Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Feb 10;20(2):e0318787. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318787

Impact of parental education on number of under five children death per mother in Bangladesh

Farzana Afroz 1,#, Md Muddasir Hossain Akib 1,#, Bikash Pal 1,*,#, Abida Sultana Asha 1,#
Editor: Mohamed R Abonazel2
PMCID: PMC11809813  PMID: 39928685

Abstract

One of the leading challenges of social development is the reduction of children’s deaths under the age of five. The primary focus of this research is to study the potential impact of parental education on under five children death in Bangladesh utilizing a secondary dataset extracted from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 2017–18. The total count of deceased children within a family is a non-negative numerical variable. The mean number of under five children death per 100 mothers is found to be 20 with variance of around 27, which indicates the presence of overdispersion. As the response variable exhibits 84.2% zero counts, we have considered three regression models in this research; Poisson model, zero-inflated Poisson model, and zero-inflated negative binomial model. Finally, zero-inflated negative binomial model, exhibiting the lowest AIC value, indicates that both maternal and paternal education have significant protective impact on under five children death. Specifically, greater levels of formal education achieved by the parents are associated with a decreased rate of children death.

Introduction

Child mortality stands as a pivotal measure of a nation’s prosperity and societal advancement, resonating in the global discourse on public health. The under five child mortality rate, representing the risk of a child dying before reaching the age of five, serves as a critical gauge of socioeconomic development and living standards. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim for a significant reduction in neonatal and under-five mortality rates by 2030, targeting 12 and 25 deaths per 1,000 live births, respectively [1]. Currently, 79 nations grapple with under five mortality rates exceeding 25 per 1000 live births [2]. The case of Bangladesh is noteworthy, as under-five mortality rates witnessed a substantial decrease. Specifically, between 1990 and 2018, there was a significant drop in mortality rates, attributed to the effective implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) [3]. As Bangladesh strives to align with SDG 3, aiming to reduce mortality for newborns and children under five to 25 per 1000 live births by 2030 [4], a critical examination of the strategies employed becomes imperative.

This paper scrutinizes parental education as a key determinant of child mortality reduction in Bangladesh. Drawing on nationwide survey data, our study underscores the pivotal role of primary caregivers’ education as a potential pathway for Bangladesh to achieve the SDGs. While various studies have explored socioeconomic and demographic factors influencing child mortality in Bangladesh, only a limited number have delved into the specific impact of parental education. Addressing this research gap, our study specifically underscores the impact of paternal education on modelling mortality of children in Bangladesh. Despite the widely held belief in the contribution of both parents’ education to child health, existing studies present mixed findings [5–9]. For instance, research in Indonesia suggests that both maternal and paternal education exhibit a similar association with under five mortality [8], while others indicate a weaker or insignificant link between paternal education and child mortality compared to maternal education [5,6,10].

Increasing evidence emphasizes the protective effect of maternal education on child mortality [11,12]. Mothers who have attained advanced education levels typically exhibit greater familiarity with services related to maternal health, leading to improved health outcomes during childbirth and the postnatal period. Moreover, their awareness of advancements in healthcare facilitates access to essential services for both themselves and their newborns. Maternal education also equips mothers with the knowledge to identify health discrepancies in their children early on, fostering timely interventions.

While the effect of paternal education on child mortality remains debated, Akter et al. [13] discovered that higher maternal education is correlated with a 38% reduction in under five mortality, whereas greater paternal education contributed a 16% reduction. In the socio-cultural context of Bangladesh, where fathers are often considered household heads responsible for financial matters, their lack of formal education may hinder their awareness of necessary healthcare for their offspring. This knowledge gap might lead them to opt for cost-effective alternatives, such as traditional village doctors, potentially compromising newborn health.

In line with this backdrop, our research examines the link between the parental education level and the under five mortality rates in Bangladesh. Additionally, we consider other covariates to account for potential confounding effects of parental education. Various regression models have been explored in existing literature to analyze count responses, including the Poisson Regression model (PRM), Negative Binomial Regression model (NBRM), and Generalized Poisson Regression model (GPRM) [14]. The application of PRM is contingent on the assumption that the value of the mean and the variance of the response variable are equal. The GPRM stands out as a versatile tool adept at handling both overdispersion and underdispersion, while the NBRM is specifically recommended for addressing overdispersion [15,16]. However, the presence of excess count of zeros in the response variable necessitates a nuanced approach. In this study, we opt for the Poisson Regression Model, the zero-Inflated Poisson Regression model, and the zero-inflated negative binomial regression [15] to effectively model the number of children’s deaths per mother within the regression framework.

Our study seeks to enhance the existing literature by clarifying trends in the relationship between parental education and under five mortality, utilizing national survey data from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 2017–18. On the policy front, our findings may inform strategies for combating child mortality by shedding light on the evolving significance of parental education.

Methods

Data and variables

This study utilizes a dataset sourced from the 2017–18 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS). This survey, part of a series of national-level population and health surveys, is designed to provide comprehensive data on the demographic and health conditions of women and children in Bangladesh [17].

This study centers on child mortality rates per mother in Bangladesh, focusing specifically on children under the age of five. The data utilized originates from the BDHS 2017–18, which collected information from 20,127 ever-married women aged 15–49 on 5,243 variables. Among all the individuals, data from women who have never given birth have been considered irrelevant with the objective of the study, and hence discarded. And lastly, the final analysis included 18,134 women who had given birth.

In this paper, the number of children’s death per mother (CDPM) has been derived from the variable- age at death (months imputed), where mothers whose children died before the age of five (60 months) have been taken into account and it resulted in a count variable. Therefore, the count response variable of our interest is the number of under five children death for each mother.

As the explanatory variables, a total of nine covariates have been considered here, namely, administrative division (region), type of place of residence, mother’s education level, father’s education level, wealth index, birth status, exposure to media and mother’s working status. As some data on specific variables were not directly available in the 2017–18 BDHS dataset, we adjusted their categorization for analysis. For instance, to define the “exposed to media” variable, we grouped mothers based on their regular engagement with activities such as reading newspapers or magazines, listening to the radio, or watching television on a weekly basis [18]. In the variable birth status, a mother who has given birth to more than two children has been categorized as multiple, while a mother with only one or two children belongs to the category of single/double.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Institutional Review Board of ICF International, Rockville, Maryland, USA (formerly Macro International) reviewed and approved the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program, including the 2017–18 Bangladesh DHS. Additionally, the 2017–18 Bangladesh DHS received approval from the Bangladesh Medical Research Council. This survey was conducted by the National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT) under the authority of the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, with financial support from USAID/Bangladesh. Informed consent was obtained from each survey participant prior to their involvement, and those who did not consent were not included in the survey.

Statistical analysis

For analysing under five children death count data, we considered three regression models Poisson regression model, zero-inflated Poisson model and zero-inflated negative binomial model, in the context of generalized modelling framework [19]. The basic Poisson regression model with equidispersion assumption can be used for analysing count data, however in most of the cases the data are overdispersed. When overdispersion is present, negative binomial distribution is preferred which allows Poisson mean to vary following gamma distribution. In data with excess zero count the zeros may not arise by the same mechanism as the other count part [20]. To put up with the extra zeros observed in the data, zero inflated Poisson (ZIP) model is proposed [21]. In zero inflated data the mean and variance may not be equal, to accommodate both zero inflation and overdispersion a natural choice of the model can be the zero inflated negative binomial (ZINB) distribution [22].

In zero-modified Poisson regression model, it is assumed that two different data generation processes exist. Bernoulli trials are utilized to set the probabilities for zero counts (pi) and for counts derived from the Poisson distribution 1−pi. Considering a sample of size n, the zero modified model for response Yi, i=1,2,…,n can be written as

PYi=0=f10+1−f10f20
PYi=k=1−f10f2k,k=1,2,3,…

where f1. represents the binary component and f2. denotes the count component of the data. The binary part is typically modeled using a logit model, while the count part is often represented with a Poisson or negative binomial model leading to zero inflated Poisson (ZIP) and zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) models respectively. The zero inflated Poisson (ZIP) model can be expressed as

PYi=yi=pi+1−pie−μiifyi=01−pie−μiμiyiyi!ifyi>0,

where μi is the mean of the standard Poisson distribution. Mean and variance of ZIP model are EYi=1−piμi and VYi=1−pi μi+μi2−1−piμi2, respectively. Again, the zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model can be expressed as

PYi=yi=pi+1−piϕμi+ϕϕifyi=01−piΓyi+ϕyi!Γϕμiμi+ϕyiϕμi+ϕϕifyi>0,

where ϕ indicates the over dispersion parameter. Mean and variance of ZINB model are EYi=1−piμi and VYi=1−piμi 1−piμi+μi/ϕ, respectively.

This research employed all three models for data analysis, ultimately selecting the model that exhibited the smallest AIC [27]. For a model with p parameters, AIC can be presented as, AIC=−2l+2p, where l represents the log-likelihood. For the purpose of exploring the effects of the covariates on the count data incidence rate ratio (IRR) is used, which can be written as: IRRj=expβ^j, where β^j represents the estimated regression coefficient for the j -th covariate j=1,2,…,p−1.

Results

The histogram presented in Fig 1 indicates that the occurrence of more than two child deaths is extremely rare. Additionally, it highlights that a significant majority of mothers (84.21%) experienced no child death. Since the frequency for zero in count of children death per mother is extremely high, we call this a zero inflated count data.

Fig 1. Histogram for the number of under five children death per mother.

Fig 1

The existence of overdispersion in the dataset becomes apparent, as indicated by Table 1, where the variance of the number of under five children deaths per 100 mothers [27] significantly exceeds the mean number of under-five children deaths per 100 mothers [20].

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the number of under five children death per 100 mothers.

Characteristics CDPM
Size of the Sample (Total number of respondents) 18134
Sample Mean 20
Sample Variance 27

Therefore, it is easily understood that in addition to the excess zeros in the dataset, overdispersion must also be addressed. Our study employs three regression models; the Poisson Regression Model, zero-Inflated Poisson Regression model, and zero-inflated negative binomial regression. To determine the optimal model fit for our data, our study compares the models using the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC).

As shown in Table 2, the zero-inflated negative binomial exhibits the lowest AIC value (15371.97) among all three models. Thus, we will focus on the resulting values obtained from fitting the zero-inflated negative binomial regression model. Our study reveals that factors such as region, mother’s education level, father’s education level, mother’s age at first birth, wealth index, and birth status significantly affect the number of children’s deaths per mother in Bangladesh. The mean number of deaths of children per mother in the Chittagong division is significantly (p-value = 0.041, IRR = 0.851) 14.9% lower than that of the Dhaka division. Urban or rural residency was found to be insignificant. All the categories included in the mother’s educational level have been found to be significant. The mean numbers of deaths of children for mothers with primary, secondary, and higher levels of education are respectively 22%, 33.4%, and 39.9% lower in comparison to the number of deaths of children for mothers with no education. Similar outcomes have also been observed regarding the educational levels of fathers. The average numbers of deaths of children per mother are respectively 8.4%, 17.5%, and 20% lower for fathers with primary, secondary, and higher levels of education in comparison to the number of deaths of children per mother married to fathers with no education. Statistically significant results were obtained for mothers aged 18–25 at their first birth (p-value < 0.001), with the mean number of child deaths per mother being 16.7% lower than for mothers younger than 18 at their first birth. However, the working status of mothers and their exposure to media did not show significant impacts on the number of child deaths. The wealth index significantly affects the number of child deaths per mother. Women from rich families have a 13.1% lower average compared to those from poor families. Finally, the explanatory variable birth status is statistically significant (p-value < 0.001), and an IRR value of 7.441 indicates that the average number of child deaths per mother with multiple births is 644.1% higher than for those with single or double births.

Table 2. Results obtained from different regression models along with their respective AIC values.

Poisson regression Zero-Inflated Poisson Zero-Inflated negative binomial
Covariates IRR p-value IRR p-value IRR p-value
Intercept 0.065 <0.001 0.076 <0.001 0.082 <0.001
Region
Dhaka – – – – – –
Barisal 1.006 0.925 0.904 0.477 0.938 0.462
Chittagong 0.916 0.200 0.815 0.099 0.851 0.041
Khulna 0.932 0.340 0.630 0.001 0.984 0.852
Mymensingh 1.053 0.463 0.887 0.302 0.968 0.704
Rajshahi 1.089 0.213 0.822 0.155 1.030 0.719
Rangpur 0.970 0.667 0.784 0.054 0.987 0.881
Sylhet 1.142 0.051 1.083 0.508 1.077 0.346
Place Type
Rural – – – – – –
Urban 1.032 0.432 1.094 0.151 0.989 0.832
Respondent’s Education Level
No education – – – – – –
Primary 0.764 <0.001 0.724 <0.001 0.780 <0.001
Secondary 0.657 <0.001 0.648 <0.001 0.666 <0.001
Higher 0.512 <0.001 0.365 <0.001 0.601 0.001
Partner’s Education Level
No education – – – – – –
Primary 1.001 0.969 1.076 0.330 0.916 0.098
Secondary 0.888 0.028 0.997 0.969 0.825 0.003
Higher 0.856 0.088 0.923 0.627 0.800 0.032
Respondent’s Age at 1st Birth
<18 – – – – – –
18–25 0.880 <0.001 0.957 0.065 0.833 <0.001
>25 1.037 0.798 1.500 <0.001 0.910 0.563
Respondent’s Working Status
No – – – – – –
Yes 1.016 0.658 0.938 0.247 1.033 0.441
Media Exposure
Not Exposed – – – – – –
Exposed 0.968 0.433 0.939 0.369 0.974 0.590
Wealth Index
Poor – – – – – –
Middle 0.979 0.626 1.099 0.213 0.999 0.986
Rich 0.845 0.015 0.842 0.103 0.869 0.078
Birth Status
Single/double – – – – – –
Multiple 8.348 <0.001 10.309 <0.001 7.441 <0.001
AIC 15472.00 15402.43 15371.97

Discussion

The inferential findings outlined in this research emphasize the significant impact of parental education on shaping child mortality in Bangladesh. The results suggest a clear association between elevated levels of parental education and a reduction in the average number of child deaths per mother, consistent with earlier research on this subject [5,23]. The discussion emphasizes the multifaceted benefits of maternal education, ranging from increased awareness about health and nutrition to improved decision-making abilities and greater knowledge about disease prevention. These factors collectively contribute to a more favourable environment for child health and well-being. The shift towards educated females participating in the workforce has led to a positive change in societal norms, enabling women to voice their opinions and make informed decisions. Additionally, the research highlights the beneficial influence of education on men, noting that fathers with higher education levels are more likely to support women in making reproductive and healthcare decisions.

While education emerges as a significant factor, the study acknowledges the influence of other sociodemographic factors on child mortality. Maternal age at first birth emerges as a significant contributor, with a consistent trend showing a decrease in the mean number of child deaths as the age of the mother increases. This aligns with existing research, suggesting that teenage mothers may lack awareness of maternal care, potentially contributing to higher child mortality rates [24]. Financial status proves to be a crucial factor, as mothers from affluent families exhibit a lower number of child deaths compared to their economically disadvantaged counterparts. This finding resonates with prior studies and emphasizes the intricate link between financial resources and the availability of healthcare services for mothers and children [25,26]. The study underscores the challenges faced by impoverished parents, who may struggle to afford even basic needs, let alone essential healthcare services. Additionally, the study sheds light on the impact of birth status, revealing a strong association between multiple births and increased child mortality rates. This observation aligns with conclusions drawn from similar investigations [27,28]. The challenges associated with managing the health and well-being of multiple children simultaneously likely contribute to this phenomenon. Furthermore, regional disparities emerge as a notable factor influencing child mortality rates. The result aligns with previous research by identifying variations in the number of child deaths per mother across different regions [29,30]. This regional dimension emphasizes the importance of tailoring healthcare policies and interventions to address specific challenges faced by communities in different geographical areas.

Conclusion

This study focuses on the driving role of parental education in reducing child mortality in Bangladesh. The analysis using zero-inflated negative binomial regression model identifies that higher levels of maternal and paternal education are associated with reduced child mortality, whereas multiple births and economic disadvantage increase the risk. In addition to these factors, other potential determinants have been identified from the model such as maternal age at first birth, birth status, and regional differences. We suggest the policy makers in Bangladesh to enhance parental education, along with addressing socioeconomic disparities and regional variations to improve child health outcomes. Prioritizing these interventions within national health strategies could significantly contribute to reducing child mortality and promoting child well-being in Bangladesh.

Acknowledgments

We express our appreciation to the DHS (Demographic and Health Surveys) for granting us access to their dataset for our research. Furthermore, we acknowledge the National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT) for conducting the BDHS, 2017–2018.

Data Availability

The dataset utilized for this study is accessible in the following DHS repository https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Chao F, You D, Pedersen J, Hug L, Alkema L. National and regional under-5 mortality rate by economic status for low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic assessment. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(5):e535–47. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30059-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bustreo F, Okwo-Bele J-M, Kamara L. World Health Organization perspectives on the contribution of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization on reducing child mortality. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(Suppl 1):S34–7. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-305693 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rugg D, Marais H, Carael M, De Lay P, Warner-Smith M. Are we on course for reporting on the Millennium Development Goals in 2015? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;52(Suppl 2):S69–76. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181baec7c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.UNICEF. Progress for every child in the SDG ERA are we on track to achieve the SDGs for children? The situation in 2019. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Caldwell JC. Education as a factor in mortality decline: an examination of Nigerian data. Population Stud. 1979:395–413. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cochrane SH, Leslie J, O’Hara DJ. Parental education and child health: intracountry evidence. Health Policy Educ. 1982;2(3–4):213–50. doi: 10.1016/0165-2281(82)90011-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kiros GE, Hogan DP. War, famine and excess child mortality in Africa: the role of parental education. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(3):447–55; discussion 456. doi: 10.1093/ije/30.3.447 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Breierova L, Duflo E. The impact of education on fertility and child mortality: do fathers really matter less than mothers? Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Macassa G, Ghilagaber G, Bernhardt E, Diderichsen F, Burström B. Inequalities in child mortality in Mozambique: differentials by parental socio-economic position. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(12):2255–64. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00545-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Khanal V, Gavidia T, Adhikari M, Mishra SR, Karkee R. Poor thermal care practices among home births in Nepal: further analysis of Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2):e89950. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Abir T, Agho KE, Page AN, Milton AH, Dibley MJ. Risk factors for under-5 mortality: evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2004–2011. BMJ Open. 2015;5(8):e006722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Khan JR, Awan N. A comprehensive analysis on child mortality and its determinants in Bangladesh using frailty models. Arch Public Health. 2017;75:58. doi: 10.1186/s13690-017-0224-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Akter T, Hoque DME, Chowdhury EK, Rahman M, Russell M, Arifeen SE. Is there any association between parental education and child mortality? A study in a rural area of Bangladesh. Public Health. 2015;129(12):1602–9. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Islam MM, Alam M, Tariquzaman M, Kabir MA, Pervin R, Begum M, et al. Predictors of the number of under-five malnourished children in Bangladesh: application of the generalized Poisson regression model. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Alam M, Farazi M, Stiglitz J, Begum M. Statistical modeling of the number of deaths of children in Bangladesh. Biomet Biostat Int J. 2014;1. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Akib MMH, Pal B. Analyzing overdispersed skilled antenatal care visits of pregnant women in Bangladesh using generalized Poisson regression model.
  • 17.National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT) and ICF. Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2017-18. Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: NIPORT and ICF; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sultana N, Bari W. Analyzing overdispersed antenatal care visits of pregnant women in Bangladesh: negative binomial regression model. Dhaka Univ J Sci. 2017;65(2):133–7. doi: 10.3329/dujs.v65i2.54521 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.McCullagh P. Generalized linear models. Routledge; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lambert D. Zero-inflated Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics. 1992;34(1):1–14. doi: 10.2307/1269547 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Greene WH. Accounting for excess zeros and sample selection in Poisson and negative binomial regression models. 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mwalili SM, Lesaffre E, Declerck D. The zero-inflated negative binomial regression model with correction for misclassification: an example in caries research. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17(2):123–39. doi: 10.1177/0962280206071840 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cleland JG, Van Ginneken JK. Maternal education and child survival in developing countries: the search for pathways of influence. Soc Sci Med. 1988;27(12):1357–68. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90201-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chowdhury AH. Determinants of under-five mortality in Bangladesh. Open J Stat. 2013;3(3):213–9. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2013.33024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Asif MF, Pervaiz Z, Afridi JR, Safdar R, Abid G, Lassi ZS. Socio-economic determinants of child mortality in Pakistan and the moderating role of household’s wealth index. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-03076-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Van Malderen C, Van Oyen H, Speybroeck N. Contributing determinants of overall and wealth-related inequality in under-5 mortality in 13 African countries. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(8):667–76. doi: 10.1136/jech-2012-202195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yaya S, Bishwajit G, Okonofua F, Uthman OA. Under five mortality patterns and associated maternal risk factors in sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-country analysis. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(10):e0205977. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205977 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kembo J, Van Ginneken JK. Determinants of infant and child mortality in Zimbabwe: results of multivariate hazard analysis. Demograph Res. 2009;21:367–84. doi: 10.4054/demres.2009.21.13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Antai D. Regional inequalities in under-5 mortality in Nigeria: a population-based analysis of individual- and community-level determinants. Popul Health Metr. 2011;9:6. doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-9-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Feng XL, Guo S, Yang Q, Xu L, Zhu J, Guo Y. Regional disparities in child mortality within China 1996-2004: epidemiological profile and health care coverage. Environ Health Prev Med. 2011;16(4):209–16. doi: 10.1007/s12199-010-0187-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohamed R Abonazel

22 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-22195Impact of parental education on number of under five children death per mother in BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 06 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,

Mohamed R. Abonazel, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 

Additional Editor Comments:

One reviewer suggested adding some references; please check these references and then add only those references related to the topic of the manuscript or the statistical analysis used in the applied study.

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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The manuscript presents the potential influence of the parental education and some sociodemographic parameters on child mortality in Bangladesh using the BDHS survey 2017-18. The manuscript could add value to the literature and inform the potential health interventions to accelerate the child mortality reduction in Bangladesh.

The methods section needs improvement. The results section can be further improved. The specific comments are mentioned in the attached document.

Reviewer #2: 1. The "Conclusion" section needs improvement.

2. The paper contains a few grammatical errors. The authors need to review the full text carefully.

3. Recently published papers are relevant to this manuscript, so one or all of them should be cited, such as

doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2024.2313594

doi: 10.1017/S0954579424000725

4. In some equations, some symbols are not defined. Please correct this.

5. Add more statistical details about the Zero-Inflated Poisson and Zero-Inflated negative binomial models. See https://scik.org/index.php/cmbn/article/view/5658.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes:  MANOJA KUMAR DAS

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-22195_reviewer.pdf

pone.0318787.s001.pdf (1.1MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2025 Feb 10;20(2):e0318787. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318787.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


6 Dec 2024

Authors’ responses to the points raised by the Academic Editor and reviewers

First of all, we would like to thank the Academic Editor and the reviewers for reviewing our joint work entitled “Impact of Parental Education on Number of Under Five Children Death Per Mother in Bangladesh” and providing their valuable suggestions about our manuscript. All the suggestions raised by the Academic Editor and reviewers have been addressed in the revised version which are categorically pointed out in the followings.

Responses to Reviewer 1:

1. We appreciate the constructive comment regarding the further improvement of the ‘Methods’ and ‘Results’ sections. In response, we have made several improvements to both sections, which are marked in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.’

2. We are thankful for the comment suggesting that we should specify in the abstract whether our study utilizes a primary or secondary dataset. In response, we have incorporated this information into the abstract that our study utilizes a secondary dataset, specifically extracted from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 2017-18.

3. Based on the suggestion provided, we have added a line (line number 90) at the end of the ‘Introduction’ section to clarify that our study utilizes national survey data from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 2017-18.

4. Regarding the comment on the involvement of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of ICF International, Rockville, Maryland, USA, in the ‘Ethics approval and consent to participate’ section, we would like to clarify that the IRB of ICF International was responsible for reviewing and approving the ethical aspects of the data collection process for the 2017–18 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS). This approval ensured that the survey adhered to ethical guidelines concerning participant consent, confidentiality, and data handling. While ICF International played a key role in overseeing the ethical approval of the entire DHS Program, including the 2017–18 Bangladesh DHS, it was not directly involved in the day-to-day data collection in Bangladesh. The data collected through BDHS was then made available for secondary analysis, which is the dataset we have utilized in our study.

5. We appreciate the comment on the ‘Statistical analysis’ subsection to present the overall approach for the analysis in terms of population distribution, divisions, and others. We would like to clarify that the primary focus of this study is to evaluate the impact of parental education on under-five child mortality across the entire population of Bangladesh, rather than analyzing variations across population distributions or subgroups. To maintain this focus, we prioritized regression modeling as the core analytical approach, specifically utilizing Poisson, zero-inflated Poisson, and zero-inflated negative binomial models. These models allowed us to assess the effects of parental education while controlling for other covariates such as administrative division, place of residence, wealth index, and birth status.

6. We thank the reviewer for the observation regarding the need to specify the types of residence considered in the ‘Results’ section. In response, we have clarified this in the revised text by explicitly stating that urban or rural residency was analyzed and found to be insignificant.

7. Regarding the comment on Socioeconomic Status (SES), it is typically characterized in the DHS dataset and divided based on a wealth index which was originally created through principal component analysis (PCA) using household asset data. This index is based on household asset ownership, type of housing, access to electricity, sanitation, and other living standard indicators. In BDHS 2017-18 dataset, the wealth index was initially categorized into five groups: poorest, poorer, middle, richer, and richest. In this study, we further combined these categories into three groups: poor (poorest and poorer), middle, and rich (richer and richest).

8. In response to the reviewer’s comment regarding the variable ‘Birth status’ in the ‘Results’ section, we would like to clarify that the variable is categorized as follows: mothers who have given birth to more than two children are categorized as ‘Multiple’, while those who have given birth to one or two children are categorized as ‘Single/Double’. This classification is explained at the last line in the ‘Data and Variables’ section of the manuscript.

9. Based on the comment on Table 2 heading, we would like to clarify that the input variables for the regression models are described in detail in the ‘Data and Variables’ subsection of the ‘Methods’ section. In this subsection, we have clearly outlined the response variable (number of under-five children deaths per mother) as well as the explanatory variables such as maternal and paternal education, wealth index, birth status, administrative division, place of residence, exposure to media, and mother's working status. We believe this section adequately addresses the variables used in the models, and we hope this clears up any confusion.

10. Regarding the ‘Region’ variable, we chose Dhaka as the comparator category because it is the capital of Bangladesh and is generally more economically and socially enriched compared to other divisions. By selecting Dhaka as the baseline, we aimed to compare the other divisions/regions against a more developed and resource-rich area.

Responses to Reviewer 2:

1. We appreciate the constructive comment regarding the improvement of the ‘Conclusion’ section. In response, several revisions have been made to this section, which are highlighted in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.’

2. The comment regarding grammatical errors is acknowledged. The full text has been carefully reviewed, and necessary corrections have been made.

3. We appreciate the suggestion to cite recently published papers. However, after reviewing the two papers mentioned, the authors find that they do not align closely with the focus of our study. These papers primarily address effective parenting, whereas our study specifically explores the relationship between parental education and under-five mortality. Since parenting and parental education are distinct concepts, we have chosen not to cite these papers in our work.

4. The issue regarding undefined symbols in some equations has been addressed. All symbols have been appropriately defined, and the corrections are marked in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.’

5. Additional statistical details about the Zero-Inflated Poisson and Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial models have been included as suggested. The revisions are clearly marked in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.’

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0318787.s003.docx (21.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Mohamed R Abonazel

22 Jan 2025

Impact of parental education on number of under five children death per mother in Bangladesh

PONE-D-24-22195R1

Dear Dr. Pal,

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,

Mohamed R. Abonazel, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: The authors have adequately addressed the comments, and I feel this manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Mohamed Abonazel

PONE-D-24-22195R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pal,

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

Dr Mohamed R. Abonazel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-22195_reviewer.pdf

    pone.0318787.s001.pdf (1.1MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0318787.s003.docx (21.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The dataset utilized for this study is accessible in the following DHS repository https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES