Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Sep 24;15(9):e0239255. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239255

Priorities for intervention of childhood stunting in northeastern Ethiopia: A matched case-control study

Sisay Eshete Tadesse 1,#, Tefera Chane Mekonnen 1,#, Metadel Adane 2,*,#
Editor: Tamar Ringel-Kulka3
PMCID: PMC7514084  PMID: 32970709

Abstract

Background

Stunting is a worldwide public health problem caused by factors that vary across regions, including in Ethiopia. Limited evidence to prevent stunting makes it difficult to design and prioritize appropriate interventions. Therefore, this study investigated the intervention priorities for the prevention of stunting among children 6–59 months old in Kemissie City Administration, northeastern Ethiopia.

Methods

A community-based individual matched case-control study was conducted from January to April 2017 including 107 cases and 214 controls. Controls were selected and matched with cases using the matching variable of child’s age. Data were collected by open data kit (ODK) software using a structured questionnaire. Data were analyzed using STATA version 13.0 and WHO (World Health Organization) Anthro 2005. A conditional logistic regression model was used for data analysis. From multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis, determinants of stunting were identified. A statistically significant level was declared by a conditional adjusted odds ratio (cAOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value of less than 0.05.

Main findings

The wealth index 52 (48.6%) of the cases and 108 (50.5%) controls were categorized as poor. The mean height-for-age z-score (HAZ) for the cases and controls was -2.79±.67 and -0.55±.92, respectively. One-sixth (16.8%) of the cases and 29 (13.6%) of the controls were given prelacteal feeding. A majority 82 (86.9%) of the cases and 137 (69.1%) of the controls had undernourished mothers/care-givers. Slightly less than one-third 35 (32.7%) of cases and one-fourth 53 (24.8%) of controls were affected by repeated episodes of diarrhea. Mother’s body mass index (BMI) (conditional adjusted odds ratio [cAOR]) = 2.64; 95% CI: 1.28, 5.43), giving food priority to father (cAOR = 2.42; 95% CI: 1.23, 4.75), lack of exclusive breastfeeding for at least 6 months (cAOR = 2.44; 95% CI: 1.15, 5.17), no intake of meat by child (cAOR = 2.35; 95% CI: 1.21, 4.58) and child having repeated diarrheal episodes (cAOR = 2.0: 95% CI: 1.07, 3.86) were factors associated with childhood stunting.

Conclusion

Maternal nutritional status, food priority, duration of exclusive breastfeeding, no intake of meat and repeated episodes of diarrhea were the main determinants of stunting among children aged 6–59 months. Therefore, intervention measures to avert childhood stunting should include strengthening action on provision of essential nutrition, providing counseling to parents on giving food priority to children, promotion of optimal duration of breastfeeding and preventing diarrheal disease among children 6–59 months old.

Introduction

Stunting is a worldwide public health problem affecting 155 million children under the age of five years. Africa is the only region with an increased absolute number of stunted children [1]. In a cumulative process, stunting can begin in the uterus and continue to about three years after birth. Over one-third of all deaths of those under age five are directly or indirectly associated with under-nutrition [2]. It has lifelong consequences, including delayed start of school, impaired cognitive and physical development, lower economic productivity, intergenerational effects, poorer reproductive performance and increased susceptibility to metabolic and cardiovascular diseases [24]. Stunting before the age of two years predicts poor cognitive and educational outcomes in later childhood and adolescence; its effect is irreversible after the age of two years [5, 6].

Stunting is associated with a number of long-term, interrelated factors, such as chronic insufficient protein and energy intake by children’s, intrauterine growth retardation, lack of exclusive breastfeeding, inappropriate complementary feeding practices, frequent infection and food insecurity [710]. It is also associated with water, sanitation and hygiene, socio-demographic and economic factors [4].

Despite the efforts made by the government and stakeholders, stunting is still a serious public health problem affecting 38% of Ethiopian children under five. The annual target for reducing the occurrence of stunting has not been met. Poor progress towards the reduction of stunting might be due to lack of evidence that identifies key local determinants of stunting [11]. Previous studies from Ethiopia have revealed that determinants of stunting vary across regions and administrative towns in Ethiopia [1215]. Studies done in this country have been mainly cross-sectional and include limited analytical studies [16], making them weak in generating evidence of the determinants of stunting [14, 15, 17, 18].

In the geographical area of this study, evidence to identify determinants of stunting among 6–59 months old children is limited or non-existent, which makes it difficult to design and prioritize appropriate interventions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to fill that gap by identifying the determinants of stunting using matched case-control study among children 6–59 months old in Kemissie City Administration, northeastern Ethiopia. This will help to design appropriate intervention measures for childhood stunting.

Methods and materials

Study area, design, period and study population

A community-based individual matched case-control study design was employed among children 6 to 59 months old from January to April 2017 in Kemissie City Administration, Oromia Special Zone, northeastern Ethiopia. Kemissie is located 325 km from Ethiopia’s capital city Addis Ababa and has three urban and four rural kebeles (the smallest administrative units in Ethiopia). Based on reports of the Kemissie City Administration, the total population was 38,562 in 2017, of whom 18,895 (49.0%) were male and 19,667 (51.0%) were female. Furthermore, in 2015/16, there were 4,974 children between ages six and fifty-nine months, out these, 2,444 (49.1%) were male and 2,533 (50.9%) were female.

Eligibility criteria

All children 6 to 59 months old with their mothers/care-givers who had been living in the selected kebeles for at least 6 months were included in the study. Children with visible congenital deformity and/or severe illness, and/or mothers/care-givers who were unable to communicate due to illness were excluded from the study.

Sample size determination and sampling technique

The sample size was determined by a standard formula of matched case-control study [19] by considering the following assumptions: proportion of exclusive breast-feeding for a duration of less than or greater than six months among controls (p) is 29.66% [20], 95% CI (confidence interval) (Zα/2 = 1.96), 80% power (Zβ = 0.84), odds ratio = 2,control to case ratio = 2, and non-response rate 10%. Therefore, the total number of study participants was 321; of these, 107 were cases and 214 were controls.

Among seven kebeles of the administrative city, three kebeles were randomly selected to be included in the study. A preliminary survey was conducted in the selected kebeles to identify cases and establish a sampling frame. The number of study participants was assigned for each selected kebele proportional to its population size.

Selection of cases

After establishing the sampling frame, cases were identified and selected during house-to-house transect walks in each selected kebele using a simple random sampling technique until the sample size was achieved.

Selection of controls

Controls were selected after the matching criterion of age was fulfilled according to other inclusion and exclusion criteria. Individual matching was carried out as one case followed by two controls based on three age categories from the same neighborhood found through transect walks, as explained above. Controls were matched to cases according to age: ±2 months for 6–11 months child, ±3 months for toddlers (12–23 months) and ±6 months for children (24–59) months [21]. The procedure ceased when the desired sample size was reached.

Operational definition

Cases

Children aged 6 to 59 months whose length/height-for-age z-score was below -2SD (standard deviation) from the median height of the WHO (World Health Organization) reference population [22].

Controls

Children aged 6 to 59 months whose length/height-for-age z-score was -2SD and above from the median height of the WHO reference population [22].

Data collection tools

Data were collected by open data kit software (ODK) through face-to-face interviews of mothers/care-givers using a structured questionnaire and observation checklist adapted from previous relevant literature [23, 24]. The collected data were sent to Kobo tool box common server, which was created before the start of data collection. Six BSc nurses as data collectors and one public health officer as a supervisor were recruited for data collection.

The questionnaire and observational checklist consisted of selected socioeconomic and demographic factors, health-care factors, child feeding practices and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) related factors. Anthropometric measurements such as length/height of a child and height and weight of a mother were taken. For children 6–24 months old length was measured in a recumbent position to the nearest 0.1 cm using a standard lying board with a detachable sliding foot piece, while for children 25–59 months old and mothers, height was measured in a standing position to the nearest 0.1 cm using a standard vertical board with a detachable sliding head piece. Weight was measured to the nearest 0.1kg using the SECA Germany weight measurement scale.

Dietary Diversity Score (DDS) was calculated from single 24-hour dietary recall data. All the foods and liquids consumed the day before the study were categorized into seven food groups. Consumption of a food item from one of the groups was assigned a score of 1 and no consumption from that group was given a score of 0. Accordingly, a DDS of 7 points was computed by adding the values of all the groups. Then it was categorized as ≤4 and >4 [25].

Data quality control

The data quality was assured through questionnaire translation to the local languages (Amharic) and back to English, conducting a pre-test of 5% of the sample size outside of the study area, selecting data collectors and supervisors based on their interest and experience in data collection, provision of two days training on the overall data collection process, checking and correcting of incomplete questionnaires by a supervisor on a daily basis and controlling of the overall data collection process by principal investigators. Additionally, two anthropometric measurements were taken by two data collectors and the average was taken. Calibration of the height and weight measurement scale was done at every five measurements. Outliers of the Anthropometric data were checked using the WHO Anthro 2005 software. The software detects an outlier if the z-score value is either <-5 or >5. The presence of outliers was checked by flag in WHO Anthro 2005 software. The result indicates that there was no outlier.

Data management and analysis

Data were downloaded from the cloud server in csv. file extension format and exported to STATA version 13.0 for analysis. Data were cleaned by sorting and tabulating simple frequency tables. After dichotomizing the outcome variable into cases (1) and controls (0), descriptive statistics were computed and the result was reported using frequencies and percentages.

Wealth index was performed using principal component analysis (PCA). After checking the assumptions of PCA, rural and urban household asset from Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey [26] were used to conduct the variables which were included in the PCA analysis. Radio, television, electric mitad (cooking grill), fridge, bed, roof made from corrugated iron sheet, walls made from cement, mobile, camel, ox, cow, goat, sheep, horse, bajaj, taxi, chair, table, sofa, lamp and shoes were variables included in the analysis. The summary components of the analysis were television, fridge, bed, roof made from corrugated iron sheet and wall made from cement. The total variance explained by the final component was 63.82%. Then, wealth index was computed by calculating the mean and then the mean was divided in to three in order to categorize the study population as poor, medium and rich.

Anthropometric data were analyzed using the WHO Anthro 2005 software. The modeling strategy was based on the bi-variable (conditional crude odds ratio [cCOR]) and multi-variable (conditional adjusted odds ratio [cAOR]) conditional logistic regression analysis at 95% CI. From the bi-variable conditional logistic regression analysis, variables with p<0.25 were fitted into multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis in order to identify the determinants of stunting among children aged 6–59 months. Finally, variables with p-value<0.05 and adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI in the multivariable analysis were taken as statistically significant.

Ethical considerations

The proposal to conduct the research was approved by the ethical review board of the College of Medicine and Health Sciences of Wollo University, and an ethical approval letter was obtained. A support letter was obtained from Kemissie City Administration health office for the selected kebeles in order to obtain approval to conduct the study. After the purpose and objective of the study and the voluntary nature of participation was explained to the mothers/care-givers of participating children, written informed assent and consent were obtained from the mothers/caregivers of both cases and controls, assent on behalf of the participating children aged 6–59 months, and consent for the mothers/caregivers themselves. All the information was kept confidential, and no individual identifiers were used.

Results

Socio demographic and economic characteristics

Three hundred twenty-one (321) mothers/care-givers with children 6–59 months old, made up of 107 cases and 214 controls, were recruited in this study. The mean age of the cases and controls was 29.97±13.70 and 30.36±14.74 months, respectively. Nearly one-third 67 (62.6%) of the cases and 103 (48.1%) of the controls were male. The mean height-for-age z-score (HAZ) for the cases and controls was -2.79±.67 and -0.55±.92, respectively. Based on the result of principal component analysis of wealth index 52 (48.6%) of the cases and 108 (50.5%) the controls were categorized as lowest category or poor (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of children aged 6–59 months in Kemissie City Administration, northeastern Ethiopia, January to April 2017.

Variables Category Cases (N = 107) Controls (N = 214)
n (%) n (%)
Sex of child Male 67 (62.6) 103 (48.1)
Female 40 (37.4) 111 (51.9)
Marital status of mothers/care-givers Married 104 (97.2) 198 (92.5)
Other* 3 (2.8) 16 (7.5)
Age of mothers/care-giver (years) 20–24 45 (42.1) 52 (24.3)
25–29 32 (29.9) 83 (38.8)
30–34 16 (14.9) 49 (22.9)
35+ 14 (13.1) 30 (14.0)
Educational status of mothers/care-givers Illiterate 65 (60.8) 110 (51.4)
Elementary 36 (33.6) 76 (35.5)
High school and above 6 (5.6) 28 (13.1)
Occupation of mothers/care-givers Housewife 101 (94.3) 192 (89.7)
Other 6 (5.7) 19 (10.3)
Wealth index Poor 52 (48.6) 108 (50.5)
Medium 21 (19.6) 46 (21.5)
Rich 34 (31.8) 60 (28.0)
Household size (persons) ≤3 23 (30.8) 48 (22.4)
4–5 45 (42.1) 82 (38.3)
≥6 29 (27.1) 84 (39.3)

*widowed and divorced.

Child feeding practices and maternal nutritional status

A majority 91 (85.0%) of the cases and 197 (92.0%) of the controls were breastfed. Slightly less than two-thirds 68 (63.6%) of the cases and 178 (83.2%) of the controls were fed breast milk within one hour after birth. With respect to prelacteal feeding practices, 18 (16.8%) of the cases and 29 (13.6%) of the controls were given prelacteal feeding. Nearly one-fourth 26 (24.3%) of the cases and 23 (10.7%) controls were not breastfed exclusively for the first six months of life.

Forty-five (42.1%) of the cases and 65 (30.4%) of the controls were breastfed less than 8 times per day and more than half 60 (56.0%) of the cases and 122 (57.0%) of the controls were started complementary feeding at six months of age. The number of mothers/care-givers with a BMI of greater than or equal to 18.5 for cases were 14 (13.1%) and for controls 64 (29.9%). With respect to food priority, 39 (36.5%) of the cases and 42 (19.6%) of the controls gave priority to the fathers. A majority 82 (86.9%) of the cases and 137 (69.1%) of the controls had undernourished mothers/care-givers (Table 2).

Table 2. Practices for feeding children 6–59 months old in Kemissie City Administration, northeastern Ethiopia, January to April 2017.

Variables Category Cases (N = 107) Controls (N = 214)
n (%) n (%)
Initiation of breastfeeding after birth Within 1 hour 68 (63.6) 178 (83.2)
1–3 hours 13 (12.1) 22 (10.3)
>3 hours 26 (24.3) 14 (6.5)
Prelacteal feeding Yes 18 (16.8) 29 (13.6)
No 89 (83.2) 185 (86.4)
Duration of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) Six months 81 (75.7) 191 (89.3)
< or > 6 months 26 (24.3) 23 (10.7)
Frequency of breastfeeding (BF) Suboptimal 45 (42.1) 65 (30.4)
Optimal 62 (57.9) 149 (69.6)
Initiation of complementary feeding Timely 60 (56.0) 122 (57.0)
Early/late 47 (44.0) 92 (43.0)
Consumption of diary and dairy products Daily 88 (82.2) 190 (88.8)
1–2 times/week 13 (12.2) 10 (4.7)
Not consumed 6 (5.6) 14 (6.5)
Consumption of eggs 1–2 times/week 64 (59.8) 152 (71.0)
Once/two weeks 13 (6.2) 26 (12.2)
Not consumed 30 (28.0) 36 (16.8)
Consumption of Vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables Every other day 13 (12.1) 42 (19.6)
1–2 times/week 26 (24.3) 63 (29.4)
Once/two weeks 8 (7.5) 22 (10.3)
Not consumed 60 (56.1) 87 (40.7)
Consumption of meat Daily 23 (21.4) 72 (33.7)
1–2 times/week 16 (15.0) 39 (18.2)
Not consumed 68 (63.6) 103 (48.1)
Dietary diversity score (DDS) ≤4 94 (87.9) 169 (79.0)
>4 13 (12.1) 45 (21.0)
Food priority Father 39 (36.5) 42 (19.6)
Child 31 (28.9) 92 (43.0)
All equal 37 (34.6) 80 (37.4)
BMI of mothers/care-givers ≥18.5 14 (13.1) 64 (29.9)
< 18.5 82 (86.9) 137 (69.1)

Health-care related factors

One-third 36 (33.6%) of the cases and 44 (20.5%) of the controls were born at home. Only 34 (31.8%) of the cases’ and 91 (42.5%) of the controls’ mothers/care-givers obtained post-natal care, while the rest did not get postnatal care. Slightly less than one-third 35 (32.7%) of cases and one-fourth 53 (24.8%) of controls were affected by repeated episodes of diarrhea (Table 3).

Table 3. Healthcare-related factors among children 6–59 months old in Kemissie City Administration, northeastern Ethiopia, January to April 2017.

Variables Category Cases (N = 107) Controls (N = 214)
n (%) n (%)
Number of antenatal visits <2 times 14 (13.1) 20 (9.4)
2–4 times 91 (85.0) 182 (85.0)
>4 times 2 (1.9) 12 (5.6)
Place of birth Home 36 (33.6) 44 (20.5)
Health facility 71 (66.4) 170 (79.5)
Birth weight of child <2.5 kg 41 (38.3) 62 (28.9)
2.5–4 kg 55 (51.4) 136 (63.6)
>4 kg 10 (9.3) 16 (7.5)
Postnatal care (PNC) Yes 34 (31.8) 91 (42.5)
No 73 (68.2) 123 (57.5)
Type of illness within the previous two weeks Not ill 54 (50.5) 134 (62.6)
Diarrhea 35 (32.7) 53 (24.8)
Respiratory infection 18 (16.8) 27 (12.6)
Immunization Yes 103 (96.3) 108 (97.2)
No 4 (3.7) 6 (2.8)

Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) related factors

Almost all 105 (98.1%) of case households and 201 (98.1%) of control households had a latrine. Mothers/care-givers practiced hand washing at critical times in 100 (93.5%) of case households and 185 (86.4%) of control households. Most of the cases 91 (85.1%) and 180 (84.1%) of the controls used tap/public water for drinking purposes. In forty-seven (43.9%) of the case and 65 (30.3%) of the control households, solid waste was disposed of in the open fields. The rest of the households managed solid waste through burying, burning or collection by municipalities.

Determinants of stunting from multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis

The multivariable conditional logistic regression model revealed that children who were born to mothers of low BMI were almost 2.6 times more likely to become stunted as compared to those children who were born to mothers of normal BMI (cAOR = 2.64; 95% CI: 1.28, 5.43). Those children who were not exclusively breastfed up to six months of age were 2.4 times as likely to be stunted as those who were exclusively breastfed until six months of age (cAOR = 2.44; 95% CI: 1.15, 5.17) (Table 4).

Table 4. Determinants of stunting among children 6–59 months old in Kemissie City Administration, Oromia special zone, northeastern Ethiopia, January to April 2017.

Stunting
Variables Category Cases Controls cCOR (95% CI) cAOR (95% CI)
(N = 107) (N = 214)
n (%) n (%)
BMI of mothers/care-givers < 18.5 82 (86.9) 137 (69.1) 2.57 (1.38, 4.81) 2.64 (1.28, 5.43)
≥18.5 14 (13.1) 64 (29.9) 1 1
Duration of EBF < or > 6 months 26 (24.3) 23 (10.7) 2.73 (1.44, 5.16) 2.44 (1.15, 5.17)
6 months 81 (75.7) 191 (89.3) 1 1
Education status of mothers/care-givers Illiterate 65 (60.8) 110 (51.4) 2.76 (1.08, 7.01) 2.36 (0.81, 6.88)
Elementary 36 (33.6) 76 (35.5) 2.21 (0.81, 5.81) 2.18 (0.73, 5.75)
High school and above 6 (5.6) 28 (13.1) 1 1
Meat 1–2 times/week 16 (14.9) 39 (18.2) 1.25 (0.60, 2.58) 1.57 (.62, 4.00)
None 68 (63.6) 103 (48.2) 1.96 (1.14, 3.37) 2.35 (1.21, 4.58)
Daily 23 (21.5) 72 (33.6) 1 1
Type of illness Respiratory infection 19 (17.8) 27 (12.6) 1.76 (0.89, 3.33) 2.05 (0.94, 4.47)
Diarrhea 34 (31.8) 53 (24.8) 1.61 (0.93, 2.78) 2.00 (1.07, 3.86)
Not ill 54 (50.5) 134 (62.6) 1 1
Food priority Father 39 (36.5) 42 (19.6) 2.96 (1.59, 5.54) 2.42 (1.23, 4.75)
Children 31 (28.9) 92 (43.0) 1 1
All equal 37 (34.6) 80 (37.4) 1.31 (0.73, 2.34) 1.29 (0.65, 2.55)
Wealth Index Poor 52 (48.6) 108 (50.5) 0.85 (0.49, 1.45)
Medium 21 (19.6) 46 (21.5) 0.81 (0.41, 1.57)
Rich 34 (31.8) 60 (28.0) 1
Water source Protected 102 (95.3) 196 (91.6) 0.42 (0.14, 1.28) 0.36 (0.11, 1.18)
Unprotected 5 (4.7) 18 (8.4) 1 1

1Reference category; cCOR, conditional crude odds ratio; cAOR, conditional adjusted odds ratio; EBF, exclusive breast feeding; BMI, body mass index.

The odds of being stunted among children who had repeated episodes of diarrhea were 2 times higher than their counterparts who did not had repeated episodes of diarrhea (cAOR = 2.0: 95% CI: 1.07, 3.86). The odds of being stunted among children who did not get meat per two weeks were almost 2.4 times higher than among those who ate meat daily (cAOR = 2.35; 95% CI: 1.21, 4.58). Children from households where food priority was given to fathers were 2.4 times as likely to be stunted as those where food priority was given to the children (cAOR = 2.42; 95% CI: 1.23, 4.75) (Table 4).

Discussion

Identifying factors associated with stunting is a first step to design appropriate intervention measures to tackle the problem and its consequences in Kemissie City Administration in particular and in Ethiopia as a whole. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the determinants of stunting among children using individual matched case-control study design. Overall, nutritional status of mother/care-givers, household food priority, repeated episodes of diarrhea, meat consumption and postnatal care were factors significantly associated with stunting among children 6–59 months old.

Among the identified factors of stunting, maternal nutritional status (chronic energy deficiency) appeared to be negatively associated with stunting among children 6–59 months old. Those children who were born to mothers of low BMI were almost 2.6 times more likely to become stunted as compared to those children who were born to mothers of normal BMI. This finding is in line with previous studies, which stated that poor nutritional status of mothers before conception and during pregnancy is associated with giving birth to stunted children [20, 27]. This might be because inadequate nutrition during pregnancy is associated with insufficient nutrient transfer to the fetus, which accounts for a large proportion of growth retardation in the fetal environment. This would result in a decreased birth weight and growth impairment of the child in later life.

Those children who were not exclusively breastfed up to six months of age were 2.4 times as likely to be stunted as those children who exclusively breastfed until six months of age. Other literature revealed a similar significantly higher risk of being stunted among children who were not exclusively breastfed [16, 2830]. This may be because the short period of breastfeeding is insufficient to provide adequate dietary intake of energy, protein and micronutrients for optimal mental and physical growth [31]. This condition may lead to faltering growth during the childhood period. Additionally, it may also be associated with poor hygienic conditions, which can cause malnutrition through infection. Extending exclusive breastfeeding beyond six months of age alone did not provide adequate nutrients for the fast-growing babies. This finding supports a study that stated that stunting mostly occurs in the first 6–18 months of life [32].

The odds of being stunted among children who had repeated episodes of diarrhea were approximately twice as high as those who did not. This finding is consistent with studies done in other parts of the world [18, 30, 33, 34]. This could be due to the effect of diarrheal infection on appetite, nutrient absorption, increment of metabolic requirements and increasing nutrient loss [2]. It might also be due to the direct relationship between diarrhea and malnutrition; that is, diarrhea can lead to malnutrition and malnutrition can predispose for diarrhea. Some studies indicated that, for urban under-five-year-old children, diarrhea was caused by poor WASH status [3537], which in turn might also have caused these children’s malnutrition. According to the UNICEF conceptual framework, diarrhea is an immediate cause of malnutrition.

An important association was also observed between intake of meat and the occurrence of stunting. The odds of being stunted among children who did not get meat per two weeks were almost 2.4 times as high as among those children who ate meat on a daily basis. Other similar studies revealed that children’s intake of protein from animal sources was associated with reduced odds of being stunted [34, 38]. This could be because foods of animal origin are good sources of easily digestible protein that has higher conversion and absorption rates by the body compared to plant-based protein. Thus, consistent intake of protein from animal sources is essential for optimal physical growth and a healthy future life. This finding is also supported by a study conducted on diets in Africa that stated that having staple foods with low protein content such as cassava and rice could be a risk factor for poor childhood development [39].

Another main finding of the current study is that children of households where food priority was given to fathers were 2.4 times as likely to be stunted compared to those where food priority was given to the children. This finding is similar to that of a study done in the Medebay Zana District, Tigray, Ethiopia [14]. This could be due to a family’s inability to meet the increasing nutritional needs of a growing baby as a result of inadequate access to food. Consumption of foods that do not meet the child’s nutrient needs in terms of the amount and composition are a direct cause of stunting [40].

Since the study design was retrospective in nature, it may have been affected by recall bias; and the usual intake of nutrients may also be affected by seasonal variation. Generalization of the findings to the national level is also impossible due to the small setting of this study.

Conclusion

This study revealed that chronic energy deficiency of mothers/care-givers (BMI<18.5 kg/m2), giving food priority to father, inappropriate duration of breast-feeding practices, inadequate consumption of meat and repeated episodes of diarrhea were factors associated with stunting. Therefore, to avert stunting among children aged 6–59 months, intervention priorities should include strengthening the implementation of essential nutrition action, such as improving maternal nutritional status during pregnancy, increasing compliance of iron and folic acid intake and promoting optimal child feeding practices within the first 1,000 days of life). Additionally, designing intervention measures should focus on counseling of family members to provide food priority for their children and to prevent diarrheal disease among children 6–59 months old.

Unless we intervene on stunting, the country will be unable to achieve the UN sustainable development goals by 2030, particularly Goal 3, target 3.2 focused on ending preventable deaths of newborns and reduce under-five child mortality to 25 per 1,000 live births or lower. Due to its adverse effect on the mental development, childhood stunting hinders the overall development of a country. Finally, researchers are recommended to conduct further research on stunting using follow-up studies that consider the seasonal effect.

Supporting information

S1 File. Household survey questionnaire in English version.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Household survey questionnaire in Amharic version.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Kemissie City Administration and health officials in each studied area kebele for the support we received during the data collection. We thank mothers/care-givers of the studied children for their dedication and commitment in providing information during the survey. We also thank data collectors and supervisors for their cooperation during the process of data collection.

Abbreviations

BMI

body mass index

CI

confidence interval

cCOR

conditional crude odds ratio

cAOR

conditional adjusted odds ratio

DDS

dietary diversity score

EBF

exclusive breast feeding

PCA

principal component analysis

WASH

water, sanitation, and hygiene

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

Wollo University funded this research. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decisions to publish, interpretation of the data and preparation of the manuscript for publication.

References

  • 1.Angood C, Khara T, Dolan C, Berkley J, Group WTI. Research priorities on the relationship between wasting and stunting. PLoS ONE 2016;11(5):e0153221 10.1371/journal.pone.0153221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Black R, Victora C, Walker S, Bhutta Z, Christian P, De Onis M, et al. Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet. 2013;382(9890):427–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Garcia V. Children malnutrition and horizontal inequalities in sub-Saharan Africa: A focus on contrasting domestic trajectories. Working paper. United Nations Development Programme, Regional Bureau for Africa. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Prendergast A, Humphrey J. The stunting syndrome in developing countries. Paediatr Int Child H. 2014;34(4):250–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Clifton J, Menard S, Queiroz de SA, Chanje D, Amine M, Steinmeyer M, et al. Country level evaluation: Republic of Malawi. Final report. Volume 2: Annexes. 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Alderman HH, Elder LK, Goyal A, Herforth AW, Hoberg YT, Marini A, et al. Improving nutrition through multisectoral approaches. Working paper. 2013;1. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Özaltin E, Hill K, Subramanian S. Association of maternal stature with offspring mortality, underweight, and stunting in low-to middle-income countries. JAMA. 2010;303(15):1507–16 10.1001/jama.2010.450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Daniels M, Adair L. Growth in young Filipino children predicts schooling trajectories through high school Nutr J. 2004;134(6):1439–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hoddinott J, Maluccio J, Behrman J, Flores R, Martorell R. Effect of a nutrition intervention during early childhood on economic productivity in Guatemalan adults. The Lancet. 2008;371(9610):411–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gomm W, Von HK, Thomé F, Broich K, Maier W, Anne F, et al. Association of proton pump inhibitors with risk of dementia: A pharmacoepidemiological claims data analysis. JAMA Neurol 2016; 73(4):410–6. 10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.4791 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Group C. Countdown to 2015 for maternal, newborn, and child survival: The 2008 report on tracking coverage of interventions. The Lancet. 2008;371(9620):1247–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Headey D. An analysis of trends and determinants of child undernutrition in Ethiopia, 2000–2011. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Working paper 70. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Teshome B, Kogi-Makau W, Getahun Z, Taye G. Magnitude and determinants of stunting in children underfive years of age in food surplus region of Ethiopia: The case of West Gojam Zone. Ethiop J Health Dev. 2009;23(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Alemayehu M, Tinsae F, Haileslassie K, Seid O, Gebregziabher G. Undernutrition status and associated factors in under-5 children, in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Nutrition 2015;31(7–8):964–70. 10.1016/j.nut.2015.01.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Asfaw M, Wondaferash M, Taha M, Dube L. Prevalence of undernutrition and associated factors among children aged between six to fifty nine months in Bule Hora district, South Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(41). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fikadu T, Assegid S, Dube L. Factors associated with stunting among children of age 24 to 59 months in Meskan district, Gurage Zone, South Ethiopia: A case-control study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(800). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Anteneh A, Kumie A. Assessment of the impact of latrine utilization on diarrhoeal diseases in the rural community of Hulet Ejju Enessie Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara Region. Ethiop J Health Dev. 2010;24(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bantamen G, Belaynew W, Dube J. Assessment of factors associated with malnutrition among under five years age children at Machakel Woreda, Northwest Ethiopia: A case control study J Nutr Food Sci. 2014;14(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Schlesselman J, Stolley P. Case-control studies: Design, conduct, analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1982:144–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dekker L, Mora-Plazas M, Marín C, Baylin A, Villamor E. Stunting associated with poor socioeconomic and maternal nutrition status and respiratory morbidity in Colombian school children. Food Nutr Bull. 2010;31(2):242–50. 10.1177/156482651003100207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Breurec S, Vanel N, Bata P, Chartier L, Farra A, Favennec L, et al. Etiology and epidemiology of diarrhea in hospitalized children from low income country: A matched case -control study in Central African Republic. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2016;10(1):e0004283 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.De Onis M, Onyango A, Borghi E, Siyam A, Nishida C, Siekmann J. The new WHO child growth standards. Paediatria Croatica. 2008;52(suppl 1):13–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Requejo J, Bryce J, Barros A, Berman P, Bhutta Z, et al. Countdown to 2015 and beyond: Fulfilling the health agenda for women and children. The Lancet 2015;385(466–476). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.De Onis M, Onyango A, Borghi E, Siyam A, Blössner M, et al. Worldwide implementation of the WHO child growth standards. Public Health Nut. 2012;15:1603–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kennedy G, Berardo A, Papavero C, Horjus P, Ballard T, et al. Proxy measures of household food consumption for food security assessment and surveillance: Comparison of the household dietary diversity and food consumption scores. Public Health Nut. 2010;13(12). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.CSA, ICF-International. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Calverton, Maryland, USA: Central Statistical Agency [Ethiopia] and ORC Macro; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chirande L, Charwe D, Mbwana H, Victor R, Kimboka S, et al. Determinants of stunting and severe stunting among under-fives in Tanzania: Evidence from the 2010 cross-sectional household survey. BMC Pediatr. 2015;15(165). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Faldetta K, Pujalte G. The relationship between exclusive breastfeeding duration and growth in San Pablo, Ecuador. J Glob Health Perspect. 2012;1:1–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kamal S. Socio-economic determinants of severe and moderate stunting among under-five children of rural Bangladesh. Malaysian J Nut. 2011;17(1). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Farid-ul-Hasnain S, Sophie R. Prevalence and risk factors for stunting among children under 5 years: A community based study from Jhangara town, Dadu Sindh. J Pak Med Assoc. 2010;160(1):41–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Semba R, Dde Pee S, Sun K, Sari M, Akhter N, Bloem M. Effect of parental formal education on risk of child stunting in Indonesia and Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study. The Lancet. 2008;371(9609):322–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tiwari R, Ausman L, Agho K. Determinants of stunting and severe stunting among under-fives: Evidence from the 2011 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey. BMC Pediatr. 2014;14(239). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Leal. VS, Lira P, Menezes R, Oliveira J, Sequeira L, et al. Factors associated with the decline in stunting among children and adolescents in Pernambuco, Northeastern Brazil. Revista de saude publica. 2012;46:234–41. 10.1590/s0034-89102012005000015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jesmin A, Yamamoto S, Malik A, Haque M. Prevalence and determinants of chronic malnutrition among preschool children: A cross-sectional study in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr. 2011;29(494). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Adane M, Mengistie B, Mulat W, Medhin G, Kloos H. The most important recommended times of hand washing with soap and water in preventing the occurrence of acute diarrhea among children under five years of age in slums of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Community Health. 2018;43(2):400–5. 10.1007/s10900-017-0437-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Adane M, Mengistie B, Medhin G, Kloos H, Mulat W. Piped water supply interruptions and acute diarrhea among under-five children in Addis Ababa slums, Ethiopia: A matched case-control study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(7):e0181516 10.1371/journal.pone.0181516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Adane M, Mengistie B, Kloos H, Medhin G, Mulat W. Sanitation facilities, hygienic conditions, and prevalence of acute diarrhea among under-five children in slums of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Baseline survey of a longitudinal study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0182783 10.1371/journal.pone.0182783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hoppe C, Mølgaard C, Thomsen B, Juul A, Michaelsen K. Protein intake at 9 mo of age is associated with body size but not with body fat in 10-y-old Danish children. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79(3):494–501. 10.1093/ajcn/79.3.494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Stephenson K, Amthor R, Mallowa S, Nungo R, Maziya-Dixon B, et al. Consuming cassava as a staple food places children 2–5 years old at risk for inadequate protein intake, an observational study in Kenya and Nigeria. Nut J. 2010;9(9). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Akhmad A, Yadi S, Farma I. Incidence of stunting and its relationship with food intake, infectious diseases, and economic status in Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. Public Health Indonesia. 2016;2(4):177–84. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tamar Ringel-Kulka

21 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-23907

Determinants of stunting among children aged 6-59 months in Kemissie City Administration, North Eastern Ethiopia: A community-based matched case-control study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Adane (PhD),

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

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 05 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tamar Ringel-Kulka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

1.    Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This research was funded by Wollo University."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:  "No"

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  "No"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Review: Determinants of stunting among children aged 6-59 months in Kemissie City Administration, North Eastern Ethiopia: A community-based matched case-control study

Summary: The authors examine stunting in Ethiopia with a case-control method. Find that maternal nutritional status, child’s food priority, duration of breastfeeding, child meat-eating, and diarrheal episodes are associated with stunting.

Recommendation:

Minor revision

General Notes:

• Overall the study does not provide novel insights into the determinants of stunting, but it provides additional evidence of factors that have been previously shown to be associated with stunting. However, the study appears to be well done.

• Eliminate causal language (e.g. abstract, throughout the discussion and conclusion including line 216 “causes of stunting”)

Specific Notes:

Check for typos throughout

Reviewer #2: This manuscript represents a community based individual matched case control study (with

107 cases and 214 controls) where the authors find associations between being stunted among children under 5 hears of age and maternal BMI, food priority, exclusive breast feeding,

consumption of meat and experiencing diarrhea. While the authors have an appropriate and succinct argument for the importance of this study in the introduction, and they also seemed to have responded to the first round of comments, the manuscript requires further revisions to represent an important and novel addition to the literature on child undernutrition.

1. How were data cleaned? Particularly the anthropometric data collection? How were outliers addressed?

2. Were any children missing observations on any of the variables included.

3. Greater description of the explanatory factors including in this study is needed. Such information should not only be relegated to category labels in the tables. Moreover, justification is needed for the specific variables included.

4. Did the authors think about conducting a logistic regression analysis with stunting as the outcome pooling all the data and (as a sensitivity analysis doing a linear regression analysis with the HAZ score as the outcome)? It might make results clearer.

5. Did the authors adjust for the Kebele in the model? Past research has found that variation in undernutrition outcomes can be attributed to higher geographic administration levels.

6. Some English editing is required in the paragraph about the wealth index.

7. What additional factors were included in the regression analyses based on results presented in Table 4? More details about the analysis and the factors included should be part of the table information. For example, were any economic household characteristics or WASH variables included?

8. The authors need to re-structure their results. Cut-down the amount of descriptive statistics presented. Mention a few and then refer readers to those tables. Then, the rest of the results section should focus on estimates from the adjusted regression analyses as those respond to the research questions set up in this manuscript.

9. No new results should be presented in the discussion section. Anything that the authors feel is of importance currently being mentioned in the discussion only for the first time should instead be placed in the results section instead.

10. The first paragraph of the discussion should summarize the study design and the 2-3 main findings and why important/novel. The following paragraphs can be discussion about how the results are similar to or different from past work.

11. The study requires a limitation paragraph within the discussion section.

12. The first sentence of the conclusion needs to be re-written as the authors cannot truly claim that the factors they identified are indeed the main causes of stunting. In addition, they need to localize their findings. Also, the last sentence is too long. Break it up. Consider mentioning specific areas for further research and what are the policy/public health implications of their findings.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 24;15(9):e0239255. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239255.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Jun 2020

Rebuttal letter

Response to the Journal Requirements Questions

Question #1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: Thank you for this remark. We re-formatted the revised manuscript using the PLoS ONE format guidelines. The whole content of the manuscript including the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and reference are seriously formatted using the guidelines (please see the revised version for each section).

Question #2: Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This research was funded by Wollo University." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "No"

Response: Thank you for this information. We updated accordingly and please see the online information in the editorial manger. Please also see the revised version of the acknowledgment in Lines 321 & 323 from page 15.

Question #3: Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "No". Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist." as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: Thank you and we updated based on your suggested. Please see the cover letter.

Line by line response to reviewers

Reviewer # 1

Reviewer #1: Review: Determinants of stunting among children aged 6-59 months in Kemissie City Administration, North Eastern Ethiopia: A community-based matched case-control study. Summary: The authors examine stunting in Ethiopia with a case-control method. Find that maternal nutritional status, child’s food priority, duration of breastfeeding, child meat-eating, and diarrheal episodes are associated with stunting.

Recommendation:

Minor revision.

General Notes:

.the study appears to be well done.

• Eliminate causal language (e.g. abstract, throughout the discussion and conclusion including line 216 “causes of stunting)

Specific Notes:

Check for typos throughout

Response: Thank you for the positive assessment of our work and your well-articulated feedback is highly appreciated. We revised the manuscript based on your suggestions and any typo error was corrected using a professional language editor.

Reviewers # 2

Question #2: This manuscript represents a community based individual matched case control study (with 107 cases and 214 controls) where the authors find associations between being stunted among children under 5 years of age and maternal BMI, food priority, exclusive breast feeding, consumption of meat and experiencing diarrhea. While the authors have an appropriate and succinct argument for the importance of this study in the introduction, and they also seemed to have responded to the first round of comments, the manuscript requires further revisions to represent an important and novel addition to the literature on child under nutrition.

Response: Thank you for your kind appreciation for our study and all your comments are well taken and corrected accordingly. Please find for each of them here below.

Question #1: How were data cleaned? Particularly the anthropometric data collection? How were outliers addressed?

Response: before starting the data collection, data collectors were trained on how to collect data. Coefficient of variation was calculated for each data collector and they were checked whether they are able to collect anthropometric data or not. Close contact supervision was also done by a supervisor and authors. Then, before running the analysis, data were cleaned by running frequency. Based on the WHO Anthro 2005 software, the outlier is detected if the Z score is <-5 or >5. Within this range it is not considered as an outlier. If the Z score value is out of the aforementioned range it is considered as there is an outlier. Outliers were checked by the presence of flag in WHO Anthro 2005 software. The result indicates that there is no outlier (lines 135 to 145).

Question #2: Were any children missing observations on any of the variables included?

Response: Sorry for the confusion we created, if there is any. But, in this study there is no children with missing observations and unfortunately it is not our concern. Therefore, children with missing variables were not included in the final model.

Questions #3: Greater description of the explanatory factors including in this study is needed. Such information should not only be relegated to category labels in the tables. Moreover, justification is needed for the specific variables included.

Response: Thank you for this pertinent comment and we updated the manuscript accordingly and we explained the explanatory variable in the result section (lines196-179, 200-204).

Question #4. Did the authors think about conducting a logistic regression analysis with stunting as the outcome pooling all the data and (as a sensitivity analysis doing a linear regression analysis with the HAZ score as the outcome)? It might make results clearer.

Response: the aim of this was to assess the determinants of stunting using matched case-control. Therefore, the appropriate analysis for the above aim must be a conditional logistic regression since we used a binary outcome of case or control, we did not use any continues outcome. (Please see the data analysis section from lines 146 to 1169)

Question #5. Did the authors adjust for the Kebele in the model? Past research has found that variation in under nutrition outcomes can be attributed to higher geographic administration levels.

Response: Thank you for your feedback and we agree that geographical variation may have impact on under nutrition outcomes. Since the study was conducted among city administrative under five children, initially we did not consider residence (kebeles) as a factor. Therefore, no adjustment was done kebele. Further research in filling this gap is highly recommended.

Question #6. Some English editing is required in the paragraph about the wealth index.

Response: Thank you for your insight and we updated language editing (please see the revised version lines 152 50 161).

Question #7. The regression analyses based on results presented in Table 4? More details about the analysis and the factors included should be part of the table information. For example, were any economic household characteristics or WASH variables included?

Response: Previously we only reported variables who had statistically significant in the final model. According to the comment given by reviewer 2, we included other variables that were entered in to multi-variable model. Water, educational status of mother and wealth index were significant (See Table 4).

Question #8. The authors need to re-structure their results. Cut-down the amount of descriptive statistics presented. Mention a few and then refer readers to those tables. Then, the rest of the results section should focus on estimates from the adjusted regression analyses as those respond to the research questions set up in this manuscript.

Response: Thank you for this important comments, we tried to update the manuscript. Please see the result section from lines 180 to 232.

Question #9. No new results should be presented in the discussion section. Anything that the authors feel is of importance currently being mentioned in the discussion only for the first time should instead be placed in the results section instead.

Response: We updated the manuscript and please see the first paragraph of the discussion in lines 219 to 232.

Question #10. The first paragraph of the discussion should summarize the study design and the 2-3 main findings and why important/novel. The following paragraphs can be discussion about how the results are similar to or different from past work.

Response: Please see the first paragraph of the discussion in lines 234 to 240.

Question #11: The study requires a limitation paragraph within the discussion section.

Response: We included the limitation paragraph as suggested (See lines 292 to 294)

Question #12. The first sentence of the conclusion needs to be re-written as the authors cannot truly claim that the factors they identified are indeed the main causes of stunting. In addition, they need to localize their findings. Also, the last sentence is too long. Break it up. Consider mentioning specific areas for further research and what are the policy/public health implications of their findings.

Response: Thank you for this key comment. Please see the updated version of the conclusion in lines 308 to 311.

We would like to thank the reviewers and editors for evaluating our manuscript. We have tried to address all the concerns in a proper way and believe that our paper has improved considerably. We would be happy to make further corrections if necessary and look forward to hearing from you all soon.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Round 3- Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Tamar Ringel-Kulka

3 Sep 2020

Determinants of stunting among children aged 6-59 months in Kemissie City Administration, North Eastern Ethiopia: A matched case-control study

PONE-D-19-23907R1

Dear Dr. Adane (PhD),

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tamar Ringel-Kulka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Tamar Ringel-Kulka

16 Sep 2020

PONE-D-19-23907R1

Priorities for intervention of childhood stunting in northeastern Ethiopia:                                                              A matched case-control study

Dear Dr. Adane (PhD):

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

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Tamar Ringel-Kulka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Household survey questionnaire in English version.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Household survey questionnaire in Amharic version.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Round 2-Rebuttal letter (Response to reviewers.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Round 3- Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES