Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 14;16(1):e0244574. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244574

Spatial distribution and determinants of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over time in Ethiopia: A spatial and multivariate decomposition analysis

Achamyeleh Birhanu Teshale 1,*, Misganaw Gebrie Worku 2, Getayeneh Antehunegn Tesema 1
Editor: Hannah Tappis3
PMCID: PMC7808656  PMID: 33444391

Abstract

Background

Pre-lacteal feeding persists in low and middle-income countries as deep-rooted nutritional malpractice. It imposes significant negative consequences on neonatal health, including increased risk of illness and mortality. Different studies revealed that pre-lacteal feeding practice is decreased over time. Even though different studies are done on the prevalence and determinants of pre-lacteal feeding practice, up to our knowledge, the spatial distribution and the determinants of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over time are not researched.

Objective

To assess the spatial distribution and determinants of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over time in Ethiopia.

Methods

We used the Ethiopian demographic and health surveys (EDHSs) data. For this study, a total weighted sample of 14672 (5789 from EDHS 2005, 4510 from EDHS 2011, and 4373 from EDHS 2016) reproductive-age women who gave birth within two years preceding the respective surveys and whoever breastfeed were used. The logit-based multivariate decomposition analysis was used to identify factors that contributed to the decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the last 10 years (from 2005 to 2016). Using the 2016 EDHS data, we also conducted a spatial analysis by using ArcGIS version 10.3 and SaTScan version 9.6 software to explore the spatial distribution and hotspot clusters of pre-lacteal feeding practice.

Result

Pre-lacteal feeding practice was decreased from 29% [95% Confidence interval (CI): 27.63–29.96%] in 2005 to 8% [95% CI: 7.72–8.83%] in 2016 with annual rate of reduction of 7.2%. The overall decomposition analysis showed that about 20.31% of the overall decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the last 10 years was attributable to the difference in composition of women (endowment) across the surveys, while, the remaining 79.39% of the overall decrease was explained by the difference in the effect of characteristics (coefficient) across the surveys. In the endowment component, the difference in composition of residence, perception of distance from the health facility, maternal educational level, wealth status, occupation, ANC visit, place of delivery, the timing of breastfeeding initiation, and wanted last-child/pregnancy were found to be significant contributing factors for the decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice. After controlling for the role of compositional changes, the difference in the effect of distance from the health facility, wealth status, occupation, antenatal care (ANC) visit, and wanted last-child/pregnancy across the surveys were significantly contributed to the observed decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice. Regarding the spatial distribution, pre-lacteal feeding practice was non-random in Ethiopia in which the primary and secondary clusters’ of pre-lacteal feeding identified in Somalia and the Afar region respectively.

Conclusion

Pre-lacteal feeding practice has shown a significant decline over the 10-year period. Program interventions considering women with poor maternal health service utilization such as ANC visits, women with poor socioeconomic status, women with an unintended pregnancy, and women from remote areas especially at border areas such as Somali and Afar could decrease pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia.

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Nutrition Program (NNP) of Ethiopia have recommended starting breastfeeding within one hour of birth, breastfeeding exclusively for the first six months of life, and continuing breastfeeding up to two years of age [13].

Pre-lacteal feeding, however, is a barrier to implementing exclusive breastfeeding practices and initiating breastfeeding promptly [48]. Prelacteal foods are foods (can be water only, water-based such as rice water, herbal mixture, and milk-based such as animal milk and infant formula) given to the newborn baby, often during the first three days of life, before breastfeeding is developed or started [1,9,10].

Pre-lacteal feeding continues in developing countries as deep-rooted nutritional malpractice and results in negative neonatal health outcomes, including increased risk of illness and mortality (23–25). It decreases the immunological benefits of colostrum provided in the first three days after delivery, thus raising the susceptibility of the newborn to infection (26). Also, by exposing infants to infected foods, utensils, water, or hands, pre-lacteal feeding may be a direct cause of illness (23). By interfering with the priming of the gastrointestinal tract, intellectual and physical growth, as well as by reducing the immune status, pre-lacteal feeding can also affect neonatal health (23, 24). In addition, pre-lacteal feeding interrupts mother-infant bonding and reduces a mother's near skin-to-skin contact with her son (25, 26).

Pre-lacteal feeding is still a major public health problem. Worldwide the prevalence of pre-lacteal feeding ranges from 12.3% in Timor-Leste to 85.2% in Nigeria [6,1115]. In Ethiopia, pre-lacteal feeding practice is also a devastating problem that ranges from 14.2% in the Mettu district to 38.8% in Raya Kobo [1620].

Evidences revealed that maternal age, maternal educational level, socioeconomic status, exposure to media, antenatal care (ANC) visit, place of delivery, cesarean delivery, the timing of breastfeeding initiation, parity, sex of the child, distance from the health facility, and residence are among the different factors contributing for pre-lacteal feeding practice [15,17,18,2126].

Different studies also revealed that pre-lacteal feeding practice is decreased over time. In rural Bangladesh, it decreased from 88.0% in 2004 to 24.7% in 2019 [23]. Another study in Nigeria also revealed that pre-lacteal feeding practice is decreased from 66% in 2003 to 55% in 2013 [22]. In Ethiopia, pre-lacteal feeding practice has shown a significant decrease from 29% in 2005 to 8% in 2016 [27,28].

While different studies are carried out on the prevalence and determinants of pre-lacteal feeding practice, the spatial distribution, and the contributing factors for the drastic changes in the practice of pre-lacteal feeding in Ethiopia are not researched. Therefore, we aimed to assess the spatial distribution and determinants of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia. The findings of this study can be used as an input for policymakers to plan strategies and intervene in this devastating public health problem.

Methods

Data source, sampling procedure, and study population

We used the three Ethiopian demographic and health surveys (EDHSs) (2005, 2011, and 2016) data, which are the nationally representative surveys performed in Ethiopia. In each of the surveys, a two-stage cluster sampling was employed. In the first stage, 540 Enumeration Areas (EAs) for EDHS 2005, 624 EAs for EDHS 2011, and 645 EAs for EDHS 2016 were randomly selected proportional to the EA size and, on average, 27 to 32 households per EAs were selected in the second stage. A total weighted sample of 14672 (5789 from EDHS 2005, 4510 from EDHS 2011, and 4373 from EDHS 2016) reproductive-age women who gave birth within two years preceding the respective surveys and whoever breastfeed were used for this study. There is detailed and comprehensive information relating to the sampling process and other information in each survey report [2729].

Variables of the study

The outcome variable was feeding of the child other than breast milk within three days, which was a binary outcome variable coded as “1” if the mother gave anything other than breast milk and “0” if a mother gave nothing for her newborn child within three days.

The independent variables included (after searching of literatures) for our study were region, place of residence, perception of distance from the health facility, age, educational level, wealth index, occupation, mass media exposure, parity, ANC visit, place of delivery, delivery by cesarean section, size of the child at birth, and timing of initiation of breastfeeding.

Operational definitions

Mass media exposure: Created by combining whether a respondent reads a newspaper, listen to the radio, and watch television and coded as yes (if a woman had exposed to at least one of these media) and no (if women were not exposed to at least one of the media).

Size of the child at birth: It is defined as the size of the child during delivery, which is based on the mere report of mothers and categorized in the surveys as very small, small, average, large, and very large and recoded as average, small (includes very small and small), and large (includes large and very large) for this analysis.

The other independent variable definitions are self-explanatory and more information about these variables can get from the EDHS 2016 report [28].

Data management and statistical analysis

The data were extracted and recoded using Stata version 14. Throughout the analysis, the data were weighted to make it representative and to provide better statistical estimates.

Trend and decomposition analysis

The trend and multivariate decomposition analyses were done using Stata version 14. The trend of pre-lacteal feeding practice was examined separately for the periods 2005–2011, 2011–2016, and 2005–2016. The trend of pre-lacteal feeding in each of the selected sociodemographic characteristics of respondents was also analyzed using descriptive analysis.

The multivariate decomposition analysis technique was used to analyze the difference in pre-lacteal feeding practice between two points in time (2005 and 2016). It is widely practiced in public health studies to identify components of a change over time and identify contributing factors for the change [30,31]. The analysis decomposes the differences in pre-lacteal feeding practice over time into two components (the endowment part and coefficient part).

For our study, the 2016 EDHS data was appended to the 2005 EDHS data using the “append” Stata command, and the logit based multivariate decomposition analysis (using mvdcmp STATA command) was used to identify factors that contributed to the decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the last 10 years. Therefore, the observed decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice was additively decomposed into differences due to endowment/characteristic and differences due to coefficient/effects of the characteristic component.

In doing the decomposition analysis, the Logit or log-odd of pre-lacteal feeding practice is taken as [31]:

Logit(2005)Logit(2016)=F(X2005β2005)F(X2016β2016)={F(X2005β2005FX2016β2005)+{F(X2016β2005)F(X2016β2016)}EC

In which, the “E” component is the part of the differential due to differences in characteristics while the “C” component refers to the part of the differential attributable due to differences in coefficients or effects of characteristics.

Spatial analysis

We conducted a spatial analysis using ArcGIS version 10.3 and SaTScan version 9.6 software. To assess whether the spatial distribution of pre-lacteal feeding practice was random or non-random (spatial autocorrelation), Global Moran’s I statistic was used.

Kriging spatial interpolation technique was used to predict pre-lacteal feeding practice in the un-sampled areas based on the values from sampled measurements. Besides, Getis Ord Gi* statistical hotspot analysis was done to identify the significant hot spot areas (areas with high rates of pre-lacteal feeding practice) and cold spot areas (areas with lower rates of pre-lacteal feeding practice).

Moreover, we used Bernoulli based spatial scan statistical analysis to detect statistically significant clusters. To fit the model women who gave anything within three days for the newborn were taken as cases and those who gave nothing were taken as controls. The primary and secondary clusters were identified and p values were assigned and ranked using their log-likelihood ratio (LLR) test based on the 999 Monte Carlo replications. Areas with high LLR and significant p-value were considered as clusters with higher rates of pre-lacteal feeding practice and the spatial window with the highest significant LLR test statistic was defined as the most likely (primary) cluster.

Ethical considerations

Since this is a secondary analysis of the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data, ethical approval was not necessary. However, we registered and requested the datasets from DHS on-line archive and received permission to access and download the data files. Moreover, for Geographic information system coordinates, the coordinates are only for the enumeration area (EA) as a whole and the measured coordinates were randomly displaced within a large geographic area so that no particular enumeration areas can be identified.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

In all the three consecutive EDHSs, the majority of the study participants were in the age group 25 to 34 years. With regard to residence, there was a slight increment of urban residents (from 8.13% in 2005 to 11.85% in 2016). About 25.67% of women in 2005 did not perceive distance from the health facility as a big problem and this figure rose to 39.96% in 2016. Regarding educational status, in the first two surveys about three-quarters and two-thirds (78.59% in2005 and 66.79% in 2011) respectively were not educated, while 60.36% were not educated in EDHS 2016. The percentage of working women has been increased from 29.24% in 2005 to 41.70% in 2016. In addition, the timely initiation of breastfeeding increases from 73.63% in 2005 to 84.10% in 2016. Generally, the proportion of women with all explanatory variables except wealth index, region, parity, size of children, and sex of child significantly varies across the surveys (2005–2016) (Table 1).

Table 1. Percentage distribution of socio-demographic characteristics of respondents 2005, 2011, and 2016 Ethiopia Demographic and Health Surveys.

Characteristics 2005 [N = 5789] 2011 [N = 4510] 2016 [N = 4373]
Residence
    Urban 8.13 13.56 11.85
    Rural 91.87 86.44 88.15
Distance from the health facility
    Big problem 74.33 74.29 60.04
    Not a big problem 25.67 25.74 39.96
Age (years)      
    15–24 27.86 30.53 29.11
    25–34 46.69 49.13 50.74
    35–49 25.44 20.34 20.15
Educational level
    No education 78.59 66.79 60.36
    Primary 16.5 28.52 30.94
    Secondary & above 4.91 4.7 8.7
Wealth status
    Poor 41.84 45.38 45.24
    Middle 22.25 20.66 21.03
    Rich 35.92 33.96 33.74
Occupation
    Not working 70.76 49.09 58.3
    Working 29.24 50.91 41.7
Media exposure
    No 62.64 40.67 65.34
    Yes 37.36 59.33 34.66
Parity
    Primiparous 16.89 18.57 20.8
    Multiparous 42.17 44.73 42.04
    Grand multiparous 40.94 37.12 37.15
ANC visit
    No 71.63 50.51 35.18
    01-Feb 9,54 13.22 13.37
    3 6.34 13.08 18.29
    4 and above 12.48 17.19 33.16
Place of delivery
    Home 93.64 88.54 64.42
    Health facility 6.36 11.46 35.58
Delivery by CS
    No 98.85 98.14 97.47
    Yes 1.15 1.86 2.55
Size of the child at birth
    large 29.3 29.72 29.46
    Average/normal 41.72 38.33 41.93
    Small 28.98 31.96 28.6
Sex of the child
    Male 51.43 52.31 48.77
    Female 48.57 47.69 51.23
Timing of BF initiation
    Within one hour 73.63 64.25 84.1
    After one hour 26.35 35.75 15.9
Wanted of the child
    Yes 67.68 66.09 73.88
    No 32.32 33.91 26.12
Region
    Tigray 6.45 6.06 7.19
    Afar 0.93 0.93 1.01
    Amhara 25.73 21.67 18.54
    Oromia 37.23 43.4 44.42
    Somalia 3.76 2.89 4.08
    Benishangul 0.91 1.13 1.05
    SNNPR 22.56 20.86 20.18
    Gambela 0.3 0.38 0.25
    Harari 0.21 0.25 0.24
    Addis Ababa 1.58 2.09 2.61
    Dire Dawa 0.33 0.33 0.42

Note: BF = Breastfeeding, SNNPR = Southern Nation Nationalities and People’s Region.

Overall trends in pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia, 2005–2016

Over the 10-year period, pre-lacteal feeding practice has shown a substantial decrease from 29% [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 27.63–29.96%] in 2005 to 8% [95% CI: 7.72–8.83%] in 2016 with the annual rate of reduction of 7.2% (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Overall trends of pre-lacteal feeding in Ethiopia from 2005 to 2016.

Fig 1

Trends of pre-lacteal feeding by selected characteristics of respondents

The trends in pre-lacteal feeding practice showed variation according to the respondent’s characteristics. A decline in pre-lacteal feeding practice was observed in women with all of the categories of variables. Over the past 10-years, pre-lacteal feeding practice has decreased significantly in all regions of Ethiopia, except in the Somalia region, where the proportion of pre-lacteal feeding practice has increased by 18.09% (Table 2).

Table 2. Trends in pre-lacteal feeding practice among reproductive-age women by selected characteristics, 2005, 2011, and 2016 Ethiopia Demographic and Health Surveys.

Characteristics EDHS 2005 EDHS 2011 EDHS 2016 Percentage point difference in practicing of prelacteal feeding
Phase I 2011–2005 Phase II 2016–2011 Overall 2016–2005
Residence
    Urban 25.15 24.85 12.26 -0.3 -12.59 -12.89
    Rural 19.26 27.59 7.42 8.33 -20.17 -11.84
Distance from the health facility
    Big problem 27.97 27.29 7.61 -0.68 -34.9 -20.36
    Not a big problem 31.11 27 8.56 -4.11 -18.44 -22.55
Educational level
    No education 28.84 29.98 8.41 1.14 -21.57 -20.43
    Primary 26.67 21.16 6.66 -5.51 -14.5 -20.01
    Secondary & above 34.91 24.72 9.8 -10.19 -14.92 -25.21
Wealth status
    Poor 29.37 33.96 8.55 4.59 -25.41 -20.82
    Middle 25.98 23.37 6.07 -2.61 -17.3 -19.91
    Rich 29.83 20.55 8.45 -9.28 -12.1 -21.08
Occupation
    Not working 27.71 26.05 7.94 -1.66 -18.11 -19.77
    Working 31.36 28.34 8.07 -3.02 -20.27 -23.29
Parity
    Primiparous 33.78 31.38 10.76 -2.4 -20.62 -23.02
    Multiparous 29.37 26.44 6.32 -2.93 -20.12 -23.05
    Grand multiparous 26.1 26.12 8.33 0.02 -17.79 -17.77
ANC visit
    No 28.43 30.7 9.38 2.27 -21.32 -19.05
    01-Feb 30.22 28.35 10.37 -1.87 -17.98 -19.85
    3 26.72 23.17 5.74 -3.55 -17.43 -20.98
    4 and above 30.73 17.96 6.8 -12.77 -11.16 -23.93
Place of delivery
    Home 29.21 28.03 8.46 -1.18 19.57 -20.75
    Health facility 28.75 20.9 7.14 -7.85 -13.76 -21.61
Size of the child at birth
    large 29.61 24.03 7.4 -5.58 -16.63 -22.21
    Average/normal 27.55 24.29 7.67 -3.29 -16.62 -19.88
    Small 29.71 33.69 9.08 3.98 -24.61 -20.63
Timing of BF initiation
    Within one hour 19.57 15.02 5.38 -4.55 -9.64 -14.16
    After one hour 54.51 49.14 21.79 -5.37 -5.37 -32.72
Wanted of the child
    Yes 29.13 28.26 8.05 -0.87 -20.21 -21.08
    No 28.2 25.18 7.82 -3.02 -17.36 -20.38
Region
    Tigray 29.59 25.84 6.27 -3.75 -19.57 -23.32
    Afar 39.84 30.7 40.08 -9.14 9.38 0.24
    Amhara 45.4 47.57 8.32 2.17 -39.25 -37.08
    Oromia 24.8 22.18 4.16 -2.62 -18.02 -20.64
    Somalia 20.75 74.1 38.84 53.35 -35.26 18.09
    Benishangul 20.28 23.47 2.94 3.19 -20.53 -17.34
    SNNPR 15.52 10.34 7.12 -5.18 -3.22 -8.4
    Gambela 29.18 32.5 10.28 3.32 -22.22 -18.9
    Harari 48.55 32.88 27.14 -15.67 -5.74 -21.41
    Addis Ababa 51.22 26.05 21.49 -25.17 -4.56 -29.73
    Dire Dawa 35.51 34.01 9.46 -1.05 -24.55 -29.05

Decomposition analysis

The overall decomposition revealed that about 20.31% of the overall decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the 10-year period was attributable to the difference in characteristics (composition) of women across the surveys with the remaining 79.69% attributable to the difference in the effect of characteristics (coefficient) across the surveys (Table 3). In the endowment component, the difference in composition of women with respect to residence, perception of distance from the health facility, educational level, wealth status, occupation, ANC visit, place of delivery, timing of breastfeeding initiation, and wanted last-child/pregnancy across the surveys were significant contributing factors for the decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice (Table 4).

Table 3. The overall decomposition analysis of the decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia, 2005 to 2016.

Prelacteal feeding Coefficient Percentage
E -0.028772[-.041041, -.016503] * 20.31
C -0.11288 [-.13371, -.092048] * 79.69
R -0.14165[-.15739, -.12591] *

Note

* P-value<0.05, E: Endowment, C: Coefficient, R: Residual.

Table 4. Decomposition of change in pre-lacteal feeding practice among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia, 2005 to 2016.

Characteristics Difference due to characteristics (E) Difference due to coefficients (C)
Coefficient Percent Coefficient Percent
Residence
    Urban 0.004617[.002943, .006291] * -3.26 0.005931[-.0031512, .015014] -4.19
    Rural 0 0
Distance from the health facility
    Big problem 0 0
    Not a big problem 0.005564 [.002435, .008692] * -3.93 0.014483[.003535, .025430] * -10.22
Age (years)
    15–24 0 0
    25–34 0.000109[-.000591, .000810] -0.08 0.003314[-.017903, .024531] -2.34
    35–49 0.000947[-.000728, .002623] -0.67 -0.013772[-.028716, .001173] 9.72
Educational level
    No education 0 0
    Primary -0.006430[-.009668, -.003192] * 4.54 -0.006384[-.013862, .001095] 4.51
    Secondary & above -0.001083[-.002666,.000501] 0.76 -0.004352[-.010104, .001400] 3.07
Wealth status
    Poor 0 0
    Middle 0.003016[.001606, .004425] * -2.13 -0.015663[-.025865, -.005463] * 11.06
    Rich 0.001239[.000101, .002378] -0.88 -0.019250[-.038553, -.005230] * 13.59
Occupation
    Not working 0 0
    Working -0.003891[-.005836, -.001945] 2.75 -0.021776[-.032158, -.011393] * 15.37
Media exposure
    No 0 0
    Yes -0.000013[-.000823, .000849] -0.01 -0.009382[-.025526, .006762] 6.62
Parity
    Primiparous 0 0
    Multiparous -0.000002[-.000004, 0.000003] 0.001 -0.019034[-.039963, .001896] 13.44
    Grand multiparous 0.0005645[-.000476, .001605] -0.4 0.002905[-.020378, .026189] -2.05
ANC visit
    No 0 0
    01-Feb -0.000318[-.001709, .001072] 0.22 -0.002408[-.006789, .001973] 1.7
    3 -0.004930[-.008080, -.001779] * 3.48 -0.003173[-.007029, .000682] 2.24
    4 and above -0.014985[-.020747, -.009223] * 10.58 -0.013735[-.022427, -.005044] * 9.7
Place of delivery
    Home 0 0
    Health facility -0.011096[-.018689, -.003502] * 7.83 -0.003504[-.006518, .016576] 2.47
Delivery by CS
    No 0 0
    Yes 0.000628[-.000057, .001313] -0.44 -0.000057[-.001984,.001869] 0.04
Size of the child at birth
    large -0.000241[-.000418, -.000064] * 0.17 0.005029[-.000015, .022246] -3.55
    Average/normal 0 0
    small 0.000197[.000060, .000334] * -0.14 0.011115[-.000015, .022246] -7.85
Sex of the child
    Male 0 0
    Female -0.000131[-.000368,.000105] 0.09 -0.010325[-.026199, .005549] 7.29
Timing of BF initiation
    Within one hour -0.011522[-.013519, -.009525] * 8.134 -0.012237[-.037767, .013294] 8.64
    After one hour 0 0
Wanted of the child
    Yes 0.008962[.005355, .012569] * -6.33 -0.023257[-.037046, -.009468] * 16.42
    No 0 0

Note

* = p value < 0.05.

An increase in the proportion of women living in urban area [β = 0.004617, 95% CI: 0.002943, 0.006291] and women who did not perceive distance from the health facility as a big problem [β = 0.005564, 95% CI: 0.002435, 0.008692] contributed a 3.26% and 3.93%, respectively for the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice. An increase in the composition of women from households with a middle wealth index over the survey period contributes to a significant change in pre-lacteal feeding practice [β = 0.003016, 95% CI: 0.001606, 0.004425]. A decrease in the composition of women with wanted last pregnancy [β = 0.008962, 95% CI: 0.005355, 0.012569] contributes to the change of pre-lacteal feeding practice by 6.33%. Moreover, a decrease in the composition of women with primary education, working women, women who had three, and four and more ANC visits, with health facility delivery, and who initiated breastfeeding within one hour during the survey period showed a significant contribution to change of pre-lacteal feeding practice (Table 4).

After controlling the role of compositional changes, 79.69% of the decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice was due to the difference in coefficients (the effects of characteristics) (Table 3). Factors including the perception of distance from the health facility, wealth status, occupation, ANC visit, and wanted last-child/pregnancy showed a significant effect on the observed change in pre-lacteal feeding practice. About 10.22% of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the past decade was attributable due to the difference in the effect among women who did not perceive distance from the health facility as a big problem [β = 0.014483, 95% CI: 0.003535, 0.025430]. About 11.06% and 13.59% of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the past decade was attributable due to the difference in the effect among women from middle [β = -0.015663, 95% CI: -0.025865, -0.005463] and rich households [β = -0.019250, 95% CI: -0.038553, -0.005230]. Compared with no ANC visit, a decrease in the effects of women with four or more ANC visits [β = -0.013735, 95% CI: -0.022427, -0.005044] contributes to the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the past decade by 9.70%. A decrease in the effects of women with wanted last-child/pregnancy [β = -0.023257, 95% CI: -0.037046, -0.009468], as compared to their counterparts, contributes to the change of pre-lacteal feeding practice over the past decade by 16.42% (Table 4).

Spatial distribution of pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia, using EDHS 2016 data

Spatial autocorrelation

The spatial autocorrelation result revealed that pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia was non-random with Global Moran’s I = 0.293 at p< 0.001 (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Spatial autocorrelation result of pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia, 2016.

Fig 2

Kriging interpolation

The kriging interpolation result revealed that regions such as Benishangul, Tigray, most parts of Amhara, the western part of Gambela, and eastern parts of SNNPR had predicted lower rates of pre-lacteal feeding practice. However, the Somalia region and the Afar region had higher predicted rates of pre-lacteal feeding practice (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Kriging interpolation of pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia, 2016.

Fig 3

Hotspot and cold spot analysis

Fig 4 revealed the hot spot analysis of pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia. The red color indicates regions with significant hotspot areas (areas with high rates of pre-lacteal feeding practice), which were found in the Afar and Somalia regions. The blue color indicates areas/regions with significantly lower rates of pre-lacteal feeding practice (cold spot areas), which were found in Oromia, Benishangul, Tigray, and in central parts of the Amhara region (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Hot spot and cold spot analysis of pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia, 2016.

Fig 4

SaTScan analysis (Bernoulli based model)

One hundred five significant clusters (48 primary and 57 secondary clusters) were identified in the SaTScan analysis. The primary clusters spatial window was located in the Somalia region, which was centered at 6.641319 N, 44.092837 E geographic location with 360.78 km radius, and LLR of 123.18 at p < 0.001. The relative risk (RR) of the primary clusters spatial window was 3.81 and this revealed that women within the spatial window had 3.81 times higher risk of pre-lacteal feeding practice than women outside the window. The secondary clusters scanning window was located in the Afar region, which was centered at 12.401068 N, 42.163134 E geographic location with 305.05 km radius, and LLR of 58.58 at p-value <0.001. The RR value was 2.67 and this showed that women within the spatial window had 2.67 times higher risk of pre-lacteal feeding practice than women outside the window (Table 5, Fig 5).

Table 5. Significant clusters of areas with high pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia, 2016.
Number of significant clusters (Total = 105) Coordinates/radius population case RR LLR P-value
48 (primary) (6.641319 N, 44.092837 E) / 360.78 km 394 186 3.81 123.18 <0.001
57 (secondary) (12.401068 N, 42.163134 E) / 305.05 km 423 152 2.67 58.58 <0.001
Fig 5. SaTScan analysis of pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia, 2016.

Fig 5

Discussion

This study aimed to assess the spatial distribution and determinants of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over time in Ethiopia.

About one-fifth (20.31%) of the overall change in pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia was due to difference in characteristics. The reason for this was associated with the significant change in the structural composition of women who participated in the surveys.

An increase in the proportion of urban women and women who did not perceive distance from the health facility as a big problem in the sample made a significant contribution to the change of pre-lacteal feeding practice. This might indicate urban women are mostly exposed to information regarding optimal breastfeeding practices. In addition, this could mean that women living in urban areas have a greater awareness and use of maternal health services [3234]. Maternal health services such as delivery service, however, are not readily available for mothers from remote areas, which in turn decrease awareness about optimal breastfeeding and raise pre-lacteal feeding practice [35].

A decrease in the composition of women who had three and four and more ANC visits over the survey period contributes to the change of pre-lacteal feeding practice. Besides, decreasing the composition of women who gave birth in the health facility over time contributes to the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice. This result might indicate women with ANC visits and delivery at the health facility may have a chance to obtain information on appropriate breastfeeding practices and avoid giving of pre-lacteal foods to the newborn [32,34].

Regarding the timing of the initiation of breastfeeding, a decrease in the composition of women who initiated breastfeeding within one hour contributes to the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the survey period. This may indicate that women with early breastfeeding initiation have no room for additional feedings, such as pre-lacteal foods for the newborn [15,36,37].

The study at hand also revealed that a decrease in the composition of women with wanted last pregnancy over time contributes to the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice. This can reflect unintended pregnancy, which may result in low use of maternal health services, can contribute to suboptimal breastfeeding such as pre-lacteal feeding [38].

Moreover, a decrease in the composition of women’s attainment of primary education and a decrease in the proportion of working women during the survey period showed a significant contribution to the increment of the differential of pre-lacteal feeding practice. Also, an increasing proportion of women from households with a middle wealth index over the survey period contributes to a significant decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice.

In this study, about four-fifth (79.69%) of the decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the past decade was due to differences in the effects of characteristics (coefficients). About 10.22% of the decrease in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the past decade was attributable due to the difference in the effect of not perceiving distance from the health facility as a big problem. This is supported by a study, which reports that an increased distance from the health facility is associated with increasing pre-lacteal feeding practice [25]. This may be because women from remote areas are unable to access maternal health services and are unable to access schooling. This might in turn result in lower awareness about optimal breastfeeding and increased the practice of pre-lacteal feeding.

The study at hand also revealed that about 11.06% and 13.59% of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the past decade was due to changes in pre-lacteal feeding behavior of women from middle and rich households, respectively. Other studies in Ethiopia also revealed that women with improved socioeconomic status had a lower chance of practicing pre-lacteal feeding [29,39]. This could be due to mothers with improved socioeconomic status are mostly educated and can easily access maternal health services, such as getting advice on optimal breastfeeding practices.

Compared with no ANC visit, the effects of being having four or more ANC visits were a significant predictor for the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over the past decade. This is in line with different studies [21,26], which revealed that having an ANC visit is associated with lower risks of pre-lacteal feeding practice. This might be because having an ANC visit might expose a woman to information regarding newborn health and breastfeeding practices. Moreover, as compared to being unwanted last last-child/pregnancy, a decrease in the effect of being wanted last-child/pregnancy was associated with the change of pre-lacteal feeding practice over the past decade. This may be because women with a desired pregnancy pay greater attention to their pregnancy and utilize maternal health services for the newborn's health, which could result in the mother having exposure to pre-lacteal feeding and its negative impact on the newborn.

In this study, cesarean delivery was not associated with the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice (both in the endowment and coefficient parts). However, multiple studies have shown that delivery by cesarean section has a strong association with pre-lacteal feeding practice [18,40]. The discrepancy may be because this study was a decomposition analysis in which the trend was analyzed (factors for the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over time was assessed); whereas the other studies were carried out using a binary logistic regression (did not assess the trend). The author does, however, suggest further studies in this regard.

The spatial analysis revealed that the spatial distribution of pre-lacteal feeding practice in 2016 was non-random in Ethiopia. The SaTScan analysis result revealed that the primary clusters spatial window was found in the Somali region and the secondary clusters spatial window was found in the Afar region. The hot spot analysis result also revealed that these regions had higher rates of pre-lacteal feeding practice. This finding, regional variations of pre-lacteal feeding practice, was supported by different studies conducted in Ethiopia [21], and Nepal [13,41]. This might be because these regions are found in border areas of Ethiopia in which maternal health services are not easily accessible.

This study presented important findings to minimize pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia since it identified areas with higher rates of pre-lacteal feeding practice using spatial analysis. Besides, the study identified the factors that contributed to the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over time using decomposition analysis. Nevertheless, this study was not without limitations. Due to a lack of studies on pre-lacteal feeding practice, using decomposition analysis, we were forced to consider studies conducted on pre-lacteal feeding practice in general while discussing our findings. We did not also consider important variables such as maternal beliefs and maternal knowledge towards breastfeeding since these factors were not found in the survey.

Conclusion

Pre-lacteal feeding practice was significantly decreased over the 10-year period. The decomposition analysis revealed that about one-fifth (20.31%) and four-fifth (79.69%) of the overall change in pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia was due to the difference in characteristics and coefficients, respectively. Therefore, program interventions considering women with no ANC visit, women with poor socioeconomic status, women with an unintended pregnancy, and women from remote areas especially at border areas such as Somali and Afar could decrease pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the MEASURE DHS program, which helps us to access and use the data sets.

Abbreviations

ANC

Antenatal Care

C

coefficient

E

Endowment

EAs

Enumeration areas

EDHS

Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey

EDHS

Ethiopian Demographic and Health Surveys

LLR

Log likelihood Ratio

NNP

National Nutrition Program

RR

Relative Risk

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

It is ethically not acceptable to share the DHS data sets to third parties. However, anyone who want the data set can access from the Measure DHS program at www.dhsprogram.com, through legal requesting. The authors had no special access privileges others would not have.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Organization WH. Infant and young child feeding: model chapter for textbooks for medical students and allied health professionals: World Health Organization; 2009. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.FMOH. National strategy on infant and young child feeding Edited by Family health. FMOH: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ministry of Health in Ethiopia. Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia National Nutrition Programme; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kanagasabapathy S, Sadhasivam M. Pre lacteal feeding practice among rural mothers in Tamil Nadu-a questionnaire based study. Int J Biomed Adv Res. 2015;6(6):484–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Khanal V, Adhikari M, Sauer K, Zhao Y. Factors associated with the introduction of prelacteal feeds in Nepal: findings from the Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Int Breastfeed J. 2013;8(1):9 10.1186/1746-4358-8-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nguyen PH, Keithly SC, Nguyen NT, Nguyen TT, Tran LM, Hajeebhoy N. Prelacteal feeding practices in Vietnam: challenges and associated factors. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):932 10.1186/1471-2458-13-932 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chandrashekhar T, Joshi H, Binu V, Shankar P, Rana M, Ramachandran U. Breast-feeding initiation and determinants of exclusive breast-feeding–a questionnaire survey in an urban population of western Nepal. Public health nutrition. 2007;10(2):192–7. 10.1017/S1368980007248475 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.McKenna KM, Shankar RT. The practice of prelacteal feeding to newborns among Hindu and Muslim families. Journal of midwifery & women's health. 2009;54(1):78–81. 10.1016/j.jmwh.2008.07.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Laroia N, Sharma D. The religious and cultural bases for breastfeeding practices among the Hindus. Breastfeeding Medicine. 2006;1(2):94–8. 10.1089/bfm.2006.1.94 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Raina SK, Mengi V, Singh G. Determinants of prelacteal feeding among infants of RS Pura block of Jammu and Kashmir, India. Journal of family medicine and primary care. 2012;1(1):27 10.4103/2249-4863.94446 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tongun JB, Sebit MB, Ndeezi G, Mukunya D, Tylleskar T, Tumwine JK. Prevalence and determinants of pre-lacteal feeding in South Sudan: a community-based survey. Global health action. 2018;11(1):1523304 10.1080/16549716.2018.1523304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Jimoh AO, Adaji SE, Adelaiye HA, Olorukooba AA, Garba C, Mfuh AL, et al. Factors associated with prelacteal feeding practices in a rural northern Nigerian setting. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2018;31(2):13–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Khanal V, Adhikari M, Sauer K, Zhao Y. Factors associated with the introduction of prelacteal feeds in Nepal: findings from the Nepal demographic and health survey 2011. International Breastfeeding Journal. 2013;8(1):9 10.1186/1746-4358-8-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Khanal V, Lee AH, da Cruz JLNB, Karkee R. Prelacteal feeding of newborns in postconflict Timor-Leste. Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition. 2014;59(2):162–6. 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000429 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Asim M, Ahmed ZH, Hayward MD, Widen EM. Prelacteal feeding practices in Pakistan: a mixed-methods study. International Breastfeeding Journal. 2020;15(1):1–11. 10.1186/s13006-020-00295-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chea N, Asefa A. Prelacteal feeding and associated factors among newborns in rural Sidama, South Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional survey. International breastfeeding journal. 2018;13(1):7 10.1186/s13006-018-0149-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Legesse M, Demena M, Mesfin F, Haile D. Prelacteal feeding practices and associated factors among mothers of children aged less than 24 months in Raya Kobo district, North Eastern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. International breastfeeding journal. 2014;9(1):189 10.1186/s13006-014-0025-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wolde TF, Ayele AD, Takele WW. Prelacteal feeding and associated factors among mothers having children less than 24 months of age, in Mettu district, Southwest Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. BMC research notes. 2019;12(1):9 10.1186/s13104-019-4044-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tewabe T. Prelacteal Feeding Practices among Mothers in Motta Town, Northwest Ethiopia: A Cross-sectional Study. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences. 2018;28(4). 10.4314/ejhs.v28i4.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Derso T, Biks GA, Tariku A, Tebeje NB, Gizaw Z, Muchie KF, et al. Correlates of early neonatal feeding practice in Dabat HDSS site, northwest Ethiopia. International breastfeeding journal. 2017;12(1):25 10.1186/s13006-017-0116-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Takele WW, Tariku A, Wagnew F, Ekubagewargies DT, Getinet W, Derseh L, et al. Magnitude of prelacteal feeding practice and its association with place of birth in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2017. Archives of Public Health. 2018;76(1):63 10.1186/s13690-018-0308-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Agho KE, Ogeleka P, Ogbo FA, Ezeh OK, Eastwood J, Page A. Trends and predictors of prelacteal feeding practices in Nigeria (2003–2013). Nutrients. 2016;8(8):462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gao Y, Palmer A, Thorne-Lyman A, Shaikh S, Ali H, Tong H, et al. Trends in Prelacteal Feeding Practices in Rural Bangladesh from 2004–2019. Current Developments in Nutrition. 2020;4(Supplement_2):829. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Khanal V, Lee AH, Karkee R, Binns CW. Prevalence and factors associated with prelacteal feeding in Western Nepal. Women and Birth. 2016;29(1):12–7. 10.1016/j.wombi.2015.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kumari S, Kshatriya GK. Breastfeeding practices among currently married women of selected tribes of Jharkhand, India. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2018;5:2959–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ogundele T, Ogundele OA, Adegoke AI. Determinants of prelacteal feeding practices among mothers of children aged less than 24 months in Ile-Ife Southwest Nigeria: a community cross-sectional study. The Pan African Medical Journal. 2019;34 10.11604/pamj.2019.34.172.17642 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Central Statistical Agency [Ethiopia] and ORC Macro. 2006. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2005. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA: Central Statistical Agency and ORC Macro. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Central Statistical Agency (CSA) [Ethiopia] and ICF. 2016. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: CSA and ICF. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Central Statistical Agency [Ethiopia] and ICF International. 2012. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA: Central Statistical Agency and ICF International. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sinning M, Hahn M, Bauer TK. The Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition for nonlinear regression models. The Stata Journal. 2008;8(4):480–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Powers DA, Yoshioka H, Yun M-S. mvdcmp: Multivariate decomposition for nonlinear response models. The Stata Journal. 2011;11(4):556–76. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tarekegn SM, Lieberman LS, Giedraitis V. Determinants of maternal health service utilization in Ethiopia: analysis of the 2011 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2014;14(1):161 10.1186/1471-2393-14-161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Abageda M, Mokonen A, Hamdela B. Predictors of Optimal Breastfeeding Practices Among Mothers Who Have Less Than 24 Months of Age Children in Misha District, Hadiya Zone, South Ethiopia. J Preg Child Health. 2015;2:182. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gebre E, Worku A, Bukola F. Inequities in maternal health services utilization in Ethiopia 2000–2016: magnitude, trends, and determinants. Reproductive health. 2018;15(1):119 10.1186/s12978-018-0556-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Egata G, Berhane Y, Worku A. Predictors of non-exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months among rural mothers in east Ethiopia: a community-based analytical cross-sectional study. International breastfeeding journal. 2013;8(1):8 10.1186/1746-4358-8-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Patel A, Banerjee A, Kaletwad A. Factors associated with prelacteal feeding and timely initiation of breastfeeding in hospital-delivered infants in India. Journal of Human Lactation. 2013;29(4):572–8. 10.1177/0890334412474718 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gebremeskel SG, Gebru TT, Kassahun SS, Gebrehiwot BG. Magnitude of Prelacteal Feeding and Its Associated Factors among Mothers Having Children Less than One Year of Age: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study in Rural Eastern Zone, Tigray, Ethiopia. Advances in Public Health. 2020;2020:4926890. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Balogun OO, Kobayashi S, Anigo KM, Ota E, Asakura K, Sasaki S. Factors influencing exclusive breastfeeding in early infancy: a prospective study in north central Nigeria. Maternal and child health journal. 2016;20(2):363–75. 10.1007/s10995-015-1835-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tariku A, Biks GA, Wassie MM, Gebeyehu A, Getie AA. Factors associated with prelacteal feeding in the rural population of northwest Ethiopia: a community cross-sectional study. International Breastfeeding Journal. 2016;11(1):14 10.1186/s13006-016-0074-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tekaly G, Kassa M, Belete T, Tasew H, Mariye T, Teshale T. Pre-lacteal feeding practice and associated factors among mothers having children less than two years of age in Aksum town, Tigray, Ethiopia, 2017: a cross-sectional study. BMC pediatrics. 2018;18(1):310 10.1186/s12887-018-1284-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bhandari S, Thorne-Lyman AL, Shrestha B, Neupane S, Nonyane BAS, Manohar S, et al. Determinants of infant breastfeeding practices in Nepal: a national study. International breastfeeding journal. 2019;14(1):14 10.1186/s13006-019-0208-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hannah Tappis

16 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-27150

Spatial distribution and determinants of the change in prelacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia; a spatial and multivariate decomposition analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Teshale,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hannah Tappis, DrPH, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. In statistical methods, please clarify whether you corrected for multiple comparisons-

4. As part of your revision, please complete and submit a copy of the STROBE checklist, a document that aims to improve reporting and reproducibility of observational studies for purposes of post-publication data analysis and reproducibility: (http://www.strobe-statement.org). Please include your completed checklist as a Supporting Information file. Note that if your paper is accepted for publication, this checklist will be published as part of your article.

5. We note that Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

5.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

5.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Date 4 November 2019

Dear Editor of BMC Public Health

Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to review this important paper.

This paper uses pooled data of Ethiopia demography and health surveys with the aims of determining the determinants of pre-lacteal feeding practices in Ethiopia. In addition, the paper investigates the factors which explains the prelacteal practices and depicts the trends of prelacteal feeding practices behavior in Ethiopia. Overall, the paper is interesting as it deals with the prelacteal feeding practices which can explain the current mal-practices and shows future program focus areas. Moreover, Ethiopia is striving to further reduce neonatal and infant mortality rates. The author gives a clear background on the statement of problems. And clearly describe the source of data which is an ideal sources to determine the national estimates. In the result and discussions section the author presents the point estimates, trends and factors influencing behaviors of parents or care givers.

Some of the strengths of this manuscript are:

• The paper addressed public health important issue.

• Uses data from DHS, which are nationally representative cross-sectional surveys

• Use proper scientific writings steps

• Uses proper statistical analysis

• Uses advanced level of English language writing

• The results and discussions answer the objective

• The conclusion is in line with the objectives and results presented.

Best regards,

Reviewer #2: Introduction:

The starting paragraphs mostly deal with exclusive breastfeeding and delayed breastfeeding. However, this paper deals with prelacteal feeding practices. I would suggest starting introduction with prelacteal feeding and then connect prelacteal feeding with delayed breastfeeding and lack of exclusive breastfeeding. The readers would be interested to get to know about preleacteal to start of introduction.

Methods:

Method section is well explained. I am just curious that the authors used a number of independent variables i.e. region, residence, perception of distance from the health facility, age, educational level, wealth index, occupation, media exposure, parity, ANC visit, place of delivery, delivery by cesarean section, size of the child at birth, and timing of initiation of breastfeeding and authors ONLY explained two variables in operational definition section.

Result

The authors presented the results in very details. It is a bit difficult to read and digest the results of all variables. It is also a good idea to just explain your major results and the reader can get the idea of detailed results from the table, and figure and be focused on your major findings. Decrement word is repeatedly used that may be changed to another appropriate word.

Discussion:

Discussion section can be improved; for example line 303-306 early initiation of breastfeeding is considered the window of opportunity to decrease the prelacteal feeding. It is important to discuss more and cite some relevant studies to improve this practice. The authors empahsized a lot in the introduction section and they did not put weigh in the discussion section.

Furthermore, different studies report that Delivery by CS is the major determinant of initiation of prelacteal feeding practices in neonate. This study does not report this. It may be important to explain why?

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Mesele Damte Argaw, PhD

Reviewer #2: Yes: Muhammad Asim

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 14;16(1):e0244574. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244574.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


4 Dec 2020

Date: December 4, 2020

Point by point response to editor and reviewer comments

Title: Spatial distribution and determinants of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia; a spatial and multivariate decomposition analysis

Manuscript number: PONE-D-20-27150

Dear editor and Reviewers: We really thank you for your valuable comments for the betterment of our manuscript. Your concerns and questions as well as suggestions are addressed in the revised manuscript.

Response to Editorial comment/journal requirement

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

Author’s response: The author confirm that the revised manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style.

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar

Author’s response: We extensively edited the manuscript after consulting our colleagues and language experts who had MA degree in TEAFL (teaching English as foreign language) and who had many years’ experience in the area of literature at University of Gondar. A copy of our manuscript showing the changes is indicated by using track changes (See supporting information file).

3. In statistical methods, please clarify whether you corrected for multiple comparisons-

Author’s response: Dear editor we consider it in the revised manuscript. In this study, the trends (overall and per each categories of independent variables) were described in the descriptive analysis. As you know in the decomposition analysis, there are two parts, the endowment and the coefficient parts, and we interpreted and discussed the results separately. Moreover, the spatial analysis was conducted using the recent EDHS (EDHS 2016) data.

4. As part of your revision, please complete and submit a copy of the STROBE checklist, a document that aims to improve reporting and reproducibility of observational studies for purposes of post-publication data analysis and reproducibility: (http://www.strobe-statement.org). Please include your completed checklist as a Supporting Information file. Note that if your paper is accepted for publication, this checklist will be published as part of your article.

Author’s response: Thank you. We incorporated the STROBE checklist as supporting information (see supporting information).

5. We note that Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth).

Author’s response: Thank you for the comment. These figures are not copyrighted from other sources rather they are our findings using Arc-GIS version 10.3 and SaTScan version 9.6 statistical softwares. The shape file of Ethiopia was found in the website https://africaopendata.org/dataset/ethiopia-shapefiles, and then we generate the figures using the GPs (latitude and longitude) data and the outcome variable using ArcGIS version 10.3 and SaTScan version 9.6 statistical softwares. So all the figures are not copyrighted form other source rather we generate using the software.

Response to reviewers

Reviewer #1: Dear reviewer thank you in advance for reviewing our paper.

Reviewer #2:

1. Introduction

The starting paragraphs mostly deal with exclusive breastfeeding and delayed breastfeeding. However, this paper deals with pre-lacteal feeding practices. I would suggest starting introduction with pre-lacteal feeding and then connect pre-lacteal feeding with delayed breastfeeding and lack of exclusive breastfeeding. The readers would be interested to get to know about pre-lacteal to start of introduction.

Author’s response: Dear reviewer thank you for this important concern you raised. We consider you comment and we bother about pre-lacteal feeding in the introduction/background section. We also indicate the relation of pre-lacteal feeding with delayed breastfeeding and lack of exclusive breastfeeding.

2. Methods

Method section is well explained. I am just curious that the authors used a number of independent variables i.e. region, residence, perception of distance from the health facility, age, educational level, wealth index, occupation, media exposure, parity, ANC visit, place of delivery, delivery by cesarean section, size of the child at birth, and timing of initiation of breastfeeding and authors ONLY explained two variables in operational definition section.

Author’s response: Thank you for the comment. We operationalized media exposure and size of the child at birth to make them measurable and to indicate how these variables were measured to the international readers. However, the rest of the variables are straightforward and there categories are found in the result section (in the tables). Dear reviewer if you are not convinced we are open to consider your comment again.

3. Result

The authors presented the results in very details. It is a bit difficult to read and digest the results of all variables. It is also a good idea to just explain your major results and the reader can get the idea of detailed results from the table, and figure and be focused on your major findings. Decrement word is repeatedly used that may be changed to another appropriate word.

Author’s response: Thank you for your constructive comment. We put the major findings by avoiding extra and detailed results in the result section of the revised manuscript. In addition, we consider other words for some repeatedly stated words such as “Decrement”.

4. Discussion

Discussion section can be improved; for example line 303-306 early initiation of breastfeeding is considered the window of opportunity to decrease the pre-lacteal feeding. It is important to discuss more and cite some relevant studies to improve this practice. The authors emphasized a lot in the introduction section and they did not put weigh in the discussion section.

Furthermore, different studies report that Delivery by CS is the major determinant of initiation of pre-lacteal feeding practices in neonate. This study does not report this. It may be important to explain why?

Author’s response: Dear reviewer thank you for the important concern you raised. We consider your comment in the revised manuscript. In addition, Cesarean delivery was not associated with the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice in this study (unlike that of the previous studies) and we put a one paragraph statement reveling the discrepancy, the possible reason and further recommendation on this regard (see the discussion section paragraph 10 line 335-341 ).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers(PFP).docx

Decision Letter 1

Hannah Tappis

10 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-27150R1

Spatial distribution and determinants of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over time in Ethiopia: a spatial and multivariate decomposition analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Teshale,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful review, we feel that while initial reviewer feedback was addressed, additional minor revisions are needed to consider this manuscript for publication. 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 Jan 24 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hannah Tappis, DrPH, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

* In the Methods section, where operational definitions are presented, it would be prudent to add a sentence similar to that included in the response to reviewer comments, noting that "Other independent variable definitions are self-explanatory" and also citing standard DHS survey modules for further reference.

* Figures 1 and 3 are superfluous (though data on regional distributions is relevant and important). Please consider omitting these figures and integrating regional distribution data as a row in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.

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

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 14;16(1):e0244574. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244574.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Dec 2020

Date: December 11, 2020

Response to editor comment

Title: Spatial distribution and determinants of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over time in Ethiopia: a spatial and multivariate decomposition analysis

Manuscript number: PONE-D-20-27150

Dear editor: We really thank you for your valuable comments for the betterment of our manuscript. Your concerns and questions as well as suggestions are addressed in the revised manuscript.

Point by point response to editor comment

1. In the Methods section, where operational definitions are presented, it would be prudent to add a sentence similar to that included in the response to reviewer comments, noting "Other independent variable definitions are self-explanatory" and also citing standard DHS survey modules for further reference.

Author’s response: We added the sentence and we put the survey module as a reference (See line 120 and 121 of the revised manuscript).

2. Figures 1 and 3 are superfluous (though data on regional distributions is relevant and important). Please consider omitting these figures and integrating regional distribution data as a row in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider the comment (see the revised manuscript).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer(#2).docx

Decision Letter 2

Hannah Tappis

14 Dec 2020

Spatial distribution and determinants of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over time in Ethiopia: a spatial and multivariate decomposition analysis

PONE-D-20-27150R2

Dear Dr. Teshale,

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,

Hannah Tappis, DrPH, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Hannah Tappis

4 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-27150R2

Spatial distribution and determinants of the change in pre-lacteal feeding practice over time in Ethiopia: a spatial and multivariate decomposition analysis

Dear Dr. Teshale:

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. Hannah Tappis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers(PFP).docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer(#2).docx

    Data Availability Statement

    It is ethically not acceptable to share the DHS data sets to third parties. However, anyone who want the data set can access from the Measure DHS program at www.dhsprogram.com, through legal requesting. The authors had no special access privileges others would not have.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES