu Alamneh 2,3, Moges Wubie Ayicheh 2,3, Worku Taye Getahun 1,*, Aysheshim Asnake Abneh 1
Editor: Malshani Lakshika Pathirathna4
PMCID: PMC10016639  PMID: 36921015

Abstract

Background

Globally around half a million maternal death occurred annually related to labor and delivery of which twenty percent is contributed by post-partum anemia. Postpartum anemia contributes about two percent of total maternal mortality in Ethiopia. Immediate postpartum anemia is a common public health problem in most parts of the globe, being frequent in low and middle-income countries including in the developed world. The previous studies cut off point for immediate postpartum Anemia is 11mg/dl which is the cutoff point of anemia after one week of postpartum, environmental factors like barefoot were not addressed in the previous studies and the previous studies were conducted in a single facility This study aimed to assess the magnitude and associated factors of immediate post-partum anemia among women who gave birth in East Gojjam zone hospitals, Northwest Ethiopia.

Methods

Institutional based cross-sectional study was conducted from October 20-November 20 2020 on immediate post-partum anemia. During the study 467 study participants were included by using systematic random sampling method Data were collected using a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire and a blood sample was used for hemoglobin determination. Data were checked, coded, and entered into Epi-Data Version 4.2 and then exported to SPSS version 25 for analysis. Binary logistic regressions were done to identify predictors of immediate post-partum anemia and a 95% confidence interval of odds ratio at a p-value less than was taken as a significance level.

Results

The overall magnitude of immediate postpartum anemia among mothers who gave birth in East Gojjam Zone Hospitals were found to be 21.63% (95% CI:18.12%, 25.11%), not having antenatal care follow-up (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 2.92;95% CI:1.20,7.06), assisted instrumental delivery (AOR = 2.72; 95% CI:1.08,6.78),mid-upper arm circumferences less than 23cm (AOR = 5.75;95% CI:3.38, 9.79), antepartum hemorrhage (AOR = 4.51; 95% CI:2.42, 8.37), never wearing shoes (AOR = 2.60; 95% CI:1.10, 6.14) were found to be significantly associated with immediate postpartum anemia.

Conclusion

This study indicates that immediate postpartum anemia is a moderate public health problem in the study area. A more careful strategy is ideal to increase antenatal care follow-up that sticks to national guideline contact schedule, safe reduction of instrumental and cesarean deliveries to the minimum, quick and timely linkage and treatment of malnourished pregnant mothers to the center where they get adequate health care services, along with a high index of suspicion in mothers diagnosed with antepartum hemorrhage, wise and vigilant advice on consistent use of the shoe for pregnant mothers are recommended to tackle the burden of immediate post-partum anemia.

Introduction

The postpartum period is the most climacteric time for both lives of the women and their newborns. Despite there being high maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity during this time, this is the most forgotten area for the provision of quality health care service, particularly in developing countries including Ethiopia. Anemia is a main global public health problem that affects the health quality of life and working ability of most people all over the world [1]. According to WHO and United kingdom guidelines, Immediate post-partum anemia is defined as a hemoglobin level less or equal to 10g/dl in the immediate puerperium [2, 3].

Globally around 500,000 maternal deaths occurred annually related to labor and delivery of which 20% are contributed by post-partum anemia [46]. Postpartum anemia contributes to about 2% of total maternal mortality in Ethiopia [7]. The magnitude of post-partum anemia in the developed country varies from 10–30% and in low and middle-income higher contributes from 50 to 80% [8]. Post-partum anemia is the leading indirect cause of maternal mortality in Ethiopia. According to EDHS 2016 Post-partum anemia account about 29% [9, 10].

Post-partum anemia can be classified based on its public health importance 4.9% and below is normal in prevalence,5–19.9% mild,20–39% moderate, and 40% and above is classified under severe prevalence [11]. Immediate postpartum anemia (IPPA) is a common public health problem in most parts of the globe, being frequent in low and middle-income countries including in the developed world [1].

Immediate Post-Partum anemia (IPPA) hurts the quality of life and well-being both for the mother, and her child. There is the physical contribution of Post-Partum anemia to mothers particularly fatigue, decreased day-to-day working activity, difficulty in breathing during exercise, increased heart rate, dizziness, and increased frequency of infections [8]. Immediate Post-Partum anemia also affects mother-to-child bonding on lactation and their interaction [5].

Although anemia in pregnant women is adequately explained very little attention has been given to immediate postpartum anemia and care during an immediate postpartum period is the neglected part of maternal care [12]. According to the previous studies cut off point for immediate postpartum Anemia is 11mg/dl which is the cutoff point of anemia after one week of postpartum, similarly, environmental factors like barefoot cause of anemia due to hookworm were not included and a previous study conducted in a single facility but this study is conducted in ten Hospitals. The majority of this zone is highland in its topography. Therefore, assessing the burden of disease as well as risk factors of immediate postpartum anemia is very crucial especially in the study area and in the country at large.

Methodology

Study setting and population

An institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted in East Gojjam zone Hospitals of Amhara regional state from October 20 to November 20, 2020 GC. East Gojjam zone is one of the 3rd most populous zones in the Region. It is found at 37.8087693 longitudes; 10.3287484 latitudes with 807meter minimum and 4236 meters elevation· It covered a total area of 14,009.74 square Kms. Based on the 2007 National Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSAE), projection, and East Gojjam zone administration office report; this zone in 2019 has an estimated 2,719,118 population, of whom 1,335,123 are females, and 1,383,995 are males and the total female reproductive age groups are 91,634. It has 19 districts and 5 town administrations, which have 392 administrative kebeles and 40 urban kebeles. Debre Markos is the capital town of the East Gojjam zone, located 265 Km from Bahir Dar and 299 Km from Addis Ababa. This Zone has one comprehensive specialized Hospital, one General Hospital, 8 Primary Hospitals, 104 Health Centers, and 406 Health Posts [13]. There are about 10 hospitals in the study area as we stated above and a total of 2090 deliveries in ten Hospitals per month. Debre Markos Comprehensive Specialized hospital accounts 505, Mota General hospital 287, Lumamie Primary Hospital 249, Bibugn primary Hospital 186, Shebel Berenta primary hospital 183, Merto-lemariam primary hospital 160, Yejube primary hospital 160, Dejen Primary hospital 132, Bichena Primary hospital and Debre- work primary hospital 112 per month. This zone also has 22 seniors, 160 midwives, and 101 general practitioners in gynecology and obstetrics-related area of service [14].

Sample size and sampling procedure

A total of 467 sample size was calculated by using Epi-Info stat Calc version 7.2 population survey by taking assumption of population size >10,000,95% confidence level, prevalence of immediate post-partum anemia 24.3% from previous study [15], margin of error 5%,design effect 1.5, 10% non-response rate. The sample size for the factor /the second objective was calculated by using Epi-Info statclc by taking five associated factors from previous studies and the greatest sample size among the five was 272 which is less than the sample size from the first objective then we took the sample size of the first objective.

A multistage sampling technique was employed to select the hospitals and the study participants with the assumption of homogeneity of the service in East Gojjam Zone hospitals. Five out of the ten were selected by simple random sampling technique using the lottery method. Bichena Primary hospital, Lumamie Primary Hospital, Shebel Berenta primary hospital, Merto-lemariam primary hospital, and Motta general hospital. The study participants were allocated to the proportion of client flow in each Hospital and the participants were selected by using a systematic random sampling technique every 2 case intervals before the mothers were discharged. Kth- interval, K = Nn, where: N = Total population immediate post-partum at the selected five Hospitals, n = Total sample size, then k = 1,065/467 = approximately every 2 mothers will take but, calculating K-value for each hospital was necessary by using K1 = N1/n1, K2 = N2/n2… (K = 2.27, 2.24, 2.25 …. approximately every 2 immediate postpartum women was taken to each hospital after the first case selecting randomly between 1 and K).

Study variables

Dependent variable

Immediate postpartum anemia.

Independent variables

Socio-demographic factors (age, residence, religion, ethnicity, marital status, educational status, occupation, and family income).

Obstetrics history-related variables (parity, multiple pregnancies, ANC follow-up, birth interval, previous abortion history, history of previous anemia, mode of delivery, tear, episiotomy, and neonatal birth weight).

Dietary and micronutrient utilization variables (iron-folic acid intake and mid-upper arm circumference).

Environmental-related variables (distance from a health facility, shoe-wearing status, and availability of toilet facility).

Co-existing disease-related variables (malaria, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis).

Operational definitions. Immediate postpartum period: the time just after the child’s birth by any mode of delivery via spontaneous vertex delivery, instrumental and cesarean delivery to the first 24 hours [16].

Immediate postpartum anemia (IPA): when the hemoglobin level is less or equal to 10g/dl in the immediate postpartum period, within 24 hours of post-delivery.

Good adherence to IFA: Supplementation means women who had taken iron folate supplements ≥90 days during the most recent pregnancy [17].

Distance from health facility: If the living house of the individual is greater than two hours walking from the health facility is considered as far from a health facility.

MUAC: If the individual postpartum woman has less than 23 cm of arm circumferences considered a lower MUAC in this study.

Availability of toilet: If an individual has any type of toilet in their compound or nearby their compound that is not used commonly consider as availability of toilet facility.

Barefoot walking: If people do not wear any types of shoes in their life considered as barefoot in this study.

Data collection procedures and instrumentations

English version of the data collection interviewer-administered questionnaire, which was adapted from various kinds of literature [15, 18, 19] was used to collect the data from study participants and client’s medical records from October 20-November 20,2020. It has five parts, socio-demographic characteristics, obstetrics history related, dietary and micronutrient utilization, Co-existing disease-related, and environmental-related characteristics. Five non-employed diploma midwives collected the data and two additional BSC midwives supervised the data collection process. Those data collectors and supervisors were recruited randomly by lottery method among non-employees. Data collection was done by these midwives who were not employed to minimize social desirability bias, one data collector for each hospital and two supervisors for all were assigned.

The data collectors took the lab request to the laboratory department for determination of the hemoglobin level after obtaining verbal informed consent eight hours after delivery then data collectors went to the laboratory and brought the EDTA tube and syringe with needle back to the mother then after 1 ml of venous blood was drowned from participants using aseptic technique by data collectors then taken to laboratory back for hemoglobin determination by using automated hematology analyzer Mindray done by laboratory technologies working at each hospital and determined. Data on IFA was collected by interviewing the woman for how long she took the supplement daily for a minimum of ninety days and MUAC was measured by tape meters measurement on a non-dominant hand following delivery, likewise, data on Co-existing disease was collected by reviewing her chart for investigations and interviewing her about known co-existing disease.

Data quality control

To assure the data quality high emphasis was given to designing data collection tools. The pretest was conducted on 5% of the sample size at Fenot Selam general hospital and necessary corrections on the instrument were employed accordingly. the one-day training was provided for data collectors and supervisors regarding the objectives of the study, data collection methods, the significance of the study, data collection tool, ethical considerations, and way of abstracting necessary information from the client’s medical records and themselves. During data collection, assigned supervisors visited and supervised the data collection process and checked the completeness of the filled questionnaires.

Data processing and analysis

All collected questionnaires were rechecked for completeness and coded; then, the data were entered and cleaned using Epi data version 4.2software and exported to SPSS version 25, for further analysis. Descriptive Statistics like frequency and cross-tabulation were carried out to characterize the study populations using socio-demographic and other variables.

Bivariable logistic regression was employed to identify the association between dependent and independent variables, those variables having a p-value of <0.25 in the Bivariable analysis were fitted into multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward like hood ratio to control the effects of confounding factors. Ninety-five percent confidence interval of odds ratios was computed and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to declare the statistical significance. The assumption of the binary logistic regression model was checked by using the Hosmer and Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test. Tables and graphical presentations were used to present the findings of the study.

Ethical consideration

An ethical clearance letter was obtained from the Ethical Review Committee (ERC) of Debre Markos University College of Health Science with a reference number of HSC/R/C/Scr/Co/34/11/13. Upon bearing ethical review; the administration of each Hospital provided us permission to access the sample from the clients. The purpose of the study was explained and informed consent was obtained from each study participant. Privacy and confidentiality of all information were kept by coding throughout the research work.

Result

Socio-demographic characteristics

A total of 467 immediate postpartum women were included in the study, with a response rate of 100%. The age of respondents with immediate post-partum anemia ranged from 18 to 46 years, with a mean age of 28.19 years and SD of 6.3. The majority of 420 (89.9%) of the women were Orthodox religious followers and 453 (97%) were Amhara by ethnicity. About 443 (94.9%) mothers were married and more than half 250 (53.5%) of the mothers were urban in residency. About 146 (31.3%) of the respondents were unable to read and write and more than one-third 163 (34.9%) of the respondents were farmers. Among the respondents, 192 (41.1%) had a monthly family income of greater than 5,000 Ethiopian birrs (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic related characteristics of immediate postpartum women in East Gojjam zone hospital Northwest Ethiopia 2020 (n = 467).

Variables Categories Frequency (N) Percentages (%)
Ages of the mother ≤19 24 5.1
20–34 354 75.8
>34 89 19.1
Religion Orthodox 420 89.9
Muslim 40 8.6
Protestant 7 1.5
Ethnicity Amhara 453 97.0
Oromo 9 1.9
Tigray 5 1.1
Marital status Married 443 94.9
Unmarried 24 5.1
Residency Rural 217 46.5
Urban 250 53.5
Maternal education Unable to read & write 146 31.3
Able to read and write 82 17.6
Primary 111 23.6
Secondary 39 8.4
Diploma and above 89 19.1
Maternal occupation Farmer 163 34.9
Merchant 118 25.3
Housewife 100 21.4
Gov’t employee 84 18.0
Others 2 0.4
Estimated monthly income <1000 32 6.9
1000–3000 132 28.3
3001–5000 111 23.8
≥5001 192 41.1

Obstetrics characteristics

Among 467 study participants, 238(52%) were multipara. More than half 322 (69% of the mothers had term pregnancy. Most of the participants 428 (91.6%) had at least one ANC follow-up during their current pregnancy. The majority of the respondents 359 (76.9%) had no history of abortion. Among all 74 (15.8%) respondents had a history of Interpregnancy interval of fewer than two years. The majority of the respondents 391(83.7%) had no history of multiple pregnancies. Of the total study participants, 75 (16.1) had an antepartum hemorrhage in the last pregnancy. More than half 319 (68.3%) of the study participants gave birth through spontaneous vaginal delivery (SVD) (Table 2).

Table 2. Obstetrics characteristics related variables of immediate postpartum women in East Gojjam zone hospitals Northwest Ethiopia 2020 (n = 467).

Variables Categories Frequency (N) Percentages (%)
Parity Prime para 229 49
Multipara 238 51
Gestational age Preterm pregnancy 111 23.7
Term pregnancy 322 69
Post-term pregnancy 34 7.3
ANC follow-up Yes 428 91.6
No 39 8.4
Birth interval <2 years 74 15.8
≥2 years 169 36.2
Antepartum hemorrhage Yes 75 16.1
No 392 83.9
Multiple pregnancies Yes 76 16.3
No 391 83.7
History of abortion Yes 108 23.1
No 359 76.9
Mode of delivery SVD 319 68.3
IAVD 34 7.3
C/S 114 24.4
Episiotomy Yes 61 13.1
No 292 62.5
Perineal Tear Yes 99 21.2
No 254 54.4
Weight of newborn in grams <2500 64 13.7
2500–3999 382 81.8
≥ 4000 21 4.5

CS = cesarean section, IAVD = Instrumental assisted vaginal delivery, SVD = spontaneous vertex delivery

Dietary and micronutrient characteristics

Of the study participants, 371 (79.4%) were start IFA during their recent pregnancy. Among these mothers who took IFA, 68.3% had poor adherence and IFA supplied participants 212(45.4%) drank hot when they took iron. More than half of 263 (56.3%) ate three or above three times per day during their pregnancy time. Near one-third 147 (31.5%) of the mothers, mid-upper arm circumference was lower than 23cm (Table 3).

Table 3. Dietary and micronutrient uptake characteristics of immediate postpartum women in East Gojjam zone hospitals Northwest Ethiopia 2020 (n = 467).

Variables Categories Frequency (N) Percent (%)
IFA tablet taken during pregnancy Yes 371 79.4
No 96 20.6
GA when IFA started <16 weeks 169 36.2
20–24 weeks 136 29.1
26–30 weeks 54 11.6
30–34 weeks 12 2.6
Adherence to IFA supplementation Good 52 11.1
Poor 319 68.3
Hot drink when taking IFA Yes 212 45.4
No 159 34.0
Frequency of meals per day ≤3 263 56.3
>3 204 43.7
MUAC in centimeters <23 147 31.5
≥23 320 68.5

IFA = Irion-folic acid, GA = gestational age, MUAC = Mid upper arm circumference

Environmental characteristics and co-existing infections

Among all study participants, 128 (27.4%) had a co-existing infection (UTI, malaria, and tuberculosis). Thirty-six (7.7%) had a history of HIV/AIDS (Fig 1). The majority of the respondents 398 (85.2%) had a toilet facility and two-hundred eight-five of the women had wearing shoes always in their daily activities they are always using a shoe. Near to one-3rd of the respondents living in houses were far from the health facility less than two hours by walking.

Fig 1. Magnitude of co-existing infection among immediate postpartum women in the East Gojjam zone hospitals Northwest Ethiopia 2020.

Fig 1

The magnitude of immediate postpartum anemia

The overall magnitude of immediate postpartum anemia among mothers who gave birth in East Gojjam Zone Hospitals was found to be 101 (21.63%) 95% CI: [18.12%, 25.11%]).

Factors associated with immediate postpartum anemia

In the Bivariable logistic regression analysis: residency, ANC follow-up, APH, mode of delivery, IFA intake during pregnancy, estimating distance from a health facility, availability of toilet facility, shoes wearing status, MUAC, and birth status of the newborns was associated with immediate postpartum Anemia at p-value less than 0.25.

As it is presented on the regression table not having ANC follow-up ((AOR = 2.92, 95%CI (1.20, 7.06)), having APH ((AOR = 4.51, 95% CI (2.42, 8.37)), instrumental assisted delivery ((AOR = 2.72, 95%CI (1.08, 6.78)), having C/S (AOR = 1.86, 95% CI (1.02, 3.35)) (MUAC) <23 cm(AOR = 5.75,95%CI (3.38, 9.79)), never used shoes((AOR = 2.60,95%CI (1.10, 6.14)), were significantly associated with immediate post-partum anemia in multivariable logistic regression model at p-value less than 0.05(Table 4).

Table 4. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis of factors associated with immediate postpartum anemia in East Gojjam zone hospitals Northwest Ethiopia 2020 (n = 467).

Variables Anemia p-value COR 95%CI AOR 95%CI
YES NO
Residence Rural 59 158 0.276 1.85 (1.83, 2.890) 0.68 (0.340, 1.361)
Urban 42 208 I I
ANC follow-up No 20 19 0.018 4.51 (2.301, 8.838) 2.92 (1.203,7.066) *
Yes 81 347 I I
Antepartum hemorrhage Yes 42 33 0.001 7.18 (4.214, 3.603) 4.51 (2.427, 8.374) *
No 59 333 I I
Mode of delivery IAVD 16 18 0.033 4.67 (2.235, 9.761) 2.72 (1.086,6.787) *
C/S 34 80 2.23 (1.354, 3.685) 1.86 (1.029,3.350) *
SVD 51 268 0.040 I I
IFA intake during pregnancy No 32 64 0.692 2.19 (1.329, 3.603) 1.17 (0.546, 2.491)
Yes 69 302 I I
Estimated distance from health >2 facility in hours 41 81 0.309 2.40(1.506, 3.838) 0.73 (0.391, 1.346)
≤2 60 285 I I
Availability of toilet facility No 32 37 0.476 4.12 (2.404, 7.074) 1.34 (0.602, 2.962)
Yes 69 329 I I
Shoes wearing status Sometimes 40 99 0.346 2.30 (1.416, 3.752) 1.34 (0.728, 2.477)
Never 17 16 0.029 6.06 (2.851, 12.884) 2.60 (1.103, 6.149) *
Always 44 251 I I
MUAC < 23 67 80 0.001 7.04 (4.353, 11.401) 5.75 (3.382, 9.790) *
≥23 34 286 I I
Birth status of newborns who died 15 21 0.162 2.87 (1.418, 5.790) 1.94 (0.767, 4.915)
Alive 86 345 I I

Note I = reference, * = significantly associated variables.

Discussion

A total of 101(21.6%,95%CI (18.1%, 25.1%) women experienced immediate postpartum anemia which is in line with the study done in the Amhara region, Northwest Ethiopia 24.3% [20], Tigray region Northwest Ethiopia 24.2% [21], Germany 25% [22], North Carolina, USA 19.1% [23]. The possible explanation might be increased ANC follow-up in those countries, which in turn, increases awareness of the women on how to minimize the development of immediate post-partum anemia, could be similar socio-demography health care delivery service, healthcare-seeking behavior of the women.

The finding of this study is lower than the study done in Jimma Zone, South Western Ethiopia 28.7% [24], in Mbarara regional referral hospital, Uganda 29.9% [25], in 12 US states of America 27% [26], India 26.5% [27]. This difference might be due to different scholars using different cutoff values for hemoglobin measurements to determine postpartum anemia. Another possible reason might be mothers who develop anemia during their pregnancy were not included in this study.

The finding of this study is higher than those of the study done in Ghana 16% [28] and Burkina Faso 15.5% [29]. This discrepancy might be because the above study includes postpartum near to six-month postpartum period this gives time to recover from postpartum anemia.

Those mothers who had no ANC follow-up were three ((AOR = 2.92; 95%CI (1.20, 7.06)) times more likely to develop immediate postpartum anemia than those who had ANC follow-up. This is supported by the study done in Jimma Zone, South Western Ethiopia [24], Tigray region North West, Ethiopia [21], and Ethiopian demographic health survey [9]. The possible explanation could be women who had not had ANC follow-up not taken iron, might not be given anthelmintic for deworming of hookworm, and early identification of risk factors for postpartum anemia so that they are highly exposed to immediate postpartum anemia.

The odds of having immediate postpartum anemia among mothers diagnosed with APH were four ((AOR = 4.51; 95% CI (2.42, 8.37)) times more likely as compared to their counterparts. This is supported by the study conducted in the Amhara region, Northwest Ethiopia [20], and Germany [22]. The possible explanation might be due to the loss of iron stored during pregnancy and blood loss during delivery due to Antepartum hemorrhage. Those women who gave birth by instrumental assisted mode of delivery were three ((AOR = 2.72; 95%CI (1.08, 6.78)) times more likely to develop immediate postpartum anemia as compared to those who gave birth through spontaneous vaginal delivery respectively. This result agreed with the studies done in the Amhara region, Northwest Ethiopia, and Spain [20, 30]. The possible explanation might be since instrumental assisted vaginal delivery increases the risk of episiotomy, spontaneous perineal or cervical tear, and this tear may be also extended to the uterus facilitating bleeding. Clinicians are usually misdiagnosing the tears and repairing after mothers bleed a lot.

The odds of getting immediate post-partum anemia among mothers who gave birth by cesarean delivery were two (AOR = 1.86; 95% CI (1.02, 3.35)) times more likely as compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. The possible explanation could be in the case of cesarean deliveries there is the probability of inadvertent injury of the anterior abdominal wall and uterine vessels and a high possibility of extension to the fundal region of the uterus and vaginal wall.

Those women who had Mid upper arm circumference (MUAC) <23 cm were six (AOR = 5.75;95%CI (3.38, 9.79)) times more likely to develop immediate postpartum anemia than their counterparts. This finding is supported by the study done Amhara region Northwest, Ethiopia, Jemma, and Tanzania [20, 24, 31] respectively. The reason might be iron deficiency anemia usually related to micronutrient deficiency.

MUAC measurement <23 cm indicates that poor muscle mass lacks adequate energy intake and Hemoglobin concentration and maternal MUAC had a linear relationship.

Those women who never and sometimes used shoes were three and 1.34 ((AOR = 2.60;95%CI (1.10, 6.14)) and (AOR = 1.34;95% CI (0.72, 2.47)), times more likely to develop immediate postpartum anemia as compared to shoe users respectively. This finding is supported by a study done in Chennai, India [32]. The most possible explanation might be women who were walking barefoot are highly exposed to hookworm infestation which is one of the risk factors for postpartum anemia.

Strength of the study

As the study is conducted from primary data and more of it is clinical imperative to indicate a clear magnitude or image of immediate post-partum anemia in the study area.

Limitations

Since the study is cross-sectional causality relationship may not be established and behavioral factors were not assessed. Because the interview was about the past nine months ‘recall bias was one of the challenges.

Conclusion

This study indicates that immediate postpartum anemia is a moderate public health problem in the study area. A more careful strategy is ideal to increase ANC follow-up that sticks to national guideline contact schedule, safe reduction of instrumental and cesarean deliveries to the minimum, quick and timely linkage and treatment of malnourished pregnant mothers to the center where they get adequate health care services, along with high index of suspicion in mothers diagnosed with APH, wise and vigilant advice on consistent use of the shoe for pregnant mothers are recommended to tackle the burden of immediate post-partum anemia.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(SAV)

S1 File

(ZIP)

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our deepest and heartfelt appreciation to Debre Markos University for providing the opportunity to conduct this research work. We are also happy to say thanks to East Gojjam Zone Hospital’s administration and community for their kindness and their valuable information to do this work. Last but not least, we express our gratitude to study participants, data collectors, and supervisors for their contribution to this work.

Acronyms and abbreviation

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

ANC

Antenatal Care

BSC

Bachelor Degree of Science

COR

Crude Odds Ratio

CSAE

Central Esthetical Agency of Ethiopia

DMU

Debre Markos University

EDHS

Ethiopian Demography Health Survey

ERC

Ethical Review Committee, g/dl- Gram Per Deciliter

Hct

Hematocrit

Hgb

Hemoglobin

IFA

Irion-folic Acid

IPPA

Immediate postpartum Anemia

MUAC

Midupper Arm Circumference

NGO

Nongovernmental Organization

SVD

Spontaneous Vaginal delivery, PA-Postpartum Anemia

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work

References

  • 1.Anaemias W.N., Tools for effective prevention and control. Geneva: World Health Ognanization, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Medina Garrido C., et al., Maternal anaemia after delivery: prevalence and risk factors. 2018. 38(1): p. 55–59. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2017.1328669 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pavord S., et al., UK guidelines on the management of iron deficiency in pregnancy. 2012. 156(5): p. 588–600. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.09012.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tunçalp Ö., et al., New WHO recommendations on prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage. 2013. 123(3): p. 254–256. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.06.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Milman N.J.A.o.h., Postpartum anemia II: prevention and treatment. 2012. 91(2): p. 143–154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Allary J., et al. An individual scoring system for the prediction of postpartum anaemia. in Annales francaises d’anesthesie et de reanimation. 2013. Elsevier. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care (EmONC) Assessment 2016,. Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2017.
  • 8.Milman N.J.A.o.h., Postpartum anemia I: definition, prevalence, causes, and consequences. 2011. 90(11): p. 1247. doi: 10.1007/s00277-011-1279-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ethiopia, Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey, 2016. 2012: ICF International, Central Statistical Agency, July 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fitaw Y., G.D.E.J.U.o.G.I.c.w.t.E.P.H.T.I. Feleke Amsalu, The Carter Center, the Ethiopia Ministry of Health, and t.E.M.o. Education, Safe Motherhood For the Ethiopian Health Center Team. 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Organization, W.H., Nutritional anaemias: tools for effective prevention and control. 2017.
  • 12.Institute, E.P.H. and ICF, Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey 2019: Key Indicators. 2019, EPHI and ICF Rockville, Maryland, USA. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.DMZH, o., Annual plan and programme of East Gojjam Zonal Health Office report Zonal Health office. 2019.
  • 14.managment, H.r., total health workers in GYN/OBS ward East gojjam zone 2020.
  • 15.Abebaw A., Gudayu T.W., and Kelkay B., Proportion of Immediate Postpartum Anaemia and Associated Factors among Postnatal Mothers in Northwest Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Anemia, 2020. 2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/8979740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Organization, W.H., WHO technical consultation on postpartum and postnatal care. 2010, Geneva: World Health Organization. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Organization, W.H., Strategies to prevent anaemia: recommendations from an expert group consultation, New Delhi, India, 5–6 December 2016. 2016.
  • 18.Fanta G.A., Prevalence and associated risk factors of immediate postpartum anemia in two teaching hospitals in Mekelle. Ethiopian Journal of Reproductive Health, 2020. 12(1): p. 7–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Arba, M.A. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ANEMIA AMONG LACTATING MOTHERS IN SUBSISTENCE FARMING HOUSEHOLDS FROM SELECTED DISTRICTS OF JIMMA ZONE, SOUTH WESTERN ETHIOPIA, A COMMUNITY BASED CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY. in 28th Annual conference, 2016. 2017.
  • 20.Abebaw A., Gudayu T.W., and Kelkay B.J.A., Proportion of Immediate Postpartum Anaemia and Associated Factors among Postnatal Mothers in Northwest Ethiopia : A Cross-Sectional Study. 2020. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fanta G.A.J.E.J.o.R.H., Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Immediate Postpartum Anemia in Two Teaching Hospitals in Mekelle. 2020. 12(1): p. 7–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bergmann R.L., et al., Prevalence and risk factors for early postpartum anemia. 2010. 150(2): p. 126–131. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bergmann RL R.R., Bergmann KE, Dudenhausen JWJEJoO , Prevalence and risk factors for early postpartum anemia. Gynecology, Biology R, 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alemayehu M, Factors Associated with Anemia among Lactating Mothers in Subsistence Farming Households from Selected Districts of Jimma Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.MD1, I.N.H.M.G.R.M., Incidence and Factors Associated with Postpartum Anemia at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital. Journal of Health, Medicine and Nursing, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bodnar L.M., et al., High prevalence of postpartum anemia among low-income women in the United States. 2001. 185(2): p. 438–443. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.115996 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bhagwan D., et al., Prevalence of anaemia among postnatal mothers in coastal Karnataka. 2016. 10(1): p. LC17.Journal of Health, Medicine and Nursing doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/14534.7086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kofie P., et al., Prevalence and associated risk factors of anaemia among women attending antenatal and post-natal clinics at a public health facility in Ghana. 2019. 5(1): p. 40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.ZAMANE H., et al., Postpartum moderate to severe anemia in a low-income country, Burkina Faso. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.i Brichs X.U., et al., Anemia en el embarazo y el posparto inmediato. Prevalencia y factores de riesgo. 2016. 146(10): p. 429–435. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2016.01.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Petraro P., et al., Determinants of anemia in postpartum HIV-negative women in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 2013. 67(7): p. 708–717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Samykkhan C., A community based cross sectional study on prevalence of anaemia among postpartum mothers in Chennai. 2018, Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Desalegn Admassu Ayana

15 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-22500Magnitude and associated factors of immediate postpartum anemia among women who gave birth in east Gojjam zone hospitals, northwest- Ethiopia, 2020PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Getahun,

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 submit your revised manuscript by Dec 26 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: 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,

Desalegn Admassu Ayana, 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. 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://aje.com/go/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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments/ Funding Section of your manuscript: 

The financial support for this research project was obtained from Debre Markos University. The funder had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript. 

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

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

http://repository-tnmgrmu.ac.in/8960/1/201500418samykkhan.pdf

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/postpartum-anemia--still-a-major-problem-on-a-global-scale-2376-127X-1000e122.php?aid=61457

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/anemia/2020/8979740/

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

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

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. 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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Specific comments

Abstract

Background: line 20, “less or equal to 10 g/dl in”, but according to World Health Organization (WHO), anemia is defined as hemoglobin (Hb) levels <12.0 g/dL in women. Do you have explanation for the different definition?

Conclusion: line 41, how much is “a moderate public health problem”? 21.6? What is the implication of your finding?

Introduction: why do you classified introduction in two background and statement of the problems? Further, the so called background was not well articulated.

Line 76, “anemia in the developed country ranges from 10-30% and in developing country 50-80%”, it is preferable if data from low and middle income countries used instead of developing countries. What is the global burden? The citation are too old to put current image of the problems (for instance, reference 10, 11, 12). Please update other references accordingly.

The Excerpt you cited have no the idea you mentioned in the documents i.e., “line 84-89” or reference 16 or “https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27227230/”

Line 92-95, are those consequence of anemia serious enough to design this study?

Line 114, “assessing the burden of disease” how health facility-based study reveal burden?

What did your study add to existing knowledge? In addition to what Abebaw et al, 2020 were explored.

Sample size and sampling procedure: was sample size calculated for factors? If no why?

Why multistage? How many stages were there? Why design effect of 1.5?

Line 139, “every 2 case intervals” how did you find 2? Why not 3?

Data collection procedures and instrumentations: cite at least few references from where you adopted the questionnaire.

The variables measurement need major revision. Laboratory procedure also need further explanation. How blood sample was taken? Who take the blood sample? How blood sample was transported? Etc.

Result: line 184-185, age explained in three ways. Avoid redundancy.

Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis: where are explanation of multivariable analysis?

Discussion: the discussion begin with summary findings. If your study is in line with “Amhara region, Northwest Ethiopia 24.3% (23), Tigray region Northwest Ethiopia 24.2% (24), Germany 25%(25), North Carolina, USA 19.1%(9)” what it add to existing knowledge?

“different scholars used different cutoff values for hemoglobin measurements to determine postpartum anemia.” Why you compare with already different study? But you didn’t mention “Another possible reason may be mothers who develop anemia during their pregnancy were not included in this study.” in your exclusion?

Your discussion should look different from result.

The discussion need through writing, highlighting the implication for policy.

The references style was not plos one style and need correction and updating.

What are the strength and limitation of your study?

Conclusion: What are the policy implication of the documents?

Reviewer #2: My comment and question as follows

The Authors touched magnitude and associated factors of immediate postpartum anemia among women who gave birth. The authors rise interesting issue which need further researching to generate evidence that support for planner to development of strategic plan and health care provider better intervention in preventing maternal mortality, and effect on their children

General comment after delivery when the data collected (blood specimen)? No time limit and question inclusion and exclusion criteria was not mentioned

Is there a difference in cut of point to define anemia after delivery? Based on the duration? If so how managed?

Specific comment and question

Abstract

Line 21: Background: add a sentences that indicate the gap, gap and severity of the problem are different

Result

Line 36-39 avoid upper case unnecessary used

Line 35-39: Use standard Caption problem = (21.6% = [95%, CI (18.1, 25.1)]) others

Conclusion

Line 41: Immediate postpartum anemia is a moderate public health problem, not appropriate because 21.6% anemic mother

Line 42: “affected” change to associated by not having ANC follow up,…..

Introduction: need further synthesis, need to full fil the format for manuscript and need further work

Method

Good if study setting focus on delivery services

Study participant after delivery not clearly mentioned because the cut of point for anemia different

How data collection of dietary and micronutrient utilization conducted? How co-existing infection collected and measured?

Further description of the test used for anemia diagnose its advantage, sensitivity and reliability quality control, the procedure data collected…

Result

Thirty-six (7.7%) were had a history of HIV/AIDS. not clear is prevalence

Near to one-3rd of the respondents living houses 214 were far from health facility less than two hours by walking/greater than?

Description of Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis interpretation required

Discussion

Not strongly discussed on implication and scientific background of the finding

**********

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: Yes: Kasiye Shiferaw

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to authors.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 15;18(3):e0282819. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282819.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Dec 2021

Response Reviewers’ comments:

Is the manuscript technically sounds, and do the data support the conclusions?

Response: the manuscript is technically sounds and the data drawn based on the data presented

Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Response: statistical analysis been performed with appropriate model of regression and rigorously

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

Response: all data are available fully in the manuscript

Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in Standard English?

Response: We reviewed the entire document thoroughly for the English Language usage, spelling, grammar in an intelligible fashion and the necessary changes were made based on the comment given

Background: line 20, “less or equal to 10 g/dl in”, but according to World Health Organization (WHO), anemia is defined as hemoglobin (Hb) levels <12.0 g/dL in women. Do you have explanation for the different definition?

Response: according to WHO definition of Anemia in a women is Hgb levels <12.0g/dl, but during pregnancy there is physiologic change that means there is an increase both in red blood cell and plasma level despite of this the increase in red blood cell by about 33% and plasma level by about 50% is not proportional that leads to hem dilution and drop of the Hgb level during pregnancy, so that is the reason the cutoff point Hgb <=10g/dl to define anemia and it doesn’t regain its non-pregnant state Hgb level

How much is “a moderate public health problem”? 21.6? What is the implication of your finding?

Response: based on its public health importance postpartum anemia can be classified as normal mild, moderate and severe according to its prevalence. If the prevalence is ≤4.9% it is normal no public health problem, 5-19.9% is mild public health problem, 20-39.9% is moderate public health problem, ≥40% severe public health problem, so the prevalence of the is finding is 21.6% and put it under moderate public health problem as per to the classification needs attention to avert because of it public health problem.

Why do you classified introduction in two background and statement of the problems? Further, the so called background was not well articulated.

Response: we will revise and make the two sections of the introduction

What did your study add to existing knowledge? In addition to what Abebaw et al, 2020 were explored

Response: environmental factors were not assessed from previous studies and for immediate post-partum anemia Hgb measurement is taken from cutoff point 10-10.5g/dl in WHO recommendation but in the previous studies used the cut point of 11g/dl at one week of postpartum other than immediate postpartum that affects the overall image of the finding.

Sample size and sampling procedure: was sample size calculated for factors? If no why?

Response; sample size for the factor was calculated by using Epi-Info statclc

Why multistage? How many stages were there? Why design effect of 1.5?

Response: there are ten Hospitals in the study area of them five were selected randomly by using lottery method then study participants were taken from five hospital which means we go dawn from ten to five the proportional allocation was used and has two stage, based on the sage we can use design effect of two but due to its cost wise we used design effect 1.5

“every 2 case intervals” how did you find 2? Why not 3?

Response: K- interval, K= N/n , where: N = Total population immediate post-partum at the selected five Hospitals , n=Total sample size, then k=1,065/467 = approximately every 2 mothers will take but, calculating K-value for each hospital was necessary by using K1=N1/n1, K2=N2/n2……….(K= 2.27, 2.24 ,2.25 …. approximately every 2 immediate postpartum women was taking for each hospital after the first case selecting randomly between 1 and K). if we take 3 it becomes 1401 which is more than the Total population immediate post-partum at the selected five Hospitals due to this we took 2

If your study is in line with “Amhara region, Northwest Ethiopia 24.3% (23), Tigray region Northwest Ethiopia 24.2% (24), Germany 25%(25), North Carolina, USA 19.1%(9)” what it add to existing knowledge

Response: despite the fact that the magnitude of the study is in line with these previous studies environmental factors were not assessed from previous studies.

“different scholars used different cutoff values for hemoglobin measurements to determine postpartum anemia.” Why you compare with already different study? But you didn’t mention “Another possible reason may be mothers who develop anemia during their pregnancy were not included in this study.” in your exclusion?

Response: in our study mothers who were anemic in their ANC follow up were assessed and excluded but previous studies were not exclude mothers who were anemic during their ANC follow up that is we want to explain but not compare studies done on pregnant, mothers

Your discussion should look different from result

Response: we revised the discussion session

Reviewer #2:

When the data collected (blood specimen)? No time limit and question inclusion and exclusion criteria was not mentioned Is there a difference in cut of point to define anemia after delivery? Based on the duration? If so how managed?

Response: the data were collected with 24 hours of post- delivery, yes the time matters after delivery to define post-partum anemia , based on WHO current recommendation for immediate post-partum /within 24 hours of anemia the cutoff point is 10g/dl whereas as at one week of post-partum 11g/dl at eight weeks of post-partum 12 g/dl is used to determine anemia after delivery and the management is based on the time and level of Hgb

How data collection of dietary and micronutrient utilization conducted? How co-existing infection collected and measured?

Response: by using adapted questioners like Irion and folic acid intake during pregnancy, for how many times took iron and folic acid supplementation in this Pregnancy, Have you drink coffee and tea when taking IFA Average Frequency of meal per day and MUAC measurement Helminths infestation, known past medical disease

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Desalegn Admassu Ayana

7 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-22500R1Magnitude and associated factors of immediate postpartum anemia among women who gave birth in east Gojjam zone hospitals, northwest- Ethiopia, 2020PLOS ONE

Dear Worku, 

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 submit your revised manuscript by Apr 21 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,

Desalegn Admassu Ayana, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

All the results should be presented with data and the manuscript should be reviewed by native English language speaker.

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

********** 

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

********** 

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

********** 

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: Reviewer comments

The papers seems improved, but there are a lot things that authors should consider to improve the manuscript before publishing it. The paper need thorough English language edition. Grammar, conjunctions and punctuation need correction. The gap of the study should be clearly stated in relation to what others failed to achieve.

Abstract

Line 35: delete the reference. Begin the sentence appropriately.

Line 35-39: Be consistent and make every numbers two decimal point.

Introduction

What other studies identified are explained insufficiently.

The authors failed to show the gap of the study. Although they claimed environmental factors were not assessed in the author response. What makes this study different from Abebaw et al., 2020 study?

Method section

Variables and measurement are absent. There are too many variables. Do you think your sample size is adequate?

How quality of laboratory test was maintained? Is automated blood analyzer cell dyne 1800 appropriate test? How about its sensitivity and specificity?

Result

Line 184: Table number is missing.

Line 199-202: How did you verified the women have toilet facility? What do you mean by wearing shoes always in their daily activities? I didn’t see any operational definition in this document.

Line 204-207: what is the difference between two sentences?

Line 208: rewrite the title.

In the tables some cell of the tables is very few, you better consider re-categorizing them. The table legend should include abbreviations. For instance SVD? IAVD?

Line 213-219: table 4 cited twice.

Discussion

Is it fair to compare Ethiopia to German, USA? You better compare with LMICs.

The discussion seems result section, please interpret and implicate the finding. You should avoid odds ratio in the discussion section.

Limitation: What other potential limitation do you encountered? What about recall and measurement bias?

Reviewer #2: The question I have raised and responded by the Authors need to be incorporated in the manuscript

1. a difference in cut of point to define anemia after delivery? Based on the duration? If so how managed? need to be incorporated in methodology part how practically data collected or measured

2. How data collection of dietary and micro nutrient utilization conducted? How co-existing

infection collected and measured? Only iron and folic acid supplementation data collected on the manuscript need to be inline with this, how co-existing infection data collected also need to be incorporated in manuscript

********** 

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: Yes: Kasiye Shiferaw Gemechu

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 15;18(3):e0282819. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282819.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Apr 2022

Response to Reviewers’ comments

Reviewer #1:

1. The papers seem improved, but there are a lot of things that authors should consider to improve the manuscript before publishing it. The paper need thorough English language edition. Grammar, conjunctions and punctuation need correction. The gap of the study should be clearly stated in relation to what others failed to achieve.

Response: We reviewed the entire document thoroughly for the English Language usage, spelling, grammar, and the necessary changes were made.

-the sample size is adequate

2. What other studies identified are explained insufficiently.

The authors failed to show the gap in the study. Although they claimed environmental factors were not assessed in the author's response. What makes this study different from Abebaw et al., 2020 study?

Response: We included the gap between other previous studies, in the revised manuscript of this study.

3. Variables and measurements are absent. There are too many variables. Do you think your sample size is adequate? How quality of the laboratory test was maintained? Is an automated blood analyzer cell dyne 1800 appropriate test? How about its sensitivity and specificity?

Response: sorry that we have mentioned automated blood analyzer cell dyne 1800 wrongly we used the mindray hematology analyzer in the revised manuscript.

- We reviewed the entire document thoroughly for the English Language usage, spelling, grammar in an intelligible fashion and the necessary changes were made based on the comment given

- We minimized the use of abbreviations in the table and, we added the list of

Acronyms we used throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

The question I have raised and responded by the Authors need to be incorporated in the manuscript

1. A difference in cut of point to define anemia after delivery? Based on the duration? If so how managed? Need to be incorporated in methodology part how practically data collected or measured

Response: We included the cut off point to define anemia after delivery in the revised manuscript

2. How data collection of dietary and micro nutrient utilization conducted? How co-existing infection collected and measured?

Response: we included the way how data were collected in the revised manuscript

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers R2.edited.docx

Decision Letter 2

Vanessa Carels

7 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-22500R2Magnitude and associated factors of immediate postpartum anemia among women who gave birth in east Gojjam zone hospitals, northwest- Ethiopia, 2020PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Getahun,

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 address the remaining concerns provided by the reviewer, and please ensure that the entire manuscript is thoroughly copy edited for grammar and usage as well as typographical errors. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 20 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,

Vanessa Carels

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

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

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: No

**********

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: Comment as reviewer

The author’s raises important topic contributing maternal morbidity and mortality, my general comment is there are many evidence in the country on the area. The evidence generated were already explored by previously conducted researchers in different part of the countries example Amhara region similar region and Tigray region the study lacks novelty and gap not well addressed.

Abstract background Gap not addressed

Introduction not focus on the study objectives PP anemia, the characteristics of the study area were not addressed. There are many related study authors have mentioned in Ethiopia, why study needed since Ethiopia context is similar

Method:

Sampling technique not clear there was a missed information, check it

How systematic random sampling method Data were used since PNC in Ethiopia is very low? When blood collected and hemoglobin measured not clarified, how anemia identified depending on the duration after delivery the standard not clarified

Co-existing disease-related variables mentioned (malaria, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis)why important hook work infection not addressed since the authors mentioned bare foot?

What quality assurance measure taken for blood collection and determining hemoglobin level?

What measure taken for identified anemic women on ethical issue

Result part marital status n=465 why?, episiotomy, perinatal tear check all result

Table quality need modification

Among these mothers who took IFA, 68.3% had poor adherence can we say poor adherence by collecting retrospective data , what is the standard to measure adherence what data collection method authors have to use?

The authors collected hot drink when taking IFA, how data collected can we collect valid and reliable data for such specific information, need to put as limitation for such specific issues

Discussion

Discussion need further work on evidence based reasoning for the finding in comparison, addressing implication of the finding on the study participates, implementation at health facilities and scientific explanation need to be addressed

Language edition need further work

**********

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

**********

[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.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 15;18(3):e0282819. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282819.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


21 Aug 2022

Response to Reviewers’ comments

1. My general comment is there is much evidence in the country on the area. The evidence generated were already explored by previously conducted researchers in different part of the countries example Amhara region similar region and Tigray region the study lacks novelty and gap not well addressed.

Response: We included the gap between other previous studies, in the revised manuscript of this study and there is a difference in topography in this study area and previous studies despite being in the same region, and anemia is affected by geographic location.

2. Introduction not focus on the study objectives PP anemia, the characteristics of the study area were not addressed. There are many related study authors have mentioned in Ethiopia, why study needed since Ethiopia context is similar?

Response: We included the gap between other previous studies, in the revised manuscript of this study, and the study area is characterized in the revised manuscript.

3. Sampling technique is not clear there was missed information, check it how systematic random sampling method Data were used since PNC in Ethiopia is very low? When blood collected and hemoglobin measured not clarified, how anemia identified depending on the duration after delivery the standard not clarified Co-existing disease-related variables mentioned (malaria, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis) why important hook work infection not addressed since the authors mentioned bare foot?

Response: sampling technique is stated in the revised manuscript; the data were collected before mothers had been discharged to home and collected eight hours after delivery, we considered that hook warm infestations are explained by the bare boot

4. What quality assurance measure taken for blood collection and determining hemoglobin level?

Response: one-day training was given to data collectors and supervisors before they went to collect the data about ways of data collection and how to transfer to the laboratory

5. What measure taken for identified anemic women on ethical issue

Response: After determination of hemoglobin therapeutic dose of iron was supplemented before discharge for all anemic women

6. Result part marital status n=465 why? Episiotomy, perinatal tear check all result

Table quality need modification

Response: sorry it is editorial problem we checked and corrected down to the document, episiotomy and perineal tear were taken among vaginal deliveries only not cesarean deliveries

7. Among these mothers who took IFA, 68.3% had poor adherence can we say poor adherence by collecting retrospective data , what is the standard to measure adherence what data collection method authors have to use?

Response: supplementation was extracted from their chart and adherence was taken from an interview of the mothers

8. Language edition need further work

Response: We reviewed the entire document thoroughly for the English Language usage, spelling, and grammar in an intelligible fashion, and the necessary changes were made based on the comment given

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers R3.edited.docx

Decision Letter 3

Malshani Lakshika Pathirathna

24 Feb 2023

Magnitude and associated factors of immediate postpartum anemia among women who gave birth in east Gojjam zone hospitals, northwest- Ethiopia, 2020

PONE-D-21-22500R3

Dear Dr. Worku Taye Getahun,

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,

Malshani Lakshika Pathirathna, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #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 #3: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #3: General comment: Please correct the grammar, spacing and punctuation error before publication.

Make it clear Table (1)-Educational Status

Add foot Note for Table (2)-C/S, IAVD, SVD

**********

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 #3: Yes: Mulualem Silesh

**********

Acceptance letter

Malshani Lakshika Pathirathna

6 Mar 2023

PONE-D-21-22500R3

The magnitude and associated factors of immediate postpartum anemia among women who gave birth in east Gojjam zone hospitals, northwest- Ethiopia, 2020

Dear Dr. Getahun:

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. Malshani Lakshika Pathirathna

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (SAV)

    S1 File

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments to authors.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers R2.edited.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers R3.edited.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES