Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 15;16(1):e0245456. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245456

Concurrence of stunting and overweight/obesity among children: Evidence from Ethiopia

Alinoor Mohamed Farah 1,*, Tahir Yousuf Nour 1, Bilal Shikur Endris 2, Seifu Hagos Gebreyesus 2
Editor: Nili Steinberg3
PMCID: PMC7810347  PMID: 33449970

Abstract

Background

Nutrition transition in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has led to shift in childhood nutritional outcomes from a predominance of undernutrition to a double burden of under- and overnutrition. Yet, policies that address undernutrition often times do not include overnutrition nor do policies on overweight, obesity reflect the challenges of undernutrition. It is therefore crucial to assess the prevalence and determinants of concurrence stunting and overweight/obesity to better inform nutrition programs in Ethiopia and beyond.

Methods

We analyzed anthropometric, sociodemographic and dietary data of children under five years of age from 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS). A total of 8,714 children were included in the current study. Concurrence of stunting and overweight/obesity (CSO) prevalence was estimated by basic, underlying and immediate factors. To identify factors associated with CSO, we conducted hierarchical logistic regression analyses.

Results

The overall prevalence of CSO was 1.99% (95% CI, 1.57–2.53). The odds of CSO was significantly higher in children in agrarian region compared to their counter parts in the pastoralist region (AOR = 1.51). Other significant factors included; not having improved toilet facility (AOR = 1.94), being younger than 12 months (AOR = 4.22), not having history of infection (AOR = 1.83) and not having taken deworming tablet within the previous six months (AOR = 1.49).

Conclusion

Our study provided evidence on the co-existence of stunting and overweight/obesity among infants and young children in Ethiopia. Therefore, identifying children at risk of growth flattering and excess weight gain provides nutrition policies and programs in Ethiopia and beyond with an opportunity of earlier interventions through improving sanitation, dietary quality by targeting children under five years of age and those living in Agrarian regions of Ethiopia.

Introduction

Child malnutrition which includes both undernutrition and overweight are global challenges which is associated with an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, unhealthy development, and loss of productivity [1]. In 2016, nearly 155 million children under five years of age were reported stunted, while 41 million were obese or overweight [2]. Stunting and obesity distinctively pose a significant challenge to the health system, child survival and poor academic performance and a lower quality of life experience of children [3, 4] and their concurrence represents a serious public health challenge [5]. Though the drivers of these two forms of malnutrition appear distinct, new evidence indicates that there are shared biological, environmental and socioeconomic factors that contribute to the risk or prevalence of both [5, 6].

Although improvement of child undernutrition in Ethiopia has been achieved, stunting remains an important problem in Ethiopia, with 38% of children under five years of age affected. However, economic growth and urbanization in countries like Ethiopia have given rise to a nutrition transition, where there is a shift from traditional diets to “western diets” (energy-dense diets)which has led to an increase in overweight and obesity [7]. In Ethiopia, in addition to high levels of undernutrition, considerable levels of overweight/obesity have been observed. A recent metanalysis has shown a pooled prevalence of overweight and obesity of children and adolescents in Ethiopia to be 11.3% [8] and others reports showed a prevalence of overweight/obesity among preschoolers to be 13.8% in Gondar [9] and 7.3% in Hawassa [10]. On the other hand, undernutrition decreased but has not been as rapid as the rise in overweight and obesity, leading to a double burden of overnutrition and undernutrition [11].

Co-existence of two different forms of malnutrition is known as the double burden of malnutrition and could occur at country, household, or individual level [5]. At household level at least one member is undernourished and at least one member is overweight whereas at individual level the double burden of malnutrition often manifests as stunting or micronutrient deficiencies cooccurring with overweight or obesity [1113]. At individual level, history of stunting coupled with consumption of high dense energy foods and micronutrient deficiencies owing to shared underlying determinants or physiologic links may also result in clustering of nutrition problems such as concurrence of stunting and overweight particularly among children under five years of age [11].

In that regard, the definition on the indicators used to explore and define the double burden of malnutrition phenomenon particularly at individual level stills remains unclear [14]. In other words, there is no uniform definition of double burden indicators. Indicators of child malnutrition used by the reviewed literatures are combination of height for age-z score (HAZ) and micronutrient deficiency [15], BMI for age-z-score and HAZ [16], weight for height z-score(WHZ) and HAZ [11, 17] and weight for age z-score (WAZ) and HAZ [18]. These differences in measurement, make comparison among studies difficult.

Children who are concurrently stunted and overweight/obese can be at greater risk of unhealthy development than normal children. In other words they are at high risk of non-communicable disease since they impose a high metabolic load on a depleted capacity for homoeostasis [19]. Further, concurrent under and over nutrition is a public health challenge in a sense there is a need to strike a delicate balance between reducing undernutrition and preventing over nutrition [13].

There are substantial studies on double burden of malnutrition and mainly focused on prevalence and trends of double burden at different levels [7, 1113, 1518, 2041] but few studies investigated factors associated with the double burden at individual level and in particular among children under five years of age [16, 26, 30, 33, 36].

In East Africa, studies on cooccurrence of stunting and overweight/obesity are few [40, 41] focused on prevalence and did not explore factors associated with it particularly among children under five years of age. In Ethiopia, no studies have been found that examined double burden of malnutrition among children under five years of age. The previous studies in Ethiopia focused on inclusive measure of child undernutrition and failed to capture the severity of malnutrition for some children who suffer from more than one type of malnutrition. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of concurrence of stunting and overweight/obese among children under five years age in Ethiopia and associated factors.

Study subjects and methods

Study design and data source

We used data set from EDHS which is a national representative cross-sectional household survey that was conducted from September to December 2015. A multistage stratified two- stage cluster sampling procedure was used to select samples.

In the first stage, a total of 645 enumeration areas (EAs) were selected from the sampling frame, 202 urban and 443 rural. A single EA covers 181 households and the sampling frame used was the 2007 Population and Housing Census. In the second stage of selection, a fixed number of 28 households were selected per EA. In all the selected households, anthropometric measurements were collected from children under five years of age [42].

Children’s Data set which was based on woman and household questionnaires was used and included children under five years of age with complete anthropometric measurements. Based on UNICEF conceptual framework of malnutrition causation and literatures, a list of the potential predictors of double burden of malnutrition was developed [3, 43]. Based on the UNICEF conceptual framework, the variables were categorized into three groups: basic, underlying, and immediate factors. Thus, we analyzed anthropometric data of children under five years of age from 2016 EDHS which is nationally representative survey.

The survey was implemented by Central Statistical Agency (CSA) at the request of Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) and funded by United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Study subjects

The available sample for children under five years of age was 10, 641, of the 10,641 children, we excluded from the analysis children with missing household data (n = 1170), children not alive at time of data collection (n = 635) and flagged cases (n = 122). The final data set comprised 8,714 children under five years of age (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Flow chart of sample selection.

Fig 1

Anthropometric measures and interpretation

The outcome variable is concurrence of stunting and overweight/obesity (CSO) with the same child. Stunting was defined as height-for-age Z-score (HAZ) below -2SD and overweight/overweight was defined as BMI-for-age Z-score (BAZ) above 2SD from the respective WHO 2006 growth standards reference median [44]. Weight were measured using SECA scales while length/height was measured using Shorr measuring boards. Children younger than 24months were measured for length while lying down, and older children, while standing [42]. Two persons; one measurer and one recorder measure length/height: one to take measurements and other to record children’s weight and length/height. Measurements were transformed into sex- and age-specific Z-scores using WHO 2006 growth standards [44].

Assessment of associated factors

Maternal education, place of residence (urban and rural), household wealth, regions (agrarian and pastoralists), child’s sex and age, latrine type, water source, birth size, history of infection and deworming, were factors included in the analysis. A detailed description these factors is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Description of variables.

Sn Variables Description
1 Concurrent of stunting and overweight/obesity (CSO) Defined when a child was both stunted and overweight/obese.
Basic factors
2 Residence Categorized as urban and rural.
3 Household wealth category Categorized as low, middle and high wealth categories
4 Caregiver education Categorized as illiterate/none, primary, and secondary and above
5 Region Categorized as mainly pastoral and mainly agrarian. Regions categorized under agrarian are Amhara, Tigray, SNNP, Benishangul, Gambela, Addis Ababa, Harari and Diredawa. Regions that classified under pastoralist are Somali and Afar.
Underlying factors
6 Water source Categorized as improved and unimproved water source.
7 Toilet facility Categorized as improved and unimproved toilet facility.
8 Immediate factors
9 Child sex Categorized as boy and girl.
10 Child age Categorized into <12,12–23, 24–35, 36–47 and 48–59
11 Birth size Categorized as large, average and small.
12 History of infection Categorized as yes and no.
13 Deworming tablet use Categorized as yes and no.
14 Iron supplement use Categorized as yes and no.

Data collection procedure

The EDHS used standardized questionnaire to collect relevant demographic, health and nutrition data using trained data collectors who also take anthropometric measurement and blood sample.

The primary source of information on child related data was the caregiver (mostly the biological mother). When the biological mother was not present at the time of the data collection, a family member who usually took care of the child was interviewed. The head of the household usually the father or the mother were the primary source of information on household related data. All data were collected through house to house visit.

Statistical analysis

Children recode data file in the form of STATA was used for analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using the STATA software package, version 14.1 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). Survey command (svy) was used to adjust for the complex sample design.

We estimated weighted prevalence of CSO by basic, underlying and immediate factors. Overall differences across the categories were statistically tested using design-based Pearson chi-squared test. Multiple hierarchical logistic regression was used to examine the effect of basic, underlying and immediate factors. First bivariate regression analyses were done for all potential predictors of stunting, overweight/obesity and CSO. CSO (Yes/No) was the dependent variable in each of the three regression models. Then, hierarchical regression models were run using variables which demonstrated P<0.20 during the bivariate regression analyses [45]. as levels such as 0.05 can fail in identifying variables known to be important [46, 47]. Regardless of significance, basic factors, as the primary independent variables, were retained in the final regression model. Age and sex being important factors for outcomes among children under five years of age, they were also retained in the final models.

The three-level hierarchical regression models were run following the recommendation of a previous study that suggested to take into account complex hierarchical relationships of different determinants at different level [48]. The first, second, and third models included basic, underlying, and immediate factors, respectively. Model-1, 2 and 3 included the basic, underlying and immediate factors which demonstrated P<0.20 during the bivariate regression analyses. To put it differently, we used model-1 to assess the overall effect of basic factors and excluded the underlying and immediate factors. We used model 2 to assess the effect of underlying factors in the presence of basic factors which were considered confounding factors and immediate factors were entered in model 3 in the presence of basic factors which were also considered confounding variables in model 3. Variable significant at p-value of 0.05 during the hierarchical regression analyses was considered to be determinant factor at each model in which the variable was first entered regardless of its performance in the subsequent model(s). For instance, if one of the factors in Model-1 is significant, its performance in the subsequent models will not matter. The approach was meant to avoid the possibility of underestimating the effects of basic factors [48].

Ethical approval

Ethical clearance for the survey was provided by Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the College of Medicine and Health Sciences at Jigjiga University. Online application to analyze the secondary data was requested from DHS Program, USAID and we have been authorized to download data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) online archive.

Result

Background characteristics of children

The background characteristics of children and prevalence of CSO across different covariates are presented in Table 2. Fifty eight percent of children were male and the rest were female. Thirty one percent of children were younger than twelve months and the rest were older than twelve months. Majority of children lived in rural and agrarian regions.

Table 2. Bivariate analysis of the relation of basic, underlying, and immediate factors with CSO.

Weighted frequency (%) CSO prevalence (95% CI) P-value*
Basic factors (distal)
Residence place Urban 12.7 2.50 (0.1, 4.5) 0.64
Rural 87.3 1.74(1.34, 2.26)
Wealth Low 43.6 0.87(0.57, 1.33) 0.24
Middle 16.0 0.32 (0.2, 0.52)
High 40.4 0.8(0.58, 1.12)
Caregiver education No 62.5 1.25(0.93, 1.67) 0.2
Primary 33.6 0.67(0.45, 0.95)
Secondary+ 3.9 0.08[0.02 0.28]
Region Agrarian 97.1 1.93(1.51,2.47) 0.02
Pastoral 2.9 0.06(0.03,0.10)
Underlying factors (intermediate)
Water source type Not improved 43.3 0.86(0.59, 1.26) 0.91
Improved 56.7 1.13(0.84, 1.52)
Toilet facility source Not improved 93.8 1.87(1.45, 2.41) 0.22
Improved 6.2 0.12(0.06, 0.25)
Immediate factors (proximal)
Child sex Boy 57.9 1.15(0.86, 1.54) 0.18
Girl 42.1 0.84(0.6, 1.18)
Child age <12 months 31.1 0.62(0.43,0.88) 0.01
12–23 20.5 0.44(0.25,0.66)
24–35 18.9 0.38(0.23,0.60)
36–47 20.6 0.18(0.09,0.34)
48–59 8.9
Birth size Large 38.9 0.77(0.54, 1.11) 0.1
Average 43.7 0.87(0.63, 1.20)
Small 17.4 0.35(0.22, 0.56)
Infection history No 85.9 1.71(1.32,2.21) 0.009
Yes 14.1 0.28(0.17, 0.47)
Deworming No 94.2 1.88(1.47, 2.40) 0.122
Yes 5.8 0.11(0.04, 0.30)
Iron supplement No 90.1 1.79(1.38, 2.32) 0.58
Yes 9.9 0.2(0.1, 0.39)

CSO: Concurrent of stunting and overweight/obesity CI: confidence interval. *Based on Pearson chi-square test of association.

Prevalence of CSO

Overall, 38.3 and 3.86% of children were stunted and overweight respectively. The overall prevalence of CSO was 1.99% (95% CI,1.57–2.53). CSO prevalence among urban and rural children was 1.74 and 2.50%, respectively. Children in lowest wealth category and whom caregivers had no education had higher prevalence CSO compared to their counterparts. Children living in agrarian regions tend to suffer concurrently from stunting and overweight/obesity compared to their counterparts in pastoralist region. Children from households with no improved toilet facility also tend to have higher prevalence of CSO. Among boys and girls, the prevalence was 1.15 and 0.84% respectively. The age-specific estimates were 0.86 in those under 12 months of months. The prevalence of CSO by other child characteristics is shown in Table 2.

Determinants of stunting

Table 3 shows determinants of stunting and obesity. The first, second, and third models contained basic, underlying, and immediate factors, respectively. Model-1 adjusted for basic factors only, Model-2 adjusted for basic factors and underlying factors and Model-3 adjusted for basic factors and immediate factors.

Table 3. Hierarchical multiple logistic regression analysis to determine basic, underlying and immediate determinants of stunting among children under five years of age.

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Residence Urban Ref
Rural 2.06(1.82–2.34) 1.12(0.95–1.34)
Wealth Low 1.89(1.70–2.09) 1.57(1.37–1.79) **
Middle 1.58(1.37–1.82) 1.18(1 .00–1.38) *
High Ref Ref
Caregiver education No 4.23(3.00–5.95) 3.14(2.18–4.51) **
Primary 3.26(2.29–4.62) 2.52(1.75–3.62) **
Secondary+ Ref Ref
Region Agrarian 1.13(1.02–1.26) 1.46(1.30–1.64) **
Pastoralist
Water source type Not improved 1.14(1.04–1.25) 0.91(0.83–1.01)
Improved Ref Ref
Toilet facility type Not improved 2.21(1.94–2.53) 1.41(1.18–1.68) **
Improved Ref Ref
Child sex Girl Ref
Boy 1.14(1.04–1.24) 1.20(1.09–1.32) **
Child age <12 months Ref
12–23 3.68(3.12–4.33) 3.76(3.16–4.49) **
24–35 5.70(4.83–6.71) 6.03(5.06–7.18) **
36–47 5.13(4.36–6.05) 5.43(4.56–6.47) **
48–59 3.82(3.24–4.50) 4.02(3.37–4.78) **
Birth size Large Ref Ref
Average 1.22(1.10–1.36) 1.25(1.12–1.41) **
Small 1.59(1.42–1.79) 1.73(1.52–1.97) **
Infection history No Ref -
Yes 1.08(0.98–1.20) -
Deworming No 0.94(0.83–1.08 -
Yes Ref -
Iron supplement No 0.93(0.79–1.10) -
Yes Ref -

COR: Crude Odds Ratio; AOR: Adjusted odds ratio CI: Confidence interval *P-value significant when <0.05 ** P-value significant when <0.001.

Model-1: adjusted for residence place and wealth category.

Model-2: adjusted for residence place, wealth category and all variables under Model-2 .

Model-3: adjusted for residence place, wealth category and all variables under Model-3.

Determinants of stunting included lowest wealth index category (AOR = 1.57), children whom caregivers had no education (AOR = 3.14), not having improved toilet facility (AOR = 1.41), being a male child (AOR = 1.20), being at age group 24–35 (AOR = 6.03) and having been small at birth (AOR = 1.73).

Determinants of overweight/obesity

Table 4 shows determinants of overweight/obesity. The first, second, and third models contained basic, underlying, and immediate factors, respectively. Model-1 adjusted for basic factors only, Model-2 adjusted for basic factors and underlying factors and Model-3 adjusted for basic factors and immediate factors.

Table 4. Hierarchical multiple logistic regression analysis to determine basic, underlying and immediate determinants of overweight/obesity among children under five years of age.

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Residence Urban 1.78(1.38–2.30) 1.35(0.91–2.00)
Rural Ref Ref
Wealth Low Ref Ref
Middle 1.00(0.69–1.45) 0.87(0.65–1.18)
High 1.63(1.27–2.07) 1.44(0.64–2.05)
Caregiver education No Ref Ref
Primary 1.04(0.79–1.39) 0.77(0.51–1.16)
Secondary+ 1.91(1.14–3.19) 1.26(0.91–1.75)
Region Agrarian 1.48(1.09–2.01) 1.51(1.08–2.11) *
Pastoralist Ref
Water source type Not improved 1.06(0.84–1.34) -
Improved Ref -
Toilet facility type Not improved Ref
Improved 1.60(1.22–2.10) 1.14(0.76–1.71)
Child sex Girl Ref Ref
Boy 1.25(1.00–1.58) 1.25(0.98–1.61)
Child age <12 months Ref Ref
12–23 3.41(2.24–5.19) 3.74(2.39–5.85) **
24–35 2.62(1.70–4.05) 2.67(1.67–4.25) **
36–47 1.86(1.17–2.95) 1.81(1.10–2.99) *
48–59 2.06(1.28–3.18) 2.01(1.24–3.27) *
Birth size Large Ref
Average 1.25(0.92–1.71) -
Small 1.21(0.90–1.62) -
Infection history No 1.72(1.28–2.33) 1.83(1.33–2.53) **
Yes Ref Ref
Deworming No 1.58(1.04–2.39) 1.49(0.93–2.39)
Yes Ref Ref
Iron supplement No Ref -
Yes 1.08(0.71–1.65) -

COR: Crude Odds Ratio; AOR: Adjusted odds ratio CI: Confidence interval *P-value significant when <0.05 ** P-value significant when <0.001.

Model-1: adjusted for residence place and wealth category.

Model-2: adjusted for residence place, wealth category and all variables under Model-2.

Model-3: adjusted for residence place, wealth category and all variables under Model-3.

Determinants of obesity included living in agrarian region (AOR = 1.51), being younger than 12 months (AOR = 3.74) and not having history of infection (AOR = 1.83).

Determinants of CSO

The multiple hierarchical logistic regression model is presented in Table 5. The first, second, and third models contained basic, underlying, and immediate factors, respectively. Model-1 adjusted for basic factors only, Model-2 adjusted for basic factors and underlying factors and Model-3 adjusted for basic factors and immediate factors. The determinants of CSO included living in agrarian region (AOR = 1.51), not having improved toilet facility (AOR = 1.94), being younger than 12 months (AOR = 4.22), not having history of infection (AOR = 1.83) and not having taken deworming tablet within the previous six months (AOR = 1.49).

Table 5. Hierarchical multiple logistic regression analysis to determine basic, underlying and immediate determinants of CSO.

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Residence Urban 0.88(0.58–1.36) 1.09(0.62–1.93)
Rural Ref Ref
Wealth index Low Ref Ref
Middle 1.11 (0.69–1.79) 0.76(0.44–1.31)
High 1.10(0.77–1.58) 1.07(0.68–1.68)
Caregiver education No 1.17(0.80–1.70) 1.03(0.70–1.53)
Primary 0.95(0.39–2.36) 0.74(0.27–1.99)
Secondary + Ref Ref
Region Agrarian 1.57(1.02–2.42) 1.51(1.08–2.11) *
Pastoralist Ref Ref
Water source type Not improved 1.05(0.76–1.46) -
Improved Ref -
Toilet facility type Not improved 1.62(0.98–2.70) 1.94(0.74–4.91) *
Improved Ref Ref
Child sex Girl Ref Ref
Boy 1.23(0.89–1.70) 1.22(0.87–1.72)
Child age <12 months 4.47(2.37–8.42) 4.22(2.22–8.05) **
12–23 2.65(1.35–5.20) 2.49(1.24–5.00) *
24–35 2.40(1.21–4.77) 2.54(1.27–5.08) *
36–47 2.99(1.54–5.80) 3.00(1.54–5.84) *
48–59 Ref Ref
Birth size Large Ref Ref
Average 1.02(0.66–1.57) -
Small 1.05(0.70–1.57) -
Infection history No 1.88(1.20–2.94) 1.98(1.25–3.15) *
Yes Ref Ref
Deworming No 2.39(1.17–4.89) 2.32(1.07–5.01) *
Yes Ref Ref
Iron supplement No 0.80(0.45–1.42) -
Yes Ref -

COR: Crude Odds Ratio; AOR: Adjusted odds ratio CI: Confidence interval *P-value significant when <0.05 ** P-value significant when <0.001.

Model-1: adjusted for residence place and wealth category.

Model-2: adjusted for residence place, wealth category and all variables under Model-2.

Model-3: adjusted for residence place, wealth category and all variables under Model-3.

Discussion

To our best of knowledge, this is a first study to show prevalence of CSO and its associated factors using a national representative sample of children under five years of age in Ethiopia. Our study provided evidence that there was concurrence of stunting and overweight among children under five years of age in Ethiopia. We also found CSO is associated with factors at different levels. The basic factor associated with higher odds of CSO was being from agrarian region. The underlying factor associated with CSO was not having improved toilet facility. The immediate factors found associated with higher odds of CSO were age younger than 12 months, no history of infection and not having received deworming for the last six months.

Our results showed high level of stunting among children under five years of age, with 38.3% of children being stunted. Overweight was also prevalent, though not as high as stunting. We found an overall prevalence of overweight/obesity was higher compared to estimates based on weight for height z-score. This finding is in agreement with a study that compared changes in the prevalence of overweight in preschool children between 1990 and 2010 and found that estimates using BMI z-score were higher than those observed using WHZ [49].

The prevalence of children concurrently suffered stunting and overweight/obese was 1.99%. In comparison to other studies on prevalence of concurrence of stunting and overweight/obese among children under five years of age in African countries, the prevalence in our study was higher than studies conducted in Ghana and Kenya [16, 40] but lower than a study conducted in South Africa and Libya that reported prevalence of 18% and 7% respectively among children under five years of age [28, 38]. Similarly, when compared to studies from Asia and Latin America countries that determined the prevalence of concurrence of stunting and overweight/obese among children under five years of age, our study was lower than a study conducted Ecuador that reported a prevalence of 2.8% [23], but higher than a study from Mexico that reported a prevalence of 1% [17] and lower than a prevalence from China that reported 5.06% [33]. A recent study that examined the double burden of malnutrition among children aged 6–59 months in the Middle-East and North Africa (MENA) and Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) regions also showed a prevalence that ranged from 0.4 to 10.7% in MENA regions and 0.3 to 1.9% in LAC regions [50]. The prevalence of our study is lower than prevalence of almost all LAC regions and within the range in most countries in MENA regions.

Our findings regarding factors associated with stunting, overweight/obesity and CSO are noteworthy. Children from agrarian region were more likely to be stunted, overweight/obese and concurrently stunted and overweight/obese. The finding was consistent with reports of previous studies in Ethiopia that showed higher prevalence of stunting in Amhara and Tigray, both Agrarian regions but lower stunting prevalence in Somali and Afar, both Pastoralist regions [42, 51]. This could be explained by the fact that short maternal stature is common in agrarian region [42, 51] than in pastoralists and thus intergenerational influence on height of their children since shorter parents are more likely to have shorter children [52]. Further, genetics and environmental factors are known to influence child’s height [53, 54]. Another possible explanation could be due to difference in dietary practices. Pastoralists communities in Ethiopia are more likely to consume milk than agrarian communities. Animal source foods are rich in type I and particularly type II nutrients (the growth nutrients) nutrients and has shown to reduce risk of stunting in children [55, 56]. This is even evident in our sub-sample data; sub-sample analysis of data of current work for children aged 6–23 months using Pearson chi-squared test revealed that almost 62% of children from pastoralist communities consumed dairy products. Conversely, only 15% of children from agrarian communities consumed dairy products (P<0.001). Similarly, children residing in agrarian regions had higher odds of being overweight/obesity than their counter parts in pastoralist regions. This finding is similar to other studies conducted in Ethiopia that found higher prevalence of overweight/obesity among children residing in agrarian regions [9, 10]. This again could be explained by differences in lifestyle, diet or in feeding habits across regions. Studies conducted in agrarian regions found consumption of sweet food [9, 10] and early introduction of formula milk were among factors associated with overweight/obesity among preschoolers [10].

Children from poor households were more likely to be stunted than those from rich household. This could be due to the fact that infant and young child caring practices like hygiene, proper feeding and health services utilization are often poorly practiced among poor households compared to their richer counterparts [52, 57, 58]. This finding also agrees with the existing literature on stunting [16, 36]. Children from rural areas and whose mothers have not received formal education had also a higher risk of being stunted but not overweight/obese or CSO. Education and place residence are socio-economic indicators. Poverty and a lack of educational attainment is associated with poor nutrition and health practices such as poor nutrition across the life course due to inability to afford nutrient-rich foods [59].

Children from households with unimproved toilet facilities had higher odds of stunting and concurrently suffering from both stunting and overweight/obsess than children dwelling in households with improved toilet facilities. Access to improved sanitation services is crucial for preventing undernutrition since poor sanitation can result in childhood infection such as diarrhea which subsequently affect the linear growth of a child negatively [60, 61].

We also found higher odds of stunting in boys and those children above 12 months of age which is consistent with other studies [57, 62]. This could be due to the rampant suboptimal feeding practices in Ethiopia and high number of children are not meeting the minimum acceptable diet [42]. Conversely, higher odds of overweight and CSO was found in children younger than 12 months of age which is in agreement with studies conducted in Ethiopia [63], Cameroon [64] and Malaysia [65]. After literature search, previous studies did not investigate association between overweight/obesity and different age groups and as why younger children are at higher risk of overweight/obese. Though one study related to increase of physical activity as the age increase which will lead to high metabolic activity and energy requirement [63]. Feeding pattern among these particular age group is one of the factors that might need to be explored to better understand such association.

Further, our finding of higher risks of stunting in boys than in girls was in agreement with previous reports which demonstrated higher odds of stunting in boys [52, 66]. This finding suggests that boys are generally vulnerable to malnutrition and could be a biological explanation. Epidemiological and cohort studies on neonatology demonstrated consistently higher morbidity and mortality in males than in early life [6770] though the underlying mechanisms is poorly understood [70, 71].

Small birth size was also significantly associated with stunting. This finding was also in agreement with the existing evidence which suggests low birthweight linked to poor health and nutritional outcomes [1, 62, 72]. Fetal growth restriction is an important contributor to stunting in children and evidence showed that low birthweight was associated with 2.5–3.5-fold higher odds of wasting, stunting and underweight [72]. Further, other evidences have suggested low birth weight babies who exhibit catchup growth may be at risk of abnormal weight gain in childhood [7377].

Deworming and not having history of infection were associated with CSO while not having history of infection was associated with overweight/obese. This could be possibly due to the fact that helminths and protozoans trigger leptin secretion which is related to inflammation, food intake and nutrient absorption and metabolism [78]. There is also evidence that all forms of chronic gut inflammation lead to growth faltering, whether indirectly by affecting nutrient balance or by more direct effects on metabolism [79].

The first 1,000 days is a critical time for physical and intellectual growth and set a foundation for long term heath and development [1]. As a result of greater awareness of significance of stunting as one of major public health problems, stunting reduction has gained increased international attention [80]. Equally, overweight/obesity in this age group deserves attention because at early stage of life catch up growth have been identified as one of the risk factors that lead to progression of abnormal weight gain [8187]. Therefore, it is important to identify children that are at risk of developing CSO as early as possible to limit progression of both growth flattering and abnormal weight gain. Further, evidence have shown that if only under nutrition is targeted with an aim of targeting growth may unintentionally contribute to abnormal weight gain [88]. In this regard, humanitarian emergency nutrition programs that are currently focused mainly on food security can be used as platform to promote quality and nutritious diets and ensure that the food provided does not increase the risk of unhealthy diets which may unintentionally contribute to abnormal weight gains [5].

A recent analysis conducted by WHO has also showed that policies that address undernutrition often times do not include overweight/obesity and the vice versa [59]. Thus, integrated interventions, programs and policies that have the potential to improve the nutrition outcomes across the spectrum of malnutrition is of paramount importance to simultaneously reduce the risk or burden of both undernutrition and overweight/obesity [5].

Our study has the following limitations; first, recall bias while reporting the birth, infection, dietary history of children is still an issue of concern [89]. In other words, collecting data like birth size and history of infection are solely based on memory of mothers or the caretaker which might have led to recall bias. Further, due to the cross-sectional nature of this study a cause and effect relationship could not be inferred.

Given the above-mentioned limitations, the current work has some strengths. First, the EDHS data is a national representative data and conclusions about Ethiopia can be drawn. Second the data is reliable and of high quality since the standardized procedures are employed by such kind of survey. Third, appropriate statistical method was used to explore the relationships between the outcome variable and its determinants.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study provided evidence on the co-existence of stunting and overweight/obesity among children under five years of age in Ethiopia. CSO was associated with various factors originating from community and child levels. Therefore, identifying children at risk of growth flattering and excess weight gain provides nutrition policies and programs in Ethiopia and beyond with an opportunity of earlier interventions through improving sanitation, dietary quality by targeting children under five years of age and those living in Agrarian regions of Ethiopia.

Acknowledgments

The authors will like to thank ICF international to grant permission to use the EDHS data. We will also like to thank Dr. Olusola Oladeji for editing the manuscript.

Abbreviations

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

BAZ

Body Mass Index for Age Z-score

BMI

Body Mass Index

CI

Confidence Interval

COR

Crude Odds Ration

CSO

Concurrent of Stunting and Overweight/Obesity

EA

Enumeration Area

EDHS

Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey

LAZ

Length for Age Z-score

HAZ

Height for Age Z-score

IRB

Institutional Review Board

LAC

Latin American and Caribbean

LMIC

Lower, Middle Income Countries

MENA

Middle-East and North Africa

NRERC

National Research Ethics Review Committee

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

USAID

United States of Agency for International Development

WAZ

Weight for Age Z-score

WHZ

Weight for Height Z-score

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

The data used in the study belong to a third party, The DHS Program, and is publicly available on http://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Ethiopia_Standard-DHS_2016.cfm. The DHS program is fully authorized to distribute the data, at no cost, upon registration on the program website https://dhsprogram.com/data/new-user-registration.cfm. Once an account has been created, users can request access to the Ethiopia DHS 2016 dataset by indicating their research need. Once the request has been received, it will be reviewed by The DHS Program staff within 1-2 business days and access will be granted if sufficient detail is provided. Those interested can access the data in the same manner as the authors. The authors had no special access privileges to the data that others would not have.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Black R.E., et al. , Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. The lancet, 2013. 382(9890): p. 427–451. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.UNICEF, Levels and trends in child malnutrition UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Group joint child malnutrition estimates: key findings of the 2015 edition. New York: UNICEF, WHO, World Bank Group, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Reinhardt K. and Fanzo J., Addressing chronic malnutrition through multi-sectoral, sustainable approaches: a review of the causes and consequences. Frontiers in nutrition, 2014. 1: p. 13 10.3389/fnut.2014.00013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sahoo K., et al. , Childhood obesity: causes and consequences. Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2015. 4(2): p. 187 10.4103/2249-4863.154628 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.WHO, Double-duty actions for nutrition: policy brief. 2017, World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Organization, W.H., The global prevalence of anaemia in 2011. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Popkin B.M., The nutrition transition in low-income countries: an emerging crisis. Nutrition reviews, 1994. 52(9): p. 285–298. 10.1111/j.1753-4887.1994.tb01460.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gebrie A., et al. , Prevalence and associated factors of overweight/obesity among children and adolescents in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC obesity, 2018. 5(1): p. 19 10.1186/s40608-018-0198-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sorrie M.B., Yesuf M.E., and GebreMichael T.G., Overweight/obesity and associated factors among preschool children in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. PloS one, 2017. 12(8). 10.1371/journal.pone.0182511 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wolde T. and Belachew T., Prevalence and determinant factors of overweight and obesity among preschool children living in Hawassa City, South Ethiopia. Prevalence, 2014. 29. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tzioumis E., et al. , Prevalence and trends in the childhood dual burden of malnutrition in low-and middle-income countries, 1990–2012. Public health nutrition, 2016. 19(8): p. 1375–1388. 10.1017/S1368980016000276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Doak C.M., et al. , The dual burden household and the nutrition transition paradox. International journal of obesity, 2005. 29(1): p. 129 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802824 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Garrett J.L. and Ruel M.T., Stunted child–overweight mother pairs: prevalence and association with economic development and urbanization. Food and nutrition bulletin, 2005. 26(2): p. 209–221. 10.1177/156482650502600205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kosaka S. and Umezaki M., A systematic review of the prevalence and predictors of the double burden of malnutrition within households. British Journal of Nutrition, 2017. 117(8): p. 1118–1127. 10.1017/S0007114517000812 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mohammed S.H., Larijani B., and Esmaillzadeh A., Concurrent anemia and stunting in young children: prevalence, dietary and non-dietary associated factors. Nutrition journal, 2019. 18(1): p. 10 10.1186/s12937-019-0436-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Atsu B.K., Guure C., and Laar A.K., Determinants of overweight with concurrent stunting among Ghanaian children. BMC pediatrics, 2017. 17(1): p. 177 10.1186/s12887-017-0928-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kroker-Lobos M.F., et al. , The double burden of undernutrition and excess body weight in Mexico. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2014. 100(6): p. 1652S–1658S. 10.3945/ajcn.114.083832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jehn M. and Brewis A., Paradoxical malnutrition in mother–child pairs: untangling the phenomenon of over-and under-nutrition in underdeveloped economies. Economics & Human Biology, 2009. 7(1): p. 28–35. 10.1016/j.ehb.2009.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wells J.C., et al. , The double burden of malnutrition: aetiological pathways and consequences for health. The Lancet, 2019. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32472-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jinabhai C.C., Taylor M., and Sullivan K.R., Changing patterns of under-and over-nutrition in South African children—future risks of non-communicable diseases. Annals of tropical paediatrics, 2005. 25(1): p. 3–15. 10.1179/146532805X23290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cattaneo A., et al. , Child nutrition in countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States: time to redirect strategies? Public health nutrition, 2008. 11(12): p. 1209–1219. 10.1017/S1368980008003261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ferreira H.d.S. and Luciano S.C.M., Prevalence of extreme anthropometric measurements in children from Alagoas, Northeastern Brazil. Revista de saude publica, 2010. 44(2): p. 377–380. 10.1590/s0034-89102010005000001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Freire W.B., et al. , The double burden of undernutrition and excess body weight in Ecuador. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2014. 100(6): p. 1636S–1643S. 10.3945/ajcn.114.083766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gardner K., et al. , Prevalence of overweight, obesity and underweight among 5‐year‐old children in Saint Lucia by three methods of classification and a comparison with historical rates. Child: Care, Health and Development, 2011. 37(1): p. 143–149. 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01154.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jafar T., et al. , Rise in childhood obesity with persistently high rates of undernutrition among urban school-aged Indo-Asian children. Archives of disease in childhood, 2008. 93(5): p. 373–378. 10.1136/adc.2007.125641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kavle J.A., et al. , Factors associated with early growth in E gyptian infants: implications for addressing the dual burden of malnutrition. Maternal & child nutrition, 2016. 12(1): p. 139–151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Khor G.L. and Sharif Z.M., Dual forms of malnutrition in the same households in Malaysia—a case study among Malay rural households. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003. 12(4). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kimani-Murage E.W., et al. , The prevalence of stunting, overweight and obesity, and metabolic disease risk in rural South African children. BMC public health, 2010. 10(1): p. 158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Motlagh M.E., et al. , Double burden of nutritional disorders in young Iranian children: findings of a nationwide screening survey. Public health nutrition, 2011. 14(4): p. 605–610. 10.1017/S1368980010002399 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Saibul N., et al. , Food variety score is associated with dual burden of malnutrition in Orang Asli (Malaysian indigenous peoples) households: implications for health promotion. Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition, 2009. 18(3): p. 412–422. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sarmiento O.L., et al. , The dual burden of malnutrition in Colombia. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2014. 100(6): p. 1628S–1635S. 10.3945/ajcn.114.083816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wang X., et al. , Stunting and ‘overweight’in the WHO Child Growth Standards–malnutrition among children in a poor area of China. Public health nutrition, 2009. 12(11): p. 1991–1998. 10.1017/S1368980009990796 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhang N., Bécares L., and Chandola T., Patterns and determinants of double-burden of malnutrition among rural children: evidence from China. PloS one, 2016. 11(7): p. e0158119 10.1371/journal.pone.0158119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Provo A., Towards Sustainable Nutrition for All Tackling the double burden of malnutrition in Africa. Sight Life, 2013. 27(3): p. 40–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Urke H.B., Mittelmark M.B., and Valdivia M., Trends in stunting and overweight in Peruvian pre-schoolers from 1991 to 2011: findings from the Demographic and Health Surveys. Public health nutrition, 2014. 17(11): p. 2407–2418. 10.1017/S1368980014000275 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Fernald L.C. and Neufeld L.M., Overweight with concurrent stunting in very young children from rural Mexico: prevalence and associated factors. European journal of clinical nutrition, 2007. 61(5): p. 623 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602558 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Said-Mohamed R., et al. , Determinants of overweight associated with stunting in preschool children of Yaounde, Cameroon. Annals of human biology, 2009. 36(2): p. 146–161. 10.1080/03014460802660526 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Adel E.T., et al. , Nutritional status of under-five children in Libya; a national population-based survey. Libyan Journal of Medicine, 2008. 3(1): p. 13–19. 10.4176/071006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hassen K., Gizaw G., and Belachew T., Dual burden of malnutrition among adolescents of smallholder coffee farming households of Jimma zone, Southwest Ethiopia. Food and nutrition bulletin, 2017. 38(2): p. 196–208. 10.1177/0379572117701660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fongar A., Gödecke T., and Qaim M., Various forms of double burden of malnutrition problems exist in rural Kenya. BMC public health, 2019. 19(1): p. 1543 10.1186/s12889-019-7882-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kimani-Murage E.W., et al. , Evidence of a double burden of malnutrition in urban poor settings in Nairobi, Kenya. PloS one, 2015. 10(6). 10.1371/journal.pone.0129943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.CSA, I., Central statistical agency (CSA)[Ethiopia] and ICF. Ethiopia demographic and health survey, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA, 2016.
  • 43.Taylor, C. and M. Mercer. Causal factors influencing childhood malnutrition. in Growth Promotion for Child Development: proceedings of a colloquium held in Nyeri, Kenya, 12–13 May 1992. 1993. IDRC, Ottawa, ON, CA.
  • 44.Organization, W.H., WHO Anthro for personal computers manual: Software for assessing growth and development of the world’s children. Geneva: WHO, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bursac Z., et al. , Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source code for biology and medicine, 2008. 3(1): p. 17 10.1186/1751-0473-3-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bendel R.B. and Afifi A.A., Comparison of stopping rules in forward “stepwise” regression. Journal of the American Statistical association, 1977. 72(357): p. 46–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Mickey R.M. and Greenland S., The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. American journal of epidemiology, 1989. 129(1): p. 125–137. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Victora C.G., et al. , The role of conceptual frameworks in epidemiological analysis: a hierarchical approach. International journal of epidemiology, 1997. 26(1): p. 224–227. 10.1093/ije/26.1.224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.De Onis M., Blössner M., and Borghi E., Global prevalence and trends of overweight and obesity among preschool children. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2010. 92(5): p. 1257–1264. 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29786 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ghattas H., et al. , Child‐level double burden of malnutrition in the MENA and LAC regions—Prevalence and social determinants. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 2019. 10.1111/mcn.12923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.CSA-Ethiopia I., International: Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2011 Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia and ICF International Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Farah A.M., Endris B.S., and Gebreyesus S.H., Maternal undernutrition as proxy indicators of their offspring’s undernutrition: evidence from 2011 Ethiopia demographic and health survey. BMC Nutrition, 2019. 5(1): p. 17 10.1186/s40795-019-0281-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jelenkovic A., et al. , Genetic and environmental influences on height from infancy to early adulthood: An individual-based pooled analysis of 45 twin cohorts. Scientific reports, 2016. 6(1): p. 1–13. 10.1038/s41598-016-0001-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Martorell R. and Zongrone A., Intergenerational influences on child growth and undernutrition. Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2012. 26: p. 302–314. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01298.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Dror D.K. and Allen L.H., The importance of milk and other animal-source foods for children in low-income countries. Food and nutrition bulletin, 2011. 32(3): p. 227–243. 10.1177/156482651103200307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Darapheak C., et al. , Consumption of animal source foods and dietary diversity reduce stunting in children in Cambodia. International archives of medicine, 2013. 6(1): p. 29 10.1186/1755-7682-6-29 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Victora C.G., et al. , Worldwide timing of growth faltering: revisiting implications for interventions. Pediatrics, 2010. 125(3): p. e473–e480. 10.1542/peds.2009-1519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Melaku Y.A., et al. , Associations of childhood, maternal and household dietary patterns with childhood stunting in Ethiopia: proposing an alternative and plausible dietary analysis method to dietary diversity scores. Nutrition journal, 2018. 17(1): p. 14 10.1186/s12937-018-0316-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Organization, W.H., Global nutrition policy review: what does it take to scale up nutrition action? 2013: World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Dearden K.A., et al. , Children with access to improved sanitation but not improved water are at lower risk of stunting compared to children without access: a cohort study in Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam. BMC public health, 2017. 17(1): p. 110 10.1186/s12889-017-4033-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Danaei G., et al. , Risk factors for childhood stunting in 137 developing countries: a comparative risk assessment analysis at global, regional, and country levels. PLoS medicine, 2016. 13(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Danaei G., et al. , Risk factors for childhood stunting in 137 developing countries: a comparative risk assessment analysis at global, regional, and country levels. PLoS medicine, 2016. 13(11): p. e1002164 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Weldearegay H.G., et al. , Overweight and obesity among children under five in Ethiopia: further analysis of 2016 national demographic health survey: a case control study. BMC research notes, 2019. 12(1): p. 716 10.1186/s13104-019-4752-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Tchoubi S., et al. , Prevalence and risk factors of overweight and obesity among children aged 6–59 months in Cameroon: a multistage, stratified cluster sampling nationwide survey. PloS one, 2015. 10(12). 10.1371/journal.pone.0143215 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Sidik S.M. and Rampal L., The prevalence and factors associated with obesity among adult women in Selangor, Malaysia. Asia Pacific family medicine, 2009. 8(1): p. 2 10.1186/1447-056X-8-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Wamani H., et al. , Boys are more stunted than girls in sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis of 16 demographic and health surveys. BMC pediatrics, 2007. 7(1): p. 17 10.1186/1471-2431-7-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Elsmén E., Pupp I.H., and Hellström‐Westas L., Preterm male infants need more initial respiratory and circulatory support than female infants. Acta Paediatrica, 2004. 93(4): p. 529–533. 10.1080/08035250410024998 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Kilbride H.W. and Daily D.K., Survival and subsequent outcome to five years of age for infants with birth weights less than 801 grams born from 1983 to 1989. Journal of perinatology: official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 1998. 18(2): p. 102–106. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Chen S.-J., Vohr B.R., and Oh W., Effects of birth order, gender, and intrauterine growth retardation on the outcome of very low birth weight in twins. The Journal of pediatrics, 1993. 123(1): p. 132–136. 10.1016/s0022-3476(05)81556-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Synnes A.R., et al. , Perinatal outcomes of a large cohort of extremely low gestational age infants (twenty-three to twenty-eight completed weeks of gestation). The Journal of pediatrics, 1994. 125(6): p. 952–960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Green M.S., The male predominance in the incidence of infectious diseases in children: a postulated explanation for disparities in the literature. International Journal of Epidemiology, 1992. 21(2): p. 381–386. 10.1093/ije/21.2.381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Christian P., et al. , Risk of childhood undernutrition related to small-for-gestational age and preterm birth in low-and middle-income countries. International journal of epidemiology, 2013. 42(5): p. 1340–1355. 10.1093/ije/dyt109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Kuhle S., et al. , Birth weight for gestational age, anthropometric measures, and cardiovascular disease markers in children. The Journal of pediatrics, 2017. 182: p. 99–106. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.11.067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Gallo P., et al. , SGA children in pediatric primary care: what is the best choice, large or small? A 10-year prospective longitudinal study. Global pediatric health, 2016. 3: p. 2333794X16659993. 10.1177/2333794X16659993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Yu Z., et al. , Birth weight and subsequent risk of obesity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Obesity Reviews, 2011. 12(7): p. 525–542. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00867.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Kramer M.S., et al. , Is restricted fetal growth associated with later adiposity? Observational analysis of a randomized trial. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2014. 100(1): p. 176–181. 10.3945/ajcn.113.079590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Ong K.K., et al. , Association between postnatal catch-up growth and obesity in childhood: prospective cohort study. Bmj, 2000. 320(7240): p. 967–971. 10.1136/bmj.320.7240.967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Sanchez M., Panahi S., and Tremblay A., Childhood obesity: a role for gut microbiota? International journal of environmental research and public health, 2015. 12(1): p. 162–175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Cooper E., 6. Intestinal parasitoses and the modern description of diseases of poverty. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 1991. 85(2): p. 168–170. 10.1016/0035-9203(91)90009-n [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Aguayo V.M. and Menon P., Stop stunting: Improving child feeding, women’s nutrition and household sanitation in South Asia. Maternal & child nutrition, 2016. 12: p. 3–11. 10.1111/mcn.12283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Okihiro M., et al. , Rapid growth from 12 to 23 months of life predicts obesity in a population of Pacific Island children. Ethnicity & disease, 2012. 22(4): p. 439. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Chomtho S., et al. , Infant growth and later body composition: evidence from the 4-component model. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2008. 87(6): p. 1776–1784. 10.1093/ajcn/87.6.1776 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Dennison B.A., et al. , Rapid infant weight gain predicts childhood overweight. Obesity, 2006. 14(3): p. 491–499. 10.1038/oby.2006.64 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Druet C., et al. , Prediction of childhood obesity by infancy weight gain: an individual‐level meta‐analysis. Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2012. 26(1): p. 19–26. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2011.01213.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Taveras E.M., et al. , Weight status in the first 6 months of life and obesity at 3 years of age. Pediatrics, 2009. 123(4): p. 1177–1183. 10.1542/peds.2008-1149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Monteiro P.O.A. and Victora C.G., Rapid growth in infancy and childhood and obesity in later life–a systematic review. Obesity reviews, 2005. 6(2): p. 143–154. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2005.00183.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Slining M., et al. , Infant BMI trajectories are associated with young adult body composition. Journal of developmental origins of health and disease, 2013. 4(1): p. 56–68. 10.1017/S2040174412000554 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Victora C.G. and Barros F.C., Commentary: the catch-up dilemma—relevance of Leitch’s ‘low–high’pig to child growth in developing countries. International journal of epidemiology, 2001. 30(2): p. 217–220. 10.1093/ije/30.2.217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Ties Boerma J. and Sommerfelt A.E., Demographic and health surveys (DHS: contributions and limitations. 1993 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nili Steinberg

7 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-03785

Concurrent of stunting and overweight/obesity among children:evidence from Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Farah,

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 May 22 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,

Nili Steinberg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please see reviewer's comments

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. 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. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Summary

The manuscript with the title ‘concurrent of stunting and overweight/obesity among children’, is looking into the co-existence of stunting and overweight and associated factors within children (6-23 months) in Ethiopia. The data used is extracted from the EDHS 2016 and analyses over 2000 children using hierarchical linear regression models including three categories/factors (distal, intermediate and proximal). Prevalence of double burden of malnutrition was approx. 3%. Associated factors such as household wealth, birth size, gender, and intake of supplementation significantly associated with the occurrences of the stunting and overweight in children.

The intention and the idea of the paper are relevant and underline the current shift into nutrition transition in African countries, especially in rural areas. In addition, the findings demonstrate that policy makers need to rethink their agenda to include all forms of malnutrition in their interventions.

However, the data available could be explored further and the authors should revise the language and structure of the manuscript to improve readability. I really like the overall idea of the paper though paper fails to relate to previous research in the area, especially the link from the results to IYCF recommendations and policy recommendations and opportunities. Further, the paper could benefit to include other scenarios of double burden of malnutrition, such as wasting and overweight/obesity, micro nutrient deficiencies and overweight/obesity.

1. Major issues

Introduction

While the topic is very relevant, the authors work with different wording of co-existence (Dual vs. double burden from line 82 on wards). I would advise to revise the manuscript using one definition, which is in line with the WHO guidelines and the recent published Lancet series of double burden of malnutrition. In addition, the introduction should include the different possibilities of defining double burden of malnutrition and which indicators are used. To my understanding there is no clear definition on the indicators used to explore and define the double burden of malnutrition phenomenon.

The paper uses stunting and overweight as indicators of double burden of malnutrition in children, which is a valid definition. Thus, the paper would benefit from a more detailed literature review (line 101 ff) to justify their choice. The authors indicated several papers in the introduction, but more information of those papers are needed to understand the argumentation and literature gap. Especially, if there really is now other evidence from other Eastern African countries this should be worked out more clearly.

Methods

I advise the authors to consider restructuring the method section to be more informative and specific. The differentiation of the section study subjects, and study design and data are not entirely clear to me. The section would benefit from additional background on the secondary data sets (How often is the data collected, include the relevant type of data which is collected?).

To be more specific:

- Line 124-128, was this sampling structure applied to the data set? I assume it is the strategy for the EDHS sampling, but this is not coming out clearly.

- Line 128 reference missing

- How was dealt with outliers calculating anthropometric measurements? How were indicators calculated and which cut-off points used? How many cases needed to be dropped? (line 152)

- Dietary/non-dietary data? In Table 1 dietary data is listed, please explain how this data was collected.

- Why was BAZ and not WAZ used for the calculation of child overweight?

Data analysis section should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand the applied methods and approach. A table of factors under consideration would be useful in the explanations of distal, intermediate and proximal factors.

The authors list the cut-off point of p<0.2 within the bivariate analyses, however not all factors below the cut-off point are used in the regression model (see table 1 and 2 in the results section). Where does the cut-off p<0.2 come from? This technical detail should be explained further to avoid confusion.

Results

The authors jump right into the presentation of the bivariate analyses. This section would benefit from a background characteristics/ descriptive statistics table to understand the study population, before the results of the bivariate analyses is presented

In line 184f: The authors state that table 1 will presents background characteristics, but the naming of table displays bivariate analyses, which is misleading

Table 2 includes variables which are above the cut-off point of below p<0.2, therefore details are missing as of why those variables were also used in the regression analyses.

Discussion

The authors should consider rewriting the discussion section to structure according to the presentation of the results and to avoid repetition of the findings. In addition, the authors should use the literature review to discuss current findings with results from other east African countries.

In line 276, the authors discuss the finding that children in rural households are more effected compared to urban household, which is a very interesting and relevant finding, this needs to be further discussed and explained on why it is so interesting. Is there other literature that could strengthen the results?

Likewise, in line 277 ff it is stated that boy are more affected compared to girls. However, the explanation and reason behind is not clear to me. Please revise and bring out the point more strongly.

IYCF guidelines are addressed within the abstract and the conclusion, but not in the discussion. I would advise to discuss the current findings in relation to the guidelines and policy recommendations.

Conclusion

While the authors discuss various details within the discussion section, a new point is brought up within the conclusion which has not been mentioned before. In my opinion the conclusion should be round up from the current results and the discussion and therefore, should lead to action points and suggestions. The conclusion should not explore new discussion points. Therefore, the sections need to be revised to bring out the key message and recommendation found and discussed.

1.2. Minor issues

Introduction

The authors mentioned within the abstract IYCF indicators, which are not mentioned within the introduction anymore. Those indicators could underline the importance of the analysis of the associated factors.

The introduction would benefit from more detailed description of the study area. Prevalence’s of overweight/ obese children (Line 79f) would increase visibility of problem and rise of nutrition transition and underline the purpose of the study.

Method

I would advise the author to rename the data analyses section into statistical method/design. As the section highlights the economic models/ approach used in the analyses.

Results

I suggest the authors recheck the results mentioned within text and displayed at tables to rule out any inconsistency.

Within the method section and the results section two different names are used for the categories/factors (basic vs. distal, underlying vs. intermediate, immediate vs. proximal) please be more consistent. It would be easier if the authors could explain the different categories and use a uniform definition.

The layout of Table 1 and 2 could be clearer, and additional explanations to different variables would underline the current results, such as the type of variables used (scores/ dummy variables etc.), to use a common war to display significant level and a detailed description of the abbreviations used within the table (Table 2 meaning of ref.?) In addition, i advise the authors to revise the results section to be sure that the results within the table are supporting the results within the text.

Any other:

In the abbreviation section, abbreviations are mentioned which are either not within the manuscript or the other way around, the authors should check the abbreviation and references section carefully to avoid any inconsistency and misspelling (Example: Reference 45).

Reviewer #2: This is a well-written manuscript that summarizes research that may be of interest and value for the professional knowledge based related to cross-national research on concurrent of stunting and overweight/obesity among children.

Reviewer #3: Concurrent of stunting and overweight/obesity among children:evidence from Ethiopia

Reviewer comments

General

Investigation of the combination of stunting and overweight/obesity and predictors/determinants is an important topic. However, this paper needs major work on the methods and I suggest very strongly that the determinants of stunting and overweight/obesity in this group is investigated in a similar manner as was done for the combination and then integrated into the discussion to add more body and value to this paper in terms of recommendations for prevention/management of malnutrition (double burden at population, household and individual levels).

Although the language is reasonable to good, the entire paper needs a further level of language editing to ensure that it is correct.

Abstract

Not commented on yet pending suggested additions.

Methods

Please note that the flow and detail included in the methods sections need serious attention.

Please start this section with the ‘Study design and data source section’ (currently line 29) that should cover the following:

• Design: investigation of double burden of malnutrition defined as co-existence of stunting and overweight/obesity within the same child and associated factors using data from the 2015 EDHS (what does this stand for?) The associated factors need to be mentioned here i.e the concepts of distal, intermediate and proximal factors and what they entail need to be explained here.

• More detail on this national survey than is currently included in this section (some of which is e.g. presented in lines 141-145)

• The sampling design and procedure applied in the national survey (it is not sufficient to indicate that detail was published elsewhere). The representativeness of the final sample of Ethiopian children in the target age group should also be alluded to.

• Ethics approval for the overarching national study and then this secondary data analysis can be covered here.

Then the ‘Study subjects’ section follows that covers the criteria stated for inclusion in the current analysis and the final number included.

The next heading should be ‘Anthropometric measures and interpretation’ and should firstly provide detail on how weight and length were measured (more detail than given), followed by interpretation criteria. The model and manufacturers of equipment for measurement of height and weight also need to be included. Please also include the definition (cut-offs) of combined stunting-overweight/obesity as HAZ<-2SD and BAZ>2SD (I assume the abbreviation, CSO, used in the statistics section refers to this); although it may seem self-explanatory. Please provide a reference for the WHO standards. The next heading should be ‘Assessment of associated factors’. Were these factors associated factors determined using a questionnaire, if yes, was it interviewer administered, was the mother/primary care giver the interviewee? What was covered in the questionnaire (provide indication of the different sections – including questions, instruments used), how was the questionnaire developed, pilot tested etc.? In my view the questions that covered distal and intermediate factors were very limited, and may thus not have been sensitive enough to reflect these two levels of factors. This should be discussed in the limitations sections.

The next heading should be ‘Data collection procedures’ which should cover where and when data was collected by whom (= fieldworkers and their training)

Next heading would be ‘Statistical analysis’. Please clarify/address the following:

• Please indicate that CSO (YES/NO) was the dependant variable in each of the three regression models.

• Why was p<0.2 used as an indication for inclusion in regression models

• Lines 165-169: please remove: duplication of previous information

• Lines 176-181: This explanation is not clear – please improve.

• Was co-dependence between variables considered in the regression analyses?

Results

Table 1: Only a few of the variables included in table 1 are interpreted in the text (repetition of exact results in the text – e.g. % 12 months and 5 over 12 months is not necessary if all the figures are presented in the table), only main trends for the different variables need to be included in the text). Please include a more comprehensive interpretation of the table in the text starting from proximal, then intermediate and then last the distal effects (this is also the order in which the variables were included in the regressions models). Table 1 format: Please correct the first variable so that data for ‘urban’ is aligned with the variable name (place of residence); in the foot note indicate that the chi square test was ‘Pearson’s’

Table 2: Please indicate in the text when introducing Table 2 that it covered all three models (model 1= distal factors only, model 2=distal + proximal factors, model 3=distal, underlying + proximal factors). Lines 213-224: it is not necessary to repeat all the results included in the table in the text. The interpretation of the results in the table can be written as follows in the text:

Determinants of CSO included lowest wealth index category (AOR=2.07), being a male child (AOR=1.6), being older than 12 (AOR=1.76), having been small at birth (AOR=2.53) not having taken vitamin A supplement within the previous six months (AOR=1.91)

Table 2 format: Please explain what each model involved in the Footnote to the table. Suggest to revise the table title as follows:

Table 2: Hierarchical multiple logistic regression analysis to determine basic, underlying and proximal determinants of CSO

Discussion

No detailed comments pending the decision to include investigation of determinants of stunting and overweight/obesity as well as suggested.

Please take care not to interpret and discuss non-significant results in such a manner that it seems to be deemed a determinant: example: Line 272-276 ‘Children who reside in the rural areas had a higher risk of being concurrently stunting and overweight though insignificant……’

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to the Editor.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-03785_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 15;16(1):e0245456. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245456.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


22 May 2020

Reviewer comments

Title: Concurrent of stunting and overweight/obesity among children: evidence from Ethiopia

Date: 22/05/2020

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for the comments provided to our manuscript which help to improve the quality of our manuscript. Our response is as follows:

Please note we have made changes in our study population and analyzed all children <5 years of age and not 6-23 months. Thus, dietary factors were not considered in the new analysis since they are only applicable for children <2 years.

Reviewers Comments Author’s Revision and Response

Reviewer 1

The intention and the idea of the paper are relevant and underline the current shift into nutrition transition in African countries, especially in rural areas. In addition, the findings demonstrate that policy makers need to rethink their agenda to include all forms of malnutrition in their interventions. We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive appraisal of the current work.

However, the data available could be explored further and the authors should revise the language and structure of the manuscript to improve readability. Agreed, the language revised

I really like the overall idea of the paper though paper fails to relate to previous research in the area, especially the link from the results to IYCF recommendations and policy recommendations and opportunities. Agreed, as per the reviewer recommendation additional papers were reviewed and included discussion section. See line 566-578. See an excerpt from the manuscript:

“A recent analysis conducted by WHO has also showed that policies that address undernutrition often times do not include overweight/obesity and the vice versa. Thus, integrated interventions, programs and policies that have the potential to improve the nutrition outcomes across the spectrum of malnutrition is of paramount importance to simultaneously reduce the risk or burden of both undernutrition and overweight/obesity”

Further, the paper could benefit to include other scenarios of double burden of malnutrition, such as wasting and overweight/obesity, micro nutrient deficiencies and overweight/obesity. We would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestion but we feel those could be research topics by themselves and we are currently working on those topics as separate research topics particularly on overweight/obesity and micronutrient deficiencies. Besides, it is beyond the objective of the current work.

While the topic is very relevant, the authors work with different wording of co-existence (Dual vs. double burden from line 82 onwards). I would advise to revise the manuscript using one definition, which is in line with the WHO guidelines and the recent published Lancet series of double burden of malnutrition. Agreed, the manuscript revised and used ‘double burden of malnutrition’ consistently throughout the document.

The introduction should include the different possibilities of defining double burden of malnutrition and which indicators are used. Agreed, we mentioned the fact the there are no uniform definition of double burden indicators. See lines 111-119. See an excerpt from the manuscript:

“…there is no uniform definition of double burden indicators. Indicators of child malnutrition used by the reviewed literatures are combination of Height for age-z score (HAZ) and micronutrient deficiency, BMI for age-z-score and HAZ, Weight for height z-score (WHZ) and HAZ and Weight for age z-score (WAZ) and HAZ. These differences in measurement, make comparison among studies difficult”

The paper uses stunting and overweight as indicators of double burden of malnutrition in children, which is a valid definition. Thus, the paper would benefit from a more detailed literature review (line 101 ff) to justify their choice Agreed, more paper reviewed and included papers on stunting as well as overweight/obesity. See line 73-83.

The authors indicated several papers in the introduction, but more information of those papers is needed to understand the argumentation and literature gap. Especially, if there really is now other evidence from other Eastern African countries this should be worked out more clearly. Agreed, more papers from the Eastern African were included and many of these studies analyzed double burden within households by looking at pairs of overweight mothers and undernourished children. They were more of prevalence and trends of dual burden and hardly examined factors associated with the double burden. See line 134-137.

I advise the authors to consider restructuring the method section to be more informative and specific. The differentiation of the section study subjects, and study design and data are not entirely clear to me. The section would benefit from additional background on the secondary data sets (How often is the data collected, include the relevant type of data which is collected?). Agreed, the method section restricted and started with study design and data source section which is more detailed, followed by subject, then anthropometric measures and interpretation, data collection procedure and statistical analysis. See lines 157-269.

Line 124-128, was this sampling structure applied to the data set? I assume it is the strategy for the EDHS sampling, but this is not coming out clearly. No, this was strategy for the EDHS procedure, detailed sample design and procedure of EDHS included. See lines 158-181.

Line 128 reference missing

How was dealt with outliers calculating anthropometric measurements? How were indicators calculated and which cut-off points used? How many cases needed to be dropped? Flagged values were dropped and children’s weight and length/height measurements were transformed into sex- and age-specific Z-scores using WHO 2006 growth standards see lines 202 to 204. 122 cases were dropped due to flagged values. see line 183 to 89. Figure also included to show the flow of sample selection. See Figure 1

Dietary/non-dietary data? In Table 1 dietary data is listed, please explain how this data was collected Agreed, we tried to explain the data collection procedure. See data collection procedure section (lines 211-226).

Why was BAZ and not WAZ used for the calculation of child overweight? We used BAZ as alternative of WHZ because both indicators demonstrated high agreement with low misclassification (according to Kayla., et.al,2016). WAZ is composite indicator and not commonly used to calculate child overweight and instead WHZ or BAZ used. We found an overall prevalence of overweight/obesity was higher compared to estimates based on weight for height z-score. 3.86% and 3.5% for BAZ and WHZ respectively.

Data analysis section should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand the applied methods and approach Agreed, this section expanded. See lines 227-269

A table of factors under consideration would be useful in the explanations of distal, intermediate and proximal factors Agreed, additional table added to explain the different variables in the manuscript. See table 1.

The authors list the cut-off point of p<0.2 within the bivariate analyses, however not all factors below the cut-off point are used in the regression model (see table 1 and 2 in the results section). Where does the cut-off p<0.2 come from? This technical detail should be explained further to avoid confusion. The p< 0.2 was cut off point for bivariate regression analysis and not the chi-square. One column for crude odds ratio (COR) added in each model to clear the confusion. Only variables that demonstrated P<0.2 were included in hierarchical regression models. This is process is called ‘purposeful selection of covariates’ and suggested by previous studies (cited in the manuscript, see line 242-248 and table 2). We also kept some important variables regardless of their significance. See the excerpt from the manuscript:

“Regardless of significance, basic factors, as the primary independent variables, were retained in the final regression model. Since age and sex are important factors for outcomes in under five children, they were also retained in the final models”

The authors jump right into the presentation of the bivariate analyses. This section would benefit from a background characteristics/ descriptive statistics table to understand the study population, before the results of the bivariate analyses is presented. Thank you for the suggestion, we felt the table can serve both purposes by describing background characteristics and the same time determine differences in proportions.

In line 184f: The authors state that table 1 will presents background characteristics, but the naming of table displays bivariate analyses, which is misleading Agreed, the statement paraphrased as “The background characteristics of children and prevalence of CSO across different covariates are presented in Table 2”. The table displays bivariate analysis in a sense it shows the differences in the proportions across different child characteristics.

Table 2 includes variables which are above the cut-off point of below p<0.2, therefore details are missing as of why those variables were also used in the regression analyses. Agreed, it was misleading. P <0.2 was cut off point for bivariate regression analysis and not the chi-square. One column for crude odds ratio (COR) added in each model to clear the confusion. Only variables that demonstrated P<0.1 were included in hierarchical regression models. See table 3,4 &5

The authors should consider rewriting the discussion section to structure according to the presentation of the results and to avoid repetition of the findings. In addition, the authors should use the literature review to discuss current findings with results from other east African countries. Agreed. Literatures from East African countries discussed in this section. It is also structured according to the presentation of the result. See lines 442-444

In line 276, the authors discuss the finding that children in rural households are more effected compared to urban household, which is a very interesting and relevant finding, this needs to be further discussed and explained on why it is so interesting. Is there other literature that could strengthen the results? Removed, the 3rd reviewer suggested not discuss non-significant factors. But we find association between stunting and place of residence and was further discussed. See lines 497-501.

Likewise, in line 277 ff it is stated that boy are more affected compared to girls. However, the explanation and reason behind is not clear to me. Please revise and bring out the point more strongly. Agreed, the reasons explained. See lines 526-533.

IYCF guidelines are addressed within the abstract and the conclusion, but not in the discussion. I would advise to discuss the current findings in relation to the guidelines and policy recommendations. Agreed, findings discussed in relation to current interventions and policies. See lines 572-578.

While the authors discuss various details within the discussion section, a new point is brought up within the conclusion which has not been mentioned before. In my opinion the conclusion should be round up from the current results and the discussion and therefore, should lead to action points and suggestions. The conclusion should not explore new discussion points. Therefore, the sections need to be revised to bring out the key message and recommendation found and discussed. Agreed, the conclusion revised as follows:

“In conclusion, our study provided evidence on the co-existence of stunting and overweight/obesity among infants and young children in Ethiopia. CSO was associated with various factors originating from community and child levels. Therefore, identifying children at risk of growth flattering and excess weight gain provides nutrition policies and programs in Ethiopia and beyond with an opportunity of earlier interventions through improving sanitation, dietary quality by targeting children under 12 years of age and those living in Agrarian regions of Ethiopia”

The authors mentioned within the abstract IYCF indicators, which are not mentioned within the introduction anymore. Those indicators could underline the importance of the analysis of the associated factors. Agreed, but it is not any more applicable in the current analysis since we have used data for children aged 0-59 months and not 6-23 months.

The introduction would benefit from more detailed description of the study area. Prevalence’s of overweight/ obese children (Line 79f) would increase visibility of problem and rise of nutrition transition and underline the purpose of the study. Agreed, description on the study area added. See lines 89-95.

I would advise the author to rename the data analyses section into statistical method/design. As the section highlights the economic models/ approach used in the analyses. Agreed, the section renamed as ‘statistical analysis’

I suggest the authors recheck the results mentioned within text and displayed at tables to rule out any inconsistency. Agreed, the result in the table and text crosschecked no inconsistency found.

Within the method section and the results section two different names are used for the categories/factors (basic vs. distal, underlying vs. intermediate, immediate vs. proximal) please be more consistent. It would be easier if the authors could explain the different categories and use a uniform definition. Agreed, the different categories explained and uniform definition used. We used basic, underlying and immediate factors consistently throughout the manuscript.

The layout of Table 1 and 2 could be clearer, and additional explanations to different variables would underline the current results, such as the type of variables used (scores/ dummy variables etc.), to use a common war to display significant level and a detailed description of the abbreviations used within the table (Table 2 meaning of ref.?) Agreed, additional table included to explain different variables. See table 1.

In addition, I advise the authors to revise the results section to be sure that the results within the table are supporting the results within the text. Agreed, revised accordingly and found no inconsistencies.

In the abbreviation section, abbreviations are mentioned which are either not within the manuscript or the other way around, the authors should check the abbreviation and references section carefully to avoid any inconsistency and misspelling (Example: Reference 45) Agreed, inconsistencies check and corrected accordingly

Reviewer 2

This is a well-written manuscript that summarizes research that may be of interest and value for the professional knowledge based related to cross-national research on concurrent of stunting and overweight/obesity among children. We would to thank the reviewer for the positive appraisal of the current work.

Reviewer 3

Investigation of the combination of stunting and overweight/obesity and predictors/determinants is an important topic. We would to thank the reviewer for the positive appraisal of the current work.

However, this paper needs major work on the methods and I suggest very strongly that the determinants of stunting and overweight/obesity in this group is investigated in a similar manner as was done for the combination and then integrated into the discussion to add more body and value to this paper in terms of recommendations for prevention/management of malnutrition (double burden at population, household and individual levels). Agreed, method part improved and determinants of stunting and overweight investigated and integrated into the discussion section.

Although the language is reasonable to good, the entire paper needs a further level of language editing to ensure that it is correct. Agreed, the language edited improved and we hope it has improved in this version.

Please start this section with the ‘Study design and data source section’ (currently line 29) that should cover the following:

• Design: investigation of double burden of malnutrition defined as co-existence of stunting and overweight/obesity within the same child and associated factors using data from the 2015 EDHS (what does this stand for?) The associated factors need to be mentioned here i.e the concepts of distal, intermediate and proximal factors and what they entail need to be explained here

• More detail on this national survey than is currently included in this section (some of which is e.g. presented in lines 141-145)

• The sampling design and procedure applied in the national survey (it is not sufficient to indicate that detail was published elsewhere). The representativeness of the final sample of Ethiopian children in the target age group should also be alluded to.

• Ethics approval for the overarching national study and then this secondary data analysis can be covered here.

• Agreed, revised accordingly and the concept of basic, underlying and immediate factors explained. See lines 172-177.

• Agreed, detailed sample design and procedure of EDHS included. See lines 158-181.

• Ethics of approval covered under separate sub-heading. See lines 270-276.

Then the ‘Study subjects’ section follows that covers the criteria stated for inclusion in the current analysis and the final number included. Agreed and revised accordingly. See lines 182-189.

The next heading should be ‘Anthropometric measures and interpretation’ and should firstly provide detail on how weight and length were measured (more detail than given), followed by interpretation criteria. The model and manufacturers of equipment for measurement of height and weight also need to be included. Please also include the definition (cut-offs) of combined stunting-overweight/obesity as HAZ<-2SD and BAZ>2SD (I assume the abbreviation, CSO, used in the statistics section refers to this); although it may seem self-explanatory. Please provide a reference for the WHO standards. Agreed, the section revised accordingly. Measurements were described in detail and cut off of CSO stated and reference provided. See 191-204.

The next heading should be ‘Assessment of associated factors. Were these factors associated factors determined using a questionnaire, if yes, it was interviewer administered, was the mother/primary care giver the interviewee? What was covered in the questionnaire (provide indication of the different sections – including questions, instruments used), how was the questionnaire developed, pilot tested etc.? In my view the questions that covered distal and intermediate factors were very limited, and may thus not have been sensitive enough to reflect these two levels of factors. This should be discussed in the limitation’s sections. Agreed, instrument used, piloting, etc. covered in data collection procedure section. brief explanation of the factors and how was data collected explained under assessment of associated factors and data collection procedure. A detailed description these factors is presented in Table 1.

The next heading should be ‘Data collection procedures’ which should cover where and when data was collected by whom (= fieldworkers and their training) Agreed, revised accordingly. See lines 211-226.

Next heading would be ‘Statistical analysis’. Please clarify/address the following:

• Please indicate that CSO (YES/NO) was the dependent variable in each of the three regression models.

• Why was p<0.2 used as an indication for inclusion in regression models

• Lines 165-169: please remove: duplication of previous information

• Lines 176-181: This explanation is not clear – please improve.

• Was co-dependence between variables considered in the regression analyses? Agreed and renamed the heading ‘statistical analysis’

• Agreed, CSO indicated as dependent variable

• Agreed, the p< 0.2 was cut off point for bivariate regression analysis and not the chi-square. One column for crude odds ratio (COR) added in each model to clear the confusion. Only variables that demonstrated P<0.2 were included in hierarchical regression models. This is process is called ‘purposeful selection of covariates’ and suggested by previous studies

• Agreed, statement added to make it clear. See lines 266-268.

• We used VIF command to test for multicollinearity and the mean VIF was 1.20 and all variables had VIF less than 2.0.

Table 1: Only a few of the variables included in table 1 are interpreted in the text (repetition of exact results in the text – e.g. % 12 months and 5 over 12 months is not necessary if all the figures are presented in the table), only main trends for the different variables need to be included in the text). Please include a more comprehensive interpretation of the table in the text starting from proximal, then intermediate and then last the distal effects (this is also the order in which the variables were included in the regressions models). Agreed, more comprehensive interpretation of the table included in the text starting from basic, underlying and then immediate factors. See lines

Table 1 format: Please correct the first variable so that data for ‘urban’ is aligned with the variable name (place of residence); in the foot note indicate that the chi square test was ‘Pearson’s’ Agreed and corrected accordingly

Table 2: Please indicate in the text when introducing Table 2 that it covered all three models (model 1= distal factors only, model 2=distal + proximal factors, model 3=distal, underlying + proximal factors). Agreed and indicated in the text that table 3 covers all the three models.

Lines 213-224: it is not necessary to repeat all the results included in the table in the text. The interpretation of the results in the table can be written as follows in the text:

Determinants of CSO included lowest wealth index category (AOR=2.07), being a male child (AOR=1.6), being older than 12 (AOR=1.76), having been small at birth (AOR=2.53) not having taken vitamin A supplement within the previous six months (AOR=1.91).

Agreed and revised as per the reviewer suggestion.

Table 2 format: Please explain what each model involved in the Footnote to the table.

Agreed and explained what each model involved in the footnote of the table 3,4&5.

Suggest to revise the table title as follows:

Table 2: Hierarchical multiple logistic regression analysis to determine basic, underlying and proximal determinants of CSO Agreed and revised the table title as per the reviewer suggestion

Please take care not to interpret and discuss non-significant results in such a manner that it seems to be deemed a determinant: example: Line 272-276 ‘Children who reside in the rural areas had a higher risk of being concurrently stunting and overweight though insignificant……’ Agreed, non-significant result not discussed in the discussion section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Nili Steinberg

3 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-03785R1

Concurrent of stunting and overweight/obesity among children:evidence from Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Farah,

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 Sep 17 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,

Nili Steinberg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Thanks to the authors for the extensive revision of the manuscript, while most of the manuscript has improved, I remain with further comments to the authors for clarification of the manuscript. Additionally, I believe the manuscript could further benefit from language edition to improve readability. First, I want to mention that my line references are to the manuscript without track changes (the first one within the PDF).

Thank you for mentioning upfront the shift of focus of the age bracket of the children from 6-23 towards 6-59 months of age. However, could the authors please elaborate further on why the shift was done. The authors mentioned dietary data availability as one point to expand the age bracket. Within the discussion dietary effects are used to explain the difference between agrarian and pastoralists. The available dietary data for children 6-23 month, if analysed could strengthen this point (Line 476 ff) as a consistency check. I believe these results were mentioned in the previous version of the manuscript and could be included as a footnote for the sub-sample.

While the manuscript improved substantially, I still would advise to revision the manuscript further for readability and uniformity. Different writing styles are used within the manuscript (cooccurrence vs co-occurrence (line 77 vs. 108), presentation of results numeric and verbal (line 84 vs 92). Additionally, have a keen eye on the style of literature which is inconsistent. While the authors tried to in cooperate the comment on the naming of the double burden of malnutrition please re-check for consistency.

Within the Abstract the authors mention in line 55 ‘younger than 12 months’. Within the conclusion ‘younger than 12 years of age’ is mentioned (line 601 f). Please revise.

I appreciate the effort and work the authors put into rewriting the method section as requested by the reviewers, while the new structure is more intuitive, some information is in my eyes still explained within the wrong section. The first section study design and data source still fail to name the data set, the name (EDHS line 188) are introduced within the next section study subjects. I, therefore, advise revising the section making sure the present information is fitting to the current section naming.

Thanks to the authors to include further information on the selection of the children. I still would like to get more clarification on the sample size construction. The authors mentioned children not alive (lien 184 ff and figure 1) were dropped for the analysis. Please elaborate on how this data was collected or even present within the data set.

While the authors took up the suggestion to remain with one name of the categorization of basic, underlying and immediate factors, within the manuscript the previous names are still present. Please revised to be consistent throughout the manuscript (see as example line 331).

Line 251ff sentence is repetitive please review.

Thanks for the inclusion of Table 1, which displays information about the associated factors. However, the Table would benefit from revision be improved readability and visibility for the reader. Please remove all the information not necessary to the construction of the variable. For example, CSO only needs the definition applied to the dummy variable. Please revise the Table numbering and layout. Most tables have several table numbers listed.

Sentence in line 432 is not clear to me, please revise.

Reviewer #2: (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

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 15;16(1):e0245456. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245456.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Sep 2020

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for the comments provided to our manuscript which help to improve the quality of our manuscript. Our response is as follows:

Reviewer 1

Thanks to the authors for the extensive revision of the manuscript, while most of the manuscript has improved, I remain with further comments to the authors for clarification of the manuscript. Additionally, I believe the manuscript could further benefit from language edition to improve readability. First, I want to mention that my line references are to the manuscript without track changes (the first one within the PDF).

-We would like to thank reviewer for the positive appraisal on the revised work.

-Language improved. Dr. Olusola Oladeji has edited the manuscript.

Thank you for mentioning upfront the shift of focus of the age bracket of the children from 6-23 towards 6-59 months of age. However, could the authors please elaborate further on why the shift was done.

-The shift of focus from age group of 6-23 to 6-59 months was mainly for generalizability. Besides, most of the literatures cited in our work focused on 6-59 months.

The authors mentioned dietary data availability as one point to expand the age bracket. Within the discussion dietary effects are used to explain the difference between agrarian and pastoralists. The available dietary data for children 6-23 month, if analyzed could strengthen this point (Line 476 ff) as a consistency check. I believe these results were mentioned in the previous version of the manuscript and could be included as a footnote for the sub-sample.

-Agreed, and we would like to thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. Sub sample analysis done for data of children aged 6-23 months and found that 62% and only 15% of children from pastoralist and agrarian communities respectively consumed dairy products (P<0.001) *

-* Pearson chi-squared test

While the manuscript improved substantially, I still would advise to revision the manuscript further for readability and uniformity. Different writing styles are used within the manuscript (cooccurrence vs co-occurrence (line 77 vs. 108), presentation of results numeric and verbal (line 84 vs 92). Additionally, have a keen eye on the style of literature which is inconsistent. While the authors tried to in cooperate the comment on the naming of the double burden of malnutrition please re-check for consistency

-Agreed, consistency rechecked and “concurrence” used throughout the manuscript.

-Agreed, numeric used consistently throughout the manuscript

-Consistency of literature rechecked

Within the Abstract the authors mention in line 55 ‘younger than 12 months. Within the conclusion ‘younger than 12 years of age’ is mentioned (line 601 f). Please revise.

-Agreed, revised and replaced with younger than 5 years.

I appreciate the effort and work the authors put into rewriting the method section as requested by the reviewers, while the new structure is more intuitive, some information is in my eyes still explained within the wrong section. The first section study design and data source still fail to name the data set, the name (EDHS line 188) are introduced within the next section study subjects. I, therefore, advise revising the section making sure the present information is fitting to the current section naming.

-Agreed, section revised

Thanks to the authors to include further information on the selection of the children. I still would like to get more clarification on the sample size construction. The authors mentioned children not alive (lien 184 ff and figure 1) were dropped for the analysis. Please elaborate on how this data was collected or even present within the data set.

-DHS surveys use a full birth history which is a complete list of all children a mother has ever given birth to including their date of birth, sex, survival status, age (if alive), and age at death (if died). This is the form of birth history found in the majority of DHS surveys.

While the authors took up the suggestion to remain with one name of the categorization of basic, underlying and immediate factors, within the manuscript the previous names are still present. Please revised to be consistent throughout the manuscript (see as example line 331).

Line 251ff sentence is repetitive please review.

-Agreed, basic, underlying and immediate factors were used consistently throughout the manuscript.

Thanks for the inclusion of Table 1, which displays information about the associated factors. However, the Table would benefit from revision be improved readability and visibility for the reader. Please remove all the information not necessary to the construction of the variable. For example, CSO only needs the definition applied to the dummy variable. Please revise the Table numbering and layout. Most tables have several table numbers listed.

-Agreed, unnecessary information to construct the variables removed and table layout and numbering revised.

Sentence in line 432 is not clear to me, please revise.

-Agreed and revised as follows: “The immediate factors found associated with higher odds of CSO were age younger than 12 months, no history of infection and not having received deworming for the last six months”.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Nili Steinberg

2 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-03785R2

Concurrence of stunting and overweight/obesity among children:evidence from Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Farah,

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 17 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,

Nili Steinberg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. 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: Thanks to the authors for submitting the revised manuscript. I remain with some minor suggestions and comments. The line references to these suggestions and comments are based on the manuscript with track changes (second version in the PDF file).

The manuscript has improved language-wise, still please have a keen eye on the writing style age of the children (for example line 83 vs. line 109 or line 134 or line 615f). Please revise the following sentences as they hold repetitive information: line 87f.

Please revise the sentence in line 137ff. which is unclear to me.

Thanks for the revision at the study subject area, I appreciate the idea of a figure, though I was not able to allocate the figure for the review. Please make sure to include the figure in the attachments.

Please check line 343 the table has two numbers.

**********

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

[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 15;16(1):e0245456. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245456.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


26 Nov 2020

The manuscript has improved language-wise, still please have a keen eye on the writing style age of the children (for example line 83 vs. line 109 or line 134 or line 615f).

-We would like to thank the reviewer for point this out. “children under five years of age” was consistently used throughout the manuscript.

Please revise the following sentences as they hold repetitive information: line 87f. Revised and the repetitions removed

Please revise the sentence in line 137ff. which is unclear to me.

-Revised as follows: “Children who are concurrently stunted and overweight/obese can be at greater risk of unhealthy development than normal children”

Thanks for the revision at the study subject area, I appreciate the idea of a figure, though I was not able to allocate the figure for the review. Please make sure to include the figure in the attachments.

-Figure attached

Please check line 343 the table has two numbers.

-Repetition removed

Attachment

Submitted filename: 3rd_Response_to_reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Nili Steinberg

4 Jan 2021

Concurrence of stunting and overweight/obesity among children:evidence from Ethiopia

PONE-D-20-03785R3

Dear Dr. Farah,

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,

Nili Steinberg

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: Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for submitting the revised versions of your manuscript and the good work you put in. I remain with one comment, please revise and add a description to the Figure caption. So that the reader can understand the meaning and the attention of the figure without so that it can be a standalone figure, without searching in the manuscript for the explanation.

Many thanks.

**********

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

Nili Steinberg

6 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-03785R3

Concurrence of stunting and overweight/obesity among children: evidence from Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Farah:

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. Nili Steinberg

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: Comments to the Editor.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-03785_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 3rd_Response_to_reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data used in the study belong to a third party, The DHS Program, and is publicly available on http://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Ethiopia_Standard-DHS_2016.cfm. The DHS program is fully authorized to distribute the data, at no cost, upon registration on the program website https://dhsprogram.com/data/new-user-registration.cfm. Once an account has been created, users can request access to the Ethiopia DHS 2016 dataset by indicating their research need. Once the request has been received, it will be reviewed by The DHS Program staff within 1-2 business days and access will be granted if sufficient detail is provided. Those interested can access the data in the same manner as the authors. The authors had no special access privileges to the data that others would not have.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES