Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2026 Feb 6;6(2):e0003949. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003949

Feeding pattern and associated factors among children aged 6–23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia

Shewit Engdashet Berhe 1,*, Teklit Grum 2, Teklehaymanot Huluf Abraha 2, Gebrekiros Aregawi 3, Ebud Ayele Dagnazgi 1, Kiros Gereziher Arefayne 1, Ermyas Brhane 1
Editor: Nancy Angeline Gnanaselvam4
PMCID: PMC12880657  PMID: 41650170

Abstract

The first one thousand days of life are a critical window of opportunity for children’s health and development. Nutritional deficiencies during this time can have serious consequences for the child’s health and development, with limited chances for correction later. For example, inadequate feeding among children can lead to consequences such as stunting, wasting, impaired immunity, and delayed cognitive development. Therefore, this study aimed to determine meal frequency and associated factors among children aged 6–23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia. We conducted a community-based cross-sectional study involving 981 randomly selected mothers of children aged 6–23 months. Data were collected using a structured, interviewer-administered questionnaire. The children’s meal frequency was determined by asking mothers how many times their child had eaten food in the 24 hours preceding the survey. We used binary logistic regression with backward elimination to identify factors associated with children’s meal frequency. Overall, 68% (95% CI: 64.9, 70.9%) of the children received adequate meal frequency. Being from a rich household (p = 0.013, 95% CI = 1.12, 2.59), having growth monitoring follow-up (p < 0.001, 95% CI = 1.44, 2.88), good mother’s knowledge of child feeding (p < 0.001, 95% CI = 1.59, 3.22), and having a birth preparedness plan (p < 0.046, 95% CI = 1.013, 4.339) were associated with adequate meal frequency. The proportion of children who did not receive adequate meal frequency was significantly high. Being from a wealthy household, undergoing growth monitoring follow-up, having a knowledgeable mother regarding child feeding, and having a birth preparedness plan were associated with adequate meal frequency. In conclusion, our findings highlight the need to improve child meal frequency through enhancing maternal knowledge of child feeding, strengthening growth monitoring and promotion services, and improving socioeconomic status, as indicated by the wealth index.

Background

The first one thousand days of life are a crucial window of opportunity for children’s health and development. This period is critical for establishing lifelong health, during which the body, brain, metabolism, and immune system develop significantly. A child’s ability to develop, learn, and thrive depends heavily on receiving proper nutrition during this critical period. Nutritional deficiencies at this stage can have serious and often irreversible consequences for the child’s health and development [13]. For example, inadequate feeding practices among children can lead to consequences such as stunting, wasting, impaired immunity, and delayed cognitive development [47].

Meal frequency is a proxy indicator of the adequacy of Infant and Young Child Feeding Practices among children aged 6–23 months [8]. Improving feeding practices, including meal frequency, is therefore fundamental to enhancing child health and development outcomes [9]. However, evidence from African countries shows that only 38.6% of children in Tanzania [10], and 57.95% in Gambia [11] receive the recommended meal frequency. Other studies in Ethiopia revealed that only 50.4% of children in northwestern Ethiopia [12], 47% in Bahirdar city [13], and 45% in the whole of Ethiopia [14] received an age-appropriate meal frequency.

Infant and Young Child Feeding practices, such as exclusive breastfeeding and continued breastfeeding until the age of two years, are at rates of 58% and 76% in Ethiopia, respectively [14]. Ethiopia is committed to the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and has had a legal framework supporting the code’s principles since 2016. However, there are limitations on the regulation of follow-up formula and growing-up milk. On the other hand, breastfeeding is culturally encouraged in Ethiopia, and most mothers, especially in rural areas, are willing to breastfeed, even though there are concerns regarding its appropriateness [1517].

Although adequate meal frequency in early life is crucial for children’s healthy growth and development, there is a research gap regarding the determinants and prevalence of meal frequency within the specific environmental and socioeconomic context of rural Tigray, particularly the Tahtay Maichew district. There are indeed studies conducted in Ethiopia, but most were done in regions outside of Tigray, particularly in the southern and northwestern parts of the country [12,13,1820]. In addition, while valuable, large-scale surveys like the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey may overlook local socioeconomic and cultural variations. Therefore, this study aimed to determine meal frequency and associated factors among children aged 6–23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia.

Methods and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Before the commencement of the study, ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the College of Health Sciences at Aksum University. Additionally, a letter of permission was received from the Tahtay Maichew district health office. Written informed consent was also obtained from the parents of the children, after providing a thorough explanation of the study’s objectives to ensure their willingness to participate. Additionally, information collected from participants was held anonymously to maintain confidentiality.

Study setting

This study was conducted in the Tahtay Maichew district, located in the central zone of the Tigray Regional State, northern Ethiopia. The district has 17 kebeles (the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia) administrations. The main source of income for more than 95% of the population in the area is agriculture, while maize, ‘Teff’, and sorghum are the staple cereals. Generally, the Tigray region has a higher poverty level because its economy mainly depends on agriculture, is drought-prone, receives limited rainfall, and farmers have small landholdings that limit their production [21,22].

Study design and population

A community-based cross-sectional study design was employed. The study participants were mothers of children aged 6–23 months who lived in the selected kebeles of the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia.

Sample size and sampling technique

The sample size for determining children’s meal frequency was calculated using a single population proportion formula with the following assumptions: 45% proportion of children aged 6–23 months who received meal frequency appropriate for their age [14], 95% confidence level, 4% margin of error, design effect of 1.5, and 10% nonresponse rate. Finally, the sample size was determined to be 981. The sample size for the analytical part was calculated using a double-population proportion formula, but it was smaller than the sample size for the descriptive part. Therefore, the final sample size was set at 981.

Initially, out of the 17 kebeles in the Tahtay Maichew district, 8 were chosen using a simple random sampling method. Subsequently, the total sample size was distributed proportionately among the selected kebeles based on the number of children aged 6–23 months. Following this, a rapid census was conducted on the selected kebeles 07 days before the actual data collection to identify households with children aged 6–23 months and use it as a sampling frame. Finally, child-mother pairs were selected from each kebele using a systematic random sampling technique, after assigning a code to each household with a child aged 6–23 months (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Schematic representation of the sampling technique for the meal frequency of children.

Fig 1

Measurements

Data on socio-demographic and economic characteristics, reproductive factors, health service utilization, knowledge of child feeding, media exposure, and maternal social capital were collected using an Interviewer-administered structured questionnaire adapted from different studies [10,1214,1820,2327]. The questionnaire was prepared in English and translated into Tigrigna (the local language). Subsequently, it was translated back to English to check its consistency.

Feeding pattern was assessed by measuring meal frequency, asking the mothers how many times the child consumed solid, semisolid, or soft foods in the 24 hours preceding the survey. Accordingly, consuming solid, semisolid, or soft foods two or more times for breastfed infants aged 6 to 8.9 months, three or more times for breastfed children aged 9 to 23.9 months, and four times for non-breastfed children aged 6 to 23.9 months was considered as receiving adequate meal frequency [28].

Wealth index data were collected on 24 household assets, including livestock, household equipment, annual cereal production, vehicle ownership, agricultural land ownership, and housing conditions. Each of these assets was recorded as either 0 (not owned) or 1 (owned). In the analysis, we assessed the suitability of the variables for Principal Component Analysis (PCA) using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and communality values. Finally, we summed these factor scores and categorized them into three groups: poor, medium, and rich [19].

Mothers’ knowledge of complementary feeding was determined by asking questions related to complementary feeding and meal frequency. A mother who scored above the mean for the knowledge-related questions was considered to have good knowledge of child feeding [29]. Additionally, maternal social capital was assessed using six questions. A mother who scored above the mean for the social capital-related questions was considered to have good social capital in the last 12 months [30]. Regarding media exposure, a mother who read a newspaper or magazine at least once a week, listened to the radio, or watched television was considered to have satisfactory media exposure [12].

Data management and analysis

After all the questionnaires were checked for completeness and consistency, the data were coded and entered into EPI INFO version 7 and then exported to STATA-12 statistical software for analysis. In the descriptive analysis, data normality was assessed using the skewness test and P-P plots. Continuous variables were summarized using means and standard deviations, while categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages.

To identify factors associated with meal frequency, we first performed univariable analysis using chi-square tests or t-test as appropriate. Subsequently, we fitted a multivariable logistic regression using the backward elimination method that included all variables demonstrating significant associations in the univariable analysis. The goodness-of-fit of the multivariable model was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Additionally, we tested for multicollinearity using variance inflation factors (VIF < 10) and tolerance statistics (> 0.1).

Results

A total of 949 mother-child pairs participated in the study, yielding a response rate of 96.7%. The mean [±SD] ages of the children and mothers were 13.7 ± 4.6 months and 29.7 ± 6.7 years, respectively. Moreover, the mean parity of mothers was 2.8 ± 1.7. The majority (70.5%) of children were exclusively breastfed for the first six months, and 94.5% of them were still being breastfed at the time of the survey. Orthodox Christianity was the predominant religion (92.5%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants.

Variable Meal frequency P-value*
Adequate, N (%)/ mean ± SD Inadequate, N (%)/ mean ± SD
Age of mother (years) 29.5 ± 6.5 30.2 ± 6.9 0.141
Age of child (months) 13.8 ± 4.7 13.4 ± 4.4 0.190
Sex of child 0.227
 Male 339 (35.7) 147 (15.5)
 Female 306 (32.2) 157 (16.6)
Family size 4.7 ± 1.7 4.8 ± 1.8 0.318
Marital status of mothers 0.113
 Married 579 (61.0) 269 (28)
 Divorced 46 (4.9) 30 (3.2)
 Separated 12 (1.6) 5 (0.5)
 Widowed 8 (0.8) 0
Mothers’ educational status <0.001
 No formal education 197 (20.8) 134 (14.1)
 Primary school (1–8) 218 (23) 99 (10.4)
 Secondary school (9–12) 186 (19.6) 66 (7.0)
 Diploma and above 44 (4.6) 5 (0.5)
Husbands’ educational status 0.045
 No formal education 113 (13.1) 69 (8.0)
 Primary school (1–8) 230 (26.6) 110 (12.7)
 Secondary school (9–12) 187 (21.6) 79 (9.1)
 Diploma and above 61 (7.0) 16 (1.9)
Mothers’ occupation 0.002
 Farmer 340 (35.8) 186 (19.6)
 Housewife 168 (17.7) 76 (8)
 Self-employed 54 (5.7) 16 (1.7)
 Daily worker 35 (3.7) 20 (2.1)
 Government employed 48 (5.1) 6 (0.6)
Husbands’ occupation 0.004
 Farmer 384 (44.4) 203 (23.5)
 Self-employed 76 (8.8) 28 (3.2)
 Daily worker 64 (7.4) 31 (3.6)
 Government employed 67 (7.7) 12 (1.4)
Wealth index <0.001
 Poor 189 (19.9) 128 (13.5)
 Medium 218 (23.0) 105 (11.0)
 Rich 238 (25.1) 71(7.5)
Mothers’ knowledge of child feeding <0.001
 Good 437 (46.0) 112 (11.8)
 Poor 208 (21.9) 192 (20.3)
Media exposure <0.001
 Yes 241 (25.4) 66 (7.0)
 No 404 (42.5) 238 (25.1)
Maternal social capital <0.001
 Good 361 (38.0) 107 (11.3)
 Poor 284 (29.9) 197 (20.8)

* Chi-square or t-test.

Overall, 68% (95% CI: 64.9, 70.9%) of the children aged 6–23 months had adequate meal frequency, and only 43.4% of them had adequate dietary diversity. Most of the children (96.94%) consumed grains, tubers, and roots, while only a small percentage consumed flesh foods, fruits, and vegetables, indicating limited dietary diversity (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Food groups consumed by children aged 6-23 months, Tahtay Maichew District, northern Ethiopia.

Fig 2

The health service utilization trends showed that 90% of the mothers had at least one antenatal care (ANC) visit, 83.5% delivered at a health facility, and 45.3% had one or more postnatal care (PNC) follow-up. (Table 2).

Table 2. Reproductive and health Service Utilization related characteristics of participants.

Variable Meal frequency p-value*
Adequate, N (%) Inadequate, N (%)
ANC follow-up <0.001
 Yes 606 (63.9) 250 (26.3)
 No 39 (4.1) 54 (5.7)
Number of ANC follow-ups (n = 856) 0.017
  < 4 208 (24.3) 114 (13.3)
  ≥ 4 398 (46.5) 136 (15.9)
Birth preparedness plan <0.001
 Yes 590 (62.2) 231 (24.3)
 No 55 (5.8) 73 (7.7)
Place of delivery of the index child <0.001
 Health facility 574 (60.5) 218 (23)
 Home 71 (7.5) 86 (9)
Birth order of the index child 0.113
 First 172 (18.1) 83 (8.7)
 Second to fifth 426 (44.9) 187 (19.7)
 Sixth and above 47 (5.0) 34 (3.6)
Birth interval between older and index child (months) 0.414
  < 36 84 (12.1) 45 (6.5)
  ≥ 36 389 (56.1) 176 (25.3)
PNC follow-up <0.001
 Yes 328 (34.6) 102 (10.7)
 No 317 (33.4) 202 (21.3)
Number of PNC follow-ups (n = 430) 0.130
  < 3 292 (67.9) 96 (22.3)
  ≥ 3 36 (8.4) 6 (1.4)
Counseling on child feeding in ANC/PNC <0.001
 Yes 371 (39.1) 111 (11.7)
 No 274 (28.9) 193 (20.3)
GMP follow-up <0.001
 Yes 449 (47.3) 134 (14.1)
 No 196 (20.7) 170 (17.9)
Counseling about child feeding in GMP 0.011
 Yes 411 (70.5) 112 (19.2)
 No 38 (6.5) 22 (3.8)
HEW home visit in the previous month <0.001
 Yes 323 (34) 111 (11.7)
 No 322 (33.9) 193 (20.4)

* Chi-square or t-test.

Factors associated with the meal frequency of children

In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, being from a wealthy household, undergoing growth monitoring follow-up, having a knowledgeable mother regarding child feeding, and having a birth preparedness plan were significantly associated with adequate meal frequency.

Accordingly, the odds of receiving adequate meal frequency were 1.70 times higher (p = 0.013, 95% CI = 1.12, 2.59) among children belonging to rich families than children from poor families. Moreover, children who attended growth monitoring follow-ups had twice the odds (p < 0.001, 95% CI = 1.44, 2.88) of receiving adequate meal frequency compared to their counterparts. The odds of receiving adequate meal frequency were 2.26 (p < 0.001, 95% CI = 1.59, 3.22) times higher among children of mothers with good knowledge of child feeding than among children of mothers with poor knowledge. Additionally, children born to mothers who had a birth preparedness plan had twice (p < 0.046, 95% CI = 1.013, 4.339) the odds of receiving adequate meal frequency than their counterparts (Table 3).

Table 3. Factors associated with meal frequency among children aged 6–23 months.

Variable COR (95% CI) P-value AOR (95% CI) P- value
Wealth index
 Poor Reference
 Medium 1.406 (1.018, 1.943) 0.039 1.241 (.839, 1.836) 0.280
 Rich 2.270 (1.604, 3.213) <0.001 1.701 (1.120, 2.585) 0.013
GMP follow-up
 Yes 2.906 (2.193, 3.852) <0.001 2.034 (1.439, 2.875) <0.001
 No Reference
Mother’s knowledge of child feeding
 Good 3.602 (2.707, 4.792) <0.001 2.261 (1.588, 3.219) <0.001
 Poor Reference
Birth preparedness plan
 Yes 3.390 (2.315, 4.965) <0.001 2.097 (1.013, 4.339) 0.046
 No Reference
Maternal social capital
 Good 2.340 (1.765, 3.103) <0.001 1.391 (0.975, 1.985) 0.069
 Poor Reference

Discussion

In this study, we assessed Meal frequency and associated factors among children aged 6–23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, Tigray, northern Ethiopia. Our results revealed that a considerable proportion of children aged 6–23 months did not have adequate meal frequency. This indicates that the children with suboptimal feeding during this critical period are at an increased risk of macronutrient undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and impaired cognitive and physical development, which could lead to long-term health and economic burdens for both individuals and society [1,2,31].

The proportion of children in this study who received adequate meal frequency (68%) is comparable with findings from Wolaita-Sodo (68.9%) [20], and Bale (68.4%) [32], but lower than results from Dabat (72.2%) [19], and Addis Ababa (90.6%) [33]. Conversely, the finding was higher than the 50.4% in Dangla [12], and 45% in the 2016 EDHS [14].

On the other hand, among the children who had adequate meal frequency, only 43.4% achieved an adequate level of dietary diversity. This finding highlights an important gap; even when children are fed adequately during the day, the foods they eat may still lack variety. In other words, meeting meal frequency does not necessarily ensure a nutritionally balanced diet among children. This underscores the need for our interventions to promote not only increased feeding frequency but also diverse feeding practices.

The association of factors such as being from a wealthy household, undergoing growth monitoring follow-up, having a knowledgeable mother regarding child feeding, and having a birth preparedness plan highlights the interplay between economic, educational, and health system factors. Moreover, these identified predictors present challenges and opportunities for various public health interventions.

The association between higher household wealth and adequate meal frequency indicates that economic constraints may limit households’ access to food and affect child feeding. it also highlights the need to strengthen social protection programs such as the Productive Safety Net Program, promoting income-generating activities for poorer families, and generally focusing on poverty alleviation in the area, as these interventions are effective in other studies from low-income settings [3437]. In Tigray, most households do not meet the daily recommended calorie intake [21]. Tigray experiences drought, characterized by limited, unreliable, and variable rainfall, resulting in repeated crop failures and asset depletion [38]. The shortage of grazing land and water reduces livestock productivity, which ultimately affects per-capita food consumption and food security [39]. This association between wealth index and meal frequency is also consistent with findings reported in West Africa [26], Tanzania [10], Gambia [11], and northwestern Ethiopia [19].

Growth monitoring follow-up was also positively associated with receiving adequate meal frequency. This may be because growth monitoring and promotion services provide opportunities for health workers to detect growth faltering early and offer individualized counseling on appropriate feeding practices, thereby enhancing the mothers’ knowledge on how to feed their children [40]. Regular growth monitoring and promotion (GMP) is carried out in the study area by health extension workers who perform GMP for children under two years old every month and use the family health card to track all children. It is also conducted at health centers incorporated with the integrated management of newborn and childhood illness (IMNCI), despite limitations caused by a lack of equipment, inaccurate measurements, and low service utilization. Supportive findings were also reported from studies in northwest Ethiopia [19] and Nepal [41].

Mothers’ good knowledge of child feeding was also a key factor influencing whether their children received adequate meal frequency. This suggests a need for public health interventions, such as nutrition education and behavioral change communication, along with improving women’s literacy to enhance their understanding of feeding practices [42,43]. Such efforts can be delivered through various contact points, including antenatal and postnatal care, delivery, and community health days. Having a birth preparedness plan was also associated with adequate meal frequency, which may be because individuals who plan for their birth are also more likely to have appropriate birth spacing and a smaller family size.

In summary, in the study area, efforts are being made to prevent malnutrition through nutrition education, micronutrient supplementation, and deworming. The National Nutrition Program II (NNP II) and the Ethiopian Food and Nutrition Policy are also in place to implement nutrition-sensitive and nutrition-specific interventions through a coordinated multi-sectoral approach [44,45]. Regarding treatment, uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition (SAM) is treated in the outpatient therapeutic program (OTP). Meanwhile, complicated SAM is managed at the stabilization center (SC) as an inpatient treatment. Conversely, moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) is treated through the targeted supplementary feeding program (TSFP) [46]. Additionally, food security and feeding programs in the area include the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), emergency food assistance for vulnerable households, and the general food distribution (GFD). Despite all these efforts, malnutrition is still high [14,47], and inadequate meal frequency among young children can contribute to it, as shown in this study.

This study was conducted at the community level, which strengthens its generalizability to the source population, but its geographically limited scope restricts its overall generalizability. Moreover, the cross-sectional study design can show us associations, but not establish causality due to temporal ambiguity. The 24-hour recall method used to assess meal frequency may also have introduced recall and social desirability biases from respondents. In addition, the day-to-day meal frequency variations may not be adequately captured by a single 24-hour recall.

Conclusions

The proportion of children who did not receive adequate meal frequency was significantly high. Being from a wealthy household, undergoing growth monitoring follow-up, having a knowledgeable mother regarding child feeding, and having a birth preparedness plan were associated with adequate meal frequency. In conclusion, our findings highlight the need to improve child meal frequency through enhancing maternal knowledge of child feeding, strengthening growth monitoring and promotion services, and improving socioeconomic status as indicated by wealth index.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset. Dataset used for the analysis. It contains all variables included in the study, and the data are anonymized.

(DTA)

pgph.0003949.s001.dta (387KB, dta)

Acknowledgments

We want to acknowledge Aksum University for supporting this study. We are also grateful to the study participants, data collectors, and supervisors for their participation in this study.

Data Availability

The datasets used during the current study are uploaded as Supporting information.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Aksum University to EB. This funding has no grant or project number. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.The 1,000 days from pregnancy to age two offer a crucial window of opportunity to create brighter, healthier futures. 2019. Available from: https://thousanddays.org/why-1000-days/
  • 2.The first 1,000 days of a child’s life are the most important to their development - and our economic success. Available from: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/the-first-1-000-days-of-a-childs-life-are-the-most-important-to-their-development-and-our-economic-success/2017
  • 3.Likhar A, Patil MS. Importance of maternal nutrition in the first 1,000 days of life and its effects on child development: a narrative review. Cureus. 2022;14(10):e30083. doi: 10.7759/cureus.30083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tzioumis E, Kay MC, Bentley ME, Adair LS. Prevalence and trends in the childhood dual burden of malnutrition in low- and middle-income countries, 1990-2012. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(8):1375–88. doi: 10.1017/S1368980016000276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Von Grebmer KSA, Birol E, Wiesman D, Prasai N, Yin S. Synopsis: 2014 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hidden Hunger. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tariku A, Bikis GA, Woldie H, Wassie MM, Worku AG. Child wasting is a severe public health problem in the predominantly rural population of Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. Arch Public Health. 2017;75:26. doi: 10.1186/s13690-017-0194-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Velasco I, Bath SC, Rayman MP. Iodine as essential nutrient during the first 1000 days of life. Nutrients. 2018;10(3):290. doi: 10.3390/nu10030290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.W.H.O. Infant and Young Child Feeding Model Chapter for textbooks for medical students and allied health professionals: World Health Organization. Available from: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/44117/9789241597494_eng.pdf2009 [PubMed]
  • 9.Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices: definitions and measurement methods. 2021.
  • 10.Victor R, Baines SK, Agho KE, Dibley MJ. Factors associated with inappropriate complementary feeding practices among children aged 6-23 months in Tanzania. Matern Child Nutr. 2014;10(4):545–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8709.2012.00435.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Terefe B, Jembere MM, Abie Mekonnen B. Minimum meal frequency practice and associated factors among children aged 6–23 months old in The Gambia: a multilevel mixed effect analysis. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-49748-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Beyene M, Worku AG, Wassie MM. Dietary diversity, meal frequency and associated factors among infant and young children in Northwest Ethiopia: a cross- sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:1007. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2333-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Demilew YM, Tafere TE, Abitew DB. Infant and young child feeding practice among mothers with 0–24-month-old children in Slum areas of Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia. Int Breastfeed J. 2017;12(1). doi: 10.1186/s13006-017-0117-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey. 2016: Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and The DHS Program, ICF Rockville, Maryland, USA. Available from: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/fr328/fr328.pdf2017
  • 15.Laillou A, Gerba H, Zelalem M, Moges D, Abera W, Chuko T, et al. Is the legal framework by itself enough for successful WHO code implementation? A case study from Ethiopia. Matern Child Nutr. 2021;17(1):e13059. doi: 10.1111/mcn.13059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lenja A, Demissie T, Yohannes B, Yohannis M. Determinants of exclusive breastfeeding practice to infants aged less than six months in Offa district, Southern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Int Breastfeed J. 2016;11:32. doi: 10.1186/s13006-016-0091-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tiruye G, Mesfin F, Geda B, Shiferaw K. Breastfeeding technique and associated factors among breastfeeding mothers in Harar city, Eastern Ethiopia. Int Breastfeed J. 2018;13:5. doi: 10.1186/s13006-018-0147-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kassa T, Meshesha B, Haji Y, Ebrahim J. Appropriate complementary feeding practices and associated factors among mothers of children age 6-23 months in Southern Ethiopia, 2015. BMC Pediatr. 2016;16:131. doi: 10.1186/s12887-016-0675-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Belew AK, Ali BM, Abebe Z, Dachew BA. Dietary diversity and meal frequency among infant and young children: a community based study. Ital J Pediatr. 2017;43(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s13052-017-0384-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mekonnen TC, Workie SB, Yimer TM, Mersha WF. Meal frequency and dietary diversity feeding practices among children 6–23 months of age in Wolaita Sodo town, Southern Ethiopia. J Health Popul Nutr. 2017;36(1). doi: 10.1186/s41043-017-0097-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Weldearegay SK, Tedla DG. Impact of climate variability on household food availability in Tigray, Ethiopia. Agric Food Secur. 2018;7(1). doi: 10.1186/s40066-017-0154-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Holden ST, Tilahun M. Farm size and gender distribution of land: evidence from Ethiopian land registry data. World Dev. 2020;130:104926. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104926 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gewa CA, Leslie TF. Distribution and determinants of young child feeding practices in the East African region: demographic health survey data analysis from 2008-2011. J Health Popul Nutr. 2015;34:6. doi: 10.1186/s41043-015-0008-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Aemro M, Mesele M, Birhanu Z, Atenafu A. Dietary diversity and meal frequency practices among infant and young children aged 6-23 months in ethiopia: a secondary analysis of ethiopian demographic and health survey 2011. J Nutr Metab. 2013;2013:782931. doi: 10.1155/2013/782931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Heidkamp RA, Ayoya MA, Teta IN, Stoltzfus RJ, Marhone JP. Complementary feeding practices and child growth outcomes in Haiti: an analysis of data from demographic and health Surveys. Matern Child Nutr. 2015;11(4):815–28. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Issaka AI, Agho KE, Page AN, Burns PL, Stevens GJ, Dibley MJ. Determinants of suboptimal complementary feeding practices among children aged 6-23 months in seven francophone West African countries. Matern Child Nutr. 2015;11 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):31–52. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ng CS, Dibley MJ, Agho KE. Complementary feeding indicators and determinants of poor feeding practices in Indonesia: a secondary analysis of 2007 Demographic and Health Survey data. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(5):827–39. doi: 10.1017/S1368980011002485 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.W.H.O. Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices: Part 1: Definitions: Conclusions of a consensus meeting held 6-8 November 2007 in Washington, DC, USA, 2008: World Health Organization. 2008. Available from: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/43895/?sequence=1
  • 29.Agize A, Jara D, Dejenu G. Level of knowledge and practice of mothers on minimum dietary diversity practices and associated factors for 6-23-month-old children in Adea Woreda, Oromia, Ethiopia. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7204562. doi: 10.1155/2017/7204562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kang Y, Kim J, Seo E. Association between maternal social capital and infant complementary feeding practices in rural Ethiopia. Matern Child Nutr. 2018;14(1):e12484. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12484 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Black MM, Pérez-Escamilla R, Rao SF. Integrating nutrition and child development interventions: scientific basis, evidence of impact, and implementation considerations. Adv Nutr. 2015;6(6):852–9. doi: 10.3945/an.115.010348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tegegne M, Sileshi S, Benti T, Teshome M, Woldie H. Factors associated with minimal meal frequency and dietary diversity practices among infants and young children in the predominantly agrarian society of Bale zone, Southeast Ethiopia: a community based cross sectional study. Arch Public Health. 2017;75:53. doi: 10.1186/s13690-017-0216-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Abebe H, Gashu M, Kebede A, Abata H, Yeshaneh A, Workye H, et al. Minimum acceptable diet and associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in Ethiopia. Ital J Pediatr. 2021;47(1):215. doi: 10.1186/s13052-021-01169-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Goto R, Devine J, Nicholas Mascie-Taylor CG, Ormand J, Jufry AJ. The impact of an income-generating activities programme on children and mothers’ undernutrition in extreme poor rural Bangladeshi households. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(16):3073–82. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019002015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Brugh K, Angeles G, Mvula P, Tsoka M, Handa S. Impacts of the Malawi social cash transfer program on household food and nutrition security. Food Policy. 2018;76:19–32. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.11.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mutisya M, Kandala N-B, Ngware MW, Kabiru CW. Household food (in)security and nutritional status of urban poor children aged 6 to 23 months in Kenya. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:1052. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2403-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Debela BL, Shively G, Holden ST. Does ethiopia’s productive safety net program improve child nutrition? Food Sec. 2015;7(6):1273–89. doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0499-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tagel G, Anne van der V. Estimating the impact of a food security program by propensity-score matching. J Dev Agric Econ. 2015;7(1):38–47. doi: 10.5897/jdae2014.0585 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hadush M. Economic implication of grazing and water resource scarcity on households’ welfare and food security in Tigrai, Ethiopia. Agric Resour Econom Rev. 2018;48(1):170–98. doi: 10.1017/age.2018.17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kim SS, Rawat R, Mwangi EM, Tesfaye R, Abebe Y, Baker J, et al. Exposure to large-scale social and behavior change communication interventions is associated with improvements in infant and young child feeding practices in Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0164800. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Gautam KP, Adhikari M, Khatri RB, Devkota MD. Determinants of infant and young child feeding practices in Rupandehi, Nepal. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:135. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-1956-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hoddinott J, Ahmed I, Ahmed A, Roy S. Behavior change communication activities improve infant and young child nutrition knowledge and practice of neighboring non-participants in a cluster-randomized trial in rural Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179866. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Graziose MM, Downs SM, O’Brien Q, Fanzo J. Systematic review of the design, implementation and effectiveness of mass media and nutrition education interventions for infant and young child feeding. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(2):273–87. doi: 10.1017/S1368980017002786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, National Nutrition Program, 2016-2020. Addis Ababa. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Food and Nutrition Policy. Addis Ababa. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Government of Ethiopia, Federal Ministry of Health. 2019 National Guideline for the Management of Acute Malnutrition. Addis Ababa: FMOH; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI) [Ethiopia] and ICF. 2019. Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey 2019: Key Indicators. Rockville, Maryland, USA: EPHI and ICF; 2019. [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003949.r001

Decision Letter 0

Dessalegn Tamiru

26 Aug 2024

PGPH-D-24-01350

Meal frequency and its associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Engdashet,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 10 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 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,

Dessalegn Tamiru

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer 1

The study is significant, but the authors should pay attention to the concerns.

Abstract

Specify types of multivariable analysis.

How was the was the endpoint variable assessed?

Results

Specify the wealth index.

Conclusion

Expunge the word "recommendation"

Line 31-33 Statements were similar to the ones in the results.

Main body

Methods

The methodology has major defects.

Source population, study population, inclusion,inclusion and exclusion criteria were missed.

What is the justification for the 4% margin error? DE?

How many HH assets were assessed?

How did you include HH assets for further analysis (PCA)?

Mention the response variable before data processing and analysis.

What was the maximum value of VIF?

What was the justification for a p value < 0.1 for candidate predictors in the final model?

Why did you use mean and SD for age?

Ethical issues

Confidentiality issues were not mentioned.

Results

Do not interpret the findings.

Discussion

The discussion is very clumsy.

English writing and editorial issues are not optimal.

Reviewer 2

Meal frequency and its associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia

First of all, I appreciate the work you did but I have the following main questions

� Why you are targeting infants or children aged 6-23 months?

� What is the novelty of your study since many studies done with similar topics in the study area and country?

� In general, the methods part needs major revision?

1. Abstract

The background information ¨ The term “meal frequency” describes the adequacy of complementary feedings among children¨ it would be better if you focused on or included the severity or magnitudes of the problems or the Gap.

Results: is not written clearly, so would you re-write again

Methods: We conducted a community-based cross-sectional study among 981 mothers with

index children aged 6-23 months. It would be better if changed to A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 981 mothers with index children aged 6-23 months

Conclusion and recommendation: would you write it based on your findings

2. Introduction: Para 2 and 3 are redundant as they have no direct relevance to the current objectives of the study, and are not required for the audience of journals dealing with PLOS Global Public Health. The introduction section is too short and not clear, and it still is unable to appropriately justify neither the need for this study nor the target age group.

3. Methods

The recruitment period for this study was from 22/1/2018 to 30/2/2018. How is it possible to collect such much data within specified data, n=981? I don’t think so? would you check it again?

Sample size determination

� Why 4% margin of error, a nonresponse rate 10%. Why not 5% and NRR=5%?

� Initially, out of the seventeen kebeles in the Tahtay Maichew district, eight kebeles were chosen using the lottery method. How did you select eight of them?

� Did you any sampling techniques or randomization? if how?

� What is your sampling frame?

� What does mean Kebelle ?

� Did you use PPS? how?

� using a systematic random sampling technique versus a sampling frame? So how did you see those two things?

� Your sampling procedure is not clear, please write it clearly.

Would you include operational definitions like?

� PCA?

� Knowledge good or poor?

� Maternal Social capital good or poor?

� Received minimum meal frequency?

� Etc

What was your outcome variables?

In data management and analysis

� Did you check the normality distribution of your data? how?

� Write what you did for categorical and continuous variables.

For example

The mean age [±SD] of the children was 13.7 ±4.59 months.

The mean age [±SD] of the mothers was 29.74 ±6.66 years.

The mean family size [±SD] was 4.75 ±1.7 persons.

Not nothing mentioned in the methods part

4. Results

Table 1: Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics of participants

� Do cross tab for Tables 1 and 2

� Mothers age in years change it to age of mother (yrs)

� Age of index child in months change it to Age of child (mo)

� Family size in persons change it to family size

� Etc , do the other like this

� Do you think the Husband's educational status is important?

� Did you assess GMP?

In the bivariate analysis

According to the bivariable logistic regression analysis, eight variables, namely, wealth index,

ANC follow-up, place of delivery, growth monitoring follow-up, health extension worker home visit, mother’s knowledge of child feeding, media exposure, and mother’s social capital in the last 12 months, were significantly associated with meal frequency at 95% CL (p ≤ 0.1).

� why the reason you only select those variables p≤0.1, and why not p≤0.25?

5. Discussion

� The discussion needs to be focused towards the main objectives. The functional significance of the present results may be elaborated.

� Please would include the strengths and limitations of the study

� What is the clinical implication of your findings?

6. Conclusion

� Would you rewrite it based on your findings?

7. References

References need to be written in the style recommended by the journal PLOS Global Public Health.

For example, if you take reference numbers 1 and 2 are written wrongly

1. Organization, W.H., Infant and young child feeding: model chapter for textbooks for medical

students and allied health professionals. 2009: World Health Organization. Available from: include it

2. Organization, W.H., Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices: part 1:

definitions: conclusions of a consensus meeting held 6-8 November 2007 in Washington DC, USA. 2008: World Health Organization . Available from:include it

[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 ? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn 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 (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

PLOS Global Public Health 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

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The study is significant, but the authors should pay attention to the concerns.

Abstract

Specify types of multivariable analysis.

How was the was the endpoint variable assessed?

Results

Specify the wealth index.

Conclusion

Expunge the word "recommendation"

Line 31-33 Statements were similar to the ones in the results.

Main body

Methods

The methodology has major defects.

Source population, study population, inclusion,inclusion and exclusion criteria were missed.

What is the justification for the 4% margin error? DE?

How many HH assets were assessed?

How did you include HH assets for further analysis (PCA)?

Mention the response variable before data processing and analysis.

What was the maximum value of VIF?

What was the justification for a p value < 0.1 for candidate predictors in the final model?

Why did you use mean and SD for age?

Ethical issues

Confidentiality issues were not mentioned.

Results

Do not interpret the findings.

Discussion

The discussion is very clumsy.

English writing and editorial issues are not optimal.

Reviewer #2: Meal frequency and its associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia

First of all, I appreciate the work you did but I have the following main questions

� Why you are targeting infants or children aged 6-23 months?

� What is the novelty of your study since many studies done with similar topics in the study area and country?

� In general, the methods part needs major revision?

1. Abstract

The background information ¨ The term “meal frequency” describes the adequacy of complementary feedings among children¨ it would be better if you focused on or included the severity or magnitudes of the problems or the Gap.

Results: is not written clearly, so would you re-write again

Methods: We conducted a community-based cross-sectional study among 981 mothers with

index children aged 6-23 months. It would be better if changed to A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 981 mothers with index children aged 6-23 months

Conclusion and recommendation: would you write it based on your findings

2. Introduction: Para 2 and 3 are redundant as they have no direct relevance to the current objectives of the study, and are not required for the audience of journals dealing with PLOS Global Public Health. The introduction section is too short and not clear, and it still is unable to appropriately justify neither the need for this study nor the target age group.

3. Methods

The recruitment period for this study was from 22/1/2018 to 30/2/2018. How is it possible to collect such much data within specified data, n=981? I don’t think so? would you check it again?

Sample size determination

� Why 4% margin of error, a nonresponse rate 10%. Why not 5% and NRR=5%?

� Initially, out of the seventeen kebeles in the Tahtay Maichew district, eight kebeles were chosen using the lottery method. How did you select eight of them?

� Did you any sampling techniques or randomization? if how?

� What is your sampling frame?

� What does mean Kebelle ?

� Did you use PPS? how?

� using a systematic random sampling technique versus a sampling frame? So how did you see those two things?

� Your sampling procedure is not clear, please write it clearly.

Would you include operational definitions like?

� PCA?

� Knowledge good or poor?

� Maternal Social capital good or poor?

� Received minimum meal frequency?

� Etc

What was your outcome variables?

In data management and analysis

� Did you check the normality distribution of your data? how?

� Write what you did for categorical and continuous variables.

For example

The mean age [±SD] of the children was 13.7 ±4.59 months.

The mean age [±SD] of the mothers was 29.74 ±6.66 years.

The mean family size [±SD] was 4.75 ±1.7 persons.

Not nothing mentioned in the methods part

4. Results

Table 1: Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics of participants

� Do cross tab for Tables 1 and 2

� Mothers age in years change it to age of mother (yrs)

� Age of index child in months change it to Age of child (mo)

� Family size in persons change it to family size

� Etc , do the other like this

� Do you think the Husband's educational status is important?

� Did you assess GMP?

In the bivariate analysis

According to the bivariable logistic regression analysis, eight variables, namely, wealth index,

ANC follow-up, place of delivery, growth monitoring follow-up, health extension worker home visit, mother’s knowledge of child feeding, media exposure, and mother’s social capital in the last 12 months, were significantly associated with meal frequency at 95% CL (p ≤ 0.1).

� why the reason you only select those variables p≤0.1, and why not p≤0.25?

5. Discussion

� The discussion needs to be focused towards the main objectives. The functional significance of the present results may be elaborated.

� Please would include the strengths and limitations of the study

� What is the clinical implication of your findings?

6. Conclusion

� Would you rewrite it based on your findings?

7. References

References need to be written in the style recommended by the journal PLOS Global Public Health.

For example, if you take reference numbers 1 and 2 are written wrongly

1. Organization, W.H., Infant and young child feeding: model chapter for textbooks for medical

students and allied health professionals. 2009: World Health Organization. Available from: include it

2. Organization, W.H., Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices: part 1:

definitions: conclusions of a consensus meeting held 6-8 November 2007 in Washington DC, USA. 2008: World Health Organization . Available from:include it

etc

**********

-->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.

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

Reviewer #2: Yes: Melese Sinaga

**********

[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.0003949.r003

Decision Letter 1

Dessalegn Tamiru

6 Jan 2025

PGPH-D-24-01350R1

Meal frequency and its associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Engdashet,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 20 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,

Dessalegn Tamiru

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer 1

Reviewer Recommendation Term: Major Revision

Rate Review: 0

Custom Review Question(s): Response

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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. No

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

PLOS Global Public Health 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. 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) The study is significant, but the authors should pay attention to the concerns.

Abstract

Specify types of multivariable analysis.

How was the was the endpoint variable assessed?

Results

Specify the wealth index.

Conclusion

Expunge the word "recommendation"

Line 31-33 Statements were similar to the ones in the results.

Main body

Methods

The methodology has major defects.

Source population, study population, inclusion,inclusion and exclusion criteria were missed.

What is the justification for the 4% margin error? DE?

How many HH assets were assessed?

How did you include HH assets for further analysis (PCA)?

Mention the response variable before data processing and analysis.

What was the maximum value of VIF?

What was the justification for a p value < 0.1 for candidate predictors in the final model?

Why did you use mean and SD for age?

Ethical issues

Confidentiality issues were not mentioned.

Results

Do not interpret the findings.

Discussion

The discussion is very clumsy.

English writing and editorial issues are not optimal.

Reviewer 2

Reviewer Recommendation Term: Major Revision

Rate Review: 0

Custom Review Question(s): Response

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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. No

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

PLOS Global Public Health 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. 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) Meal frequency and its associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia

First of all, I appreciate the work you did but I have the following main questions

� Why you are targeting infants or children aged 6-23 months?

� What is the novelty of your study since many studies done with similar topics in the study area and country?

� In general, the methods part needs major revision?

1. Abstract

The background information ¨ The term “meal frequency” describes the adequacy of complementary feedings among children¨ it would be better if you focused on or included the severity or magnitudes of the problems or the Gap.

Results: is not written clearly, so would you re-write again

Methods: We conducted a community-based cross-sectional study among 981 mothers with

index children aged 6-23 months. It would be better if changed to A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 981 mothers with index children aged 6-23 months

Conclusion and recommendation: would you write it based on your findings

2. Introduction: Para 2 and 3 are redundant as they have no direct relevance to the current objectives of the study, and are not required for the audience of journals dealing with PLOS Global Public Health. The introduction section is too short and not clear, and it still is unable to appropriately justify neither the need for this study nor the target age group.

3. Methods

The recruitment period for this study was from 22/1/2018 to 30/2/2018. How is it possible to collect such much data within specified data, n=981? I don’t think so? would you check it again?

Sample size determination

� Why 4% margin of error, a nonresponse rate 10%. Why not 5% and NRR=5%?

� Initially, out of the seventeen kebeles in the Tahtay Maichew district, eight kebeles were chosen using the lottery method. How did you select eight of them?

� Did you any sampling techniques or randomization? if how?

� What is your sampling frame?

� What does mean Kebelle ?

� Did you use PPS? how?

� using a systematic random sampling technique versus a sampling frame? So how did you see those two things?

� Your sampling procedure is not clear, please write it clearly.

Would you include operational definitions like?

� PCA?

� Knowledge good or poor?

� Maternal Social capital good or poor?

� Received minimum meal frequency?

� Etc

What was your outcome variables?

In data management and analysis

� Did you check the normality distribution of your data? how?

� Write what you did for categorical and continuous variables.

For example

The mean age [±SD] of the children was 13.7 ±4.59 months.

The mean age [±SD] of the mothers was 29.74 ±6.66 years.

The mean family size [±SD] was 4.75 ±1.7 persons.

Not nothing mentioned in the methods part

4. Results

Table 1: Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics of participants

� Do cross tab for Tables 1 and 2

� Mothers age in years change it to age of mother (yrs)

� Age of index child in months change it to Age of child (mo)

� Family size in persons change it to family size

� Etc , do the other like this

� Do you think the Husband's educational status is important?

� Did you assess GMP?

In the bivariate analysis

According to the bivariable logistic regression analysis, eight variables, namely, wealth index,

ANC follow-up, place of delivery, growth monitoring follow-up, health extension worker home visit, mother’s knowledge of child feeding, media exposure, and mother’s social capital in the last 12 months, were significantly associated with meal frequency at 95% CL (p ≤ 0.1).

� why the reason you only select those variables p≤0.1, and why not p≤0.25?

5. Discussion

� The discussion needs to be focused towards the main objectives. The functional significance of the present results may be elaborated.

� Please would include the strengths and limitations of the study

� What is the clinical implication of your findings?

6. Conclusion

� Would you rewrite it based on your findings?

7. References

References need to be written in the style recommended by the journal PLOS Global Public Health.

For example, if you take reference numbers 1 and 2 are written wrongly

1. Organization, W.H., Infant and young child feeding: model chapter for textbooks for medical

students and allied health professionals. 2009: World Health Organization. Available from: include it

2. Organization, W.H., Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices: part 1:

definitions: conclusions of a consensus meeting held 6-8 November 2007 in Washington DC, USA. 2008: World Health Organization . Available from:include it

etc

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

-->2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria ? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.-->

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

-->4. 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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

PLOS Global Public Health 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

**********

-->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: Meal frequency and its associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia.

The authors have attempted to respond to the concerns; however, it is not fully addressed as requested.

Abstract

Line 14: Replace introduction by background.

Line 19: Indicate the research gap rather than stating ‘little is known about meal frequency...

Specify outcome assessment in the methods

Introduction

Line 71: indicate the research gap clearly.

Methods

There are still methodological flaws.

Lines 90-99: Restate it in paragraph form.

The authors did not specify the threshold for how HH assets were selected for further analysis.

The authors are recommended to redo analysis by taking a threshold, a p value < 0.05, as the authors did not present scientifically convincing argumentative evidence.

The limitations of the report should be fully explained, and overstated conclusions are expected to be revised.

**********

-->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.

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.0003949.r005

Decision Letter 2

Nancy Gnanaselvam

27 Jun 2025

PGPH-D-24-01350R2

Meal frequency and its associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Engdashet,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 11 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,

Nancy Angeline Gnanaselvam

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Additional Editor Comments:

The study has been done meticulously in field but needs major revision in the write up of manuscript

Title: Meal frequency or dietary assessment?

Study participants: Why mothers and not parent?

Elaborate on poverty level, any conflicts in study area

Key words: Select up to 10 key words from MESH

Line no 54-56: If things go wrong during this time we only have little opportunity to correct them later and the consequences may be devastating concerning the health and future of the child - Rewrite in professional English

Introduction: Mention about exclusive breastfeeding and continued breastfeeding rates in the study area

Line no 83: Duration of study mention only year and not date

The weather conditions of the district are semi-highland: Check the necessity of this statement

Line no 89: Populations or study participants?

Add ethical approval statement in methods in the beginning itself

International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes : Adherence to the code in the study area needs to be mentioned in methods or introduction

Elaborate operational definitions and variables description is not required - Please rewrite concisely

The results need more elaboration on Breastfeeding, types of foods consumed- with break up of macro and micronutrients, consumption of junk food, screen time, anthropometric status of children, any illness

Presentation of results in very basic, with less efforts from authors to regroup variables and make the tables in presentable fashion

Tables and presentation of data can be improved by making it concise

Wherever you are comparing meal frequency add a p value and statistic. mention details in legend

What is the MAM and SAM treatment protocol in the study area - are there any food security, feeding programs in the study area

What does the health system in study area do to ensure regular growth monitoring? What are the measures to ensure universal health coverage of malnutrition prevention in the study area?

What are the existing health system interventions to prevent malnutrition in the study area?

Discussion is not written with the public health angle of the problem studied - it needs to be rewritten using the suggestions given by me

You can elaborate on best practices from other resource limited settings in which dietary intake was ensured among under 5 children

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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.0003949.r007

Decision Letter 3

Nancy Gnanaselvam

17 Sep 2025

PGPH-D-24-01350R3

Feeding pattern and associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Engdashet,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 01 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,

Nancy Angeline Gnanaselvam

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

While there was response to the reviewer's comments, Authors have attempted only superficially attempted to address the reviewers' concerns. Substantial revision of the paper has not been undertaken. There was Northern Ethiopian Conflict which could or not have impacted the food security. Public health aspects such as health system, female literacy, age of marriage, spacing, family size etc needs to be focussed. MDD-IYCF as per UNICEF could have been measured but it is not focssed in the paper. Kindly rewrite the manuscript, strengthen introduction, results and discussion and submit. Key words need to be upto 10

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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.]

-->Figure Resubmissions:

-->-->While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.-->-->

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.-->

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003949.r009

Decision Letter 4

Nancy Gnanaselvam

27 Nov 2025

PGPH-D-24-01350R4

Feeding pattern and associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Engdashet,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 27 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,

Nancy Angeline Gnanaselvam

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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):

Abstract: Grammatical errors need to be corrected. Mention study site

Key words: Add MESH terms such as Malnutrition, stunting etc

Study setting section needs to be added in methods

Discussion can be strengthened by adding details about food security of the region

Conflict of interest and author contributions section need to be mentioned

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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.]

--> -->-->Figure Resubmissions:

-->-->While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.-->-->

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.-->

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003949.r011

Decision Letter 5

Nancy Gnanaselvam

8 Jan 2026

Feeding pattern and associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia

PGPH-D-24-01350R5

Dear Mr. Engdashet,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Feeding pattern and associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in the Tahtay Maichew district, northern Ethiopia' 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,

Nancy Angeline Gnanaselvam

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Dataset. Dataset used for the analysis. It contains all variables included in the study, and the data are anonymized.

    (DTA)

    pgph.0003949.s001.dta (387KB, dta)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pgph.0003949.s003.docx (30.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pgph.0003949.s004.docx (21.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_3.docx

    pgph.0003949.s005.docx (24.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_4.docx

    pgph.0003949.s006.docx (20.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_5.docx

    pgph.0003949.s007.docx (22.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The datasets used during the current study are uploaded as Supporting information.


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

    RESOURCES