Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jan 24;20(1):e0311907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311907

Prevalence and associated factors of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery in public hospitals of Awi zone, North West Ethiopia, 2023; a cross-sectional study

Gebretsadek Habtamu 1, Asmare Talie 1, Tinsae Kassa 1, Dawit Misganaw Belay 2,*
Editor: Ahmed Mohamed Maged3
PMCID: PMC11760021  PMID: 39854312

Abstract

Background

Anemia is a serious global public health problem, especially in developing nations. Anemia during pregnancy is appropriately recognized, whereas postpartum anemia especially after cesarean delivery in Ethiopia has received very little attention. Due to this it leads to poor quality of life, palpitations, an increase in maternal infections, exhaustion, diminished cognitive function and postpartum depression. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence and associated factors of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery in public hospitals of Awi zone, North West Ethiopia, 2023.

Method

A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 395 mothers who gave birth by cesarean delivery from May 1–30, 2023. Data were collected using a pretested checklist. A simple random sampling technique was used to select study participants. Then the data were entered into EPI-data version 4.6 and exported to the SPSS version 25 for analysis. A logistic regression model was fitted to assess the association between outcome and explanatory variables. Variables with a p-value of 0.25 or less in bivariable analysis were candidates for multivariable analysis and P-value < 0.05 in multivariable analysis was considered to declare a result as statistically significant in this study.

Result

The prevalence of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery was 18.9% (95% CI (15.1, 23.1)) with a response rate of 97.97%. Being primipara (AOR = 0.47,95%CI = 0.24,0.92), indication for current C/S (malpresentation) (AOR = 0.29,95%CI = 0.09,0.90), having pre-operation hemoglobin level <11g/dl (AOR = 14.5;95% CI = 4.11,51.16) and having medical complication during current pregnancy (AOR = 5.95,95%CI = 1.88,18.83) were significantly associated with postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery.

Conclusion

The findings of the study show that the prevalence of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery is a mild public health problem. Therefore, promoting the benefits of early detection and management of pregnancy complications such as predelivery anemia and medical complications is crucial.

1. Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines anemia as a condition in which the number of red blood cells, or the concentration of hemoglobin within red blood cells, is lower than normal [1]. Although there is no universally consensual definition of postpartum anemia (PPA), it can be deduced from the definitions offered by various scholars, depending on the duration of the postpartum period. It can be defined as Hgb < 10 g/dl, Hgb < 11g/dl, and Hgb < 12g/dl cut-off values within the first 48 hours of delivery, at 1 week and 6 weeks of postpartum duration, respectively [13].

Postpartum anemia is usually brought on by both chronic iron deficiency that has existed throughout pregnancy and bleeding during childbirth. In the third trimester of pregnancy, due to increased nutrient expenditure on the baby’s growth causes iron deficiency [2,4]. On the other hand, the woman’s body mass and her total blood volume affect the amount of blood loss. It also depends on any further medical issues she might have. For instance, a woman with a cardiac problem experiences greater decompensation with less blood loss [5].

Anemia is a serious global public health problem that particularly affects pregnant and postpartum women [6]. Anemia accounts for 7% of maternal mortality due to indirect causes and 2.3% of all causes, with indirect causes accounting for 35% of all causes of maternal deaths globally [6,7]. Even though anemia is a global problem, there are regional variations. Western Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Central Sub-Saharan Africa regions had the highest burdens [8]. More specifically, the proportion of postpartum mothers who have anemia ranges from 10% to 30% in developed countries and from 50% to 80% in developing countries [1,9]. In East African nations, about 36.5% of postpartum women were especially vulnerable to postpartum anemia (PPA) [10]. The prevalence of PPA in Ethiopia also ranges from 11.6% in Addis Ababa to 58.7% in the Somali Region [11].

Women who undergo a cesarean section may be more vulnerable to postpartum anemia because they have a higher risk of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) than women who give birth vaginally [12,13].

Evidence shows that cesarean section increases postpartum hemorrhage largely through increased risk of uterine atony and minimally through severed vessels while opening the abdominal cavity [1416]. Postpartum anemia is more likely to occur in pregnant women who have anemia during pregnancy, especially in the third trimester, excessive intrapartum blood loss, younger women, and those who did not take an iron supplement while pregnant [17]. Up to half of the women who miss prenatal iron supplements develop anemia within 48 hours after delivery [18].

Postpartum anemia (PPA) is associated with poor quality of life, palpitations, an increase in maternal infections, exhaustion, diminished cognitive function, and postpartum depression. These outcomes may result in poor mother-child bonding, an inability to care for and breastfeed an infant, or slow baby development [1,19,20].

Several studies have been conducted on anemia during pregnancy [2123]. However, these studies have provided limited information about the prevalence of postpartum anemia especially among women undergoing cesarean section, even when global trends show increasing cesarean section rates. In light of this, little is known regarding postpartum anemia among postpartum women in Ethiopia, particularly among women undergoing cesarean section, which has not been studied. So, this study might provide insight into postpartum anemia to healthcare providers to propose targeted screening and intervention measures for those whose hemoglobin level <11 gm/dl. The study will also provide baseline data for policymakers concerned governmental entities, nongovernmental organizations, and other concerned stakeholders to plan and act to prevent and minimize postpartum anemia after cesarean section. This study aimed to assess the prevalence and associated factors of postpartum anemia after Cesarean delivery in public hospitals of Awi zone, North West Ethiopia, 2023.

2. Methods and materials

2.1 Study area and period

This study was conducted in Awi Zone public hospitals. which is part of Amhara regional state northwest Ethiopia, which has eleven districts and three-town administrations. There are five hospitals in Awi Zone (Injibara general Hospital, Chagni primary Hospital, Dangila primary Hospital, Gimjabet primary Hospital and Jawe primary Hospital) and the Zone has a total population of above one million as population census conducted by central statistical agency of Ethiopia in 2007 and located in North-western part of Ethiopia and which is far 477 km from Addis Ababa a capital city of Ethiopia [24]. In 2021, there were 1995 deliveries, and in 2022, there were 2688 deliveries, with cesarean section (CS) being performed in five public hospitals of Awi zone. The Study was conducted from May 1 to May 30, 2023.

2.2 Study design and population

Hospital based cross-sectional study design was conducted. All mothers who gave birth by Cesarean delivery in public Hospitals of Awi Zone were our source population. All cesarean deliveries during the last two years (January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022) in public Hospitals of Awi Zone were our study population. However, those who had pre-operative severe anemia and those who received blood transfusion were excluded.

2.3 Sampling methods

2.3.1 Sample size calculation

2.3.1.1 Using single population proportion formula. A single population proportion formula used to estimate the sample size and using the following assumptions: from previous study done in Debre Berhan, Ethiopia the proportion of postpartum anemia after Cesarean delivery was 18%. confidence interval of 95%(Zα/2 = 1.96) and 4% of marginal error (d = 0.04). So, the sample size becomes 355.

So, with the above inputs, the maximum sample size we got for this study was 355, which is calculated from the single population proportion formula. Therefore, the final sample size becomes 395 study participants, including the non-response rate.

2.3.2. Sampling procedure

All the public hospitals in the Zone were included. The card numbers of all mothers who gave birth through cesarean section at Awi Zone Public Hospital for the last two years before the study (January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022) were traced from the hospital’s delivery log book registry and were listed. A two-year report of birth through cesarean section is collected from each hospital health management information system and summed up to calculate the proportion. Then the total sample size was proportionally allocated to each public hospital. Then, a computer-generating simple random sampling technique was used until the allocated sample for each facility was fulfilled (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Schematic presentation of sampling procedures for the selection of study subjects at Awi zone public hospitals, Ethiopia, 2023.

Fig 1

2.4 Operational definition of variable

The extent of postpartum anemia after Cesarean delivery as a dependent variable, defined by World Health Organization (WHO) criteria as a postpartum Hgb level of less than 11 g/dL, measured closest to the day of hospital discharge [25].

Incomplete Card: mothers’ card which was not contain major information about mother’s condition (post CS hemoglobin level, pre-CS hemoglobin level).

Surgical site infection: An infection that happens within the first few days after surgery of abdominal skin and the underlying tissues [26].

Severe postpartum anemia; defined by World Health Organization (WHO) criteria as a postpartum Hb level of less than 8 g/dL, measured closest to the day of hospital discharge [27].

2.5 Study variables

2.5.1 Dependent variable

  • ➢ Prevalence of postpartum anemia after Cesarean delivery.

2.5.2 Independent variable

  • ➢ Socio- demographic related characteristics: age, residence

  • ➢ Obstetric related characteristics: ANC follow up, gravidity, parity, Utilization of IFA, Type of Pregnancy, Number of previous C/S, C/S type, indication for current C/S, type of uterine incision, weight of newborn, APH in the current pregnancy, PPH in the current pregnancy, medical complication in current pregnancy.

2.6 Data collection procedure

A structured data collecting checklists was prepared according to the objectives of the study adapted from relevant literatures [28,29] in English language. By reviewing charts, necessary adjustment was made to fit the local condition. The main contents of the checklists were including: socio-demographic variables, and obstetrics related variables and medical conditions related variables. Two supervisors (BSc midwifes) and Five data collectors (diploma midwifes) were recruited.

2.7. Data quality control

To assure the quality of data, data collectors and the supervisors were trained for one day by the principal investigator on the study checklist, consent form and data collection procedure. Furthermore, quality of data was assured by pretesting checklist. A pretest was done on other health facility one week before the main data collection. Then the checklist was modified based on pretest finding. In addition, the completeness, accuracy and consistency of collected data will be checked on daily bases during the data collection time by supervisors and principal investigator. Supervisor and principal investigator were closely following the data collection process.

2.8 Data processing and analysis

After checking the data manually for completeness and consistency, the data were cleaned, coded and entered using Epi-data version 3.1 statistical Software. Then data were exported to SPSS version 25 statistical Software for analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed for variables using frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation. Graphical presentation such as bar graph, line graphs and pie charts were used to present the findings of the study. Both bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis were employed to determine association between the independent variables and the dependent variable. Bivariable logistic regression were done to identify relationship between one independent variable and outcome variable. Those variables with p-value of less than 0.25 during bivariable were fitted into multivariable logistic regression model to identify variables independently associate with outcome variable. Odd ratio with 95% confidence interval and p value were calculated. Variables having P-value < 0.05 in the multivariable logistic regression analysis were considered as associated factors for postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery. The final model’s fitness was checked by conducting the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit test, and a multicollinearity test was performed to check the relationships between the independent variables.

2.9 Ethical consideration

Ethical approval was obtained from the Debre Markos University, College of Medicine and Health Science, Institutional Research Ethics Review Committee (IRERC) with Reference number HSC/RCS/144/11/15). Also, A permission letter was secured from Amhara Regional Health Bureau and each hospital. Moreover, individual consent was not applicable since it is a retrospective study of medical records (record review). The ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. Finally, the confidentiality of the information and privacy of study participants was maintained.

3. Results

3.1 Socio -demographic characteristics of respondents

Among 395 total sample of mother after CS delivery, 387 were participated in this study with a response rate of 97.97%. The mean age of participants was 28.37(SD ± 5.11), ranging from 16 to 41 years (See Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in public hospitals of Awi Zone, Ethiopia, 2023.

Variables Category Frequency Percentage (%)
Age 15–24 89 23
25–34 244 63
≥35 54 14
Residence Urban 170 43.9
Rural 217 56.1

3.2 Obstetrics related characteristics of mother

Among the total participants, mothers who had ANC follow up were 325(84%). Nearly three-fourth (72.9%) of them were multigravida and two hundred thirty-nine (61.8%) of them were multipara. The majority, 356 (92%) of the current pregnancy were singleton (See Table 2).

Table 2. Obstetrics related characteristics of respondents in public hospitals of Awi zone, Ethiopia, 2023.

Variables Category Frequency Percentage (%)
ANC follow up Yes 325 84
No 62 16
Gravidity Primigravida 105 27.1
Multigravida 282 72.9
Parity Primipara 148 38.2
Multipara 239 61.8
Utilization of IFA Yes 315 81.4
No 72 18.6
Number of gestations Single 356 92
Multiple 31 8
Number of previous C/S
None 331 85.5
1 32 8.3
>/ = 2 24 6.2
C/S type Emergency 318 82.2
Elective 69 17.8
Indication for current C/S Fetal distress 118 30.5
Prior scar 43 11.1
Prolonged labour 85 22.0
Multiple pregnancy 21 5.4
Malpresentation 50 12.9
preeclampsia-eclampsia 53 13.7
Other 17 4.4
Type of C/S (based on uterine incision) LUST C/S 383 99.0
Classic C/S 4 1.0
Weight of newborn Average 360 93.0
Low birth weight 11 2.8
Macrosomia 16 4.1
Antepartum hemorrhage in the current px Yes 43 11.1
No 344 88.9
Post-partum hemorrhage (PPH) Yes 28 7.2
No 359 92.8
Post operation Hgb <11 gm/dl 73 18.9
>/ = 11 gm/dl 314 81.1
Did transfuse blood Yes 14 3.6
No 373 96.4
Any Post operation complication Yes 43 11.1
No 344 88.9
If yes which; Surgical site infection 17 24.6
Vaginal bleeding 23 33.3
Severe abdominal pain 18 26.1
Other 11 15.9

The most common type of CS was emergency 318 (82.2%) followed by elective type 69 (17.8%).

Among CS delivery, 24 (6.2%) women have one previous CS scar. The most common indications of cesarean delivery were fetal distress (Non-Reassuring Fetal Heart Rate (NRFHR)) 118(30.5%), followed by prolonged labor (abnormal labor) 85(22%), preeclampsia-eclampsia 53 (13.7%), malpresentation 50(12.9%), and previous CS scar 43 (11.1%) (See Table 2).

Regarding medical comorbidity during current pregnancy, among 387 mothers, 20 (5.2%) had pre-operation anemia (there hemoglobin levels were <11 gm/dL), whereas 367 (94.8%) of them had hemoglobin level of 11 gm/dL and above (See Table 2). Sixty-seven (17.3%) of mothers had medical complication in current pregnancy. Of these, pregnancy induced hypertension (PIH) was the most prevalent medical complication which accounts 51(56%) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Distribution of medical complication during current pregnancy among postpartum mother in public hospitals of Awi zone, Ethiopia,2013.

Fig 2

3.3 Prevalence of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery

Among 387 postpartum mothers who gave birth through cesarean section, 18.9% (95% CI (15.1, 23.1)) were anemic (there hemoglobin levels were <11 gm/dL). Out of 387 reviewed chart 344 (88.9%) women have no complication, while 43 (11.1%) have complication like vaginal bleeding 23 (33.3%), severe abdominal pain 18(26.1%), surgical site infection 17 (24.6%) (See Table 3).

Table 3. Prevalence and explanatory variables of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery in public hospitals of Awi zone, Ethiopia 2023.

Variable Categories Frequency Percentage (%)
Post operation Hgb <11 gm/dl 73 18.9
>/ = 11 gm/dl 314 81.1
Did transfuse blood Yes 14 3.6
No 373 96.4
Any Post operation complication Yes 43 11.1
No 344 88.9
If yes which; Surgical site infection 17 24.6
Vaginal bleeding 23 33.3
Severe abdominal pain 18 26.1
Other* 11 15.9

Other* = severe headache, nausea and vomiting, DVT, UTI.

3.4 Factors associated with postpartum anemia after Cesarean delivery

Binary logistic regression analysis was applied to identify factors associated with postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery. In a bivariable logistic regression analysis nine variables such as ANC follow up, parity, utilization of IFA, C/S Type, weight of newborn, indication for current C/S, APH, pre-operation hemoglobin and medical complication during current pregnancy were variables that have found to have association with PPA after cesarean delivery at p- value of < 0.25 (See Table 4).

Table 4. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis, factors associated with postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery in public hospitals of Awi zone, Ethiopia, 2023.


Variables

Categories
PPA after C/S
COR (95% CI)
p-value for bivar.
AOR (95% CI)

p-value
Yes (%) No (%)
ANC Yes 56(17.2%) 269(82.8%) 0.55(0.29,1.03) 0.063 0.99(0.24,4.10) 0.992
No 17(27.4%) 45(72.6%) 1 1 1
Parity Primipara 23(15.5%) 125(84.5%) 0.70(0.40,1.20) 0.190 0.47(0.24,0.92) 0.027
Multipara 50(20.9%) 189(79.1%) 1 1 1
Utilization of IFA Yes 54(17.1%) 261(82.9%) 0.60(0.32,1.05) 0.073 0.51(0.13,1.93) 0.320
No 19(26.4%) 53(73.6%) 1 1 1
C/S Type Emergency 67(21.1%) 251(78.9%) 2.80(1.16,6.75 0.022 0.43(0.13, 1.49) 0.185
Elective 6(8.7%) 63(91.3%) 1 1 1
Weight of Newborn Normal 65(18.1%) 295(81.9%) 1 1 1
LBW 2(18.2%) 9(81.8%) 1.01(0.21,4.78) 0.991 1.45(0.25,8.30) 0.676
Macrosomic 6(37.5%) 10(62.5%) 2.72(0.96,7.76) 0.061 2.78(0.85,9.15) 0.092
Indication for current CS Fetal distress 28(23.7%) 90(76.3%) 1 1 1
Prolonged labor 19(22.4%) 66(77.6%) 0.92(0.48,1.80) 0.997 1.17(0.55,2.45) 0.682
Multiple px 2(9.5%) 19(90.5) 0.34(0.07,1.54) 0.819 0.16(0.02, 1.15) 0.068
Malpresentation 7(14.0%) 43(86.0%) 0.52(0.21,1.29) 0.162 0.29(0.09,0.90) 0.032
Preeclampsia-eclampsia 11(20.8%) 42(79.2%) 0.84(0.38,1.85 0.160 0.14(0.03,0.56) 0.007
Other 6(35.3%) 11(64.7) 1.75(0.59,5.17) 0.668 1.96(0.59, 6.54) 0.271
APH Yes 12(27.9%) 31(72.1%) 1.80(0.87,3.69 0.112 1.26(0.50,3.18) 0.628
No 61(17.7%) 283(82.3%) 1 1 1
Pre-operation Hgb <11gm/dL 14(70%) 6(30%) 12.18(4.50,32.98) 0.000 14.50(4.11,51.16) 0.000
>/ = 11gm/dL 59(16.1%) 308(83.9%) 1 1 1
Medical complication Yes 19(28.4%) 48(71.6%) 1.95(1.06,3.58) 0.031 5.95(1.88,18.83) 0.002
No 54(16.9%) 266(83.1%) 1 1 1

But only four variables were significantly associated with postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery in multivariable logistic regression such as parity, indication for current C/S, pre-operation hemoglobin and medical complication during current pregnancy (See Table 4).

The study revealed that the odds of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery were 53% lower among mothers who were primipara compared to those who were multipara (AOR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.24,0.92).

In contrast to those mothers whose indication for current C/S was fetal distress, the odds of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery were 71% and 86% times lower among mother whose indication for current C/S were malpresentation and preeclampsia-eclampsia, respectively, when compared with those mothers whose indication for current C/S were fetal distress (AOR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.09,0.90) (AOR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.03,0.56).

In addition, this study revealed that postpartum anemia after CD was strongly associated with a predelivery Hb level; the odds of postpartum anemia after CD were 14.5 times higher among women with predelivery anemia (Hb level < 11gm/dL), compared to those who had normal predelivery Hb level (>/ = 11gm/dL) (AOR = 14.5; 95% CI = 4.11, 51.16).

Furthermore, having medical complication during the last pregnancy was also significantly associated with of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery, in which the odds of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery were 5.95 times more likely among postpartum mother with clinically confirmed medical complication as compared to their counterparty (AOR = 5.95, 95% CI = 1.88, 18.83).

4. Discussion

This study attempted to assess the prevalence and associated factors of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery in public hospitals of Awi Zone. The study revealed that the prevalence of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery was 18.9% (95% CI (15.1, 23.1)).

This finding was in line with the study done in Nigeria which reported that prevalence of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery was 20.8% [30], and in Debreberhan (18%) [31] and in Debre Markos (22.87%) [32]. However, the prevalence of PPA after cesarean delivery in this study was higher than other studies conducted in Karimnagar of India (9.2%) [33], This discrepancy might be due to study settings difference, as the above studies in Debreberhan and Debre Markos were conducted at tertiary hospitals. Although, in this study lowest threshold used was less than 11g/dl hemoglobin level.

On the other hand, this finding was lower than those of studies conducted in Turkey (50.85%) [34], Mumbai(76.5%) [35], Kenya (25%) [9] and Harari of Ethiopia (47.4%) [36]. This difference might be due to the difference in severely anemic mothers in prior to operation being excluded from this study, use of different cutoff points to define postpartum anemia, and difference in postpartum time of screening. Due to a lack of consensus on the definition of PPA, different scholars use different cutoff points to diagnose PPA. In addition. Geographical difference might be also another factor for the abovementioned variation. Additionally, Ethiopians are eating foods that do have high iron content such as cereals, “teff injera”(ferment teff flour), and fruits [37].

The study revealed that the odds of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery were lower among mothers who were primipara compared to those who were multipara. This finding is consistent with a cross-sectional study conducted in south India which showed that parity of two or more was significantly associated with postpartum anemia [38]. This finding is also supported by Cross-sectional study conducted in at Debre Berhan referral hospital of Ethiopia [31]. The reason might be due to in case of multiparity the muscular strength of the uterus reduced due to the loss of collagen fibers, results decreased uterine contraction after birth leads to blood loss.

In this study, the odds of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery were lower among mother whose indication were malpresentation and preeclampsia-eclampsia, respectively, than those mothers whose indication were fetal distress, The reason may be due to in case of malpresentation and preeclampsia-eclampsia health care providers consciously follow laboring mothers take immediate action soon after the diagnosis due to fear of complication this may reduce predelivery blood loss. The other possible explanation might be due to in the case of fetal distress emergency C/S is mostly performed type of C/S which results more blood loss. According to studies, postoperative complications were found higher in emergency Cesarean section as compared to elective Cesarean section like postpartum anemia (70% vs. 40%) and postpartum hemorrhage (40% vs. 6%) [39].

In addition, this study revealed that postpartum anemia after CD was strongly associated with a predelivery Hb level; the odds of postpartum anemia after CD were 14.5 times higher among women with predelivery Hb level of less than 11gm/dL, compared to those who had normal predelivery Hb level (>/ = 11gm/dL). This finding is consistent with studies conducted in California and India [29,40]. It is also supported by studies conducted in Uganda, Nigeria and Harari of Ethiopia [28,30,36]. The possible explanation for this might be because of the women who had preoperative anemia were less tolerant of any amount of blood loss during cesarean section. The possible explanation for this might be because the iron deficiency present during the antenatal period continues through the postpartum period also.

In this study, having medical complication during the last pregnancy was also significantly associated with of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery. The odds of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery were more likely among postpartum mother with clinically confirmed medical complication. This finding is consistent with a cross sectional study done in Nairobi of Kenya [9] which showed that complications during pregnancy was significantly associated with postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery. This finding is also supported by study conducted in Nigeria [30] which reported that co-morbidities like hypertensive disorders in pregnancy was statistically associated with postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery.

4.1 Limitation of the study

As the study relies on a retrospective review of data, some important variables that can help to generalize the findings were lack.

5. Conclusion

This study indicated that the prevalence of PPA after cesarean delivery is 18.9%. Which categorized under a mild public health problem per the WHO cut-off value for the public health significance of anemia. Parity, indication for current C/S, pre-operation hemoglobin level(<11g/dl) and having medical complication during current pregnancy were factors significantly associated with postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery.

6. Recommendation

Determining patients under high risk (having predelivery anemia and medical complication during pregnancy) is still important to be alert to reduce postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery. Prevention, early detection and treatment of predelivery anemia, could reduce postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery. Also, health care providers need to consciously follow laboring mothers with medical complications. In addition, management of anemia at the antenatal period is the most crucial strategy in combating PPA after CD and this is highly recommended in all levels of health care system through FMOH. Furthermore, Further research better to be conducted that can address the limitations of this study and design strategies to improve completeness by using prospective study design.

Supporting information

S1 File. SPSS dataset.

(SAV)

pone.0311907.s001.sav (30.1KB, sav)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the data collectors, data collectors’ supervisors, and administrative staff of all hospitals for their cooperation to conduct this research.

Abbreviations

APH

Antepartum Hemorrhage

ANC

Antenatal Care

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

CD

Cesarean Deliveries

CS

Cesarean Section

Hgb

Hemoglobin

IFA

Iron and Folic Acid

PPA

Postpartum Anemia

PPH

Postpartum Hemorrhage

SPSS

Statistical Product Service and Solution

Data Availability

All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Milman N. Postpartum anemia I: definition, prevalence, causes, and consequences. Annals of hematology. 2011;90(11):1247–53. doi: 10.1007/s00277-011-1279-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gea-Caballero V, Juárez-Vela R, Iruzubieta-Barragán F. The definition, screening, and treatment of postpartum anemia: A systematic review of guidelines. Birth (Berkeley, Calif). 2020. doi: 10.1111/birt.12519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Muñoz M, Peña-Rosas J, Robinson S, Milman N, Holzgreve W, Breymann C, et al. Patient blood management in obstetrics: management of anaemia and haematinic deficiencies in pregnancy and in the post-partum period: NATA consensus statement. Transfusion medicine. 2018;28(1):22–39. doi: 10.1111/tme.12443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mendoza M. Postpartum Anemia: Causes and Treatments. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.MN. Postpartum anemia I: definition, prevalence, causes, and consequences. Ann Hematol. 2011;90(11):1247–53. doi: 10.1007/s00277-011-1279-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Organization WH. Nutritional anaemias: tools for effective prevention and control. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Adedokun ST, Uthman OA. Women who have not utilized health Service for Delivery in Nigeria: who are they and where do they live? BMC Pregnancy and childbirth. 2019;19(1):1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gardner W, Kassebaum N. Global, regional, and national prevalence of anemia and its causes in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019. Current Developments in Nutrition. 2020;4(Supplement_2):830–. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rukiya A, Gachuno O, Machoki J. Determinants of post-partum anaemia–a cross sectional study. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Eastern and Central Africa. 2015;27(1):33–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tusa BS, Weldesenbet AB, Bahiru N, Enyew DB. Magnitudes of Anemia and its determinant factors among lactating mother in East Africa countries; using generalized mixed effect model. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2021;8:401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Seifu B, Yilma D. Prevalence and Associated Factors of Anemia among Lactating Women in Ethiopia from 2010 to 2020: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BioMed Res J. 2020;5(2):327–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Al‐Zirqi I, Vangen S, Forsen L, Stray‐Pedersen B. Prevalence and risk factors of severe obstetric haemorrhage. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2008;115(10):1265–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01859.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bateman BT, Berman MF, Riley LE, Leffert LR. The epidemiology of postpartum hemorrhage in a large, nationwide sample of deliveries. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2010;110(5):1368–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Joseph K, Rouleau J, Kramer M, Young D, Liston R, Baskett T, et al. Investigation of an increase in postpartum haemorrhage in Canada. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2007;114(6):751–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01316.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Carroli G, Cuesta C, Abalos E, Gulmezoglu AM. Epidemiology of postpartum haemorrhage: a systematic review. Best practice & research Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology. 2008;22(6):999–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2008.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kramer MS, Berg C, Abenhaim H, Dahhou M, Rouleau J, Mehrabadi A, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and temporal trends in severe postpartum hemorrhage. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2013;209(5):449. e1–. e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bodnar LM, Siega-Riz AM, Miller WC, Cogswell ME, McDonald T. Who should be screened for postpartum anemia? An evaluation of current recommendations. American journal of epidemiology. 2002;156(10):903–12. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwf134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bergmann RL, Richter R, Bergmann KE, Dudenhausen JW. Prevalence and risk factors for early postpartum anemia. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2010;150(2):126–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Haas JD, Brownlie IV T. Iron deficiency and reduced work capacity: a critical review of the research to determine a causal relationship. The Journal of nutrition. 2001;131(2):676S–90S. doi: 10.1093/jn/131.2.676S [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wassef A, Nguyen QD, St-André M. Anaemia and depletion of iron stores as risk factors for postpartum depression: a literature review. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2019;40(1):19–28. doi: 10.1080/0167482X.2018.1427725 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Melku M, Addis Z, Alem M, Enawgaw B. Prevalence and predictors of maternal anemia during pregnancy in Gondar, Northwest Ethiopia: an institutional based cross‐sectional study. Anemia. 2014;2014(1):108593. doi: 10.1155/2014/108593 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gebre A, Mulugeta A. Prevalence of anemia and associated factors among pregnant women in North Western Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: A cross‐sectional study. Journal of nutrition and metabolism. 2015;2015(1):165430. doi: 10.1155/2015/165430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kassa GM, Muche AA, Berhe AK, Fekadu GA. Prevalence and determinants of anemia among pregnant women in Ethiopia; a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC hematology. 2017;17:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Authority CS. Population and housing census of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Central Statistics Authority. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Geneva S, Organization WH. Haemoglobin concentrations for the diagnosis of anaemia and assessment of severity. Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition Information System. Document Reference WHO. NMH/NHD/MNM/11.1. http://www.who.int/entity/vmnis/indicators/haemoglobin; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR, Committee HICPA. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 1999;20(4):247–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Organization WH. Haemoglobin concentrations for the diagnosis of anaemia and assessment of severity. World Health Organization; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sivahikyako SA, Owaraganise A, Tibaijuka L, Agaba DC, Kayondo M, Ngonzi J, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with severe anaemia post-caesarean section at a tertiary Hospital in Southwestern Uganda. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2021;21(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Butwick AJ, Walsh EM, Kuzniewicz M, Li SX, Escobar GJ. Patterns and predictors of severe postpartum anemia after C esarean section. Transfusion. 2017;57(1):36–44. doi: 10.1111/trf.13815 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Akinlusi FM, Rabiu KA, Durojaiye IA, Adewunmi AA, Ottun TA, Oshodi YA. Caesarean delivery-related blood transfusion: correlates in a tertiary hospital in Southwest Nigeria. BMC Pregnancy and childbirth. 2018;18(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Asfaw T, Tesema A. Determinant factors, trend and outcomes of cesarean delivery in Debre Berhan referral hospital, North Shewa Zone, Ethiopia. Pediatric Reports. 2020;12(2):8430. doi: 10.4081/pr.2020.8430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Abebaw A, Gudayu TW, Kelkay B. Proportion of immediate postpartum Anaemia and associated factors among postnatal mothers in Northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Anemia. 2020;2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/8979740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gayathry D, Guthi VR, Bele S, Vivekannada A. A study of maternal morbidity associated with caesarean delivery in tertiary care hospital. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2017;4:1542–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Dündar B, Çakmak BD. The prevalence and analysis of risk factors for postpartum anemia in women without prepartum anemia. Haydarpaşa Numune Training and Research Hospital Medical Journal. 2019;59(2):165–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Shidhaye PR, Giri PA, Nagaonkar SN, Shidhaye RR. Prevalence of anemia in the postnatal women at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Mumbai. Journal of Medical nutrition and nutraceuticals. 2012;1(1):54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Abebe GT, Kure MA, Yadeta TA, Roba KT, Amante TD. Immediate postpartum anemia and associated factors among women admitted to maternity ward at public hospitals in Harari Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia: A facility-based cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Global Women’s Health. 2022:124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mihiretu A. Factors associated with anemia among lactating mothers in subsistence farming households from selected districts of Jimma zone, south western Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences. 2017;7(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Selvaraj R, Ramakrishnan J, Sahu SK, Kar SS, Laksham KB, Premarajan K, et al. High prevalence of anemia among postnatal mothers in Urban Puducherry: A community-based study. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. 2019;8(8):2703–7. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_386_19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Raees M, Yasmeen S, Jabeen S, Utman N, Karim R. Maternal morbidity associated with emergency versus elective caesarean section. Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute. 2013;27(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rakesh P, Gopichandran V, Jamkhandi D, Manjunath K, George K, Prasad J. Determinants of postpartum anemia among women from a rural population in southern India. International journal of women’s health. 2014;6:395. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S58355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ahmed Mohamed Maged

9 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-07591Magnitude and Associated Factors of Postpartum Anemia After Caesarean Delivery in Public Hospitals of Awi Zone, North West Ethiopia, 2023; A Cross-Sectional Study.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Belay,

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: Please respond to all reviewers comments point by point 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 24 2024 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,

Ahmed Mohamed Maged, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure the data collection period is accurate in the manuscript.

3. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Do you have full confidence to say this study, a cross sectional?

2. What was the basic gap for this study? What if there is no study in study area and little is known about it? you are well expected to show the impact of little knowledge about PPA after CD?

3. Why do you say this study is cross-sectional? Since, it used The card numbers of all mothers who gave birth through cesarean section at Awi Zone public hospital for the last two years before the study (January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022) were traced from the hospital’s delivery log book registry and were listed down. A two-year report of birth through cesarean section is collected from each hospital health management information system and sum up to calculate proportion?

4. Have you ever tried the reverse of these relations to explore positive association? If, yes why not presented in result section?

5. Sections from study design to eligiblity criteria could be deduced in a single paragraph/sentence.

6.Double population proportion should be used for two independent populations and used for study designs compare two different populations. So, why you compute DPPF for this cross-sectional study?

7. please, be consistent with your study objective/title and/operational definition (for surgical site infection 17 (24.6%)). Or again operationally define this phrase.

8. Indication for current CS was not significant in bivariate. So, why you used in multivariate analysis?

9. revise the conclusion section because, a conclusion of a manuscript should be very precise, short and comprehensive.

10. limitation lacks not only treatment outcome, which is not the concern of this study. It lack variables that can help to generalize the findings.

11. in General, the manuscript needs critical revision including grammatical correction and keeping the standard based on instruction for authors

Reviewer #2: 1- Title can be simplified as prevalence of post partum anemia :An observational study

2- Abstract contains unknown abbreviation eg AOR?

3- The major defect in this cross sectional is lacking control group? As it must be compared with non anemic patients so you must compare anemic patients versus non anemic patients as regard age ,parity, previous morbidity and so on

4- So this is not cross sectional study please compare your data to control group otherwise it lacks credibility or significance

Reviewer #3: Conclusion:

The findings of the study show that the magnitude of postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery is a mild public health problem. Therefore, promoting the benefits of early detection and management of pregnancy complications such as predelivery anemia and medical complications is crucial.

Comment : the conclusion does not refer to or clarify to the paper title i.e. no comment about associated factors

Sampling procedure :

Comment : concerning cases who had postpartum hemorrhage or blood transfusion , when was the HB sample collected ? before or after the hemorrhage or before or after transfusion ?

Obstetrics related characteristics of mother:

The most common type of CS was emergency 318 (82.2%)

Comment : very high percentage of emergency Cs , what is the reason behind that ? and as mentioned in table 3 : 30 % was due to fetal distress which is also a very high percentage

Table 3 :

Comment : Type of pregnancy : should be renamed to number of gestations : singleton or multiple

Weight of newborn

Comment : change normal to average

Comment : change Gravida to Gravidity

Study Area and Period

Comment ; you should mention the number of deliveries annually in the area

Table 4

Comment : why include severe abdominal pain as a complication ? and what was the cause of the pain ?

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Comment :You should mention that you should reduce the emergency Cs rates as it is related to anemia and elaborate a bit about how you can do that in your setting

English

Comment : the English should be revised before publishing

Reviewer #4: Dear Editor, thank you much for inviting me to review this manuscript. I forwarded the following comments and recommendations to the authors.

Title: Replace the term “Magnitude” with prevalence.

Introduction:

Line 40-42: “It can be defined as Hgb < 10 g/dl, Hgb < 11g/dl, and Hgb < 12g/dl cut off values within the first 48 h of delivery, at 1 week and 6 weeks of postpartum duration, respectively(2, 3). Since you put different three cut-off value, you would cite all the sources. Again write ‘hour’ in full.

Line 72: “Additionally, … “ Avoid this conjunction because the earlier paragraph states about attributes of postpartum anemia.

“Despite positive progress being made in many countries to reduce maternal mortality, there is still evidence of a persistent increase in the rate of indirect causes” cite the sources.

“Several studies have been conducted 78 on anemia during pregnancy” cite the sources

Materials and Methods:

The authors would gave more detail the study settings (hospitals), including the types of maternal services, estimated number of population being served, number skilled personnel… etc.

How the authors could include all two years cesarean deliveries the settings? Was it census study?

The authors excluded postpartum women who had pre-operative severe anaemia. But they did not define severe anemia either in introduction or methods sections.

Line 123 All the public hospitals in the Zone were included.

Line 13: “The extent of postpartum anemia after caesarean delivery as a dependent variable, defined by World Health Organization (WHO) criteria as a postpartum Hgb level of less than 11 g/dL, measured closest to the day of hospital discharge (27).” That means you have missed possible causes of anemia that could occur after discharge

Line 144: Postpartum anemia after Caesarean delivery what; incidence, prevalence, or what? Please, make it clear and understandable for readers.

Each independent variable would be depicted.

Line 176 & 177: “The final model fitness was checked using the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit test 177 and multicollinearity test were done to check the relationship between independent variables.” Revise this sentence.

Results:

Line 188 &189: “There were 1995 deliveries in 2021 and 2688 deliveries in 2022, were delivered by CS in five public hospitals of Awi zone.” a confusing statement.

The study missed important sociodemographic and dietary or nutritional-related attributes of anemia .

I suggest he authors to include “Medical conditions related characteristics” in the “Obstetrics related characteristics of mother” because they did not mention any non-medical condition under this section. Two mentioned conditions (anemia during pregnancy and PIH) are obstetric related characteristics.

The authors would distinguish the degrees of anemia (depending on the severity) in their study that is very important management options and prioritizations.

The authors would include the p-values of variables associated in bivariable analysis.

The authors did not described “medical related conditions in the last pregnancy” as a variable in the descriptive statistics but they analysed it as independent variable predictor of postpartum anemia.

Discussion:

You would not compare your finding with the findings from California and Uganda those used Hgb level <8 g/dl and <7g/dl, respectively, a cut-off value.

The authors compared and contracted their proportions with incidence rates. For instance reference number 33 states about incidence rate postpartum anemia.

The authors would not compare their finding with the proportion of anemia among lactating mothers in subsistence farming households. Different population characteristics and diffirent settings. Reference number 35.

Line 275-277: Would be included in first paragraph or omitted.

General comments:

This manuscript has major tense, grammar, punctuation, and sentence errors. So the authors must get help from professional language editors.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Adel Mohamed Nada

Reviewer #3: Yes: Hassan Gaafar

Reviewer #4: 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. 2025 Jan 24;20(1):e0311907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311907.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jun 2024

“Prevalence and Associated Factors of Postpartum Anemia After Caesarean Delivery in Public Hospitals of Awi Zone, North West Ethiopia, 2023; A Cross-Sectional Study."

Dear Editors and reviewers

Thank you for sending us your valuable comments, which immensely improved our manuscript. We included all the editorial comments raised and enclosed the point-by-point response attached. It is my pleasure to inform you that the manuscript was edited meticulously.

Respectfully,

Dawit Misganaw Belay

Corresponding author

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0311907.s002.docx (37.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ahmed Mohamed Maged

29 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-07591R1Prevalence and Associated Factors of Postpartum Anemia After Caesarean Delivery in Public Hospitals of Awi Zone, North West Ethiopia, 2023; A Cross-Sectional Study.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Belay,

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: Please respond to all reviewers comments

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 12 2024 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,

Ahmed Mohamed Maged, MD

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)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: mOST OF THE COMMENTS I FORWADED HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETE. tHUS, THE AOUTHORS ARE EXPECTED TO DO SO BEFORE PUBLICATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT.

Reviewer #3: thank you for replying to all my comments

i think the paper is now ready to be published

next time try to use better English and address all points of the title of the paper in the discussion

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Hassan Gaafar

**********

[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: Manuscript on PPA 1.docx

pone.0311907.s003.docx (98.6KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-07591.pdf

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 24;20(1):e0311907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311907.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 Aug 2024

Dear Editors and reviewer

Thank you for sending us your valuable comments, which have immensely improved our manuscript. We have included all the editorial comments raised and attached a point-by-point response.

However, Reviewer 1 did not see our previously revised version of the manuscript and still commented on the first submitted manuscript. It is my pleasure to inform you that the manuscript has been edited meticulously.

RESPONSE FOR REVIEWER #1:

Reviewer #1: MOST OF THE COMMENTS I FORWADED HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETE. THUS, THE AOUTHORS ARE EXPECTED TO DO SO BEFORE PUBLICATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT.

Response: Thank you, dear reviewer, for your valuable feedback. However, most of your current comments were addressed in the revised version of our manuscript, but it seems you are still commenting on the first submitted manuscript, which is why you may still see the same gaps. Please refer to the revised version of our manuscript and the attached response to reviewers. Additionally, some new comments have been incorporated into this revised manuscript.

In addition, comment you raised regarding the figure caption, the manuscript is prepared based on the “PLOS ONE Figure Guideline”; which said “Do not include figures in the main manuscript file. Each figure must be prepared and submitted as an individual file. Figure captions must be inserted in the text of the manuscript, immediately following the paragraph in which the figure is first cited (read order). Do not include captions as part of the figure files themselves or submit them in a separate document.”

Thank you once again for your valuable comments and suggestions.

RESPONSE FOR REVIEWER #3:

1. thank you for replying to all my comments. I think the paper is now ready to be published

next time try to use better English and address all points of the title of the paper in the discussion.

Response: thank you for your scholarly comments and suggestions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0311907.s005.docx (18.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Ahmed Mohamed Maged

27 Sep 2024

Prevalence and Associated Factors of Postpartum Anemia After Caesarean Delivery in Public Hospitals of Awi Zone, North West Ethiopia, 2023; A Cross-Sectional Study.

PONE-D-24-07591R2

Dear Dr. Belay,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Ahmed Mohamed Maged, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ahmed Mohamed Maged

5 Nov 2024

PONE-D-24-07591R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Belay,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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

Professor Ahmed Mohamed Maged

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. SPSS dataset.

    (SAV)

    pone.0311907.s001.sav (30.1KB, sav)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0311907.s002.docx (37.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Manuscript on PPA 1.docx

    pone.0311907.s003.docx (98.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-07591.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0311907.s005.docx (18.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES