Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Oct 20;18(10):e0288150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288150

Effects of nutrition education and home gardening interventions on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia: A cluster randomized controlled trial

Melesse Niguse Kuma 1,*, Dessalegn Tamiru 1, Tefera Belachew 1,2
Editor: Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa3
PMCID: PMC10588865  PMID: 37862322

Abstract

Background

Although pro-dietary practices and associated malnutrition are modifiable risk factors, they have a significant effect on maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effect of nutritional education and home gardening promotion on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women.

Methods

A three parallel arms community-based cluster randomized controlled trial was carried out in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia from August 2020 to January 2021. Eighteen selected clusters were randomly assigned into three arms: husband (pregnant woman with her husband), peers (pregnant woman with her peers), and the controls. A total of 348 pregnant women were recruited in a 1:1:1 allocation ratio to the study arms at the baseline and 336 attended the end-line survey. Three nutrition education sessions and four varieties of vegetable seeds were provided for women in the intervention arms (husband and peers) and only routine nutrition education for the controls. Data were collected using a pretested interviewer-administered structured questionnaire. Generalized estimating equation analysis (GEE) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal Wallis test were used to evaluate the effect of the interventions. The intervention effect estimates were obtained through a difference-in-differences approach.

Result

In the final model, neonates born to women in the husband group were 232 g heavier than those in the control groups (β = 232, 95%CI: 228.00, 236.27. Similarly, women in the husband group had a 0.45 g/dl greater hemoglobin level than the control groups (β = 0.45, 95% CI: 36.48, 54.40). Likewise, a minimum diet diversity score was higher in the husband group as compared to the controls (β = 0.87 95% CI: (0.56, 1.18).

Conclusions

Therefore, nutrition education and home gardening interventions resulted in a significant positive effect on the mean birth weight and maternal hemoglobin level among the intervention groups. The findings imply the need for enhancing such interventions to improve feto-maternal outcomes. The trial was registered at Pan African Clinical Trial Registry as PACTR202008624731801.

Introduction

Maternal undernutrition both during early life and pregnancy is one of the proximal determinants of neonatal birth weight [1]. Evidence shows that low maternal mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), is associated with adverse fetal outcomes [24]. Similarly, iron-deficiency anemia is the most common micronutrient deficiency reported during pregnancy that is known to have an impact on feto-maternal health [5, 6]. Maternal nutrition during pregnancy has an important contribution to the attainment of optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes [7].

Maternal nutrition during pregnancy has an important contribution to the attainment of optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes [8]. According to the recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO), pregnant women should be encouraged and supported to receive adequate nutrition through the consumption of a healthy diet for optimal maternal and neonatal health outcomes [9]. Adequate maternal nutrition during pregnancy is not only vital for their health but also for the well-being of future generations [10, 11].

There are many nutritional interventions targeting pregnant women which were tested to have a significant change in improving feto-maternal outcomes [1, 8, 12, 13] Nutrition education is one of the interventions that are aimed at improving anemia, gestational weight gain(GWG), reduce the risk of low birth weight in undernourished populations through increasing daily energy, protein, and nutrient intakes [9, 12].

It was documented that nutrition education combined with home gardening programs was more effective in increasing the production and consumption of food quantity and quality, which further alleviates undernutrition and its consequences [13, 14]. In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), maternal nutrition knowledge gained during nutritional intervention alone is difficult to translate into practice due to economic, social, and cultural barriers that women encounter [1517]. Interpersonal communication targeting women’s support networks was shown to enhance their self-efficacy in achieving the recommended practice [18, 19]. To curb the barriers, engaging husbands or family members during nutrition education is more effective in the improvement of maternal knowledge and adherence to scientific advice [2022].

In a patriarchal and agrarian society like Ethiopia, it is essential to involve husbands and other influential household members in nutrition education during pregnancy. It is also suggested that complementing nutrition education with agricultural interventions that foster an enabling environment will ensure the availability, accessibility, and utilization of diversified, safe, and nutritious food in a sustainable way [15, 2325].

In Ethiopia, nutrition education during pregnancy is provided by health professionals at health institutions when women come for antenatal care follow-up, emphasizing the consumption of at least one additional meal than non–pregnant states [2628]. In addition to this, the country has developed a national nutritional policy and strategy and signed many international nutritional declarations and commitments [24, 29, 30].

However, evidence on the effect of nutritional education and home gardening interventions on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women in low-income countries including Ethiopia is scanty and not conclusive [31, 32]. Hence, this study aimed to assess the effect of nutrition education and home gardening promotion through the involvement of husbands and peers on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women in the Jimma zone, Southwest Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Study design and settings

A three-arm parallel cluster-randomized, controlled, single-blinded trial was conducted to assess the effect of nutrition education and promotion of home gardening on feto-maternal outcomes in the rural district of Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, from August 2020 to January 2021. Jimma Zone is located 345 km away from the capital city of the country, Addis Ababa, in the Southwest direction. Jimma is one of the leading coffee-producing zones in Oromia Regional State, with an annual rainfall ranging between 1200–2800 mm per annum. The Zone has two well-known agro-ecological districts (mainly coffee-growing districts and food crop-growing districts). In both districts of an estimated 12135 pregnant women, about 4117 were the first trimester. A detailed explanation of the study areas has been explained previously elsewhere [33].

The sample size was estimated by G power version 3.1.9.7. Assumptions used to calculate the required sample size were: precision of 5%, power of 80%, an effect size of 0.25, and we expect a mean birth weight change of 100 gm (the primary outcome) in the intervention groups (from 2975 g to 3075 g) based on previous studies [34, 35]. Design effects of 2 and 15% non-response rates were also considered. The total sample size was 348 pregnant women (116 per each of the three study arms). The CONSORT flow chart and checklist were prepared based on consolidated standards of reporting trials [36] (Fig 1 and S1 File).

Fig 1. The CONSORT flow diagram of the study.

Fig 1

Recruitments and randomization

Two districts (woreda) that could represent the two known agro-ecological areas of the Jimma zone were selected. Accordingly, Mana from predominantly coffee-growing districts and Seka Chekorsa from grain and crop-growing districts were selected purposively for management and logistical reasons. Then, non-adjacent clusters or kebeles (the smallest administrative units) were selected from both districts to have buffer zones. Accordingly, a total of 18 clusters (kebeles) (8 from Mana and 10 from Seka chekorsa) districts were selected. Using the randomized complete block design; the clusters (kebeles) were grouped into two blocks based on their agroecological areas (mainly coffee or grain producing). Finally, from both blocks clusters were randomly assigned to the three study arms (husband, Peers, and control). Thus, Nase, Bidaru toli, Dimtu (of Seka), Doyo toil, Gudata bula, and Lemi Lelisa clusters (kebeles) were assigned to the husband group. While, Siba bake, Buyo kechema, Meti, Bore, Bebela kosa, and Haro clusters were assigned to the peer group. Likewise, Komo hare, Gepa seden, Wakito madalu, Kamise waraba, kore Lelisa, and kenteri clusters were assigned to the control group.

Regarding the sample size allocation, it was proportionally to the population size of respective districts and kebeles (clusters). To make it more clear, of a total of 348 first-trimester pregnant women enrolled at baseline, this means 144 women were from the mana district and 204 women were from the Seka-chekorsa district. Finally, a total of 336 pregnant women (116 1st trimester pregnant women per the three study arms) were enrolled at baseline. That means an equal number of pregnant women per cluster was allocated. All of the first-trimester pregnant women who fulfilled the inclusion criteria in each cluster were enrolled until the desired or allocated number was achieved. Finally, on end-line, we have got 112 women per the study arms.

Peers are women volunteers of any age who have given birth at least once, can read and write, and are willing to complete the nutritional intervention program as well as support and mentor pregnant women in their respective clusters. Moreover, it is common in young children’s feeding and prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (PTCT) programs [37, 38].

Eligible study participants were identified after home to a home survey of first-trimester pregnant women using the first date of their last menstrual period. Two experienced integrated emergency surgical officers (IESO) scanned the ultrasound for each enrolled woman to confirm the pregnancy and to determine the gestational age. Then, singleton first-trimester pregnant women were included in the study. Pregnancies that were identified as non-viable or had incurable deformities were excluded from the study and referred to the nearest health facilities for management.

Blinding

The data collectors were not informed about the allocation cluster group. Also, they were not residents of any study clusters. Due to the nature of the intervention, the study participants knew their allocation.

Intervention

The nutritional education intervention

Before the onset of the intervention, training of trainers was given to eight BSc midwives for three days on the topics to be covered in each session. Maternal nutrition education intervention guideline was adapted and prepared based on the WHO recommendation of essential nutrition actions (ENA) for improving maternal nutrition guidance and maternal nutrition operational guidance for LMICs [39, 40].

The social and behavioral change communication intervention (SBC) was given to a group of pregnant women for six months in three sessions at their nearby health posts. During each SBC session, women from the husband group attended counseling with their husbands. Similarly, women from the peer group attended the intervention with their peers (the peer group was two from each cluster). Overall, the intervention was provided three times; one session per trimester. Once at the beginning of the intervention (after enrolment) in the first trimester, once during the second, and once during the third trimester.

At the end of each session, a summary of the importance of dietary diversity, especially the intake of fruits and vegetables was given as a key message. The intervention used the trans-theoretical model which stipulates individuals’ motivation and readiness to change behavior over time [41]. This model assumes that people appear to go through similar stages of change no matter what behavioral therapy is being applied. But the time of change differs from individual to individual. According to the model, people progress through a series of stages of change, beginning with pre-contemplation (not intending to change) and ending with contemplation (intending to change within 6 months), followed by preparation (actively intending to change), to action (overtly making changes), and into maintenance (taking steps to sustain change) and finally termination (resisting the temptation to relapse).

In this study, the model was used to offer direction for what types of variables and processes may be important in shaping maternal nutritional health behaviors and thus need to be addressed in the intervention. The duration of education per session was 1–2 hrs. The topics of education were tested by other scholars [42]. Both the intervention and control groups received routine nutrition education provided by antenatal care follow-up health care providers as usual.

Topics of nutrition education delivered in different sessions

In the first session of the intervention: the importance of dietary diversity (emphasis was given to increasing the intake of fruits and vegetables), additional meals and daytime rest, the importance of iodized salt use, the importance of weight gain, personal and environmental hygiene, iron-folic acid (IFA) supplementation and bed net use were addressed. The second session included reinforcement of the previous topics, birth preparedness, complications readiness, and danger signs of pregnancy that need immediate medical care. The final session addressed reinforcement of the previous topics, the advantage of institutional delivery, and early and exclusive breastfeeding (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of main interventional activities for the effect of nutrition education and home gardening on feto-maternal outcomes in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.
Key action(message) Strategy of intervention Responsible person Frequency Compliance Parameter
Nutritional education Session one Direct information provision
Sharing experiences
Discussions
Demonstrations
Telling stories
leaflets with the key message (Afan Oromo)
Trained counselors Once during enrolment for 1-2hrs A number of women and husbands attended nutrition education.
A number of women received the leaflet.
Session two Same as above Trained counselors Once during the second trimester for 1–2 hours. A number of women and husbands attended nutrition education.
Session three Same as above Trained counselors Once during the third trimester for 1-2hrs hours A number of women and husbands attended the education.
Home visiting Provide information
Encourage
Correct
Trained counselors, peers, and PI Monthly The number of women visited
Home Gardening Seeds provision
(lettuce, tomato, cabbage, and carrot)
Provided by preparing one teaspoon of each seed/woman. PI and DA Once The number of mothers who received seeds
Land preparation and care for home gardens Demonstrations DA Once A number of women and their husbands attended the demonstrations
Home visiting Encourage
Show
Advice
Correct
DA Fortnight The number of women prepared the land, planted the seeds, and used the vegetables

PI; principal investigator, DA; Agricultural development agent

The home gardening

The intervention groups were supplemented with four vegetable seeds (lettuce, tomato, cabbage, and carrot), which were selected after consultation with an expert from the Jimma Zone Agricultural office. The vegetable seeds were supplied by the principal investigator. The agricultural development agents (DAs) of the clusters provided orientation training for 6 hours in the beginning and guided them from land preparation to harvesting through two weekly home visits. The purpose of providing the seeds was to motivate the participants to consume diversified home garden fruits and vegetables, not to compel the participants to eat only those vegetables (Table 1).

Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring of the implementation was carried out through supervisory visits to the study area and consultative meetings with the team of investigators and the research team (counselors and peer educators). It was enhanced by recording, monitoring activities, and process evaluations. Following monitoring, necessary corrective actions were taken for contextual barriers identified during the intervention (Table 1).

Compliance

Mothers who attended the health education sessions and harvested home gardens were followed using a checklist. Scheduled home visits were made by the research team (counselors, DAs of their respective clusters, and peer educators).

Outcome variables

The neonatal birth weight and maternal hemoglobin level were the primary outcome variables of this trial, while the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) scores, MDD-W score, GWG, and MUAC measurements were the secondary. The socio-economic variables and food insecurity were the independent variables.

Data collection and measurements

The data were collected using a pretested, interviewer-administered, structured questionnaire. Data were collected by experienced and trained eight BSc holder nurses who could speak the local language, ‘‘Afan Oromo’.

Birth weight

The birth weight of an infant was measured within 24 hours of delivery using a digital weight scale (Seca 354) and read to the nearest 100g. Calibration of the scale to zero reading was done before each measurement and the accuracy of the scale was checked using a 1 kg weight metal [43].

Measurement of hemoglobin

The hemoglobin of women was measured by using HemoCue AB Sweden 301(HemoCue AB, Angelhom, Sweden). The machine was a precalibrated instrument designed for the measurement of hemoglobin concentration. Three drops of blood were collected by a laboratory technologist from the left ring finger of each participant using a pricking method. The first and second drops of blood were wiped away and the third drop was used to test the hemoglobin level. The blood was drawn through micro cuvettes and inserted into the HemoCue machine and the results were recorded. The hemoglobin values were adjusted for altitude and trimester [44].

Gestational weight gain (GWG)

The gestational weight was measured at the baseline and end-line. Thus, GWG was computed by subtracting the end-line from the baseline weight of the woman. The woman’s weight was measured by using a digital scale (Seca 878) with a woman wearing light clothes without shoes and read to the nearest 100 gm. The scale was calibrated to zero reading before each measurement and its validity was checked using an object of 1 kg weight [45].

Mid-upper arm circumference measurement(MUAC)

MUAC was measured using a flexible non-elastic tape to the nearest 0.1 centimeter midway between the tip of the shoulder (acromion process) and the tip of the elbow (olecranon process) of the left arm hanging freely [46]. Three measurements were taken and the average was used for final analyses.

Minimum dietary diversity–women (MDD-W)

Data for the MDD-W score were collected by using a 24-hours dietary recall method according to the Food and Agricultural Organization’s (FAO) 2016 guideline [47]. For each food group that a woman consumed, a score of “1” was given, and otherwise “0”. The dietary diversity score was generated by counting the number of scores of food groups consumed. For one food group, only a score of “1” was given and summed up without considering the number of foods eaten. Finally, a woman who had gotten 5 scores out of ten or more were categorized as having adequate dietary diversity.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP)

The woman’s nutritional KAP during pregnancy was assessed by using a tool adapted from FAO 2014 guidelines for assessing nutrition-related knowledge, attitude, and practice [48]. The tool has a total of 10 items and the knowledge items address women’s understanding of food groups and their sources, the importance of a balanced diet, and the consequences of malnutrition on the fetus and the mother who is required to provide a short answer in her own words. The list of correct answers for each item includes (0) if the woman did not know any, (1) if the woman knew any one of the correct answers, and (3) if a woman knew more than one. The women’s attitude was measured by asking the women to judge whether they agreed or disagree on a five-point scale. The item includes food variety, fruit, and vegetable consumption, healthy and quality foods, food taboos, rest during pregnancy, weight gain, and day rest. Moreover, the dietary practice of the women was measured using five nutrition-related practice items: changed frequency/amount, start on the additional meal, food taboo, using bed net, and daily iron folate intake. The responses were classified as (0 = no, 1 = yes). Finally, each item was summed up to generate a practice score.

Household food insecurity access scale (HHFIAS)

Household food insecurity access was measured using nine items specific to an experience of food insecurity in the last 30-day recall period [49]. For each of the nine items, there is a follow-up question about the frequency of the occurrence (rarely, sometimes, and often). The scores ranged from 0 to 27 where the highest score reflects more food insecurity. The tool was validated for use in LMICs [50]. It was translated into the local language ‘Afan Oromo’.

Household wealth index

It was measured using ownership of household assets: infrastructure (e.g. homes and land ownership for agricultural activities, coffee farm, electricity), small equipment (e.g. telephone, TV, radio, ornaments, plough, sofa, mattress, stove, bicycle, motorcycle), and domestic animals (cows/oxen, mule/donkey, sheep/goat). Items were coded into a relative index of household wealth using principal component analysis following a similar procedure by others [51].

During the analysis the following assumptions were made; the overall sampling adequacy (KMO > 0.5), Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.05), commonality > 0.5, the complex structure (correlation) not ≥ 0.40 were checked and components that collectively explain more than 60% of the variance in the set of variables were used for generation of a continuous variable by summing up the principal components into one and tertile rank was made as rich, medium and poor.

Data quality control

The questionnaire was translated into the local language (Afan Oromo) by language experts and then back-translated into English by another person who was blinded to the English version to check the clarity of the questionnaire. Training for three days was given to data collectors and their supervisors on the objective of the study, the data collection instrument, and the principles of research ethics.

A practical test on how to measure anthropometric measurement was administered to data collectors to make sure that the skill was appropriately transferred. In addition to this, two trained supervisors were assigned to give on-site support and oversee the completeness of the collected data overnight. A pretest was conducted on 5% of the total sample size in the Kersa district, a non-selected setting of the Jimma Zone. Close supervision was made by the principal investigator.

Data processing and analysis

The data were validated, edited, coded, and entered into Epi data version 3.1 before being exported to STATA version 13 for analysis. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, mean/ median, and standard deviation (SD) were used to describe the study subjects. The baseline difference in socio-demographic and economic characteristics between the intervention and control arms of the study was examined using chi-square. The pre and post-intervention difference in difference (DID) estimates of maternal hemoglobin level, MUAC, and birth weight between the control and intervention groups were analyzed using one-way ANOVA after checking the assumptions. The normality assumptions and the homogeneity of variance were checked using a Q-Q plot and Levene’s test. Accordingly, the maternal hemoglobin level violated the assumption of homogeneity of variance, and Welch’s test was used. While, for non- normaly distributed variables: MDD-W, GWG, and maternal dietary-related KAP we used the Kruskal Wallis analyses to compare the difference in difference across the study arms. Furthermore, GEE analyses were employed to test the change difference in hemoglobin level, MUAC, MDD-W, and maternal dietary-related KAP between the interventions and control groups.

Likewise, linear GEE regression analyses were used to test the effects of the interventions on feto-maternal outcomes (birth weight and end-line hemoglobin level). The GEE was run to accommodate the correlation of observations within the subject and clustered data. The Gaussian family, identity link, and unstructured correlation matrix were considered during fitting the model and controlling for the possible potential confounding factors. Beta coefficients along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure the effectiveness of the intervention. Interaction terms of the (intervention groups)* (time) were included to obtain the difference-in-differences effect estimates. Intention to treat (ITT) analysis was used and variables with a p-value of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Ethical consideration

Ethical approval was obtained from Jimma University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Oromia Regional Health Bureau with the reference number: IHRPGD/386/19 on 29 September 2019. After explaining the objective and purpose of the study, written informed consent or thumb fingerprint (who are unable to read and write) were obtained from each participant before enrolment. Moreover, for girls (less than 18 years of age) the husband’s consent with her assent was obtained. The confidentiality of the data was secured throughout the study. The privacy of the respondents was maintained by interviewing them in an isolated room. The data were kept in a locked cabinet and were not disclosed to anyone except the investigators. Before the onset of data collection, the participants were informed that the procedure constituted a minimal risk to them. The study was carried out per the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practices [52]. The trial was registered on Pan African Clinical Trial Registry at (https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=12278) with a PACTR202008624731801 identification number for the registry.

Results

Socio-demography and economic characteristics of pregnant women

A total of 348 pregnant women were recruited at the baseline from interventions (husband, n = 116, peers = 116) and control (n = 116) groups. The end-line data were collected from interventions (husband, n = 112, peers = 112) and control (n = 112) groups giving a response rate of 96.5%. The median age of the participants was 24.50, 25, and 23 years for the controls, the husband, and the peer groups, respectively. Of the total involved participants, 39(15.2%) were girls (under 18 years of age) (Table 2). Moreover, at the baseline, only half of the participants across the study arms consumed an adequate diversified diet (52.7% of controls, 50% of husbands, and 50.89% of the peer group).

Table 2. The baseline characteristics of pregnant women in rural Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

Control Intervention
(n = 112) Husbands (n = 112) Peers (n = 112)
Number of clusters 6 6 6
Median age(years) 24.50 25 23
Mean weight(kg) 52.86 51.86 52.49
Gestational age(weeks) 11.23 11.60 11.47
Mean haemoglobin(g/dl) 12.55 12.71 12.52
Mean MUAC(cm) 23.12 23.05 23.31
Religion
 Muslim 99(88.39) 103(91.96) 100(89.28)
 Orthodox 10(8.92) 6(5.35) 12(10.71)
 Protestant 3(2.67) 3(2.67) 0(0)
Maternal education
 No formal education 27(24.10) 35(31.25) 12(10.71)
 Elementary school 47(41.86) 50(44.64) 68(60.71)
 Completed grade 8 15(13.39) 13(11.60) 15(13.39)
 High school 12(10.71) 4(3.57) 8(7.14)
 Above high school 11(9.82) 10(8.92) 9(8.03)
Maternal occupation
 Merchant 18(16.07) 21(18.75) 30(26.78)
 Housewife 82(73.21) 87(77.67) 76(67.85)
 Governmental employee 3(2.67) 3(2.67) 1(0.99)
 Student 4(3.57) 0(0.0) 2(1.78)
 Daily labourer 5(4.46) 1(0.89) 3(2.67)
Husband’s Education
 No formal education 19(16.96) 24(21.42) 21(18.75)
 Elementary school 35(31.25) 48(42.85) 52(46.42)
 Completed grade 8 17(15.17) 14(12.50) 17(15.17)
 High school 17(15.17) 17(15.17) 11(9.82)
 Above high school 24(21.42) 9(8.03) 11(9.82)
Household head
 Man 106(94.64) 110(98.21) 110(98.21)
 Woman 6(5.35) 2(1.786) 2(1.77)
Wealth index
 Rich 2(1.78) 4(3.57) 1(0.89)
 Medium 60(53.57) 37(33.03) 46(41.07)
 Poor 50(44.64) 71(63.392) 65(55.35)
Districts
 Mainly coffee-producing 47(41.96) 52(46.42) 39(34.82)
 Mainly grain-producing 65(58.03) 60(53.57) 73(65.17)

the median age value is obtained from kruskal wallis

Aberrations: MUAC; mid-upper arm circumference

Birth weight among the study arms

The mean (± SD) birth weight of the neonates in the husband group was (3284.82 g ± 376.82), in the peer group (3181.25 g ± 401.01), and (3052.67 g ± 564.08) in the controls group. Besides, low birth weight (< 2500 g) was 5(4.46%) in the husband group, 9 (8.03%) in peers, and 27(24.10%) in the control group. Moreover, macrosomia (> 4000 gm) was 9(8.03%) among the husbands’ group, 4(3.57%) in the peer group, and 3(2.67%) in the control group (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Birth weight classification across the study arms among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia.

Fig 2

Furthermore, the finding of ANOVA indicated that neonatal birth weight differed significantly across the arms, F (2, 333) = 7.31, P = 0.001.

Likewise, Tukey’s posthoc comparisons of the three groups indicated that neonates born from the husband group (m = 3284.82 g, 95% CI: 3214.25, 3355.38) had significantly higher mean birth weight than the control group (m = 3052.67 gm, 95% CI: 2947.05, 3158.29), P = 0.001. While, comparisons between the peer group (m = 3181.25, 95% CI: 3106.17, 3256.34) and the other two groups were not significantly different. Similarly, the mean neonatal birth weight of difference-in-difference analysis revealed that neonates born from the husband group women were heavier by 232 g as compared to the neonates of the controls (232.14, 95% CI: 189.0, 275.27) p < 0.001(Table 3).

Table 3. Comparisons of fetal birth weight and maternal hemoglobin level scores difference-in-difference across the study arms among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

Outcome variables (A)Arm (B)Arm Mean Difference in difference(A-B) P-value 95% CI for mean
Birth weight Husband Peers 103.56 0.21 -39.57, 246.69
Control 232.14* < 0.001 228.00, 236.27
Peers Husband -103.56 0.20 -246.69, 39.57
control 128.58 0.08 -14.55, 271.71
control Husband -232.14* < 0.001 -236.27, -228.00
Peers -128.58 0.08 -271.71, 14.55
Hemoglobin level Husband Peers 0.05 0.94 -0.35, 0.46
Control 0.46 0.02 0.05, 0.87
Peers Husband -0.05 0.94 -0.46, 0.35
Control 0.40 0.05 0.003, 0.81
Control Husband -0.46 0.02 -0.87, -0.05
Peers -0.40 0.05 -0.81, 0.003

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

Maternal nutrition-related knowledge, attitude, practice, and diet diversity

A comparison of the nutritional KAP scores differences among the three study arms was carried out. Hence, the Kruskal Wallis test was used to evaluate the nutritional knowledge difference of pregnant women across the study arms after the intervention. Thus, the test revealed that there is a statistically significant difference between the intervention groups and the controls H (2) = 106.76, P = < 0.001 (Table 4). Similarly, the Kruskal Wallis test showed that there is a nutritional attitude difference between the study arms H (2) = 24.28, P = < 0.001. Likewise, the test revealed that there is a statistically significant difference in nutritional practice between the pregnant women of the study arms H (2) = 18.26, P = < 0.001 (Table 4). Also, a Kruskal Wallis test showed that there is a statistically significant difference in consumption of minimum diet diversity between the study arms H (2) = 18.26, P = < 0.001 (Table 4). Also, a Kruskal Wallis test showed that there is a statistically significant difference in consumption of minimum diet diversity between the study arms H (2) = 18.26, P = < 0.001 (Table 4).

Table 4. Kruskal Wallis Pairwise comparison of the study arms by KAP and diet diversity score.

Outcome Variable Study arms The test statistic (H) P- value Adjusted p-value
Knowledge Husband Peers 27.33 0.03 0.10
Husband Control 12.20 < 0.001 < 0.001
Peers Control 99.86 < 0.001 < 0.001
Attitude Husband Peers 8.83 0.49 1.00
Husband Control 58.67 < 0.001 < 0.001
Peers Control 49.83 < 0.001 < 0.001
Practice Husband Peers 14.36 0.24 0.73
Husband Control 51.13 < 0.001 < 0.001
Peers control 36.77 0.003 0.009
MDD-W Husband Peers 14.54 < 0.001 < 0.001
Husband Control 69.04 < 0.001 < 0.001
Peers control 54.50 0.24 0.74

Adjusted p-value; Significance values that have been adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple testsAbrrvations: KAP; knowledge attitude and practice, MDD-W; minimum diet diversity of women

Comparison of nutritional status and minimum dietary diversity among groups

The ANOVA result showed that the mean hemoglobin level W (2, 219.16) = 4.69, P = 0.01 differed significantly across the study arms. Moreover, the result of Tukey posthoc comparisons indicated that the mean hemoglobin level among the women in the husbands’ group (m = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.65) was significantly higher than the control group (m = -0.02), 95% CI (-0.25, 0.20), P = 0.02 following the intervention (Table 5).

Table 5. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on hemoglobin level, MUAC, MDD-W, nutrition-related knowledge, attitude, and practice among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

Variables B SE P-value 95% CI
Lower Upper
Hemoglobin level Intercept 12.55 0.12 < 0.001 12.30 12.80
Groups
Husband 0.15 0.17 0.37 0.19 0.50
Peers 0.03 0.18 0.85 0.32 0.38
Control Ref
Time 0.44 0.10 < 0.001 0.22 0.65
Time*husband 0.45 0.15 0.004 0.36 0.54
Time* peer 0.05 0.17 0.76 0.29 0.40
MUAC Intercept 23.12 0.17 <0.001 22.78 23.45
Groups
Husband 0.006 0.23 0.77 0.39 0.52
Peer 0.19 0.23 0.40 0.27 0.66
Control Ref
Time 0.66 0.11 <0.001 0.44 0.88
Time*Husband 0.16 0.16 0.31 0.15 0.45
Time*Peer 0.26 019 0.16 0.10 0.64
MDD-W Intercept 4.53 0.07 < 0.001 4.38 4.68
Groups
Husband 0.02 0.10 0.80 0.01 0.2
Peer 0.02 0.11 0.81 0.002 0.25
Control Ref
Time 1.09 0.10 < 0.001 0.88 1.30
Time*Husband 0.87 0.15 < 0.001 0.56 1.18
Time*Peer 0.22 0.15 0.14 0.08 0.52
Knowledge Intercept 5.09 0.29 < 0.001 4.51 5.67
Groups
Husband 0.009 0.42 0.98 -0.84 0.83
Peers 0.19 0.41 0.63 -0.61 1.00
Control Ref
Time 11.75 0.53 < 0.001 10.71 12.80
Time*Husband 9.75 0.81 < 0.001 8.15 11.34
Time*Peers 1.57 0.72 < 0.03 0.01 2.99
Attitude Intercept 22.72 0.22 < 0.001 22.27 23.17
Groups
Husband -0.17 0.30 0.57 - 0.75 0.41
Peer 0.04 0.31 0.88 - 0.56 0.65
Control Ref
Time 1.73 0.26 < 0.001 1.21 1.25
Time*husband 1.92 0.41 < 0.001 1.11 2.74
Time*Peer 0.16 0.38 0.67 - 0.59 0.91
Practice Intercept 2.08 0.09 < 0.001 1.90 2.27
Groups
Husband 0.06 0.13 0.64 - 0.20 0.32
Peer 0.16 0.12 0.20 - 0.08 0.41
Control Ref
Time 2.69 0.10 < 0.001 2.50 2.89
Time*husband 0.69 0.16 < 0.001 0.37 1.01
Time*Peer 0.24 0.14 0.10 - 0.52 0.04

the model was adjusted for maternal age, maternal education, maternal occupation, family size, household food security status, district, wealth index, alcohol consumption, and khat chewing

Abbreviations: β; Beta coefficients, CI; confidence interval, Ref; reference group, MDD-W; Minimum dietary diversity score of women, SE; standard error, MUAC; Mid-upper arm circumference

However, the mean GWG F (2,333) = 1.69, p = 0.18, and MUAC F (2,333) = 1.07, p = 0.34 were not significantly different across.

Effect of the interventions on maternal hemoglobin level, MUAC, MDD-W, nutrition-related KAP

On the multivariable generalized estimating equation linear model, after controlling for possible confounding factors pregnant women of the husband group had 0.45 g/dl more hemoglobin level (β = 0.45, p = 004) as compared to the controls. Similarly, the MDD-W of pregnant women among the husband group was higher by 0.78 scores (β = 0.87, p < 0.001) as compared to the controls. Likewise, maternal nutrition-related knowledge (β = 9.75, p < 0.001), attitude (β = 1.92, p < 0.001), and practice (β = 0.69, p < 0.001) during pregnancy was significantly improved among the husband group of the intervention as compared to the controls. While, the MUAC measurements did not show a statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups (β = 0.16, p = 0.31) (Table 5). The full set of estimates of models presented in Table 5 is attached as S3S8 Files

Discussion

This community-based cluster-randomized controlled trial was designed to assess the effect of nutrition education and home gardening during pregnancy on feto-maternal outcomes in Southwest Ethiopia. The findings of this study demonstrated the effectiveness of the intervention in improving the neonatal mean birth weight, maternal hemoglobin level, MDD-W, and KAP scores of the women in the husband group of the intervention arm as compared to the controls.

Thus, this trial showed that there was a significant mean birth weight difference among the study arms. Neonates born in the husband group of the study were 232 g heavier than the controls. In line with the current finding, a study from West Gojam revealed that nutritional education intervention increased the mean neonatal birth weight as compared to controls [53]. Furthermore, a study from Kenya reported that home-based monthly maternal nutrition counseling has a significantly positive effect on birth weight [54]. Similarly, a systematic review carried out on the effect of nutrition education and counseling during pregnancy indicated that it increased birth weight by 105 gm [12]. The possible explanation for this finding might be the involvement of the husband in the intervention. Because people are more likely to try a new behavior if they believe that their family, neighbors, and community will approve. Likewise, the nutritional education session given in the trimester based might increase the acceptance of the behavior to practice. These all might encourage the women to increase in the meal frequency and promotion of consumption of nutrient-rich local foods increased neonatal birth weight [55].

Similarly, after controlling the confounding factors women in the husbands’ group of the intervention had significantly higher hemoglobin levels as compared to the controls. In support of this finding, a study from India showed that behavioral change communication intervention to enhance the dietary and iron-folate intake during pregnancy increased the mean hemoglobin level of the intervention group as compared to the controls [56]. Likewise, a study conducted in Timor Leste showed that husbands’ knowledge of anemia is important to prevent anemia during pregnancy in their wives [57]. Furthermore, findings from Indonesia indicated that improving mothers’ knowledge about pregnancy-related risks and participation of the family members, mainly husbands of less-educated mothers improved adherence to iron-folate supplementation [20]. The possible explanation is that women who attended the nutritional education with their husbands were more likely to adhere to the advice of iron-folate intake and dietary consumption which might improve their hemoglobin levels than the controls [20, 58].

This study also revealed that the mean dietary diversity score of pregnant women in the husband group of the intervention arm was significantly higher compared to the control group. Similarly, another study conducted in Ethiopia also reported that pregnant women who received nutritional counseling during pregnancy were seven times more likely to consume a diversified diet than the controls [59]. Furthermore, the studies carried out in Burkina Faso and Bangladesh revealed, that there was a significant positive effect of nutrition education during pregnancy on dietary diversity scores [60, 61]. The possible explanation for the improvement in dietary diversity among the intervention groups is the detailed nature of nutritional education intervention, which encompasses the potential decision-makers of the family (the husband). Moreover, the intervention also created an enabling environment for the mothers to consume diversified food through the distribution of vegetable seeds [62].

This study also showed that maternal nutritional knowledge, attitude, and practice scores were significantly higher in the intervention groups as compared to the controls. This finding is consistent with the study carried out in Dessie Town, Northeast Ethiopia, which reported that there was a significant improvement in the mean nutritional knowledge level and dietary practices of pregnant women after attending nutritional education [63]. Similarly, a randomized controlled trial conducted in Bangladesh showed that husbands’ engagement in nutrition intervention programs during their waves’ pregnancies improved women’s awareness, knowledge, self-efficacy, micronutrient intake, and dietary diversity [60]. Likewise, a study in Myanmar revealed that husbands who attended maternal health education with their spouses’ were more involved in maternal care and support during antenatal care [21]. Similarly, a positive effect of nutritional interventions on women during pregnancy was reported in Ethiopia [59, 64], Iran [65], India [66], Indonesia [25], and Rural Bangladesh [67]. This finding might be because the method of nutritional education was simple and delivered in a culturally acceptable message were implemented in this intervention. Moreover, the involvement of the husbands and the selected peers might enable them to remember and practice it.

The findings of this study indicate that community-based nutritional education intervention during pregnancy that involves other influential community-level actors, especially husbands, combined with the promotion of locally available home garden consumption is effective and significantly improves nutritional knowledge, attitude, and practice of pregnant women, which in turn improves maternal nutritional status and birth weight.

The strengths of this study were the strong study design used, and trimester-based community-level nutrition education, combined with agricultural interventions involving community-level actors. However, the responses to the subjective questions during data collection were dependent on maternal self-reported and memory, which might introduce some social desirability and recall biases. Though, efforts were made to probe the respondents to minimize these biases. In addition, intake was assessed using a qualitative indicator ((MDD-W score) that lacks quantification of food consumed and nutrient intake profiles.

Conclusions

The study that, nutrition education and home gardening interventions resulted in a significantly improved mean birth weight of the infant and maternal hemoglobin level among the intervention groups. Furthermore, the intervention has a positive effect on maternal nutritional knowledge, attitude, and practice. Thus, there is a need to consider such an integrated intervention among pregnant women to improve feto-maternal outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 File. The CONSORT checklist of the trial.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Data used for the study.

(XLSX)

S3 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on hemoglobin level among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

(DOCX)

S4 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on MUAC among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

(DOCX)

S5 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on MDD-W among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

(DOCX)

S6 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on nutritional knowledge among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

(DOCX)

S7 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on nutrition related attitude among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

(DOCX)

S8 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on practice among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

(DOCX)

S9 File. The RCT protocol.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Imdad A, Bhutta ZA. Maternal nutrition and birth outcomes: Effect of balanced protein-energy supplementation. Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology. 2012;26:178–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01308.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Miele MJ, Souza RT, Calderon I, Feitosa F, Leite DF, Rocha Filho E, et al. Proposal of MUAC as a fast tool to monitor pregnancy nutritional status: results from a cohort study in Brazil. BMJ open. 2021;11(5):e047463. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Assefa N, Berhane Y, Worku A. Wealth status, mid upper arm circumference (MUAC) and antenatal care (ANC) are determinants for low birth weight in Kersa, Ethiopia. PloS one. 2012;7(6):e39957. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039957 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Fakier A, Petro G, Fawcus S. Mid-upper arm circumference: A surrogate for body mass index in pregnant women. South African Medical Journal. 2017;107(7):606–10. doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2017.v107i7.12255 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.WHO. Global Nutrition Targets 2025: Anemia Policy Brief Geneva: WHO; 2014 [10 March 2019]. 2019.
  • 6.Sukrat B, Wilasrusmee C, Siribumrungwong B, McEvoy M, Okascharoen C, Attia J, et al. Hemoglobin concentration and pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BioMed research international. 2013;2013. doi: 10.1155/2013/769057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Liu H, Li H, Li C, Chen L, Zhang C, Liu Z, et al. Associations between maternal sleep quality throughout pregnancy and newborn birth weight. Behavioral Sleep Medicine. 2021;19(1):57–69. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2019.1702551 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bhutta ZA, Das JK, Rizvi A, Gaffey MF, Walker N, Horton S, et al. Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be done and at what cost? The lancet. 2013;382(9890):452–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Oladapo O, Tunçalp Ö, Bonet M, Lawrie T, Portela A, Downe S, et al. WHO model of intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience: transforming care of women and babies for improved health and wellbeing. Bjog. 2018;125(8):918. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kominiarek MA, Rajan P. Nutrition recommendations in pregnancy and lactation. Medical Clinics. 2016;100(6):1199–215. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2016.06.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gupta ND, Deding M, Lausten M. The effect of low birth weight on height, weight and behavioral outcomes in the medium-run. Economics & Human Biology. 2013;11(1):42–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Girard AW, Olude O. Nutrition education and counselling provided during pregnancy: effects on maternal, neonatal and child health outcomes. Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology. 2012;26:191–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01278.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ruel MT, Alderman H, Maternal, Group CNS. Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programmes: how can they help to accelerate progress in improving maternal and child nutrition? The lancet. 2013;382(9891):536–51. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60843-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Osei A, Pandey P, Nielsen J, Pries A, Spiro D, Davis D, et al. Combining home garden, poultry, and nutrition education program targeted to families with young children improved anemia among children and anemia and underweight among nonpregnant women in Nepal. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 2017;38(1):49–64. doi: 10.1177/0379572116676427 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ogechi AC, Hamdalat OO. Factors influencing the nutritional practice of pregnant women living in a semi-urban region of Ogun State, Nigeria. Religion. 2017;10(76.4):5.3. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.de Diego-Cordero R, Rivilla-Garcia E, Diaz-Jimenez D, Lucchetti G, Badanta B. The role of cultural beliefs on eating patterns and food practices among pregnant women: a systematic review. Nutrition Reviews. 2021;79(9):945–63. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuaa119 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gebreyohannes Y, Hadis M, Abay S, Ararso D, Dibaba A, Mengistu F. Improving antenatal care service utilization in Ethiopia. Dialogue Report: Ethiopian Public Health Institute. 2016.
  • 18.Nguyen PH, Sanghvi T, Kim SS, Tran LM, Afsana K, Mahmud Z, et al. Factors influencing maternal nutrition practices in a large scale maternal, newborn and child health program in Bangladesh. PloS one. 2017;12(7):e0179873. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179873 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zerfu TA, Umeta M, Baye K. Dietary habits, food taboos, and perceptions towards weight gain during pregnancy in Arsi, rural central Ethiopia: a qualitative cross-sectional study. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition. 2016;35(1):1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wiradnyani LAA, Khusun H, Achadi EL, Ocviyanti D, Shankar AH. Role of family support and women’s knowledge on pregnancy-related risks in adherence to maternal iron–folic acid supplementation in Indonesia. Public health nutrition. 2016;19(15):2818–28. doi: 10.1017/S1368980016001002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wai KM, Shibanuma A, Oo NN, Fillman TJ, Saw YM, Jimba M. Correction: are husbands involving in their Spouses’ utilization of maternal care services?: a cross-sectional study in Yangon, Myanmar. PloS one. 2016;11(3):e0151295. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151295 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yargawa J, Leonardi-Bee J. Male involvement and maternal health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(6):604–12. doi: 10.1136/jech-2014-204784 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tekelab T, Chojenta C, Smith R, Loxton D. Factors affecting utilization of antenatal care in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one. 2019;14(4):e0214848. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214848 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.FDRE. Food and Nutrition Policy. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2018.
  • 25.Rahmawati W, van der Pligt P, Willcox JC, Worsley AF. Sources of nutrition information for Indonesian women during pregnancy: how is information sought and provided? Public Health Nutrition. 2021;24(12):3859–69. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021002317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Alehegn MA, Fanta TK, Ayalew AF. Exploring maternal nutrition counseling provided by health professionals during antenatal care follow-up: a qualitative study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia-2019. BMC nutrition. 2021;7(1):1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zelalem A, Endeshaw M, Ayenew M, Shiferaw S, Yirgu R. Effect of nutrition education on pregnancy specific nutrition knowledge and healthy dietary practice among pregnant women in Addis Ababa. Clinics in Mother and Child Health. 2017;14(3):265. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Desalegn K, Pragya S, Debebe M. Dietary practices and associated factors among pregnant women in Wondo genet district, southern Ethiopia: a cross-section study. J Pharm Sci Innov. 2015;4(5):270–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schuftan C, Greiner T. The Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Initiative. Right to Food and Nutrition Watch. 2013:22–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Fontan Sers C, Mughal M. From Maputo to Malabo: public agricultural spending and food security in Africa. Applied economics. 2019;51(46):5045–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Workicho A, Belachew T, Ghosh S, Kershaw M, Lachat C, Kolsteren P. Burden and determinants of undernutrition among young pregnant women in Ethiopia. Maternal & child nutrition. 2019;15(3):e12751. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Girard AW, Self JL, McAuliffe C, Olude O. The effects of household food production strategies on the health and nutrition outcomes of women and young children: a systematic review. Paediatric and Perinatal epidemiology. 2012;26:205–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01282.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kuma MN, Tamiru D, Belachew T. Level and predictors of dietary diversity among pregnant women in rural South-West Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study. BMJ open. 2021;11(10):e055125. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Alam A, Chowdhury M, Dibley M, Raynes-Greenow C. Making a balanced plate for pregnant women to improve birthweight of infants: a study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial in rural Bangladesh. 2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 35.Berhane M, Workineh N, Girma T, Lim R, Lee KJ, Nguyen CD, et al. Prevalence of low birth weight and prematurity and associated factors in neonates in Ethiopia: results from a hospital-based observational study. Ethiopian journal of health sciences. 2019;29(6). doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v29i6.4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Schulz K, Altman D, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340: c332. vitro only No direct experiments on animals. 2010. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.USAID PAI. Mother-to-Mother Support Groups Facilitator’s Manual with Discussion Guide 2011.
  • 38.Foster G, Kangwende A, Magezi V, Maphosa T, Mashapa R, Mukora-Mutseyekwa F, et al. Cluster randomized trial on the effect of mother support groups on retention-in-care and PMTCT outcomes in Zimbabwe: study design, challenges, and national relevance. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 2014;67:S145–S9. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.WHO. Essential nutrition actions: improving maternal, newborn, infant and young child health and nutrition. 2013. [PubMed]
  • 40.Kavle JA, Picolo M, Dillaway C. Maternal Nutrition Operational Guidance. 2019.
  • 41.Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology. 1983;51(3):390. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.51.3.390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Omer AM, Haile D, Shikur B, Macarayan ER, Hagos S. Effectiveness of a nutrition education and counselling training package on antenatal care: a cluster randomized controlled trial in Addis Ababa. Health Policy and Planning. 2020;35(Supplement_1):i65–i75. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czaa101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cutland CL, Lackritz EM, Mallett-Moore T, Bardají A, Chandrasekaran R, Lahariya C, et al. Low birth weight: Case definition & guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of maternal immunization safety data. Vaccine. 2017;35(48Part A):6492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Murphy J. Haemoglobin concentrations for the diagnosis of anaemia and assessment of severity. Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition Information System. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2011 (WHO/NMH/NHD/MNM/11.1; http://www.who.int/vmnis/indicators/haemoglobin.pdf, accessed 1 December 2019).
  • 45.Gilmore LA, Redman LM. Weight gain in pregnancy and application of the 2009 IOM guidelines: toward a uniform approach. Obesity. 2015;23(3):507–11. doi: 10.1002/oby.20951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ververs M-t, Antierens A, Sackl A, Staderini N, Captier V. Which anthropometric indicators identify a pregnant woman as acutely malnourished and predict adverse birth outcomes in the humanitarian context? PLoS currents. 2013;5. doi: 10.1371/currents.dis.54a8b618c1bc031ea140e3f2934599c8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.360 FaF. Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women: A Guide for Measurement. Rome: FAO; 2016.
  • 48.Marías Y, Glasauer P. Guidelines for assessing nutrition-related knowledge, attitudes and practices: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2014.
  • 49.Coates J, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: indicator guide: version 3. 2007.
  • 50.Gebreyesus SH, Lunde T, Mariam DH, Woldehanna T, Lindtjørn B. Is the adapted Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) developed internationally to measure food insecurity valid in urban and rural households of Ethiopia? BMC nutrition. 2015;1(1):1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Fisseha G, Berhane Y, Worku A, Terefe W. Distance from health facility and mothers’ perception of quality related to skilled delivery service utilization in northern Ethiopia. International journal of women’s health. 2017;9:749. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S140366 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Shrestha B, Dunn L. The declaration of helsinki on medical research involving human subjects: A review of seventh revision. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council. 2019;17(4):548–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Demilew YM, Alene GD, Belachew T. Effects of guided counseling during pregnancy on birth weight of newborns in West Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. BMC pediatrics. 2020;20(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Nyamasege C, Kimani-Murage E, Wanjohi M, Kaindi D, Ma E, Fukushige M, et al. Determinants of low birth weight in the context of maternal nutrition education in urban informal settlements, Kenya. Journal of developmental origins of health and disease. 2019;10(2):237–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Jahan K, Roy S, Mihrshahi S, Sultana N, Khatoon S, Roy H, et al. Short-term nutrition education reduces low birthweight and improves pregnancy outcomes among urban poor women in Bangladesh. Food and nutrition bulletin. 2014;35(4):414–21. doi: 10.1177/156482651403500403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Shivalli S, Srivastava RK, Singh GP. Trials of improved practices (TIPs) to enhance the dietary and iron-folate intake during pregnancy-a quasi experimental study among rural pregnant women of Varanasi, India. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0137735. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137735 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.da Costa Fernandes A. The role of husband in assisting wife who suffer anemia in pregnancy. KEMAS: Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat. 2017;13(1):28–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Yusoff H, Wan Daud W, Ahmad Z. Nutrition education and knowledge, attitude and hemoglobin status of Malaysian adolescents. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicineand Public Health. 2012;43(1):192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Demilew YM, Alene GD, Belachew T. Effect of guided counseling on dietary practices of pregnant women in west Gojjam zone, Ethiopia. Plos one. 2020;15(5):e0233429. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233429 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Nguyen PH, Frongillo EA, Sanghvi T, Wable G, Mahmud Z, Tran LM, et al. Engagement of husbands in a maternal nutrition program substantially contributed to greater intake of micronutrient supplements and dietary diversity during pregnancy: Results of a cluster-randomized program evaluation in Bangladesh. The Journal of nutrition. 2018;148(8):1352–63. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxy090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Nikièma L, Huybregts L, Martin-Prevel Y, Donnen P, Lanou H, Grosemans J, et al. Effectiveness of facility-based personalized maternal nutrition counseling in improving child growth and morbidity up to 18 months: A cluster-randomized controlled trial in rural Burkina Faso. PloS one. 2017;12(5):e0177839. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177839 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Mohajeri M. Can nutrition education improve nutritional status in pregnant women? International Journal on Nutraceuticals, Functional Foods and Novel Foods. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Diddana TZ, Kelkay GN, Dola AN, Sadore AA. Effect of nutrition education based on health belief model on nutritional knowledge and dietary practice of pregnant women in Dessie Town, Northeast Ethiopia: A cluster randomized control trial. Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism. 2018;2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Selvakumar DL. 044: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN A PRENATAL NUTRITION EDUCATION INTERVENTION AND MATERNAL NUTRITION IN ETHIOPIA. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Kiani-Asiabar A, Shokravi FA, Hajifaraji M, Zayeri F. The effect of an educational intervention with spouses participation on food intake of pregnant females: A randomized controlled trial. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal. 2018;20(s1). [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Sahu D, Dutta T, Kumar S, Mishra NR, Neogi S, Mondal S, et al. Effects of women’s autonomy and male involvement on reproductive and child health (RCH) service utilization in Uttar Pradesh. Open Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2016;6(11):260. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Rahman AE, Perkins J, Islam S, Siddique AB, Moinuddin M, Anwar MR, et al. Knowledge and involvement of husbands in maternal and newborn health in rural Bangladesh. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2018;18(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Avanti Dey

14 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-11496Effects of nutrition education and home gardening interventions on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia: a cluster randomized controlled trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kuma,

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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible.  Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28 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,

Avanti Dey, PhD

Staff 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 note that in your manuscript you state that you recruited underage women (less than 18 years of age), i.e., girls, in your study. Please clarify how many girls participated in your study, and please amend your language to reflect that underage women should be referred to as 'girls'.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. Note that it is not acceptable for an author to be the sole named individual responsible for ensuring data access.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please include a copy of Table 1 which you refer to in your text on page 8.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Important note: This review pertains only to ‘statistical aspects’ of the study and so ‘clinical aspects’ [like medical importance, relevance of the study, ‘clinical significance and implication(s)’ of the whole study, etc.] are to be evaluated [should be assessed] separately/independently. Further please note that any ‘statistical review’ is generally done under the assumption that (such) study specific methodological [as well as execution] issues are perfectly taken care of by the investigator(s). This review is not an exception to that and so does not cover clinical aspects {however, seldom comments are made only if those issues are intimately / scientifically related & intermingle with ‘statistical aspects’ of the study}. Agreed that ‘statistical methods’ are used as just tools here, however, they are vital part of methodology [and so should be given due importance].

COMMENTS: Please mention all about the ‘cluster(s)’ [like cluster size, how many clusters in population, etc, etc. very briefly] in the ABTRACT [or Methods at least]. In ‘Methods’ you have just said that “A total of 348 pregnant women were recruited at the baseline and 336 attended the end-line survey” which does not define the ‘cluster(s)’. Although in lines 104-5 it is stated that “Then, non-adjacent clusters or kebeles (the smallest administrative units) were selected following the mapping of clusters by geographic information system (GIS) expertise to have buffer zones”, this may not suffice. Later in lines 109-111 you stated that “After stratifying the randomization sequence by the districts using permuted balanced block randomization (block size 18), 6 clusters were assigned to each study arm by the principal investigator” which is confusing. How do/did you stratified the randomization sequence by the districts using permuted balanced block randomization? Basically, ‘do we stratify the randomization sequence?’ is also a question.

Is/Are the cluster(s) size same? {cluster size=112/6=18.67, according to table-2 sample size of each group is 112 [or 116 according to lines 96-7: (116 per each of the three study arms)] then cluster size=116/6=19.33 & Number of clusters in each group are 6}. Is there anything wrong? How otherwise the cluster size is in fraction? You specified the block size as 18 but the number of clusters selected for each group are 6. Is not that confusing? In fact, whenever we use ‘Permuted Block Randomization’ we generally do not reveal the block size. And we generally select the block size randomly to avoid possible/easy prediction of allocation. You may know that the block size is in multiples of number of arms but it is never fixed [in advance] as we choose the block size randomly. Note that it is difficult to manage the block size as large as 18.

You may be absolutely right, in all these, however, remember that this is a scientific/academic document and so all details should be clearly/correctly communicated.

You must have tested ‘Median age(years)’ by Kruskal-Wallis’ test in Table-2. If ‘yes’, you are supposed to mention that [name of (if) another test used] in foot-note, I guess. To provide a description of baseline characteristics is entirely reasonable (since it is clearly important in assessing to whom the results of the trial can be applied), however, statistical comparison of baseline characteristics [last ‘p-value’ column in Table 2] is not desirable at all [because even if P-value turns out to be significant (while comparing baseline characteristics despite random allocation), it is, by definition, a false positive] as you then are supposed to be testing ‘randomization’ then, which in any single trial may not balance all baseline characteristics because ‘randomization’ is a sort of ‘insurance’ and not a guarantee scheme.

References:

1. Stuart J. Pocock, et al., ‘Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems’, Statistics in medicine, 2002; 21:2917–2930 [Particularly page 2927]

2. Harrington D, et al., ‘New guidelines for statistical reporting in the journal’, N Engl J Med 2019;381:285-6

[Important message (indirectly/ultimately indicated) from these articles: Never do any comparison with respect to ‘baseline’ characteristics {by applying statistical significance test(s)}, when allocation is done randomly].

Please note that any regression techniques are not basically/originally developed for any sort of [between or within group(s)] comparison(s) including Generalized estimating equation analysis (GEE). Refer to lines 281-2: “The difference in feto-maternal outcomes (birth weight and hemoglobin level) between the intervention and control arms was examined using a linear GEE”. Otherwise using GEE is very good.

Though the measures/tools used are appropriate [examples, the Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI), Household food insecurity access scale (HHFIAS), the knowledge-attitude-practice (KAP) scores, Minimum dietary diversity – women (MDD-W) score], they {few of them} may yield data that are in [at the most] ‘ordinal’ level of measurement [and not in ratio level of measurement for sure {as the score two times higher does not indicate presence of that parameter/phenomenon as double (for example, a Visual Analogue Scales VAS score or say ‘depression’ score)}]. Then application of suitable non-parametric test(s) is/are indicated/advisable [even if distribution may be ‘Gaussian’ (also called ‘normal’)]. Agreed that there is/are no non-parametric test(s)/technique(s) available to be used as alternative in all situation(s) [suitable / most desired/applicable], but should be used whenever/wherever they are available [note that generalized estimating equation analysis (GEE) is/are parametric].

I request authors to briefly explain what you mean by (line 106) “The study clusters in the area were generated using ArcGIS version 10.3” [because we generally deal with naturally formed clusters]. Although I do not completely agree with all ‘the strengths of this study’ enumerated/listed (lines 483 onwards), I definitely/confidently say that this study and the manuscript are excellent except few points highlighted above. Therefore, recommending minor revision.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[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: renamed_8c51e.docx

Decision Letter 1

Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa

21 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-11496R1

Effects of nutrition education and home gardening interventions on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia: a cluster randomized controlled trial

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Melesse Niguse Kuma

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.

Although I appreciate you made a good effort in addressing the reviewer's comments, I think your paper still needs clarifying and/or a different modeling approach before acceptance. Please see below:

1) You present Difference-In-Differences estimates, but the mehtods for this were not stated in the Data Analysis section. How did you get your estimates/CIs/p-values for these? These are your most important results! Which leads me to my following point...

2) Your GEE models don't seem to show DID estimates , but only main effects. I think it is crucial to get DID estimates from models, as you recognize there were very important group differences at baseline that may bias your results. The way to get DID estimates from regression models is to include an interaction term of time(baseline/endline)*treatment interaction. It seems you have not done this. I insist, this is the most important result of your work so please go through this carefully. 

Please go through the reviewer's additional comments in the attached document.

Minor issue: please use g instead of gm or gms in accordance to the International System of Units.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 20/04/2023. 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,

Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa, MD, ScD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate your excellent work. A

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)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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 Response)

**********

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 Response)

**********

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: COMMENTS: Though all the comments are answered (positively), please note that, frankly speaking, I am not very much impressed about the study & manuscript [as there are many unanswered questions regarding ‘cluster’ (size, formation/constitution, etc.), now the ABSTRACT (though is well drafted) assay type {in earlier version/draft it was in (as desired) Structured summary format and have not understood statements like (‘What exactly is the meaning of) Foot-note of table-2 which says “Footnote: the median age value is from kruskal wallis?]. Morover use of ‘English’ language is poor, making the presentation unclear/unimpressive. Therefore, I do not have any specific recommendation [though only as system requirement I choose major revision]. Let the respected editor decide the future course.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[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.

Decision Letter 2

Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa

12 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-11496R2Effects of nutrition education and home gardening interventions on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia: a cluster randomized controlled trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Melesse Niguse Kuma,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

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

Thank you for submitting your revised version. There are still some issues with your paper that need to be taken care of before considering acceptance. You included interaction terms in order to obtain actual DID estimates from your GEE models, as shown in updated table 5, but now tables 6 and 7 are redundant and make no sense, as they do not include interaction terms (DID estimates) and therefore you can not infer "the effect of the intervention" from them. Remember that all your causal claims should be based on the DID estimates. In summary:

1) please keep table 5,

2) drop tables 6 and 7 as they are redundant and

3) provide the full set of estimates of models presented in table 5 in supplementary tables.

4) Adjust your results and discussion accordingly

Please go through additional comments from reviewer 1. I will make a final evaluation of your next revision myself and reach a final decision then, so please be very thoughtful in your response/revision.

MINOR ISSUE: The phrase "non-parametric variables" makes no sense, you probably meant "non-normally distributed variables".

Please submit your revised manuscript by April 11, 2023. 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,

Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa, MD, ScD

Academic 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 #1: (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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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 Response)

**********

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 Response)

**********

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: COMMENTS: Though all the comments are answered {but not all attended positively} made on earlier draft, frankly speaking I am not very satisfied or convinced about few changes (with respect to many actions, very few of which are highlighted below, just for examples):

Earlier [in original manuscript] your ABSTRACT was divided in small sections like ‘Objective(s)’, ‘Methods’, ‘Results’, ‘Conclusions’, etc. which is an accepted practice of most of the good/standard journals [including this one, though ‘The PLoS One Guidelines to Authors’ did not specify an Abstract format, it is desirable]. Now the ABSTRACT {though well drafted (in my opinion), is ‘assay type’. It is preferable [refer to item 1b of CONSORT checklist 2010: Structured summary of trial design, methods, results, and conclusions] to divide the ABSTRACT. It will definitely be more informative then, I guess, whatever the article type may be.

Still the description given in ‘Recruitments and randomization’ section is confusing, particularly ‘What exactly you by “Equal allocations were given to each cluster” in line 116?’ Why used the term “Moreover,” in lines 131-32 (Moreover, due to the nature of the intervention, the study participants knew the 132 allocation)?

In lines 22-23 you stated that “Generalized estimating equation analysis (GEE) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal Wallis test were used to evaluate the effect of the interventions” which indicates that (even the title of your study implies) that you are interested/aim at evaluating the effect of the intervention(s) but line 157 you say “This study is not designed to test any one specific theoretical model”. In my opinion this is little contradictory (according my limited knowledge of the ‘English’ language. Agreed that English is not our mother tongue (definitely not mine, may or may not be yours but certainly not of many readers), however in any case, remember/mind you that this is a scientific/academic document and so all details should be clearly/correctly communicated (do not take readers’ for granted).

Therefore, I do not have any specific recommendation [though only as system requirement I choose major revision]. Let the respected editor decide the future course. However, I request you kindly to note that I do not wish to re-review this paper/article again.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[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 Oct 20;18(10):e0288150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288150.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


7 May 2023

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-22-11496

Title of Manuscript: Effects of nutrition education and home gardening interventions on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Dear Editor,

We would like to say thank you for assigning a reviewer and returning the crucial comments. We found the points raised by the editor and reviewer very interesting to make this article scientifically sound. We addressed all the comments raised by the editor as well as reviewers and wrote clarifications here below for mutual understanding.

Editor(s)' /Reviewers/ comments and authors' response

1. Editor(s)' Comments

Comments and Recommendations Authors Response

1. please keep Table 5 Thank you for your comments. As per the comment given, we have kept Table 5 in the current revised manuscript

2 Drop tables 6 and 7 as they are redundant Thank you for the concerns and important comments. We have removed Tables 6 and 7 from the revised current document.

3 Provide the full set of estimates of models presented in Table 5 in supplementary tables Thank you. We have provided the full set of models presented in Table 5 as Supplements(4-9)

4 Adjust your results and discussion accordingly Again thank you for your comments. As per the comment given we have revised the entire document and corrected the current revised manuscript.

Reviewer comments

1. Divided your manuscript into small sections like ‘Objective(s)’, ‘Methods’, ‘Results’, ‘Conclusions Thank you very much for your comments. As per the comment, a revision was made to the current document.

2. ‘What exactly do you by “Equal allocations were given to each cluster” in line 116? Thank you for your comments. Sorry for the confusion made during the edition. So, as per the comments given, we have revised it in the current document. It is to mention that each of the study arms has an equal number of pregnant women.

3. Why used the term “Moreover,” in lines 131-32? Again thank you for your comments. We have corrected in the revised current document.

4. In line 157 you say “This study is not designed to test any one specific theoretical model”.Why? Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have corrected the current revised document as per the comment given.

Thank you in advance!

Melesse Niguse Kuma

Corresponding author

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa

9 May 2023

PONE-D-22-11496R3Effects of nutrition education and home gardening interventions on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia: a cluster randomized controlled trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kuma,

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: Thank you for returning your revised version. I believe your paper is very close to acceptance, however you must adresss the following outstanding issues:

1. In the abstract: please briefly define the three intervention arms in the methods section.

2. In the abstract : please clarify that your effect estimates were obtained through a Difference-in-Differences approach.

3. Related to point 2: Please state in your description of the GEE statistical models in the main text, that interaction terms of the (intervention group)*(time) were included in order to obtain Difference-in-Differences effect estimates.

4. Once again: please avoid using the term "non-parametric variables" as it is innacurate. You probably mean "non-normally distributed variables".5. Please check overall grammar, punctuation, capitalization. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 23 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,

Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa, MD, ScD

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.

[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 Oct 20;18(10):e0288150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288150.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


22 May 2023

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-22-11496

Title of Manuscript: Effects of nutrition education and home gardening interventions on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Dear Editor,

We would like to say thank you for returning the document with crucial comments. We found the points raised were very interesting to make this article scientifically sound. We addressed all the comments raised and wrote clarifications here below for mutual understanding.

Editor(s)' /Reviewers/ comments and authors' response

1. Editor(s)' Comments

Comments and Recommendations Authors Response

1. In the abstract: please briefly define the three intervention arms in the methods section Thank you for your comments. As per the comment given, we revised the current manuscript. # page 2 lines 19-22

2 In the abstract: please clarify that your effect estimates were obtained through a Difference-in-Differences approach Thank you very much again. We have removed in the revised current document.#page 2 lines 28 &29

3 State in your description of the GEE statistical models in the main text, that interaction terms of the (intervention group)*(time) were included in order to obtain Difference-in-Differences effect estimates. Thank you. We have included this in the revised current document.#page 18 lines 306 &307

4 Once again: please avoid using the term "non-parametric variables" as it is inaccurate. Again thank you for your comments. As per the comment given we have revised the current manuscript. # page17 line 295 & 296.

5 Please check overall grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. Thank you very much for your comments. As per the comment given revision was made to the current document and corrected as possible.

Thank you in advance!

Melesse Niguse Kuma

Corresponding author

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 4

Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa

21 Jun 2023

Effects of nutrition education and home gardening interventions on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia: a cluster randomized controlled trial

PONE-D-22-11496R4

Dear Dr. Melesse Niguse Kuma

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,

Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa, MD, ScD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please make sure to substitute the term "Non-randomly distributed" to "Non-normally distributed". Congratulations!

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa

29 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-11496R4

Effects of nutrition education and home gardening interventions on feto-maternal outcomes among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Dear Dr. Kuma:

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. Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa

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. The CONSORT checklist of the trial.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Data used for the study.

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on hemoglobin level among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

    (DOCX)

    S4 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on MUAC among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

    (DOCX)

    S5 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on MDD-W among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

    (DOCX)

    S6 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on nutritional knowledge among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

    (DOCX)

    S7 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on nutrition related attitude among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

    (DOCX)

    S8 File. Generalized estimating equation model predicting the effect of the intervention on practice among pregnant women in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020.

    (DOCX)

    S9 File. The RCT protocol.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_8c51e.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES