Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 May 30;18(5):e0286546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286546

Exclusive breastfeeding among beneficiaries of a nutrition enhancement programme and its associated factors in Ghana

Martin Nyaaba Adokiya 1,*, Mohammed Bukari 2, Joyce A Ndago 3, Robert B Kuganab-Lem 4, Humphrey Garti 2, Matthew Y Konlan 5, Amata Atinlie Amoasah 6, Zakari Ali 7
Editor: Neetu Choudhary8
PMCID: PMC10228788  PMID: 37253022

Abstract

Introduction

Despite the gains on exclusive breastfeeding (EBF), recent nationwide surveys have consistently revealed a decline in EBF rates in Ghana. The World Food Programme implemented an intervention for Enhanced Nutrition and Value Chain (ENVAC) which was based on three pillars including pregnant women, lactating women, adolescent and children under two years old being beneficiaries of the third pillar since the first 1000 days are critical for averting malnutrition. The social behavior change communication (SBCC) interventions implemented as part of this project have a potential to increase EBF among beneficiaries but this has not been measured. Therefore, this study assessed the prevalence of EBF practice among mothers with children under two years old who were beneficiaries of the ENVAC project and its associated factors in northern Ghana.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study involving 339 mother-child pairs in two districts of the northern region of Ghana. Participants were mother-child pairs who benefitted from the ENVAC project, which used SBCC strategies to promote good feeding and care practices as well as address other causes of malnutrition during antenatal care and child welfare clinic services among pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children under two years. We used WHO standard questionnaire to assess breastfeeding practices. Factors associated with EBF were modelled using multivariable logistic regression.

Results

Exclusive breastfeeding was 74.6% (95%CI = 69.5% -79.2%) in the ENVAC project areas, a 31.7% points higher than recent national levels. Adjusted analyses showed that EBF practice was associated with increasing maternal education: moderately educated women [aOR = 4.1 (95% CI = 2.17–7.66), P<0.001], and high [aOR = 9.15, (95% CI = 3.3–25.36), P<0.001], and access to pipe-borne water in households [aOR = 2.87, (95% CI = 1.11–7.43), P = 0.029].

Conclusion

A social behaviour change communication strategy implemented by ENVAC to lactating mothers likely improved exclusive breastfeeding practice in two districts of northern Ghana. EBF practices were higher among beneficiaries with high education and households with access to pipe-borne water. A combination of SBCC strategies and maternal and household factors are likely the best way to increase EBF rates in impoverished communities and warrants further investigation through future research.

Introduction

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), breastmilk is the best source of nutrition for infants [1]. WHO recommends that infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life [2]. Exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) is defined as an infant receiving only breastmilk and no other liquids or solids except for drops or syrups consisting of vitamins, minerals, or medicines [3, 4]. For the first six months of life, breastmilk alone is the ideal nourishment, providing all nutrients including vitamins and minerals an infant need. This implies no other liquid or food is needed for the infant [5]. Breastmilk has been suggested to enhance cognitive development [6], physical, neurological, and as well as protect children against allergies and infectious diseases [7]. However, the common practice is early cessation of breastfeeding in favour of commercial breastmilk substitutes, introduction of liquids such as water and juices.

Globally, 43.5% of infants less than 6 months old were exclusively breastfed in 2020 [8]. In high income countries (e.g. Australia), early initiation of EBF was about 96.0%, this rate declined in the first few weeks of postpartum to only 15.0% and 9.0% of infants being exclusively breastfed at 5 months and 6 months respectively [9]. In Africa, 37% of infants under 6 months of age were exclusively breastfed in 2017 [10]. However, national statistics available in Ghana shows that EBF rates range between 43% and 52% [11, 12]. Early introduction of water and porridges is common practice across Africa. This inhibits EBF practice and exposes infants to disease and nutritional risks [13]. Women in the Sahel have pointed to the high heat index as the reason for giving their infants water [14]. In Ghana, a short duration of maternity leave (3 months) has been cited as a key contributor to early cessation of EBF among working mothers [15]. As women participation in formal employment has continued to grow in recent years in Ghana, for instance the proportion of women in service has grown from 33.5 in 1993 to 54.8 in 2019 [16], there has been a concurrent declines in the number of women who practice EBF for the 6 months recommended period.

Consequently, a number of interventions have been implemented aimed at improving EBF rates in Ghana [17]. These interventions, among other goals, address institutional barriers to EBF and promote safe breastfeeding at health facilities, work places (both public and private). The interventions include the adoption of the 1991 Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) and the formation of BFHI Authority; and Ghana Breastfeeding Promotion Regulation 2000 (Legislative Instrument [LI] 1667) [18, 19]. Other interventions include Information, Education and Communication (IEC) materials, and advocacy materials designed for use by health professionals and for the general public. Formulation and implementation of breastfeeding interventions are essential to increase EBF [17]. Health, emotional, cultural, political, and economic issues, as well as other interrelated elements, have an impact on breastfeeding habits such as its initiation and duration [20]. Among these factors, decisions regarding initiation and duration of breastfeeding are influenced by education, employment, place of delivery, family and cultural values [21]. Yet, studies have reported that early initiation of breastfeeding to be associated with EBF [22, 23].

The United Nation’s World Food Programme (WFP) implemented the Enhanced Nutrition and Value Chain (ENVAC) intervention [24] which was based on three pillars with pregnant, lactating women, adolescents (10–19 years old) [25] and children under two years old being beneficiaries of the third pillar. The first 1000 days of a child’s life from conception to the two years of age are critical for preventing child malnutrition [26]. Lactating women and their children were taken through Social Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) to promote good feeding and care practices [24].

Generational feeding practices are passed on and mothers may be influenced by community and family members’ attitudes towards breastfeeding, particularly, EBF [27]. The Enhanced Nutrition and Value Chain, specifically targeting lactating women and their child-pairs with SBCC interventions have the potential to increase exclusive breastfeeding among beneficiaries, Ghana Health Service (GHS) representative were positive about the activities implemented and reported that the intervention had contributed to improved ANC and CWC attendance [24] where mothers are counselled regularly on good infant and young child feeding practices, but has not been assessed yet. In addition, studies on the prevalence of EBF among beneficiaries of the ENVAC programme and its associated factors are limited in Ghana. Therefore, this study assessed the prevalence of EBF practice among lactating mothers with children under two-years old who were beneficiaries of the ENVAC project and its associated factors in northern Ghana.

Materials and methods

Study design and area

This was a facility-based study that employed a cross-sectional design. It was conducted in the Sagnarigu Municipality and Tamale Metropolis of the northern region of Ghana. There are 79 communities in the Sagnarigu Municipality. The Municipality is predominantly rural with only 20 and 6 communities classified as urban and peri-urban areas respectively. In the Tamale Metropolis, there are 116 communities with 60 being rural areas and 41 and 15 being urban and peri-urban areas respectively [28]. Agriculture is the main economic activity of the majority of the inhabitants of northern Ghana. They are engaged in both crop and animal farming [11].

Ghana has a three-tiered health system namely primary, secondary and tertiary care. The Community-based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) is the smallest unit of the health system. Other health facilities are health centers, polyclinics, clinics and hospitals run by the government, religious groups and individuals. This constitutes the primary health care level [29]. A health center and district hospital typically serves a population of 20,000 and 100,000–200,000 respectively. All regional hospitals belong to the government at the secondary level of the health system in Ghana. Each regional hospital serves approximately1.2 million people. The teaching and quasi hospitals are part of the tertiary level of the health system in Ghana. These are regarded as complex health care centers of excellence. The Ghanaian government oversees all tertiary health care establishments in the country [30].

Study population, sample size and sampling

The target population was mothers with children under two years (0–24 months) old who were beneficiaries of the ENVAC project by the World Food Programme (WFP) during their pregnancy and lactating periods. However, only mothers with children aged 6–24 months were included in EBF estimation. These lactating women benefitted from SBCC aimed at improved good feeding and care practices. The SBCC covered the first 1,000 days of life which is a critical period for preventing malnutrition. Health care agents (801) from Ghana Health Service (GHS) in 92 targeted health facilities were given SBCC materials and trained on SBCC; implementation was done at the facility level and through various media especially radio and durbars [24].

The required sample was determined using the estimated proportion of EBF in northern region (33%) [31] and a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence interval (CI), resulting in 340 mother-child pairs. In addition, six health facilities from the 92 targeted health facilities that were within Sagnarigu Municipal (five facilities) and Tamale Metropolis (one facility) and were primary health care facilities which benefited from the ENVAC project were purposively sampled. Participants from each facility were randomly selected from the various Child Welfare Clinics (CWC) using the CWC registers as the sample frame; interviews were conducted at designated places in the facilities while making sure privacy was ensured. Excel-generated random numbers were used to select participants from CWC registers of the various facilities.

Data collection and measurement

Data were collected using semi-structured questionnaire through face-to-face interviews for participants who consented to be part of the study. Two research assistants were trained on the questionnaire. In addition, a pre-test of the tool with ten (10) lactating mothers were conducted before main data collection. Data on socio-demographic characteristics such as age of mother, ethnicity, maternal education status, religion and marital status were collected. Other characteristics such as sex of child, age of child and data on child being sick within last two weeks were also obtained. On child feeding characteristics, data on EBF status, initiation of breastfeeding and currently breastfeeding were collected using the infant and young child feeding questionnaire [4]. To assess EBF, all lactating mothers were breastfeeding, so mothers with children who were within six months old were asked if they had given their children any food or drink other than breastmilk or medications and supplements prescribed by certified medical practitioners within the first six months of life [3, 4]. Mothers of children aged six months were also asked the same question following the WHO recommendation for introducing family foods at six months [4] Follow up questions were asked to ascertain whether children were given any prelacteal feeds at birth and, those who responded positively to this question were classified as not practicing EBF.

On maternal education status, the highest education completed was used to group participants into none, moderate and high. Those who had no form of formal education were put into the none category and those who completed primary and junior high school (JHS) were put in the moderate category while those who completed senior high school (SHS) were put in the high category.

Data analysis

The data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 23. The continuous data are presented as means and standard deviations while categorical data is presented as frequencies and percentages. We used Chi-square and Fisher exact test as first line analysis (See S1 File). to identify initial associations and logistic regression was then performed using forced entry. Variables such as age categories and marital status had larger p-values (>0.2) in the first line analyses and thus were not entered into the multivariable models. EBF prevalence was estimated with a sample size of 327 and used for logistic regression. The goodness of fit test also showed that the logistic regression model was a good fit (Hosmer and Lemeshow test; X2 = 6.91, P = 0.438).

Ethical consideration

Ethical approval was received from the University for Development Studies (UDS) Institutional Review Board. Permission was also obtained from the various facilities in which the study was conducted. Informed consent was obtained before participants were interviewed. The participants were assured of confidentiality.

Results

Socio-demographic and child feeding characteristics of lactating mothers

A total of 339 lactating mothers were interviewed in this study. About a third (32.0%) of the mothers were aged between 18 and 23 years old with the majority (44.0%) aged 24–29 years. One-quarter (25.1%) of them had high education status. The majority (94.4%) of the participants were married. Similarly, the majority (92.6%) of participants had their main source of water being pipe-borne water. More than 4 out of every 5 participants (84.7%) were Muslims. About 18.0% of children were 0–6 months old. The mean age of the children (in months) was 11.9±5.1. The male children were 51.0% (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of mothers in study area.

Variable Frequency Percentage (%)
Maternal age categories (Years)    
18–23 108 31.9
24–29 148 43.7
30–35 73 21.5
≥ 36 10 2.9
Ethnicity    
Dagomba 252 74.3
Others(Akan, Chokosi, Ewe, Frafra, Fulani, Ga, Gonja, Hausa, Mamprusi and Waala) 87 25.7
Household water source    
Well 25 7.4
Pipe-borne water 314 92.6
Education status    
None (No formal education) 132 38.9
Moderate (Primary and Junior high school) 122 36.0
High (At least Senior high school) 85 25.1
Marital status    
Married 320 94.4
Single 19 5.6
Religion    
Christianity 52 15.3
Islam 287 84.7
Age of child (months) Mean ± standard deviation  11.9 ± 5.1
0–4 12 3.5
5–12 185 54.6
13–23 142 41.9
Sex of child    
Female 166 49.0
Male 173 51.0

On child feeding practices, 74.6% (95%CI = 69.5–79.2) of children from the programme were exclusively breastfed (Table 2). Nearly all women (98.2%) initiated breastfeeding within the first 30 minutes after delivery. At the time of the study, 72.9% of children were still being breastfed and about 10.0% of children had been sick within the last two weeks before the survey.

Table 2. Child breastfeeding characteristics in study area.

Variable Frequency Percentage (%)
Has child been sick within last two weeks    
No 304 89.7
Yes 35 10.3
Exclusive breastfeeding status
No 83 25.4
Yes 244 74.6
Initiation of breastfeeding    
Within 30 minutes 333 98.2
Within an hour 4 1.2
After an hour 2 0.6
Currently breastfeeding    
No 92 27.1
Yes 247 72.9

Multivariate analysis of exclusive breastfeeding and sociodemographic factors

The analysis revealed that high maternal education (senior high school or above) and households with access to pipe-borne water were significantly associated with EBF. The amount of variability explained by the variables in this model was 25.4% (Nagelkerke R square = 0.254). Mothers who had moderate or high education status were 4 and 9 times respectively more likely to exclusively breastfeed their children compared to those who had no formal education [aOR = 4.1 (95% CI = 2.18–7.66), P<0.001], and [aOR = 9.15, (95% CI = 3.3–25.4), P<0.001]. Similarly, children who were from households whose main source of water was pipe-borne were about 3 times more likely to exclusively breastfeed as compared to those from households whose main source of water were from wells [aOR = 2.87, (95% CI = 1.1–7.43), P = 0.04] (Table 3).

Table 3. Multivariate analysis of factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding (n = 327).

Variables Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 95% C.I. P-value
Lower Upper
Child sex
Male Reference
Female 1.41 0.81 2.52 0.208
Ethnicity
Dagomba Reference
Others 0.72 0.3 1.74 0.465
Educational status
None Reference
Moderate 4.1 2.18 7.66 <0.001
High 9.15 3.3 25.4 <0.001
Religious affiliation
Islam Reference
Christianity 1.71 0.4 7.2 0.467
Household’s main source of water
Well Reference
Pipe-borne water 2.87 1.1 7.43 0.029

Discussion

The current study assessed the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) practice among children under two years in ENVAC project areas and its associated factors in northern Ghana. We found 74.6% of EBF practice in the study setting. High maternal education, and the main source of household drinking water being pipe-borne were the predictors of EBF.

A previous study reported a prevalence of about 70.0% of EBF in southern Ghana [32]. The magnitude is slightly high in the current study. This may be due to the different category of participants, the current participants are from the ENVAC project areas in the northern region where women were taken through social behavior change communication to improve feeding and care practices. Recent national estimates of EBF have been lower (52.0% in 2014 vs 42.9% in 2018) than the prevalence reported in this study [11, 12]. In our study, the high prevalence of EBF could be due to increased maternal knowledge through infant and young child feeding practices (IYCF) education at CWCs [32]. Thus, these participants are different from community level members. However, some developed countries have reported lower prevalence of EBF (13.8% - 62.0%) than the current findings [33, 34]. A study conducted in Australia found about nine out of ten children being exclusively breastfed at birth, this decreased to 60.0% within the early postnatal visit (24-hours prior to first postnatal health visit) [34]. This sharp decline is likely due to cultural practices [35], availability of infant formulas [36] and exposure to messages on IYCF [37].

In our study, mothers with high education (senior high school or above) were more likely to exclusively breastfeed their children compared to those who had no formal education. This finding is similar to other studies where higher education was associated with increased likelihood of breastfeeding exclusively. Though, mothers with high education are likely to have occupations that may be time-demanding and affect EBF practices, we did not find such patterns in the current study. Besides, higher education may enhance caregivers’ understanding and uptake of nutrition education on infant and young child feeding practices. A study conducted in Ethiopia reported that the main reason for discontinuation of EBF is mothers returning to work, the authors suggested that a revised national policy on maternity leave to six-months could improve the prevalence of EBF [38]. Similarly, a study conducted in Ghana found that working mothers have the tendency of not practicing breastfeeding up to six months due to the short maternity leave of three months [15] and yet had the least prevalence of stunting in their children [39]. A trial conducted in Norway showed that Baby Friendly Initiative in community health service increased the magnitude of EBF up to six months [40]. This is an indication that other factors may affect a mother’s odds of exclusive breastfeeding. Another study conducted in Belgium demonstrated a positive association of maternal education on breastfeeding [41].

Our study revealed that children from households with pipe-borne water as their main source of water were more likely to be exclusively breastfed compared to those whose main source of water were from wells. In low-income settings, it is often the responsibility of women to make water available in the home. This is one of the gender roles of women in the study setting [42, 43]. Thus, women including lactating mothers likely spent a significant amount of their time fetching water from wells or boreholes in addition to other household responsibilities which increase their daily workload. In the study setting, extended family support for child care is high. While lactating mothers may be engaged in other family chores including water provision, other family members often help with child care. While this has advantages to the mother by reducing the additional burden on mothers, extended family caregivers (especially grandmothers) are more likely to give or introduce food and water to console hungry and crying children in the absence of their mothers. According to Lau (2001), lactation insufficiency is attributable to maternal stresses [44]. Hence, the synergistic effect of increased workload cum stress and the anxiety of having to ensure water security while performing other household responsibilities could possibly lead to lactation insufficiency. Another study demonstrated that stress and anxiety are important biological factors potentially associated with lactogenesis [45]. Additionally, water from unprotected wells may be unsafe due to contamination. Children may be infected with diarrhea conditions resulting in the introduction of other foods and liquids before six months of age [46].

The strength of this study is that it provides data on EBF among beneficiaries of the ENVAC project and its associated factors. It contributes to available information on effects of supplementation programmes and nutrition enhancement interventions for advocacy among marginalised populations. However, the study has several limitations. The study did not measure cultural practices which may be critical in the determination of EBF. Moreover, the amount of variability explained by the variables in the EBF model was 25.4% indicating that other important variables were not measured in the current study. Social desirability on the part of mothers could have caused an overestimation of the magnitude of exclusive breastfeeding, especially since participants had received SBCC messages and knew what they were supposed to do to meet EBF target and could easily recall it to interviewers despite significant interviewer training to ensure that questions were asked in a non-judgmental way. Also interviews were conducted in health facilities which could represent a significant selection bias where the most educated or enthusiastic mothers are more likely to attend.

In addition, the required sample size for this study was 340 but 327 was used to estimate the EBF prevalence which could have affected the power of the study. Nonetheless, a post hoc power analysis showed that the impact was likely minimal. Finally, though participants of this study were beneficiaries of the ENVAC project, there was no control group/ area to be able to determine if high EBF prevalence was as a result of the project or other factors, hence one cannot be certain that the high EBF is attributable to the ENVAC project. Nevertheless, Ghana’s multiple indicator cluster survey showed that more women from rural areas (45.8%) practice EBF as compared to women from urban areas (38.7%) [8], yet, this current study reports an EBF prevalence of 74.6% in participants who were largely been from urban and peri-urban areas.

Conclusion

A social behaviour change communication strategy implemented by ENVAC to lactating mothers likely improved exclusive breastfeeding practice in two districts of northern Ghana. EBF practices were higher among beneficiaries with high education and households with access to pipe-borne water. Our results demonstrate the potential for a combined SBCC strategy along with key maternal and household level factors to increase exclusive breastfeeding rates in impoverished communities such as those we studied as part of the ENVAC study in northern Ghana. This means that future studies that seek to improve exclusive breastfeeding among lactating mothers through SBCC strategies need to also address such factors as maternal education and access to safe and clean water for maximum impact.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

List of abbreviations

aOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

BFHI

Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative

CBT

Cash Based Transfers

CHPS

Community-based Health Planning and Services

CI

Confidence Interval

CNF

Complementary Nutritious Foods

CWC

Child Welfare Clinics

EBF

Exclusive Breastfeeding

ENVAC

Enhanced Nutrition and Value Chain

GDHS

Ghana Demographic and Health Survey

GHS

Ghana Health Service

IEC

Information, Education and Communication

IYCF

Infant and Young Child Feeding practices

JHS

Junior High School

MICS

Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey

SBCC

Social Behaviour Change Communication

SHS

Senior High School

WFP

World Food Program

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information flies.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization, Country implementation of the international code of marketing of breast-milk substitutes: status report 2011. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. Infant and young child feeding indicators. 2021. [cited 2023]; Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infant-and-young-child-feeding. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Alayón S., et al., Exclusive breastfeeding: Measurement to match the global recommendation. Matern Child Nutr, 2022. 18(4): p. e13409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.World Health Organization, Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices: part 2: measurement. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Martin C.R., Ling P.-R., and Blackburn G.L., Review of infant feeding: key features of breast milk and infant formula. Nutrients, 2016. 8(5): p. 279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Turin C.G. and Ochoa T.J., The role of maternal breast milk in preventing infantile diarrhea in the developing world. Current tropical medicine reports, 2014. 1(2): p. 97–105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Oddy W., et al., The effects of respiratory infections, atopy, and breastfeeding on childhood asthma. European Respiratory Journal, 2002. 19(5): p. 899–905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gardner W. and Kassebaum N., Global, Regional, and National Prevalence and Trends in Infant Breastfeeding Status in 204 Countries and Territories, 1990–2019. Current Developments in Nutrition, 2020. 4(Supplement_2): p. 992–992. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.De Jager E., et al., Psychosocial correlates of exclusive breastfeeding: a systematic review. Midwifery, 2013. 29(5): p. 506–518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stanaway J.D., et al., Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet, 2018. 392(10159): p. 1923–1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ghana Statistical Service, G.H.S., ICF International, Ghana demographic and health survey 2014. Rockville, Maryland, USA: GSS, GHS, and ICF International, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ghana Statical Service, Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS2017/18). Survey Findings Report.[Google Scholar], 2018.
  • 13.Arts M., Taqi I., and Bégin F., Improving the early initiation of breastfeeding: the WHO-UNICEF breastfeeding advocacy initiative. Breastfeeding Medicine, 2017. 12(6): p. 326–327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bhattacharjee N.V., et al., Mapping exclusive breastfeeding in Africa between 2000 and 2017. Nature medicine, 2019. 25(8): p. 1205–1212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dun-Dery E.J. and Laar A.K., Exclusive breastfeeding among city-dwelling professional working mothers in Ghana. International breastfeeding journal, 2016. 11(1): p. 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.World Bank. World Bank Indicators Database. [cited 2023]; Available from: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators.
  • 17.Tampah-Naah A.M. and Kumi-Kyereme A., Determinants of exclusive breastfeeding among mothers in Ghana: a cross-sectional study. International breastfeeding journal, 2013. 8(1): p. 1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Otoo G.E., Lartey A.A., and Pérez-Escamilla R., Perceived incentives and barriers to exclusive breastfeeding among periurban Ghanaian women. Journal of Human Lactation, 2009. 25(1): p. 34–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lutter C.K., The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes: lessons learned and implications for the regulation of marketing of foods and beverages to children. Public health nutrition, 2013. 16(10): p. 1879–1884. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ogunlesi T.A., Maternal socio-demographic factors influencing the initiation and exclusivity of breastfeeding in a Nigerian semi-urban setting. Maternal and child health journal, 2010. 14(3): p. 459–465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.World Health Organization, The state of breastfeeding in 33 countries. World Health Organization, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Walsh S.M., et al., Effects of Early Initiation of Breastfeeding on Exclusive Breastfeeding Practices of Mothers in Rural Haiti. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 2019. 33(5): p. 561–567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Permatasari T.A.E. and Syafruddin A., Early initiation of breastfeeding related to exclusive breastfeeding and breastfeeding duration in rural and urban areas in Subang, West Java, Indonesia. Journal of Health Research, 2016. 30(5): p. 337–345. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bichard, A.S., Laure; Asante, Isaac Kwasi; Darko, Terrence, Final evaluation of Enhanced Nutrition and Value Chains (ENVAC) Project 2016–2021 Decentralized Evaluation Report. WFP Ghana.
  • 25.WHO, D.o.M., Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health Health for the World’s Adolescents: A second chance in the second decade. 2014 Online Edition.
  • 26.Victora C.G., et al., Worldwide timing of growth faltering: revisiting implications for interventions. Pediatrics, 2010. 125(3): p. e473–e480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sinha B., et al., Interventions to improve breastfeeding outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Acta paediatrica, 2015. 104: p. 114–134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Teo H.M., Smith T.J., and Joseph S.S., Efficacy and Safety of Teprotumumab in Thyroid Eye Disease. Ther Clin Risk Manag, 2021. 17: p. 1219–1230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Adokiya M.N., Langu A.T., and Ali Z., Antenatal care attendance and maternal knowledge on child feeding predict haemoglobin level of pre-school children in Wa Municipality of Ghana. Nutrition & Food Science, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Couttolenc B.F., Decentralization and governance in the Ghana health sector. 2012: World Bank Publications. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.GSS, GHS and ICF Macro, Ghana demographic and health survey 2014. Ghana Statistical Service, Ghana Health Service, and ICF International, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Manyeh A.K., et al., Estimating the rate and determinants of exclusive breastfeeding practices among rural mothers in Southern Ghana. International Breastfeeding Journal, 2020. 15(1): p. 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Al-Sahab B., et al., Prevalence and predictors of 6-month exclusive breastfeeding among Canadian women: a national survey. BMC pediatrics, 2010. 10(1): p. 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ogbo F.A., et al., Prevalence and determinants of cessation of exclusive breastfeeding in the early postnatal period in Sydney, Australia. International Breastfeeding Journal, 2016. 12(1): p. 1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kakute P.N., et al., Cultural barriers to exclusive breastfeeding by mothers in a rural area of Cameroon, Africa. Journal of midwifery & women’s health, 2005. 50(4): p. 324–328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lampe I.M., Does Infant Formula Availability Reduce Breastfeeding? 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kim S.S., et al., Exposure to large-scale social and behavior change communication interventions is associated with improvements in infant and young child feeding practices in Ethiopia. PloS one, 2016. 11(10): p. e0164800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gebrekidan K., et al., Exclusive breastfeeding continuation and associated factors among employed women in North Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. PloS one, 2021. 16(7): p. e0252445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Garti H., Ali Z., and Garti H.A., Maternal daily work hours affect nutritional status of children in Northern Ghana. Nutrire, 2018. 43: p. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bærug A., et al., Effectiveness of Baby‐friendly community health services on exclusive breastfeeding and maternal satisfaction: a pragmatic trial. Maternal & child nutrition, 2016. 12(3): p. 428–439. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12273 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Vanderlinden K. and Van de Putte B., Pathways of equality through education: impact of gender (in) equality and maternal education on exclusive breastfeeding among natives and migrants in Belgium. Maternal & child nutrition, 2017. 13(2): p. e12309. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Fugu M. Water crisis hits five Tamale communities as residents with animals 2020. [cited 2022 04/07/2022]; Available from: https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/water-crisis-hits-five-tamale-communities-as-residents-compete-with-animals.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jeil E.B., Abass K., and Ganle J.K., “We are free when water is available”: gendered livelihood implications of sporadic water supply in Northern Ghana. Local Environment, 2020. 25(4): p. 320–335. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lau C., Effects of stress on lactation. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 2001. 48(1): p. 221–234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Dewey K.G., Maternal and fetal stress are associated with impaired lactogenesis in humans. The Journal of nutrition, 2001. 131(11): p. 3012S–3015S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pantenburg B., et al., Feeding of young children during diarrhea: caregivers’ intended practices and perceptions. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 2014. 91(3): p. 555–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Neetu Choudhary

23 Feb 2023

PONE-D-23-01016Exclusive breastfeeding among beneficiaries of a nutrition enhancement programme and its associated factors in GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Adokiya,

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 09 2023 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,

Neetu Choudhary, PhD

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

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. 

4. 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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: 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: The study is important and will be of interest to an international audience. The written text would benefit from academic mentoring to strengthen unsupported claims and add substance to the conclusion ( rather than repeating the results).

Statements need supporting from the evidence unless they are common knowledge for example, in the introduction, the points on boost to immune system, 36% global EBF, and Australia's EBF at 96% are all without citations to support the claim and the entire manuscript needs to be revised for this point. See also p13 A study in Australia found 9/10 children EBF at birth, no citation.

Citation 12 is used to emphasize initiation of breastfeeding on the rise in Nigeria, yet the date of publication is 2010 and initiation does stray from the main point of EBF and this should be brought out in the text and not left to the reader to work it through.

'Adolescent' needs to be defined by age as used in this study ( and supported by literature) for an international audience.

It needs to be stated if the ENVAC project captured data on prevalence of EBF, as the readers may consider the point.

Study design, a diagram of the regions and numbers and levels of subgroups in the areas would be helpful for readers to visualize the communities.

The important point is not to repeat what has already been stated well once. There is repetition on the mother child pairs which could be trimmed back.

The use of the word 'targeted' on p7 sounds as though the participants were not voluntary participants, perhaps the word 'invited' could be used instead.

Please describe the purposive sampling exactly and why this was necessary, and the random sampling and how this was done exactly.

How was data collected, was it only by interview, that is all that they consented to?

The definition of EBF in some studies includes no medicine, have you made your position clear on this ? P8

When reporting statistics it is preferable to use the same number of decimal places throughout see p9 68% v 92.6% (2 v 3 places).

P10 mean age of children needs to be expressed as 'months'.

Child not being sick as a predictor of EBF is rather a confusing way to report what is occurring the other way around- EBF a predictor that a child wont be sick, if other triggers are controlled for. The authors need to add to the conclusion on this.

Reviewer #2: The current study looked at the exclusive breastfeeding rate (EBF) and its determinants among beneficiaries of a WFP-sponsored programme in Ghana's northern region. The authors reported a high prevalence of EBF and identified maternal education, a sickness episode in the previous two weeks, and the source of household drinking water as important determinants of EBF in the study setting. Overall, this is an important topic for the study setting. The study design and analytical techniques are sound in order to achieve the study's objectives. The manuscript is also well written in standard English. However, there are a few issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication in PLOS ONE.

General observations: The manuscript requires extensive copyediting to correct grammar issues such as incorrect sentence structure, missing punctuation or articles, and inconsistent font size. A conceptual framework should also guide the variables included as potential predictors, as some do not have a scientific basis. The following are some specific remarks:

Abstract

When you use including, you want to show that there are many but only highlight a few. When the exact number of pillars is specified, the word namely is more appropriate.

Make the study's purpose more specific; what about EBF was measured? Furthermore, the goal is stated as if the EBF rate was determined among women and children. The entire purpose sentence should be revised.

The sentence “Participants were lactating women who benefitted from the ENVAC

project using Social Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) and facilitated access to

Complementary Nutritious Foods (CNF) through market and vouchers.” is confusing

… those whose children or child?

Introduction

The introduction is well-written, and the problem is clearly stated and justified. Nonetheless, the authors should ensure that the manuscript is thoroughly copyedited; there are missing punctuations and font sizes that do not match other text within the manuscript.

Methods

Authors may have to redefine the study’s target population for clarity

The study does not state whether the six purposefully chosen facilities were distributed evenly between the two areas, Sagnarigu and Tamale Metropolitan. It also does not specify how the overall sample was distributed among the various facilities chosen.

Outcome variable: more information is needed to define the outcome variable properly. What was the recall period for giving breastmilk or foods?

Exposure variable: I am surprised by the study variables' conceptualization, including the use of sickness in the previous two weeks as a potential predictor variable. EBF primarily affects children in their first six months of life. As a result, it will be interesting to learn from the current study that an exposure after 6 months predicts an outcome that occurred long before the exposure.

Results

The sample size needed to achieve the study's objectives was 340. 339 people were interviewed, however. Given that no adjustments were made to the sample size to account for non-response, not interviewing all 340 women has implications for generalising the findings. That should be addressed adequately.

Table 1: The mean age of the children can be placed alongside their age variable.

The categorisation of the timing of initiation of breastfeeding is problematic. Any child who was breastfed within 30 minutes is still eligible for the within 1 hour group. That should be reconsidered. Furthermore, did all of the women say they had ever breastfed? When the denominator is clearly indicated or defined, the EBF rate is easier to understand and interpret.

Multivariate analysis: “… household main source of water of being pipe-borne were significantly associated with EBF” what does it mean?

Furthermore, the narrative discusses the factors associated with EBF in general, so there is no need to attempt to indicate the direction when it is captured in the sentence following.

What method was used to fit the multivariable model? Table 3 lacks variables such as maternal age categories and marital status. What factors influenced the exclusion of these variables?

The section on data analysis mentioned comparison tests. I am curious what role they played in the current study.

Discussion

“A previous study reported a prevalence of about 70.0% of EBF in southern Ghana [24]. Though, there are geographical differences between northern and southern Ghana.” means?

The explanation for the difference in prevalence rate between health facility-based designs and population-based designs is not entirely justifiable. The authors contend that the participants recruited at the health facility are distinct from community members. The question is where did those women come from?

Similarly, the explanation for the link between water source and EBF may be implausible. Given the authors' explanation, I am wondering if the EBF rates will differ between women who fetch water from pipped sources and those who fetch from wells, assuming the travel distance is the same or similar.

The current study's design and limited number of exposure variables should be viewed as significant limitations by the authors.

Conclusion: check error

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Michael Boah

**********

[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 May 30;18(5):e0286546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286546.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Apr 2023

Response to reviewers

We are grateful for the helpful comments and we have adequately addressed them.

Comments Responses

Reviewer 1

Comment: The study is important and will be of interest to an international audience. The written text would benefit from academic mentoring to strengthen unsupported claims and add substance to the conclusion ( rather than repeating the results). Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have made a thorough revision of the paper and added references where required. We have also re-written the conclusion to derive from the study.

Comment: Statements need supporting from the evidence unless they are common knowledge for example, in the introduction, the points on boost to immune system, 36% global EBF, and Australia's EBF at 96% are all without citations to support the claim and the entire manuscript needs to be revised for this point. See also p13 A study in Australia found 9/10 children EBF at birth, no citation. Response: We have revised the manuscript to include missing citations.

Comment: Citation 12 is used to emphasize initiation of breastfeeding on the rise in Nigeria, yet the date of publication is 2010 and initiation does stray from the main point of EBF and this should be brought out in the text and not left to the reader to work it through. Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to the discrepancy. We have revised this section appropriately.

Comment: 'Adolescent' needs to be defined by age as used in this study (and supported by literature) for an international audience. Response: We have revised and included the age of adolescents. We used WHO definition and have also provided the appropriate reference (Page 6, lines 40).

Comment: It needs to be stated if the ENVAC project captured data on prevalence of EBF, as the readers may consider the point. Response: We have revised the introduction to addresses this concern (Page 7, lines 46-51)

Comment: Study design, a diagram of the regions and numbers and levels of subgroups in the areas would be helpful for readers to visualize the communities. Response: We did not address this comment. We think that this information may not make difference.

Comment: The important point is not to repeat what has already been stated well once. There is repetition on the mother child pairs which could be trimmed back. Response: We thank the reviewer for noting this, we have made extensive revisions throughout the paper to trim redundancies.

Comment: The use of the word 'targeted' on p7 sounds as though the participants were not voluntary participants, perhaps the word 'invited' could be used instead. Response: We have revised the sentence to remove the word “targeted” and used “invited” as suggested by the reviewer to avoid ambiguity.

Comment: Please describe the purposive sampling exactly and why this was necessary, and the random sampling and how this was done exactly. Response: We have made revisions to improve on the description of the sampling methods. See methods (page 8-9, lines 87-89).

Comment: How was data collected, was it only by interview, that is all that they consented to? Response: Yes, data were collected by interview only. We have stated this clearly in the methods section (page 9, lines 95-96).

Comment: The definition of EBF in some studies includes no medicine, have you made your position clear on this? P8 Response: We followed the standard WHO definition of EBF which includes medicines prescribed by a medical practitioner

Comment: When reporting statistics it is preferable to use the same number of decimal places throughout see p9 68% v 92.6% (2 v 3 places). Response: We thank the reviewer for noting this and have revised to have consistent number of decimal places

Comment: P10 mean age of children needs to be expressed as 'months'. Response: This has been revised appropriately

Comment: Child not being sick as a predictor of EBF is rather a confusing way to report what is occurring the other way around- EBF a predictor that a child won’t be sick, if other triggers are controlled for. The authors need to add to the conclusion on this.

Response: We have revised this after a careful reconsideration.

Reviewer 2

Comment: The current study looked at the exclusive breastfeeding rate (EBF) and its determinants among beneficiaries of a WFP-sponsored programme in Ghana's northern region. The authors reported a high prevalence of EBF and identified maternal education, a sickness episode in the previous two weeks, and the source of household drinking water as important determinants of EBF in the study setting. Overall, this is an important topic for the study setting. The study design and analytical techniques are sound in order to achieve the study's objectives. The manuscript is also well written in standard English. However, there are a few issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication in PLOS ONE.

Response: We thank the reviewer for agreeing to review our work and we have addressed all the comments raised herein.

Comment: General observations: The manuscript requires extensive copyediting to correct grammar issues such as incorrect sentence structure, missing punctuation or articles, and inconsistent font size. A conceptual framework should also guide the variables included as potential predictors, as some do not have a scientific basis. The following are some specific remarks: Response: We thank the reviewer for their comments. We have extensively revised the manuscript to correct language errors. In addition, variables included in the model were examined in a first line analysis using Chi-square and Fisher exact test before variables were taken further for logistic regression file. An additional file containing the results for the preliminary bivariate analyses are included in the online additional files.

Abstract

Comment: When you use including, you want to show that there are many but only highlight a few. When the exact number of pillars is specified, the word namely is more appropriate. Response: We have noted this and have applied the revision where necessary.

Comment: Make the study's purpose more specific; what about EBF was measured? Furthermore, the goal is stated as if the EBF rate was determined among women and children. The entire purpose sentence should be revised.

Response: The purpose statement has been revised appropriately.

Comment: The sentence “Participants were lactating women who benefitted from the ENVAC project using Social Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) and facilitated access to Complementary Nutritious Foods (CNF) through market and vouchers.” is confusing … those whose children or child? Response: The sentence has been revised.

Introduction

Comment: The introduction is well-written, and the problem is clearly stated and justified. Nonetheless, the authors should ensure that the manuscript is thoroughly copy-edited; there are missing punctuations and font sizes that do not match other text within the manuscript.

Response: We have taken note of this and made the necessary revisions.

Methods

Comment: Authors may have to redefine the study’s target population for clarity. The study does not state whether the six purposefully chosen facilities were distributed evenly between the two areas, Sagnarigu and Tamale Metropolitan. It also does not specify how the overall sample was distributed among the various facilities chosen. Response: More information has been added on the study’s target population to improve clarity and information has also been included on how facilities were distributed as well as how the overall sample was distributed (See additional file, Table 1)

Comment: Outcome variable: more information is needed to define the outcome variable properly. What was the recall period for giving breastmilk or foods? Response: We have revised to include the recall period (Page 9, lines 103-107).

Comment: Exposure variable: I am surprised by the study variables' conceptualization, including the use of sickness in the previous two weeks as a potential predictor variable. EBF primarily affects children in their first six months of life. As a result, it will be interesting to learn from the current study that an exposure after 6 months predicts an outcome that occurred long before the exposure. Response: We have carefully reconsidered this observation and agree with the reviewer, hence, we have removed child sickness from the models.

Results

Comment: The sample size needed to achieve the study's objectives was 340. 339 people were interviewed, however. Given that no adjustments were made to the sample size to account for non-response, not interviewing all 340 women has implications for generalising the findings. That should be addressed adequately. Response: We have acknowledged this a limitation of the study (Page 18, lines 226-228)

Comment: Table 1: The mean age of the children can be placed alongside their age variable. Response: We have placed mean age alongside the age variable, thank you.

Comment: The categorisation of the timing of initiation of breastfeeding is problematic. Any child who was breastfed within 30 minutes is still eligible for the within 1 hour group. That should be reconsidered. Response: We agree that any child who was breastfed within 30 minutes is still eligible for the within 1 hour group. The responses were grouped into 30 minutes, within 1 hour and after 1 hour but were collapsed during the analysis, we have revised to retain the initial grouping

Comment: Furthermore, did all of the women say they had ever breastfed? When the denominator is clearly indicated or defined, the EBF rate is easier to understand and interpret.

Response: Yes, all the women said they were breastfeeding.

Comment: Multivariate analysis: “… household main source of water of being pipe-borne were significantly associated with EBF” what does it mean? Response: We intended to say that households with access to pipe-borne water were more likely to practice EBF, the sentence has been revised for more clarity (page 13, lines 149-150).

Comment: Furthermore, the narrative discusses the factors associated with EBF in general, so there is no need to attempt to indicate the direction when it is captured in the sentence following. Response: We thank the reviewer for noting this, various revisions have been made where necessary.

Comment: What method was used to fit the multivariable model? Table 3 lacks variables such as maternal age categories and marital status. What factors influenced the exclusion of these variables? Response: We used Chi-square and Fisher exact test as first line analysis to identify initial associations and logistic regression was then performed using forced entry. Variables such as age categories and marital status had larger p-values (>0.2) in the first line analyses and thus were not entered into the multivariable models.

Comment: The section on data analysis mentioned comparison tests. I am curious what role they played in the current study. Response: We have revised to clarify.

Discussion

Comment: “A previous study reported a prevalence of about 70.0% of EBF in southern Ghana [24]. Though, there are geographical differences between northern and southern Ghana.” means? Response: The statement “Though, there are geographical differences between northern and southern Ghana.” Has been deleted to improve clarity.

Comment: The explanation for the difference in prevalence rate between health facility-based designs and population-based designs is not entirely justifiable. The authors contend that the participants recruited at the health facility are distinct from community members. The question is where did those women come from?

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s observation and have revised appropriately (Page 15, lines 166-170)

Comment: Similarly, the explanation for the link between water source and EBF may be implausible. Given the authors' explanation, I am wondering if the EBF rates will differ between women who fetch water from pipped sources and those who fetch from wells, assuming the travel distance is the same or similar.

Response: We have revised to improve clarity (Page 16-17, lines 198-205)

Comment: The current study's design and limited number of exposure variables should be viewed as significant limitations by the authors. Response: We have included this as a limitation in the discussion section.

Comment: Conclusion: check error

Response: We have revised the conclusion appropriately.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 04202023.docx

Decision Letter 1

Neetu Choudhary

4 May 2023

PONE-D-23-01016R1Exclusive breastfeeding among beneficiaries of a nutrition enhancement programme and its associated factors in GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Adokiya,

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.

cols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 18 2023 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,

Neetu Choudhary, PhD

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:

Thank you for your revisions! However, the conclusion still needs revision. Please note the conclusion is not just summary of results. You can include key observations with some future implications.

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

[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 May 30;18(5):e0286546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286546.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


16 May 2023

Comment: Thank you for your revisions! However, the conclusion still needs revision. Please note the conclusion is not just summary of results. You can include key observations with some future implications.

Response: We thank the Editor for the additional comments. We have revised the conclusion session of the abstract and main manuscript including possibly future implications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 05162023.docx

Decision Letter 2

Neetu Choudhary

18 May 2023

Exclusive breastfeeding among beneficiaries of a nutrition enhancement programme and its associated factors in Ghana

PONE-D-23-01016R2

Dear Dr. Adokia,

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,

Neetu Choudhary, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Neetu Choudhary

19 May 2023

PONE-D-23-01016R2

Exclusive breastfeeding among beneficiaries of a nutrition enhancement programme and its associated factors in Ghana

Dear Dr. Adokiya:

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. Neetu Choudhary

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 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 04202023.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 05162023.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information flies.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES