Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2025 Jul 23;5(7):e0004885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0004885

Factors contributing to neonatal mortality in a tertiary center in south West Bank: A single-center retrospective cohort study

Ahmad Abu Sharkh 1, Farah Ighneimat 2, Yazan F Khdour 3,*, Noor Y Aladam 2, Inad Nawajaa 4, Alaa Al Janazerah 1, Insaf Najajrah 1, Beesan Maraqa 2
Editor: Sanghyuk S Shin5
PMCID: PMC12286372  PMID: 40700408

Background

Neonatal mortality remains a critical public health issue, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where factors such as preterm birth, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, infections, and limited access to quality healthcare contribute significantly to neonatal deaths. This study examines neonatal mortality outcomes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) Hospital in Hebron, Palestine for newborns that was transferred to PRCS from other hospitals. An institutional-based cohort study was conducted on 606 neonates admitted “transferred from other hospitals” to the NICU at PRCS Hospital from 2019 to 2024. Data were collected from the hospital’s electronic registry, capturing clinical parameters and potential risk factors. Statistical analysis, including bivariate and multivariable logistic regressions, was performed using SPSS version 25 to evaluate neonatal mortality risk variables. Of the 606 neonates admitted “transferred from other hospitals” to the NICU over five years, 21.5% died, reflecting a substantial neonatal mortality rate. The study identified significant associations between neonatal mortality and sepsis (p = 0.001, aOR=2.34), intraventricular hemorrhage (p < 0.001, aOR=4.67), and necrotizing enterocolitis (p = 0.001, aOR=3.58). Transfer process, Sepsis, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, prematurity, low birth weight, and hypothermia were key factors associated with neonatal mortality in this NICU setting. Prioritizing early management of sepsis, NEC, and low birth weight is crucial to reducing neonatal deaths in institutional settings. These findings can guide interventions to improve neonatal outcomes and support healthcare facilities in transfer process training for high-risk newborns to reduce preventable deaths.

Introduction

Neonatal mortality (NM), defined as the death of a newborn within the first 28 days of life, remains a critical public health concern globally [1]. While significant strides have been made in reducing child mortality in recent decades, neonatal mortality rates continue to pose challenges in many parts of the world [2].

Preterm birth (defined as birth before 37 weeks of pregnancy) is the most common cause of neonatal mortality (NM). Babies born before 37 weeks of gestation may have more health complications than full-term infants, including those with congenital anomalies or birth defects [3]. Low birth weight (less than 2,500 grams [5.5 pounds]) is another significant risk factor for NM [4]. Additionally, congenital anomalies themselves are a contributing risk to neonatal mortality [5].

Low-and middle-income countries account for the vast majority of maternal, fetal and neonatal deaths in the world. Comprehensive analyses of maternal, neonatal, and fetal deaths have shown that quality obstetric care provided during delivery, including access to cesarean delivery, could significantly reduce such deaths [6]. A study conducted in southern Ethiopia showed that the neonatal mortality incidence was 27 per 1000 neonates. Predictors of neonatal mortality were: multiple births, mothers who did not attend antenatal care visits, neonates born by cesarean section, not initiated breastfeeding within one h of birth, neonates resuscitated, hyaline membrane disease, and perinatal asphyxia [7]. Another study conducted in India showed that the major cause of admission was perinatal asphyxia followed by prematurity. Sepsis was the major cause of mortality and a strong association was found between mortality and maturity status [8].

Neonatal mortality is a complex outcome influenced by a myriad of biological, socio-economic, and environmental factors.Transfer procees Premature birth, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, and maternal health conditions are among the key determinants that can impact a newborn’s chances of survival. Mortality rates in NICUs vary between countries; however, no published studies have explored NICU mortality rates in Palestine. Our study aimed to determine the NICU mortality rate in specific group of NICU admission, gather causes, and detect the major ones. Understanding the factors contributing to neonatal mortality is essential for developing effective strategies to prevent and address this issue.

Methods

Statement of ethics

The College of Medicine Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this study protocol, approval number Ref: ER.CM.23.2024.

Study design and sample

A retrospective cohort study analyzed neonatal outcomes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS). The study included all neonates (Day 1–28) admitted “transferred” to the NICU at PRCS between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2024.

Data collection

Data were extracted from medical records, NICU logs, and hospital databases using a standardized collection, which is Electronic Health Records (EHRs), & Databases, Data were accessed on January 1, 2025. Variables were categorized into maternal and neonatal characteristics. Maternal data included age, pregnancy complications (e.g., pregnancy-induced hypertension, preterm rupture of membranes), delivery complications, and delivery site and mode. Neonatal data included gestational age, birth weight, birth type (singleton or multiple), referred status, admission temperature, and the primary cause of NICU admission (e.g., congenital anomalies, intraventricular hemorrhage, asphyxia, sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, pneumothorax, respiratory distress syndrome, or meconium aspiration syndrome). The primary outcome of interest was neonatal mortality. Data were verified for completeness and consistency before analysis, ensuring the reliability of the findings. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at the College of Medicine in Hebron University IRB number; ER.CM.23.2024 and all data were anonymized to maintain confidentiality. We obtained formal approval from the PCRS as the data was sourced from preexisting records, hence written informed consent was not required.

Data analysis

Data were aggregated in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using SPSS version (25). Statistical analyses were conducted in two stages. First, chi-square tests evaluated associations between neonatal mortality and categorical predictors (e.g., maternal preeclampsia, preterm birth). Second, variables meeting significance thresholds (p < 0.05) or clinical relevance were included in a binary logistic regression model to identify independent predictors. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated to account for confounders such as gestational age and birth weight.

Results

The study included 606 neonates admitted transferred to the NICU over 5 years. Positive outcomes (survival rate) were observed in 78.5% of cases, 57.3% being normal vaginal deliveries and 42.7% cesarean sections. About 79% of admissions were on the first day of life, 13.9% between 1–6 days, and 7.1% after 6 days. Male neonates accounted for 58.7% of admissions. Nearly half (49.3%) were full-term (>37 weeks), 33.8% preterm (32–37 weeks), 9.9% very preterm (28–32 weeks), and 6.9% extremely preterm (<28 weeks). Over half (55.1%) stayed >7 days, 27.7% stayed 1–3 days, and 17.2% stayed 4–6 days, indicating the severity of conditions requiring extended care, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants (n = 606).

Variable Sub Variable n %
Mode of delivery NSVD 347 57.3
CS 259 42.7
Age of admission <1 day 479 79
1–6 day 84 13.9
>6 = 3 day 43 7.1
Gender Female 250 41.3
Male 356 58.7
Maturity <28 week 42 6.9
28–32 week 60 9.9
32–37 week 205 33.8
>37 week 299 49.3
Weight <1 kg 43 7.1
1–1.5 kg 53 8.7
1.5–2.5 kg 192 31.7
>2.5 kg 318 52.5
Duration of stay 1–3 day 168 27.7
4–6 day 104 17.2
>7 day 334 55.1

NSVD: normal spontaneous vaginal delivery; CS: cesarean section

All neonates had hypothermia most of them (69.1%) had mild hypothermia (36–36.4°C), (rectally) while 30.4% had moderate hypothermia (32–36°C), and only 0.5% had severe hypothermia (<32°C). Congenital abnormalities were observed in 20.5%. Birth asphyxia occurred in 4%, and meconium aspiration in 3.3%. Sepsis affected 30.2%, indicating a significant infection burden. The majority did not experience NEC (95.4%), pneumothorax (94.1%), RDS (66.5%), IVH (95.5%), PROM (91.7%), or PPROM (97.5%). Additionally, 34.7% underwent detailed ultrasounds, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The most common conditions and complications that affect the study participant (n = 606).

Variable Sub Variable n %
Temperature 36–36.4 419 69.1
32–36 184 30.4
<32 3 0.5
Congenital abnormality No 482 79.5
Yes 124 20.5
Birth asphyxia No 582 96
Yes 24 4
Meconium aspiration No 586 96.7
Yes 20 3.3
Sepsis No 423 69.8
Yes 183 30.2
Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) No 578 95.4
Yes 28 4.6
Pneumothorax No 570 94.1
Yes 36 5.9
Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) No 403 66.5
Yes 203 33.5
Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) No 579 95.5
Yes 27 4.5
Detailed ultrasound No 396 65.3
Yes 210 34.7
Premature rupture of membranes
(PROM)
No 556 91.7
Yes 50 8.3
preterm premature rupture of membranes
(PPROM)
No 591 97.5
Yes 15 2.5
Maternal age (Min, Max); Mean±SD (16,47); 27.41 ± 6.09

Most mothers (92.9%) were reported as healthy (gleaned from the electronic health record), while 7.1% had some health issue. Respectively, preeclampsia, GDM, infectious disease, and PPHN were present in (3%), (2%), (8.3%), and (6.8%) of cases. As shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Other conditions affect the study participants (n = 606).

Variable Sub variable Frequency Percentage
MgSO4 No 597 98.5
Yes 9 1.5
Mother health Healthy 563 92.9
Unhealthy 43 7.1
Preeclampsia No 588 97
Yes 18 3
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) No 594 98
Yes 12 2
Infectious disease No 556 91.7
Yes 50 8.3
Maternal age (Min, Max); Mean±SD (16,47); 27.41 ± 6.09
Persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn No 565 93.2
Yes 41 6.8
weight <1 kg 43 7.1
1–1.5 kg 53 8.7
1.5–2.5 kg 192 31.7
>2.5 kg 318 52.5

The primary outcome of our study revealed that approximately 22% of neonates died, while 78% recovered.

Neonates aged 1–6 days demonstrated the highest likelihood of recovery, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.98 compared to older age groups. In contrast, lower birth weights were associated with progressively reduced odds of recovery, though these findings were not statistically significant. For infants weighing less than 1 kg, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.05–2.43; p 0.28), suggesting no meaningful association with recovery. Similarly, the 1–1.5 kg weight group had an aOR of 0.43 (95% CI: 0.08–2.23; p 0.317), further supporting the lack of statistical significance. The trend continued in the 1.5–2.5 kg category, where the aOR was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.17–1.44; p = 0.195), indicating a potential but non-significant decrease in recovery odds compared to weightier infants. Reference group members weighed above 2.5 kg. No weight category was statistically associated with mortality, although lower birth weight was associated with higher mortality risk. Shorter hospital stays were associated with higher mortality risk, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.07 (95% CI: 0.03-0.17). People with a mild hypothermia 36-36.4°C have the lowest mortality rate (15.8%) and the best recovery rate (84.2%) as seen in Table 4.

Table 4. Factors related to delivery and admission and its association with the outcome.

Variables Outcome Multivariate analysis
Died recovered p-value aOR (95%CI) aP-value
Age of admission <1 day 117 (24.4%) 362 (75.6%) 0.001 1.4 (0.43–4.61) 0.225
1–6 day 3 (3.6%) 81% (96.4) 4.98 (0.75–33.27) 0.58
>6 day 10 (23.3%) 33 (76.7%) 1 0.097
Maturity <28 week 35 (82.3%) 7 (16.7%) 0.001 0.15 (0.02–1.14) 0.066
28–32 week 31 (51.7%) 29 (48.3%) 0.28 (0.06–1.32) 0.108
32–37 week 27 (13.2%) 178 (86.8%) 0.94 (0.32–2.80) 0.915
>37 week 37 (12.4%) 262 (87.6%) 1
weight <1 kg 33 (76.7%) 10 (23.3%) 0.001 0.34 (0.05–2.43) 0.28
1–1.5 kg 26 (49.1%) 27 (50.9%) 0.43 (0.08–2.23) 0.317
1.5–2.5 kg 36 (18.8%) 156 (81.2%) 0.49 (0.17–1.44) 0.195
>2.5 kg 35 (11%) 283 (89%) 1
Duration of stay 1–3 day 62 (36.9%) 106 (63.1%) 0.001 0.07 (0.03–0.17) 0.001
4–6 day 15 (14.4%) 89 (85.6%) 0.37 (0.12–1.18) 0.055
>7 day 53 (15.9%) 281 (84.1%) 1
Temperature 36–36.4 66 (15.8%) 353 (84.2%) 0.001 4.24 (0.28–64.98) 0.30
32–36 62 (33.7%) 122 (66.3%) 4.06 (0.26–62.35) 0.314
<32 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%)

Sepsis increased mortality risk (aOR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.17–4.71, p = 0.017). NEC showed a trend toward higher mortality (aOR: 3.58, 95% CI: 0.92–13.9, p = 0.065), though not statistically significant. Pneumothorax (aOR: 2.05, 95% CI: 0.70–5.95, p = 0.189) had no strong association with mortality. RDS was strongly associated with mortality (aOR: 8.08, 95% CI: 3.81–17.14, p = 0.001), as was IVH (aOR: 4.67, 95% CI: 1.06–20.54, p = 0.041). Lack of detailed ultrasound increased mortality risk (aOR: 2.76, 95% CI: 1.36–5.59, p = 0.005). PROM (aOR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.37–2.85, p = 0.949) showed no significant association with mortality, as detailed in Table 5.

Table 5. The most common conditions and complications affect the study participants and patient outcome.

Variable Sub Variable Died Recovered p-value Multivariate analysis
aOR (95%CI) aP-value
Congenital abnormality No 86 (17.8%) 396 (82.2%) 0.001 3.76 (1.76–8.07) 0.001
Yes 44 (36.5%) 80 (64.5%) 1
Birth asphyxia No 117 (20.1%) 465 (79.9%) 0.001 11.05 (3.0–40.7) 0.001
Yes 13 (54.2%) 11 (45.8%) 1
Meconium aspiration No 125 (21.3%) 461 (78.7%) 0.69 1.52 (0.31–7.41) 0.606
Yes 5 (25%) 15 (75%) 1
Sepsis No 47 (11.1%) 376 (88.9%) 0.001 2.34 (1.17–4.71) 0.017
Yes 83 (45.4%) 100 (54.6%) 1
Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) No 114 (19.7%) 464 (80.3%) 0.001 3.58 (0.92–13.9) 0.065
Yes 16 (57.1%) 12 (42.9%) 1
Pneumothorax No 111 (19.5%) 459 (80.5%) 0.001 2.05 (0.70–5.95) 0.189
Yes 19 (52.8%) 17 (47.2%) 1
Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) No 26 (6.5%) 377 (93.5%) 0.001 8.08 (3.81–17.14) 0.001
Yes 104 (51.2%) 99 (48.8%) 1
Intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) No 110 (19%) 469 (81%) 0.001 4.67 (1.06–20.54) 0.041
Yes 20 (74.1%) 7 (25.9%) 1
Detailed ultrasound No 67 (16.9%) 329 (83.1%) 0.001 2.76 (1.36–5.59) 0.005
Yes 63 (30%) 147 (70%) 1
Premature rupture of membranes
(PROM)
No 114 (20.5%) 442 (79.5%) 0.058 1.03 (0.37–2.85) 0.949
Yes 16 (32%) 34 (68%) 1
preterm premature rupture of membrane No 121 (20.5%) 470 (79.5%) 0.001 1.28 (0.14–12.37) 0.827
Yes 9 (60%) 6 (40%) 1

Discussion

This study focused on determining the incidence of mortality and identifying different factors affecting neonatal mortality among a specific group of neonates that was transferred to PRCS from other hospitals between 2019 and 2024 in the neonatal intensive care unit of the Palestine Red Crescent Society Hospital. 21.5% of the neonates died, highlighting a substantial neonatal mortality rate for this specific group. Palestine Red Crescent Society Hospital considered as highly qualified tertiary hospital, most of transferred newborns was critical or had congenital abnormality or moderate to extreme premature so was transferred to tertiary center and all were subjected to transfer process also all cases was hypothermic on admission “ all these factors contribute and explain the high mortality rate in this specific group, highlights the urgency need for development of transport process. during the same period 2019–2024 admissions to the same NICU that was delivered at the same hospital was 2120 cases with 86 cases dies “mortality rate was 4.05%. the incidence of mortality in other Arab countries, such as Qatar, where the mortality rate is 6.5% [9]. Also, in Sidama regional state, Ethiopia (14.2%), which is considered a low-income country [10].

Most deliveries were normal vaginal deliveries (NVD), accounting for 57.3% of cases, while 42.7% were cesarean sections (CS). The nearly equal distribution highlights a relatively high rate of cesarean sections, suggesting that a considerable number of births required surgical intervention, which may be due to complications during labor or preexisting conditions. The country’s cesarean section rate was higher than the global average [11]. For nearly 30 years, the international healthcare community has considered the ideal rate for CS delivery to be between 10% and 15%. Still, its rates have risen from around 7% in 1990 to 21% today, according to WHO [12]. In comparison with vaginal birth, neonates born after CS delivery have significantly higher rates of respiratory morbidity and NICU admission and a longer length of hospital stay [13].

The study found a statistically significant association between sepsis, IVH, NEC, and neonatal mortality. Among neonates with sepsis, 45.4% died compared to 54.6% who recovered, with the impact on mortality being lower than reported in other studies. IVH was strongly associated with mortality, with a death rate of 74.1% in affected patients compared to 19% in those without, consistent with findings from other countries [14]. NEC was also significantly linked to increased mortality, with a death rate of 57.1% among affected neonates, supporting prior research identifying NEC as a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants [15]. RDS is a significant predictor of mortality, with 51.2% of affected neonates dying compared to 6.5% of those without RDS, demonstrating a strong association with poor outcomes. The condition, driven by surfactant deficiency and immature lung development, leads to alveolar collapse, poor gas exchange, and hypoxemia, particularly in preterm infants. The prognosis of newborns has shown improvement and complications have decreased with oxygen therapy and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and surfactant treatment [16].

Patients with PROM had a higher death rate (32%) compared to those without (20.5%). PROM is not statistically significant. However, this Suggesting a potential relationship worth further investigation. PROM is one of pregnancy complications which turn it to high risk pregnancy that needs argent work-up to the baby at the delivery room [17]. This goes with other studies, such as in Ethiopia, which found a strong association between PROM mothers and bad-health babies [18].

Temperature is another significant factor. As temperature decreases, the mortality rate increases, with extremely high death rates observed at temperatures below 32°C (66.7%). Hypothermia is one of the determinants of neonatal mortality [19]. Neonates are highly susceptible to temperature-related issues due to their immature thermoregulatory systems, limited fat stores, and high body surface area-to-weight ratio [20]. On the other hand, there is a limited ability to generate heat through shivering or brown fat metabolism. This affects mortality through metabolic disturbances; hypothermia increases glucose consumption, leading to hypoglycemia and metabolic acidosis. Also, it causes immune suppression and increases susceptibility to infections, including neonatal sepsis.

This study has several limitations. As a retrospective study, it relies on existing medical records, which may be incomplete or inaccurate, introducing potential bias. Conducted in a single NICU, the findings may not generalize to other institutions with different patient populations, practices, or resources. Neonates who were admitted to the NICU for less than 24 hours and had no identifiable risk factors were excluded from the analysis. These cases typically involved infants admitted for short-term observation and subsequently discharged by the attending physician after evaluation, as they were not deemed to require intensive care. Additionally, the study does not account for confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, parental health behaviors, or prenatal care quality, which could influence neonatal outcomes. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the results.

The problems participants experienced with prenatal care delays and unanticipated home deliveries and facility access challenges exist within the framework of Israel’s occupation structural violence. The occupation’s systemic restrictions, which include checkpoints, permit regimes, and land confiscation, have split the healthcare infrastructure while limiting freedom of movement, a fundamental health determinant [21]. The policies implemented by the government directly increase maternal risks because Leone et al. [22] discovered that increased conflict intensity leads to decreased maternal care utilization in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). The participants described how military operations and extended checkpoint delays interrupted their care, while economic instability and mental health issues made it harder for them to seek medical help. The solution to these inequities demands the elimination of structural violence through the removal of movement barriers and the establishment of decentralized healthcare systems to counteract the fragmentation caused by the occupation [21,22].

In conclusion, sepsis, IVH, NEC, prematurity, low birth weight, and hypothermia were significantly associated with neonatal mortality in the specialized neonatal care unit. Improving transfer process, Early management of sepsis and low birth weight should be the priority issues for controlling neonatal deaths in institutional settings. The results of this study can be utilized to prioritize and provide appropriate care to newborns who are at high risk for better prediction and to reduce preventable neonatal deaths in settings with limited resources.

Acknowledgments

The authors express gratitude to the NICU staff and administration at PRCS Hospital for their support in providing access to essential data and resources for this study.

Data Availability

We confirm that all data underlying the findings in our manuscript are held at the Palestine Red Crescent Hospital. Due to institutional policies and patient confidentiality, the full de-identified data set cannot be publicly shared at this time. However, interested researchers may request access to the data through the NICU department. Please direct any data access inquiries to: dr-abu-mayaleh@hotmail.com Medical director Dr Abdul Razzaq Abu Mayaleh

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Liu L, Hug L, Yeung D, You D. Newborn Mortality. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Global Public Health. 2023. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190632366.013.199 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Parmigiani S, Bevilacqua G. Can we reduce worldwide neonatal mortality? Acta Biomed. 2022;93(5):e2022294. doi: 10.23750/abm.v93i5.13225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Naulty CM. Neonatal Death. Hosp Care for Children. 2008. pp. 131–46. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195340709.003.0006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Low Birth Weight. Definitions. 2020. doi: 10.32388/06leg2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zolfizadeh F, Ghorbani M, Soltani M, Rezaeian S, Rajabi A, Etemad K, et al. Factors associated with infant mortality due to congenital anomalies: a population-based case-control study. Iran J Public Health. 2022;51(5):1118–24. doi: 10.18502/ijph.v51i5.9411 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Belizán JM, McClure EM, Goudar SS, Pasha O, Esamai F, Patel A, et al. Neonatal death in low- to middle-income countries: a global network study. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29(8):649–56. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1314885 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Orsido TT, Asseffa NA, Berheto TM. Predictors of Neonatal mortality in Neonatal intensive care unit at referral Hospital in Southern Ethiopia: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):83. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2227-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Singh S, Agrawal R, Agarwal G, Das A, Sahu R. Predictors of neonatal mortality: a retrospective cross-sectional study from the special newborn care unit of a tertiary care hospital. Cureus. 2023;15(4):e37143. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chow S, Chow R, Popovic M, Lam M, Popovic M, Merrick J, et al. A selected review of the mortality rates of neonatal intensive care units. Front Public Health. 2015;3:225. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Taye K, Kebede Y, Tsegaw D, Ketema W. Predictors of neonatal mortality among neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Sidama regional state, Ethiopia. BMC Pediatr. 2024;24(1):237. doi: 10.1186/s12887-024-04689-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Desalew A, Sintayehu Y, Teferi N, Amare F, Geda B, Worku T, et al. Cause and predictors of neonatal mortality among neonates admitted to neonatal intensive care units of public hospitals in eastern Ethiopia: a facility-based prospective follow-up study. BMC Pediatr. 2020;20(1):160. doi: 10.1186/s12887-020-02051-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Caesarean section rates continue to rise, amid growing inequalities in access. World Health Organization (WHO). [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Damtew B, Gudayu T, Temesgan W, Hailu A. Effect of decision-to-delivery time of emergency cesarean section on adverse newborn outcomes at East Gojjam Zone Public Hospital, Ethiopia, March 2023: multicenter prospective observational study design. Int J Womens Health. 2024;16:433–50. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S451101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Qureshi AI, Adil MM, Shafizadeh N, Majidi S. A 2-fold higher rate of intraventricular hemorrhage-related mortality in African American neonates and infants. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2013;12(1):49–53. doi: 10.3171/2013.4.PEDS12568 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Que J, Van Oerle R, Albersheim S, Panczuk J, Piper H. The effect of daily probiotics on the incidence and severity of necrotizing enterocolitis in infants with very low birth weight. Can J Surg. 2021;64(6):E644–9. doi: 10.1503/cjs.016920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kamath BD, Macguire ER, McClure EM, Goldenberg RL, Jobe AH. Neonatal mortality from respiratory distress syndrome: lessons for low-resource countries. Pediatrics. 2011;127(6):1139–46. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3212 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.How does Hypothermia Cause Hypoglycemia in Infants - Nurses Educational Opportunities.
  • 18.Alene AA, Mengesha EW, Dagnew GW. Adverse fetal birth outcomes and its associated factors among mothers with premature rupture of membrane in Amhara region, Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2024;19(4):e0298319. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wake GE, Chernet K, Aklilu A, Yenealem F, Wogie Fitie G, Amera Tizazu M, et al. Determinants of neonatal mortality among neonates admitted to neonatal intensive care unit of Dessie comprehensive and specialized hospital, Northeast Ethiopia; An unmatched case-control study. Front Public Health. 2022;10:979402. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.979402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lubkowska A, Szymański S, Chudecka M. Surface Body Temperature of Full-Term Healthy Newborns Immediately after Birth-Pilot Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(8):1312. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081312 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Asi YM. Freedom of Movement as a Determinant of Women’s Health: Global Analysis and Commentary. World Med Health Policy. 2021;13(4):641–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Leone T, Alburez-Gutierrez D, Ghandour R, Coast E, Giacaman R. Maternal and child access to care and intensity of conflict in the occupied Palestinian territory: a pseudo-longitudinal analysis (2000–2014). Confl Health. 2019;13(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s13031-019-0220-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0004885.r001

Decision Letter 0

Sanghyuk Shin

PGPH-D-25-00456

Factors contributing to neonatal mortality in a tertiary center in south West Bank: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. khdour,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’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.

In addition to the comments made my Reviewer #1 below, I believe the Discussion would be greatly strengthened by putting the study results in the context of current scholarship about the structural conditions faced by Palestinian women in the West Bank. There is strong evidence that the ongoing occupation by Israel has wide ranging impact on reproductive health. Please consider including a discussion of such conditions. I have pasted below two recent examples, but there are many other studies and papers on this topic.

- Asi YM. Freedom of Movement as a Determinant of Women’s Health: Global Analysis and Commentary. World Medical & Health Policy. 2021;13(4):641–52.

- Leone T, Alburez-Gutierrez D, Ghandour R, Coast E, Giacaman R. Maternal and child access to care and intensity of conflict in the occupied Palestinian territory: a pseudo-longitudinal analysis (2000–2014). Confl Health. 2019 Aug 7;13(1):36.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 22 2025 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 globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sanghyuk S Shin

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

2. Please insert an Ethics Statement at the beginning of your Methods section, under a subheading 'Ethics Statement'.

3. Tables should not be uploaded as individual files. Please remove these files and include the Tables in your manuscript file as editable, cell-based objects. For more information about how to format tables, see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/tables

4. We have noticed that you have cited Table 4 and 5 in the manuscript file but there are no corresponding tables in the manuscript. Please amend your manuscript to include this table, noting that tables should not be uploaded as individual files.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: There is no Table 4 or Table 5 to review. Please attach for proper review of entire manuscript and results. This should be a minor revision just to attach the tables.

Recommend copy editing for appropriate spelling, grammar, and use of abbreviates (e.g., lines 30-34).

Lines 48-49: this is a strong point and can speak to the lack of literature on Palestinian health in general. It may be worthwhile to mentioned studies that have focused on neonatal mortality in the region or in Palestinian refugee populations. For example, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60206-8 or https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32061-5

Recommend rewording Line 54

Explicitly state any exclusion criteria in the study design and sample section, and the rationale. For example, why were neonates who were admitted to NICU for less than 24 hours not included.

Research method would be stronger if controls were included in the regression, like the factors listed in the Introduction section. However, since this is stated as a limitation, that should suffice but perhaps adding controls could be stated as something to explore as future research.

The methods used in the Data Analysis section were a little unclear. The use of chi-square tests and then multiple regressions could be more clearly stated with variables of interest clearly delineated. For example, why is preeclampsia and subsequent ESRD especially noted? Also, bivariate logistic regression was previously stated in the manuscript but not clearly defined (i.e., what are the two binary dependent variables?). Sometimes odds ratio is reported while other times adjusted odds ratio. Perhaps this would be clearer with Tables 4 and 5, but those were not attached to the manuscript.

Line 99: what qualifies a mother to be listed as “healthy”? Is this a self-report variable or gleaned from the electronic health record?

For Tables 1-3: there seems to be information from the mother and neonate dispersed throughout the tables. Consider organizing based on those two categories, where summary statistics on maternal characteristics are distinguished from patient admission characteristics.

Line 106: consider revising for more clear interpretation of the odds ratio.

Line 136: consider removing personal tense “our”.

Line 152-153: consider if mentioned if those therapies are available in Palestine, and the overall resource scarcity that may complicate treatment of neonates.

Line 154: consider removing phrasing “trend towards significance” as it not sound in the study of statistics. Consider reporting effect size for stronger analysis to assess the magnitude of difference, if data is available. A minimal suggested revision would be to change the phrasing.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

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

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0004885.r003

Decision Letter 1

Sanghyuk Shin

Factors contributing to neonatal mortality in a tertiary center in south West Bank: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

PGPH-D-25-00456R1

Dear dr khdour,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Factors contributing to neonatal mortality in a tertiary center in south West Bank: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Sanghyuk S Shin

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebuttal letter.docx

    pgph.0004885.s002.docx (16.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    We confirm that all data underlying the findings in our manuscript are held at the Palestine Red Crescent Hospital. Due to institutional policies and patient confidentiality, the full de-identified data set cannot be publicly shared at this time. However, interested researchers may request access to the data through the NICU department. Please direct any data access inquiries to: dr-abu-mayaleh@hotmail.com Medical director Dr Abdul Razzaq Abu Mayaleh


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES