Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 20;16(1):e0245528. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245528

Stunting at birth and associated factors among newborns delivered at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital

Almaz Tefera Gonete 1,*, Bogale Kassahun 1, Eskedar Getie Mekonnen 2, Wubet Worku Takele 3
Editor: Clive J Petry4
PMCID: PMC7817059  PMID: 33471862

Abstract

Background

Stunting at birth is a chronic form of undernutrition majorly attributable to poor prenatal nutrition, which could persist in children’s later life and impact their physical and cognitive health. Although multiple studies have been conducted in Ethiopia to show the magnitude of stunting and factors, all are concentrated on children aged between 6 to 59 months. Therefore, this study was done to determine the prevalence and associated factors of stunting at birth among newborns delivered at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital, Northwest, Ethiopia.

Methods

An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted from February 26th to April 25th/2020. A systematic random sampling technique was used, to select a total of 422 newborn-mother pairs. The binary logistic regression was employed to identify factors associated with stunting and all independent variables were entered into the multivariable logistic regression model to adjust for confounders. Variables that had significant association were identified based on p-value < 0.05 and the adjusted odds ratio with its respective 95% confidence interval was applied to determine the strength as well as the direction of the association.

Results

About 30.5% (95% CI: 26.3%, 35.1%) of newborns were stunted at birth. Being male [Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.9(1.62, 5.21)], newborns conceived in Kiremt(rainy season) [AOR = 2.7(1.49, 4.97)], being low birth weight [AOR = 3.1(1.64, 6.06)] were factors associated with stunting at birth. Likewise, newborns born to short stature mothers [AOR = 2.8(1.21, 6.62)] and chronically malnourished mothers [AOR = 15.3(8.12, 29.1)] were at greater risk of being stunted.

Conclusion

Just under a third of newborns are stunted at birth, implying a pressing public health problem. Newborns born to chronically malnourished and short stature mothers were more stunted. Besides, stunting was prevalently observed among male neonates, newborns conceived in Kiremet, and being low birth weight. Thus, policymakers and nutrition programmers should work on preventing maternal undernutrition through nutrition education to reduce the burden of low birth weight and stunting. Further, paying due attention to newborns conceived in Kiremet season to improve nutritional status is recommended.

Introduction

Stunting at birth is characterized by short length to gestational age, unlike children older than six months [1]. It’s a syndrome of severe irretrievable physiological, physical, and cognitive damage due to irreversible outcome of inadequate nutrition and repeated bouts of infection that starts from conception [25]. As a result, children’s achievement of their full economic, social, educational, and occupational potential would be compromised [6, 7]. Surprisingly, a centimeter decreases in the height of adults results in a 4% and 6% decline in wages for males and females, respectively [8]. The short and long-term shattering effects of stunting is not limited only on children’s lives, but also it extends to affect the subsequent generations, too [913]. Stunted infants at birth are four times and two-folds to be stunted at 3 months and 2 years of age, respectively [14, 15].

Nearly, half of infant and child mortalities in Ethiopia are associated with stunting and other forms of undernutrition, which culminate in 8% decline in the country’s workforce, and thus, hampering the economic growth of the nation [16]. Likewise, about 16.5% of Ethiopia’s gross domestic product (GDP) is lost annually following the long-term deleterious effects of childhood stunting [17]. Further, the chronic effect of stunting ranges through acute infectious to chronic non-communicable diseases, including diarrhea, stroke, hypertension, and Diabetes Mellitus (DM).

Globally, about 144 million under-five children are suffering from stunting, of which 92% are in Low and lower-middle-income countries and Sub-Sahran countries share just over a third of the burden [18]. Even though the magnitude of stunting has shown a steady decline in all regions of the world, Africa has remained the 1st region with an escalating case [5]. Just more than three in every ten newborns develop stunting at birth, according to the INTERGROWTH-21st development report [19].

Ethiopia is amongst other developing countries with the largest number of stunted under-five children recording an estimated 38.4% and the highest load is reported in the Amhara Region, 46% [20]. Parallelly, the 2019 Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS) showed that stunting in children aged below six months was 17.1% [21]. Stunting at birth is attributable to multifaceted maternal and extra maternal nutritional and economic problems, including (but are not limited to) short maternal stature, poor maternal nutritional status, illness during pregnancy(DM, hypertension, and anemia), not having antenatal care (ANC) visit, born to adolescent mothers, being male, and not supplement with iron folate during pregnancy [1, 2227].

Even though Ethiopia signed and working on the National Nutrition Policies to achieve the world health assembly’s target of 26.8% stunting by 2025, the annual reduction rate of stunting is still remained at only 2.8%, which is far-off the expected reduction rate of 6% [28].

In Ethiopia, although the previous studies conducted to show stunting and its factors among under-five children, almost all studies focused on children aged between 6 and 59 months, which implie, newborn’s nutritional status have been ignored, while the burden is hypothetically to be high. Various strategies are focusing on battling undernutrition among children younger than five years and these strategies have to be supported with evidence to underscore the burden as well as the contributing factors. In addition to this, continuous and updated information about early life stunting is quite imperative to reach the full vision of global policy such as reducing stunting by 40% by 2025 [29].

This study was, therefore, aimed at determining the prevalence and factors associated with stunting at birth among newborns delivered at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital. This will be helpful for policymakers, programmers, and researchers to reach a deliberate equity-driven policy targeting interventions for the most vulnerable population as early as possible Further, it will serve as a baseline to make comparisons with children aged 6 to 59 months to appreciate the problem among those segment of population.

Methods

Study design, area, and period

An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted from February 26th to April 25th / 2020. The study was carried out at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital. Gondar town has one Comprehensive Specialized Referral hospital located in the North Gondar administrative zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia which is about 727 km Northwest of Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia) [30]. The region has a triple burden: high prevalence of stunting; high poverty; and infrastructure development [31]. The Amhara region is the poorest of all regions, not only in Ethiopia but also in the world [32].

The University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital is a teaching Hospital that renders service for more than five million people. Moreover, the delivery ward has 3 units and the health care providers who are working in these units are 13 physicians, 50 residents, 73 midwives, and 6 General Practitioners(GP) [33].

Study population

Alive newborns delivered at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital over the study period was the source population, whereas those who were delivered during the data collection period were the study population. Alive newborn-mother pairs within 72-hours of birth, during the data collection period were included. Nevertheless, extreme preterm newborns (born before 33 weeks of gestational age), were excluded. Further, newborns whose mothers suffering from critical illness (postpartum hemorrhage) and newborns suffering from birth trauma were also excluded.

Sample size determination, sampling procedure, and technique

The sample size was determined, considering the single population proportion formula taking the following statistical assumptions: 50% proportion (p), 95% confidence intervals, 5% of margin of error, and 10% non- response rate. Finally the required sample size was 422. According to the 2019 report of the institution, about 10,599 live births were delivered at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital delivery ward annually. Since the number of birth in the hospital varies throughout the year, four months were randomly drawn from the four seasons and an average birth was estimated. Then, about 884 newborns were considered as a total population(N) [34]. Finally, the study participants had been approached every other two newborn-mother paires using the systematic random sampling technique.

Variables

Dependent variable. Stunting at birth (Yes/No).

Independent variables

Newborn related factors. Sex, gestational age, weight, and birth status.

Environmental factors. Indoor fire smoke and season of conception.

Maternal related factors. Height, nutritional status, illness, inter-birth interval, and iron supplementation.

Operational definitions

Stunting at birth. Newborns whose length-for-gestational age below 10th percentile were deemed as stunted, whereas newborns greater than 10th percentile were defined as not stunted.

Short maternal stature. Mothers whose height <145cm [1].

Maternal undernutrition. Mothers whose MUAC measurement <22cm [35].

Preterm. a newborn delivered before completing 37 weeks [36].

Term. A newborns delivered between 37 and 42 weeks [36].

Post-term. A newborn delivered after completing 42 weeks [36].

Large-for-gestational age. Newborn’s whose birth weight-for-gestational age greater than 90th percentile [36].

Appropriate-for-gestational age (AGA). A newborn whose birth weight-to-gestational age fall between 10th and 90th percentile [36].

Small weight-for-gestational age (SGA). A newborn whose birth weight-to-gestational age is less than 10th percentile [36].

Short inter-birth interval. Preceding birth interval (months between the birth of index newborn and older child)<24month (2 year) [37].

Primigravida. A woman got pregnant for the first time.

Multigravida. A woman who got pregnant for two and more times [38].

Primiparous. A woman who gave birth one time.

Multipara. A woman gave more than one birth [38].

Anemia. A woman whose hemoglobin measure is below 11mg/dl [39].

Wealth status. Using the Principal Component Analysis, participants who fall in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth ranks were classified as richest, rich, middle, poorer, and poorest, respectively [40].

Illness during pregnancy. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), pregnancy induce hypertension (PIH), anemia, and infection like hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and Toxoplasmosis, Rubella, Cytomegalovirus, Herpese simplex, and Syphilis (TORCHs) [23].

Unintended pregnancy. Mothers were asked to report whether the current pregnancy was wanted and timely. Accordingly, if mothers reported it was unwanted or mistimed, the pregnancy was deemed as ‘unintended’ [41].

Data collection tools and procedures

A face-to-face structured interviewer-based administered questionnaire developed by reviewing different literature was used. In addition, chart review was implemented to gather extra information about maternal and newborn characteristics. The newborn lie in supine recumbent position and length was measured. Two BSc midwives, one support and secure the head of the newborn and the other took measurements of the newborn’s length from the top of their head to the heel of their foot. The measurement was done three times using infantometer (ITEM CODE: WS025 and SIZE18’X7’); the average length of three measurements were recorded to the nearest 0·5 cm to ensure accuracy. Similarly, the weight of newborns was measured by using a unit scale and the reading was recorded at the nearest 10g. All anthropometric measurements took place within 72 hours of birth [42, 43].

Likewise, the maternal height was measured using a wall stadiometer with a woman standing barefoot and recorded to the nearest 0·5 cm. Maternal Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) was measured by using fiber tape from the left upper arm at the mid-point between the tip of the shoulder and the tip of the elbow (olecranon process and the acromion) and the measurement was done twice to ensure its accuracy [1].

To ascertain the stunting status of the newborn, both the weight of the newborn in kilogram and the gestational age in weeks was used. The INTERGROWTH-21st standard software was used to generate a composite variable, length-for-gestational age. The length of the newborn was determined, after comparing with the same sex references. Similarly, the same procedure was followed to determine the weight of the newborn, except for considering the weight.

Wealth status

The study participant’s wealth status was assessed by using questions adopted from the 2016 EDHS report and other literature [44]. The tool comprised of the number and kinds of livestock that participants had, availability of agricultural land in hecter, the number of cereal products they gathered, the amount of money/birr available in the bank, and availability of materials in their house. The principal component analysis (PCA) was applied [40]. Then, the wealth status was ranked from the highest to the lowest.

Data quality control

The questionnaire was pre-tested among five percent of the number of population, two weeks ahead of the actual data collection period at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital delivery ward. The quality of the data was further assured through careful planning and translation of the questionnaire; the English version questionnaire was translated into the local language, Amharic. To maintain the validity of the tool, its content was reviewed by senior pediatric and child health specialist nurse and nutritionist. Then, the questions were checked for its clarity, completeness, consistency, sensitiveness, and ambiguity.

A half-day training was delivered to the data collectors and supervisor aiming at briefing the objective of the study, what is/are expected from them, and so forth. Data were collected by two BSc. Midwives and supervised by one MSc nurse. Furthermore, the principal investigator and supervisor checked the collected data in daily basis for its completeness, and corrective measures were taken accordingly.

Data processing and analysis

The collected data were entered into Epi-Info 7 version 7.2.1.0 and exported to SPSS version 20 for coding, cleaning, and analyses. Continuous independent variables were categorized.

The wealth status of mothers was analyzed through PCA and all categorical and continuous variables were categorized to be between ‘0’ and ‘1’. Statistical assumptions of factor analysis such as Keiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were check. Next, all eligible factor scores were computed using the regression-based method to generate one variable, wealth status. Following this, the final scores were ranked into five quantiles namely: first, second, third, fourth, and fifth. Finally, ranks were interpreted as richest, richer, middle, poorer, and poorest, respectively.

The outcome variable was dichotomized and coded as 0 and 1, representing those who are not stunted and stunted, respectively. For continuous variables age, for instance, the Shapiro-Wilk, statistic and histogram was used to determine the appropriate measure of central tendency. Descriptive statistics like frequency, percentage, and measures of central tendency with their corresponding measure of dispersion was used for the presentation of demographic and other independent variables. Tables and texts were used to present the findings.

Furthermore, the binary logistic regression analysis was applied to identify factors associated with stunting at birth. The Hosmer and Lemeshow test were used to diagnose the model adequacy. Variables which were failed at the chi-square and multicollinearity test were removed from multiple logistic regression analyses. The presence of Multicollinearity was examined using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and a variable having larger VIF value (>5), was rejected. All variables irrespective of the significant level in the bivariables analysis were entered into the multivariable model to control the possible effects of confounder/s and to identify the significant factors. Finally, variables having independent correlations with stunting were identified and reported based on the Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) and p-value with its corresponding 95% CI. Further, variables having a p-value less than 0.05 were considered as statistically significant.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance was obtained from the ethical review board of the school of nursing on behalf of the institutional review board of the University of Gondar. A permission letter was received from the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital. As a S1 File, an information sheet comprised of the purpose of the study, the procedure of data collection, and the rights of the mothers was prepared and attached; it’has been reviewed and approved by the institutional review bord. After reading the information sheet to mothers, since the study didn’t apply invasive procedure like body fluid sample, oral informed consent was obtained. Participants’ involvement in the study were on voluntary basis and they have been told to withdraw at anytime if they wish to. All the information given by the respondents was used for the research purposes only and the confidentiality as well as privacy was maintained.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics

A total of 419 newborn-mother pairs took part in the study with a 99.3% response rate. The mean (±SD) age of mothers was 27.53 (±5.5) years. A fifth 85(20.3%) of the participants were found in poorer wealth status. Regarding maternal educational status, just over a quarter 118(28.2%) and less than a fifth 80(19.1%) of women had no schooling and had attended primary school, respectively. Close to two-thirds 274(65.4%) of mothers were housewives. Moreover, more than half of 230(54.9%) newborns were male (Table 1).

Table 1. Parental and newborn socio-demographic characteristics among newborns delivered at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia, 2020.

Characteristic Frequency Percent (%)
Mother’s age 10–19 32 7.6
>35 60 14.3
20–35 327 78.0
Residence Urban 303 72.3
Rural 116 27.7
Father’s educational status No schooling 102 24.3
Primary school 92 22.0
Secondary school 103 24.6
Higher education 122 29.1
Mother’s educational status No schooling 118 28.2
Primary school 80 19.1
Secondary school 108 25.8
Higher education 113 27
Mother’s occupation Government employee 99 23.6
Housewife 274 65.4
Merchant 46 11.0
Birth status Single 407 97.1
Multiple 12 2.9
Wealth index Richest 81 19.3
Richer 86 20.5
Middle 83 19.8
Poorer 85 20.3
Poorest 84 20.0

Maternal and environmental characteristics

About 54(12.9%) of women didn’t take iron supplementation during pregnancy. Just below three-fourths of (70.2%) and a third (34.1%) of women were multigravidas and primiparous, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2. Maternal and environmental characteristics among newborns delivered at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia, 2020.

Characteristic Frequency Percent (%)
Iron supplementation Yes 365 87.1
No 54 12.9
Gravidity Primigravida 125 29.8
Multigravida 294 70.2
Paritiy Primiparous 143 34.1
Multiparous 276 65.9
Short inter-birth interval Yes 43 10.3
No 376 89.7
PIH Yes 37 8.8
No 382 91.2
GDM Yes 8 1.9
No 411 98.1
Anemia Yes 24 6.0
No 395 94
ANC follow-up Yes 394 94
No 25 6.0
Gestational age Term 380 90.7
Preterm 39 9.3
Intention of pregnancy Yes 387 92.4
No 32 7.6
Season of pregnancy Bega (dry season) 282 67.3
Kiremt(rainy season) 137 32.7
Indoor fire smoke exposure Yes 66 15.8
No 403 96.2

Anthropometric measurement

The mean birth weight of the newborns was 3059.99g (± SD 467.33g); where the median newborn’s length at birth was 48 cm at 2nd percentile. The mean (±SD) maternal MUAC was 24.38cm (±2.6cm) and the median gestational age was 39 weeks (IQR = 2 weeks). The mean(±SD) height of the mothers was 154.46(±7.33). About 160 (38.2%) of mothers were chronically malnourished, whereas tiny proportion 33(7.33%) were short (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Birth weight of the newborns.

Fig 1

Prevalence of stunting at birth

The prevalence of stunting at birth was found to be 30.5% (26.3%-35.1%).

Factors associated with stunting at birth

In multivariable analysis, five variables have shown significant association with stunting at birth namely: sex of newborn, short stature mothers, chronically malnourished mothers, low birth weight, and season of conception.

The likelihood of being stunted among male newborns was 2.9 times higher than their female counterparts [AOR = 2.9(1.63, 5.22)]. Newborns that were, conceived in Kiremt(rainy season) and low birth weight were more likely to be stunted at birth than their counterparts by odds of 2.7 times [AOR = 2.69(1.45, 4.96)] and 3.2 times [AOR = 3.16(1.65, 6.1)], respectively.

The odds of being stunted at birth for newborns who were born to short stature mothers was 2.8 times [AOR = 2.8(1.22, 6.63)] as compared to those newborns born to tall mothers. Further, chronically malnourished mothers were 15.4 times more likely to give stunted newborn than their counterparts [AOR = 15.4(8.12, 29.17)] (Table 3).

Table 3. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression output, showing that factors associated with stunting at birth among newborns in Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia.

Characteristic Stunting at birth COR(95%CI) AOR(95%CI) P-value
Stunted Not stunted
Age of mother
15–19 15(3.57%) 17(4.06%) 2.09(1.004,4.358) 1.390(0.468, 4.127) 0.55
>35 16(3.81%) 44(10.50%) 0.862(0.464,1.602) 0.653(0.272, 1.568) 0.34
20–35 97(23.15%) 230(54.89%) 1 1
Residence
Rural 45(10.74) 71(16.94) 1.680(1.070,2.637) 0.995(0.430, 2.301) 0.99
Urban 83(19.81) 220(52.50) 1 1
Religion
Muslim 14(3.34) 45(10.74) 0.671(0.354,1.273) 0.691(0.294,1.621) 0.39
Orthodox 114(27.21) 246(58.71) 1 1
Father’s educational status
No schooling 36(8.59%) 66(15.75%) 1.831(1.020,3.289) 1.321(0.394,4.429) 0.65
Primary 29(6.9%) 63(15.03%) 1.545(0.840,2.843) 0.857(0.305,2.404) 0.76
Secondary 35(8.35%) 68(16.23%) 1.728(0.961,3107) 1.109(0.457,2.689) 0.81
Higher education 28(6.68%) 94(22.43%) 1 1
Mother’s educational status
No schooling 42(10.02%) 76(18.13%) 1.849(1.038,3.296) 0.48(0.118,2.018) 0.32
Primary school 23(5.48%) 57(13.60%) 1.350(0.703,2.594) 0.600(0.171, 2.107) 0.42
Secondaryschool 37(8.83%) 71(16.94%) 1.744(0.965,3.150) 0.868(0.309, 2.440) 0.78
Higher education 26(6.20%) 87(20.76%) 1 1
Mother’s occupation
Government employee 20(4.77%) 79(18.85%) 1 1
Housewife 99(23.62%) 175(41.76%) 2.235(1.290,3.869) 2.312(0.796,6.711) 0.12
Merchant 9(2.15%) 37(8.83%) 0.961(0.399,2.312) 0.996(0.275,3.607) 0.99
Wealth index
Richest 28(6.68%) 53(12.64%) 1 1
Richer 32(7.63%) 54(12.88%) 1.122(0.596,2.113) 1.142(0.494,2.639)
Middle 28(6.68%) 55(13.13%) 0.964(0.505,1.838) 1.470(0.622,3.476)
Poorer 27(6.44%) 58(13.84%) 0.881(0.421,1.412) 0.787(0.316,1.963)
Poorest 13(3.10%) 71(16.94%) 0.558(0.301,1.033) 0.488(0.181,1.318)
Sex of newborn
Male 81(19.33%) 149(35.56%) 1.642(1.072,2.516) 2.916(1.629,5.218) 0.00
Female 47(11.21%) 142(33.89%) 1 1
Take iron during pregnancy
Yes 108(25.77%) 257(61.34%) 1 1
No 20(4.77%) 34(8.11%) 1.400(0.771,2.541) 1.398(0.494,3960) 0.52
Parity
Multipara 81(19.33%) 195(46.54%) 0.848(0.549,1.31) 1.332(0.690,1.571) 0.39
Primiparous 47(11.21%) 96(22.91%) 1 1
ANC follow-up
Yes 119(28.40%) 275(65.63) 1 1
No 9(2.14%) 16(3.82%) 1.300(1.44,8.00) 0.428(0.108,1.688) 0.22
Intention of pregnancy
Not intentional 13(3.10%) 19(4.53%) 1.618(0.773,3.386) 1.109(0.383,3.213)
Intentional 115(27.45%) 272(64.91%) 1 1 0.84
Mother’s height
Short 28(6.68%) 17(4.06%) 4.513(2.369,8.599) 2.841(1.218, 6.626) 0.16
Tall 100(23.86%) 274(65.39%) 1 1
Nutritional status
Malnourished 95(22.67%) 65(15.51%) 0.01(6.177,16.22) 15.39(8.12,29.17) 0.00
Normal 33(7.87%) 226(53.93%) 1 1
Birth weight
SGA 43(10.26%) 44(10.50%) 2.840(1.745,4.623) 3.158(1.645, 6.061) 0.00
AGA 85(20.28%) 247(58.94%) 1 1
Season of conception
Kiremt (rainy) 45(10.74%) 92(21.96%) 1.173(0.756,1.819) 2.691(1.455,4.977) 0.00
Belg (dry) 83(19.81%) 199(47.49%) 1 1
Exposed to indoor fire smoke
Yes 24(5.73%) 42(10.02%) 1.368(0.788,2.374) 0.866(0.414, 1.816) 0.70
No 104(24.82%) 249(59.43%) 1 1

1 = Reference category.

Discussion

Stunting at birth has permanent life-threatening effects on physical, cognitive, health, and economic loss of children in their lifetime. Length at birth is the main birth outcome indicator of prenatal environment and also predictor of infant growth and survival [45].

The prevalence of stunting at birth was 30.5% (26.3%, 35.1%), depicting a very high public health problem [5], which demands the government’s due emphasis. The alarming prevalence of stunting at birth reveals the seriousness of the nutritional situation in the study area. It’s in line with a study done in Guatemala which is 33% [26]. It’s, however, lower than a study done among seven resource-limited countries which was 43% [46]. The time gap among these studies may bring the variability, the former study was conducted in 2017. In Ethiopia, efforts has been applied over the past three years to improve the nutritional status of mothers and the maternal undernutrition is declined [47]. It’s utterly known that good maternal nutritional status reduces the likelihood of neonatal stunting [48]. Besides, the current finding is higher when compared to other study conducted in Indonesia, 22.9% [49]. The economic discrepancy among the two nations could explain the observed difference although income was not associated with stunting in the current study, it’s been well-established that it greatly affects the nutritional status [49]. To put simply, the Indonesian’s GDP per Capita is estimated to be 4042.662 billion USD, which is higher than Ethiopian GDP Per Capita which is, 1,122.5141 USD) [50]. Likewise, Ethiopia is a third world country, especially the Amhara region where the current study is conducted, which is not only the poorest in Ethiopia but also in the world [51]. Therefore, the nation’s economy is the a contributing factor for stunting at birth that the concerned body should work on.

According to the current finding male newborns were more disproportionately affected by stunting than females. The finding is congruent with a study done in Guatemala [26]. Intrinsically, programmed growth course for the male fetus is greater than that of females, which results in higher demands for most nutrients, i.e. males respond with minimal gene and protein changes in the placenta with continued growth in a suboptimal intrauterine environment, which puts them at higher risk [52]. On the other hand, females express multiple placental genes and protein changes that result in a milder decrease in growth without actual growth restriction [53]. Furthermore, other than the placental growth, male fetuses are liable for adverse events than female associated with the rapid body and brain growth [54].

The likelihood of being stunted among newborns who were conceived in Kiremt(rainy) season was 2.7 times higher than newborns conceived in Belg season, which is consistent with a study employed in Bangladeshi [55], this suggested that numerous mothers who conceived in Kiremt season are more prone to giving birth to stunted newborns. This could be: i)in Ethiopia this season is the toughest time when food insecurity is commonly observed, especially among rural residents [56]; ii) Infectious disease outbreak like a diarrheal disease is highly prevalent [56]; and iii)since 85% of the Ethiopian population is farmer there is the highest workload in this season [57, 58]. Food insecurity linked to low intake of nutritious diet during pregnancy [59]. Similarly, high workload during pregnancy and working long hours increases extra metabolic expenditure, further reducing the fetal size, as sweating reduces plasma volume(decrease uteroplacental blood flow) and circulatory blood flow in the uterus [60, 61]. This suggests that stakeholders shall better work on infection prevention and nutrition interventions in Kiremet(rainy) season. In addition, mothers need to be counseled to minimize workload during pregnancy.

The odds of being stunted among low birth weight newborns was 3.1 time higher as compared to normal weight, which is in agreement with a study done in Low- and middle-income countries [62]. The reason could be: apart from genetic reason, LBW is the signal of premature birth or Intra Uterine Growth Restriction [63].

The odds of being stunted at birth among newborns born from chronically malnourished mothers was higher than their counterparts. This finding is in line with a study reported from Indonesia [64, 65]. Maternal nutrition affects fetal growth directly by determining the number of nutrients available indirectly by affecting the fetal endocrine system, and epigenetically by modulating gene activity [66]. Normal pregnancy entails substantial production of hormones in the maternal, placental, and fetal compartments. The secretion of most important hormones like glucocorticoids, insulin-like growth factors, and leptin, can be affected by maternal undernutrition that could further affect fetal development and growth [67]. This event informed that lots of mothers who are chronic malnutritioned imposed to give stunted birth. In this way, undernutrition passes from one generation to another as a grim inheritance [68]. Maternal nutrition can be considered as one of the major contributing factors for stunting at birth and that the responsible bodies should invest on food intervention during pregnancy to prevent it’s short & long-term effect/s of stunting. However, a study conducted in East Java, Indonesia maternal chronic energy deficiency was not associated with stunting at birth [1]. The difference could be: Indonesia’s health expenditure is higher than the Ethiopia [69].

Short stature mothers were more likely to give stunted newborns than their counterparts. The finding is in congruent with those studies piloted in different countries [1, 26, 64, 70]. Since short stature is an indicator of chronic malnutrition and environmental insult exposure from fetal life to adulthood, illustrated that short stature mothers lack a well-developed uterus given that poor nutrient storage [64] and narrow pelvic(cephalo-pelvic disproportion), this leads to fetal growth continue with limited nutrition and the narrowed pelvic results in faltering fetal growth [62], as the growth of the baby starts from the period mid-gestation [71]. This finding suggests combating stunting during the childhood period enables to create stunting free generations. Moreover, stunting in the earlier critical period would result in stunting in the later period on the one hand and over nutrition on the other hand [72]. This indicates that stunting during childhood period results in double burden of malnutrition that the world, especially developing countries are facing [5]. This strongly shows that stunting in newborns and mothers had intergenerational nature of the problem (Inherited from mothers to their babies), which needs urgent intervention on the provision of female nutrition, prevention of infectious disease like diarrheal.

The study uses a composite variable (length-for-gestational age) to determine stunting at birth unlike previous studies used just only the length measurement regardless of the gestational age. On the other hand, this study didn’t assess pre-pregnancy weight, which is the major contributing factor of maternal nutrition and the study shares the limitation of the cross-sectional study. Further, though various strategies that have been applied to control bias like recall biases, the study still shares admissible shortcomings of bias.

Conclusion

Stunting at birth is a very high public health problem, demanding a grave measure. Newborns born to chronically malnourished and short stature mothers are more stunted. Likewise, stunting is prevalently observed among newborns conceived in Kiremet (rainy season), being male, and, being low birth weight. Thus, dealing with maternal malnutrition through provision of nutrition education and promoting nutrient intake is recommended. Policymakers and nutrition programmers should work on identified attributes like reducing the magnitude of short maternal stature through tacking childhood and adolescence undernutrition so as to decrease the magnitude of stunting a birth. Due stress shall be given for those mothers who conceive in Kiremt (rainy) season through prevention of diarrheal and other infectious diseases. Longitudinal studies are recommended to assess whether stunting at birth will go through their lifetime, or not. Further, cohort study is recommended to show the true association between maternal undernutrition and stunting at birth.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the data collectors and faculties who have contributed to this work.

Abbreviations

ANC

Antenatal Care

GDM

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

LBW

Low Birth Weight

MUAC

Mid-Upper Arm Circumference

SDG

Sustainable Development Goals

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The University of Gondar sponsored the study, however, the funder didn’t have a role in the study.

References

  • 1.Sumarmi, S., Maternal short stature and neonatal stunting: an inter-generational cycle of malnutrition. 2016.
  • 2.Unicef, The state of the world’s children 2013: Children with disabilities. New York: UNICEF, 2013: p. 2013. https://www.unicef.org/publications/index_69379.html
  • 3.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]
  • 4.Miller A.C., et al. , How consistent are associations between stunting and child development? Evidence from a meta-analysis of associations between stunting and multidimensional child development in fifteen low-and middle-income countries. Public health nutrition, 2016. 19(8): p. 1339–1347. 10.1017/S136898001500227X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), W.H.O., International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Levels and trends in child malnutrition: Key Findings of the 2020 Edition of the Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. 2020; https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/jme-2020-edition.
  • 6.Dewey K.G. and Begum K., Long-term consequences of stunting in early life. Maternal & child nutrition, 2011. 7: p. 5–18. 10.1111/j.1740-8709.2011.00349.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Özaltin E., Hill K., and Subramanian S., Association of maternal stature with offspring mortality, underweight, and stunting in low-to middle-income countries. Jama, 2010. 303(15): p. 1507–1516. 10.1001/jama.2010.450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.McGovern M.E., et al. , A review of the evidence linking child stunting to economic outcomes. International journal of epidemiology, 2017. 46(4): p. 1171–1191. 10.1093/ije/dyx017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.WHO. Global nutrition targets 2025: stunting policy brief (WHO/NMH/NHD/14.3). Geneva: World Health Organization.; 2014.
  • 10.Orellana J.D.Y., et al. , Association of severe stunting in indigenous Yanomami children with maternal short stature: clues about the intergerational transmission. Ciencia & saude coletiva, 2019. 24: p. 1875–1883. 10.1590/1413-81232018245.17062017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Xie W., et al. , Growth faltering is associated with altered brain functional connectivity and cognitive outcomes in urban Bangladeshi children exposed to early adversity. BMC medicine, 2019. 17(1): p. 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hoang V.-N., Nghiem S., and Vu X.-B., Stunting and academic achievement among Vietnamese children: new evidence from the young lives survey. Applied Economics, 2019. 51(18): p. 2001–2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Galasso, E. and A. Wagstaff, The Economic Costs of Stunting and How to Reduce Them. World Bank Policy Research Note, 2017, PRN/17/05, March.
  • 14.Investigators M.-E.N., Childhood stunting in relation to the pre-and postnatal environment during the first 2 years of life: The MAL-ED longitudinal birth cohort study. PLoS medicine, 2017. 14(10): p. e1002408 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wulandari, R., et al., CORRELATION BETWEEN LOW BIRTH WEIGHT, EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING HISTORY AND BODY LENGTH AT BIRTH TO THE INCIDENCE OF STUNTING IN 7–23 MONTH CHILDREN AT PANONGAN HEALTH CENTER, TANGERANG REGENCY.
  • 16.UNICEF, Monitoring the situation of Children and women. Malnutrition 2018(Obtained from http://data.unicef.org/nutrition/malnutrition.html.).
  • 17.AU, C., The Cost of Hunger in Ethiopia: The Social and Economic Impact of Child Undernutrition in Ethiopia Summary Report. 2013.
  • 18.LEVELS AND TRENDS IN CHILD MALNUTRITION UNICEF / WHO / World Bank Group Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates Key findings of the 2020 edition. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331621/9789240003576-eng.pdf.
  • 19.Victora C.G., et al. , Anthropometric characterization of impaired fetal growth: risk factors for and prognosis of newborns with stunting or wasting. JAMA pediatrics, 2015. 169(7): p. e151431–e151431. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bank, U.W.W., Ethiopia’s stunting prevalence compared with selected regions of the world. 2018.
  • 21.ICF, E.P.H.I.E.E.a., 2019. Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey 2019: Key Indicators. Rockville, Maryland, USA: EPHI and ICF.
  • 22.Leroy J.L., Olney D.K., and Ruel M.T., PROCOMIDA, a food-assisted maternal and child health and nutrition program, contributes to postpartum weight retention in Guatemala: a cluster-randomized controlled intervention trial. The Journal of nutrition, 2019. 149(12): p. 2219–2227. 10.1093/jn/nxz175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.CDC. Pregnancy Complications. 2018 October 23 [cited 2020 6/2]; https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-complications.html.
  • 24.Kuhnt J. and Vollmer S., Antenatal care services and its implications for vital and health outcomes of children: evidence from 193 surveys in 69 low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ open, 2017. 7(11): p. e017122 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Workicho A., et al. , Adolescent pregnancy and linear growth of infants: a birth cohort study in rural Ethiopia. Nutrition journal, 2019. 18(1): p. 22 10.1186/s12937-019-0448-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Solomons N.W., et al. , Stunting at birth: recognition of early-life linear growth failure in the western highlands of Guatemala. Public health nutrition, 2015. 18(10): p. 1737–1745. 10.1017/S136898001400264X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rashad A.S. and Sharaf M.F., Does maternal employment affect child nutrition status? New evidence from Egypt. Oxford Development Studies, 2019. 47(1): p. 48–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.WHO. Global target tracking tool. 2015; http://www.who.int/nutrition/trackingtool.
  • 29.Organization, W.H., Reducing stunting in children: equity considerations for achieving the global nutrition targets 2025. 2018.
  • 30.wikipedia, Historical origion and current status Gondar. 2020.
  • 31.NP. Commission., Ethiopia’s Progress towards Eradicating Poverty: an Interim Report on 2015/16 Poverty Analysis Study. September 2017.
  • 32.Jazeera, A.A., Amhara region not only the poorest in ethiopia but also in the world, 2014.
  • 33.UoGCSR, H., Annual report of Gondar University Comprhensive Specialised and Referal Hospital about Health care providers who are working in Pediatrics ward. 2020.
  • 34.Hospital, U.o.G.C.S.R., Annual delivery report of Gondar University Comprhensive and Referal Hospitals. 2019.
  • 35.Kruger H., Maternal anthropometry and pregnancy outcomes: a proposal for the monitoring of pregnancy weight gain in outpatient clinics in South Africa. Curationis, 2005. 28(4): p. 40–49. 10.4102/curationis.v28i4.1012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ethiopia, F.M.o.H.o. and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) Training Management Protocol, Addis Ababa March 2014.
  • 37.WHO, Report of a WHO Technical Consultation on Birth Spacing Geneva, Switzerland 13–15 June 2005.
  • 38.Opara E. and Zaidi J., The interpretation and clinical application of the word ‘parity’: a survey. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2007. 114(10): p. 1295–1297. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01435.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.WHO, “Haemoglobin concentrations for the diagnosis of anaemia and assessment of severity,” in Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition Information System, World Health Organization, sGeneva, 2011.
  • 40.CSA, I., Central Statistical Agency (CSA) [Ethiopia] and ICF, Ethiopia demographic and health survey, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA:. 2016.
  • 41.Fite R.O., Mohammedamin A., and Abebe T.W., Unintended pregnancy and associated factors among pregnant women in Arsi Negele Woreda, West Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. BMC research notes, 2018. 11(1): p. 671 10.1186/s13104-018-3778-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Arifeen S.E., et al. , Infant growth patterns in the slums of Dhaka in relation to birth weight, intrauterine growth retardation, and prematurity. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2000. 72(4): p. 1010–1017. 10.1093/ajcn/72.4.1010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Schmidt M.K., et al. , Nutritional status and linear growth of Indonesian infants in West Java are determined more by prenatal environment than by postnatal factors. The Journal of nutrition, 2002. 132(8): p. 2202–2207. 10.1093/jn/132.8.2202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Central Statistical Agency (CSA) [Ethiopia] and ICF. 2016. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: CSA and ICF.
  • 45.Enlow M.B., et al. , Maternal cortisol output in pregnancy and newborn telomere length: Evidence for sex-specific effects. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 2019. 102: p. 225–235. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.12.222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Investigators M.-E.N., Childhood stunting in relation to the pre-and postnatal environment during the first 2 years of life: The MAL-ED longitudinal birth cohort study. PLoS medicine, 2017. 14(10). 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dadi A.F. and Desyibelew H.D., Undernutrition and its associated factors among pregnant mothers in Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia. PloS one, 2019. 14(4): p. e0215305 10.1371/journal.pone.0215305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kismul H., et al. , Determinants of childhood stunting in the Democratic Republic of Congo: further analysis of Demographic and Health Survey 2013–14. BMC public health, 2018. 18(1): p. 74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hayati, A.W., et al., Pyridinium Crosslinks (Pyd) in the Urine is Associated with Stunting in Neonates. Asian Journal of Research in Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2019: p. 1–8.
  • 50.Economists, W.L. The-poorest-countries-in-the-world. 2018 [cited 2020 6/6/2020]; https://www.focus-economics.com.
  • 51.ALJEEZRA, Al Jazeera Amhara region not only the poorest in ethiopia but also in the world 2014.
  • 52.Melamed N., et al. , Fetal sex and intrauterine growth patterns. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 2013. 32(1): p. 35–43. 10.7863/jum.2013.32.1.35 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Tekola-Ayele F., et al. , Sex differences in the associations of placental epigenetic aging with fetal growth. Aging (Albany NY), 2019. 11(15): p. 5412 10.18632/aging.102124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Eriksson J.G., et al. , Boys live dangerously in the womb. American Journal of Human Biology, 2010. 22(3): p. 330–335. 10.1002/ajhb.20995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Svefors P., et al. , Stunted at 10 years. Linear growth trajectories and stunting from birth to pre-adolescence in a rural Bangladeshi cohort. PloS one, 2016. 11(3): p. e0149700 10.1371/journal.pone.0149700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Prentice A.M. and Cole T.J., Seasonal changes in growth and energy status in the Third World. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 1994. 53(3): p. 509–519. 10.1079/pns19940061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.WFP and CSA, Comprehensive food security and Vulnerability Analysis in Ethiopia, 2014, Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
  • 58.Bayu, T.Y., An Agro-Ecological Assessment of Household Food Insecurity in Deme Catchment, South-western Ethiopia. 2013.
  • 59.Carter K.N., et al. , What are the determinants of food insecurity in New Zealand and does this differ for males and females? Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 2010. 34(6): p. 602–608. 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2010.00615.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Banerjee B., Physical hazards in employment and pregnancy outcome. Indian journal of community medicine: official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine, 2009. 34(2): p. 89 10.4103/0970-0218.51224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lennox J., Petrucka P., and Bassendowski S., Eating practices during pregnancy: perceptions of select Maasai women in Northern Tanzania. Global health research and policy, 2017. 2(1): p. 9 10.1186/s41256-017-0028-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.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]
  • 63.Aryastami N.K., et al. , Low birth weight was the most dominant predictor associated with stunting among children aged 12–23 months in Indonesia. BMC Nutrition, 2017. 3(1): p. 16. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Elly, N., E. Zainal, and I. Nilawati. Maternal Factors, Gender, and Relationship to the Length at Birth. in 1st International Conference on Inter-Professional Health Collaboration (ICIHC 2018). 2019. Atlantis Press.
  • 65.Ruchayati F., Hubungan Kadar Hemoglobin dan Lingkar Lengan Atas Ibu Hamil Trimester III dengan Panjang Abyi Lahir di Puskesmas Halmahera Kota Semarang. Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat Universitas Diponegoro, 2012. 1(2): p. 18785. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Black R.E., et al. , Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. The lancet, 2008. 371(9608): p. 243–260. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61690-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Hills F., English J., and Chard T., Circulating levels of IGF-I and IGF-binding protein-1 throughout pregnancy: relation to birthweight and maternal weight. Journal of Endocrinology, 1996. 148(2): p. 303–309. 10.1677/joe.0.1480303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Ramakrishnan U., et al. , Role of intergenerational effects on linear growth. The Journal of nutrition, 1999. 129(2): p. 544S–549S. 10.1093/jn/129.2.544S [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Organization, o.H., World Health Organization Global Health Expenditure database (apps.who.int/nha/database).
  • 70.Khatun W., et al. , Assessing the Intergenerational Linkage between Short Maternal Stature and Under-Five Stunting and Wasting in Bangladesh. Nutrients, 2019. 11(8): p. 1818 10.3390/nu11081818 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Neufeld L.M., et al. , Changes in maternal weight from the first to second trimester of pregnancy are associated with fetal growth and infant length at birth. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2004. 79(4): p. 646–652. 10.1093/ajcn/79.4.646 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Cousens S., et al. , Modelling stunting in LiST: the effect of applying smoothing to linear growth data. BMC public health, 2017. 17(4): p. 778 10.1186/s12889-017-4744-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Clive J Petry

17 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-32536

Stunting at birth and associated factors among newborns delivered at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gonete,

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.

This is an interesting and largely well-written study. The reviewers have suggested a number of revisions that need to be made, all of which are important, which I will not add to. I look forward to receiving a revised version of the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 31 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Clive J Petry, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please provide citations for the literature used to develop the survey, and describe how the newly constructed survey was validated.

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.  If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible.

4. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: Please explain why written consent was not obtained, how you recorded/documented participant consent, and if the ethics committees/IRBs approved this consent procedure.

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

"The University of Gondar sponsored the study, however, the funder didn’t have a role in the study"

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

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"yes, but the funder has no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 15.

8. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Comments_1: Authors wrote unnecessarily a lot about background profile of the study, please make it short, simple and precise.

Comments_2: Are you sure no studies were available that highlighted stunted children at age 0 months? As all DHS reports this group of children.

Comments_3: Need a major revision in the Literature review section.

Comments_4: Write ‘This’ instead of ‘The’ in line number 100.

Comments_5: Specify the name of the region in line number 119.

Comments_6: Methods section is too long to read. Authors could make it short by combining Data Collection tools and procedures, Data quality control and Data processing and analysis and removing redundant information.

Comments_7: According to WHO when a baby is born before 28 weeks of gestational age then it is known as extremely preterm. Why did you exclude the extreme preterm newborns (born before 33 weeks of gestational age)?

Comments_8: Give the reason(s) of excluding the newborns whose mothers suffering from critical illness (postpartum hemorrhage) and newborns suffering from an illness (birth trauma)? Would these factors be not the reason for the stunting at birth?

Comments_9: Did the authors or institution collect the data?

Comments_10: Was the data primary or secondary? Make it clear.

Comments_11: What was your actual study period? It’s confusing, as your data collection period and study period is different.

Comments_12: What was the actual sample size? In method section it isn’t clearly stated. In abstract it is 422, but in result section it is 419. So this is puzzling.

Comments_13: Mention the year beside the months in line 141.

Comments_14: In line 196, the authors described about wealth index. But in the Data processing and analysis section they again described about income status of mothers is a bit confusing.

Comments_15: The lines 242 and 243 are confusing, why fisher exact test was performed.

Comments_16: Give an acceptance/rejection range for Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) in line 246.

Comments_17: VIF is used to assess the multicollinearity for multiple linear regression analysis. How it works for multiple logistic regressions analyses please explain.

Comments_18: You should display the results of all the study variables using tables, graphs, charts, or figures.

Comments_19: In table 1, specify the age range (beside the categories) of the mothers.

Comments_20: Use the table/figures to represent the Maternal Characteristics and Environmental characteristics of the newborns.

Comments_21: Change the table number in line 383.

Comments_22: Add an extra column in table 3 to indicate the p-values.

Comments_23: Add the meaning of ‘1’ in notes section under the table 3.

Comments_24: In line 405, you said that the overall stunting at birth was 41.7 % (37% - 46.7%). What’s the basis of this statement? Is this your findings?

Comments_25: As income is not associated with the stunting then why authors made the recommendation.

Comments_26: It is pretty obvious that malnourished mothers will give low birth weight children in most cases that causes stunting/malnutrition among new born and the findings showed high correlation why authors tried to justify this findings?

Comments_27: Policy recommendation is missing in this study.

Comments_28: Provide a list of abbreviation.

Comments_29: Add the reference(s) in line number 71, 89, 91, 97, 124, 126, 140, 197, 226, 227, 249, and 420.

Comments_30: Correctly cite the reference in line number 127.

Reviewer #2: Explanation for the Q number:

3. The data about low birth weight was not presented. only small for gestational age (SGA), that's not the same with low birth weight. There are some variables that are not described in the operational definition/objective criteria:

- classification of the mother's age

- Intention of pregnancy

- malnourished mother (what criteria that was used for determining malnourished; MUAC?, it should be described.

- please consider the definition of stunting at birth, because the length of birth is associated with gestational age. The length <48 cm maybe only for a term newborn in general, while for preterm we have to look at the growth chart that we used. if the length for gestational age is appropriate, we cannot say that is stunted newborn.

Preferably data on the mean or median birth length of the stunted newborn are presented.

4. The are several typing errors, and abbreviations that are not common (Px; pregnancy)

Tables: it is not common to put the size of the samples (n) on the title of the table

Discussions: Semarang is one of the city in Indonesia, so it cannot be written as two different cities or country. please check the citation.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Md. Shariful Islam, Lecturer, Dept. of Public Health, First Capital University of Bangladesh, Chuadanga, Khulna, Bangladesh

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 20;16(1):e0245528. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245528.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Dec 2020

December 24/2020

Point-by-point response round one

Dear both the editor and reviewers, we found your comments are to be crucial for enhancing the tone and readability of our scholarly work. We are really grateful enough to express our sincerest thanks for your comment. Appreciating your effort and valuable comments, we have provided possible reflections on the raised concerns and questions. Kindly find our reflections hereunder.

A. Editor’s comment

1. Please provide citations for the literature used to develop the survey, and describe how the newly constructed survey was validated.

Authors’ response: Comment has been accepted.

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible.

Authors’ response: Dear, the outcome variable is ascertained using an objective composite variable (newborn length and gestational age). For the independent variables, we had collected from various published articles, and variables that were not included previously and assume to have an association were also included. We have supplied a copy of both Amharic (local language) and English language tool that we used to collect the data.

3. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: Please explain why written consent was not obtained, how you recorded/documented participant consent, and if the ethics committees/IRBs approved this consent procedure.

Authors’ response: Comment accepted and amendment has been done.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:"The University of Gondar sponsored the study, however, the funder didn’t have a role in the study" We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

Authors’ response: Dear, we have checked the acknowledgment section, but we didn’t find a statement that describes funding information. We have deleted the funding statement in the manuscript and we are grateful to use your modification on our behalf.

B. Reviewer #1

1. Authors wrote unnecessarily a lot about background profile of the study, please make it short, simple and precise.

Authors’ response: We found the comment is to be relevant and modification has been done accordingly.

2. Are you sure no studies were available that highlighted stunted children at age 0 months? As all DHS reports this group of children.

Authors’ response: As apparently seen in our background section, the prevalence of children younger than six months is 17.1%, but they determined using the World Health Organization’s classification (z-score) considering their age and height, which is different from our method of ascertainment and not applicable for children at age 0 months. We are not quite sure they included children at birth. Moreover, factors were not explored in that report. Therefore, considering the abovementioned issues, we opted to declare no study in that age group.

3. Need a major revision in the Literature review section.

Authors’ response: Comment found to be valid and correction has been done accordingly.

4. Write ‘This’ instead of ‘The’ in line number 100.

Authors’ response: comment accepted!

5. Specify the name of the region in line number 119.

Authors’ response: comment accepted and corrected accordingly.

6. Methods section is too long to read. Authors could make it short by combining Data Collection tools and procedures, Data quality control and Data processing and analysis and removing redundant information.

Authors’ response: comment accepted and change has been done.

7. According to WHO when a baby is born before 28 weeks of gestational age then it is known as extremely preterm. Why did you exclude the extreme preterm newborns (born before 33 weeks of gestational age)?

Authors’ response: We used software to analyze the outcome variable (stunting) and birthweight prepared by the INTERGROWTH-21st project. The standard instructs users to not consider newborns aged less than 33 weeks. We, therefore, excluded that segment of the population in order not to introduce bias.

8. Give the reason(s) of excluding the newborns whose mothers suffering from critical illness (postpartum hemorrhage) and newborns suffering from an illness (birth trauma)? Would these factors be not the reason for the stunting at birth?

Authors’ response: We had excluded both mothers and newborns having health problems during data collection in order not to breach ethical issues. From a research ethics point of view, it’s highly recommended that the study participants should be as stable as possible and healthy to capture the necessary data. In addition to this, we may increase the non-response rate and introduce bias and eventually reach false inference. During the data collection period, we had encountered women having a postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and a baby sustained birth trauma following instrumental delivery. Measuring the newborn’s body dimension while the baby is managed in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) would lead to further medical problems like sepsis and hypothermia beyond the ethical concern. Dear, we don’t see the connection between the aforementioned factors and the outcome variable. Indeed, we don’t believe that neither the burden of stunting among these populations is higher nor these factors expose to stunting.

9. Did the authors or institution collect the data?

Authors’ response: Not really! As can be seen in the data collection section, the data was gathered and supervised by well-trained midwives, who are not investigators of the study. Nevertheless, even though authors didn’t involve directly in the data collection task, we had been supervising the overall activity so as to maintain the quality of the data. Further, we had delivered the training to both data collectors and supervisors.

10. Was the data primary or secondary? Make it clear.

Authors’ response: In the data collection tool and procedures section, it read as “both interview and chart review was done”, implying we used a mixed data collection method (primary and secondary).

11. What was your actual study period? It’s confusing, as your data collection period and study period is different.

Authors’ response: Our data collection period was, from February 26th through April 25th / 2020. Dear, we have reviewed the document, and we did find nothing a different data collection period other than the above-stated period. Probably, the statement that appeared under the sample size determination, procedure, and technique section would be confusing. ‘Four months were randomly drawn from the four seasons; accordingly, around 839, 924, 954, and 816 live births were delivered in September, December, May, and August yielding an average birth (N) of 884 newborns’. It’s not to refer to the study period or data collection period. We had collected the number of births over the aforementioned months to estimate the general population, as the number varies across seasons in the Ethiopian context. In a nutshell, we just use the average number of neonates delivered in those months to determine the total population in order to estimate the ‘K’ interval. The data collection/study period is from February 26th through April 25th / 2020.

12. What was the actual sample size? In method section it isn’t clearly stated. In abstract it is 422, but in result section it is 419. So this is puzzling.

Authors’ response: It’s really a wonderful concern! In the sample size and determination section, we have provided the detail of statistical assumptions considered to estimate the required sample size, however, we did miss to put the final sample size. The actual sample size was 422, of which 419 participants responded and included in the final analysis, making a response rate of 99.3%. Dear, now we’ve added the exact sample size in the sample size determination section. All in all, we don’t recognize any fallacy regarding the sample size.

13. Mention the year beside the months in line 141

Authors’ response: Comment accepted and corrected accordingly.

14. In line 196, the authors described about wealth index. But in the Data processing and analysis section they again described about income status of mothers is a bit confusing.

Authors’ response: Dear, yes! We used principal component analysis (PCA) to determine the wealth status of the participants. Comment accepted, and we’ve replaced the ‘income status’ phrase with ‘wealth status’.

15. The lines 242 and 243 are confusing, why fisher exact test was performed.

Authors’ response: Definitely, it’s confusing! We’ve checked the chi-square and multicollinearity assumptions before running the multivariable analysis; we didn’t consider fisher exact test as it’s not a required statistical assumption. We have removed that in the newly revised document.

16. Give an acceptance/rejection range for Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) in line 246.

Authors’ response: comment has been accepted and a statement is added.

17. VIF is used to assess the multicollinearity for multiple linear regression analysis. How it works for multiple logistic regressions analyses please explain.

Authors’ response: Indeed, VIF is used to estimate the correlation of variables and it’s usually applicable for linear regression and it’s one of the assumptions required to be fulfilled prior to run the analysis. However, it’s also applicable in multivariable logistic regression; here as you know the aim is distinct from linear regression. One of the statistical assumptions to be fulfilled before running logistic regression is that, there should not be linearity/correlation between the independent variables that are going to be considered to see its association with the outcome variable and VIF is the diagnostic method. Generally, here, our aim is to see the correlation within the independent variables, not with the outcome variable, unlike linear regression.

18. You should display the results of all the study variables using tables, graphs, charts, or figures.

Authors’ response: Comment accepted, and we’ve used a table and figure to present our data, especially for those variables, which were presented using text only.

19. In table 1, specify the age range (beside the categories) of the mothers.

Authors’ response: We’ve modified, and presented the age range only. Dear, here, our concern is to examine the association of extreme maternal age (adolescent (10-19) and advanced age (>35)) with stunting, considering the truth that extreme age is a risk factor to give birth to stunted newborn as compared to mothers aged between 20 and 35 years. Initially, we were labeled the maternal age as ‘adolescent’ ‘young’, and ‘old/advanced’. There is no problem with operationalize ‘adolescent’ and ‘old/advanced’ age as there are established and standard definitions for both, however, there is no definition for mothers age from 20-35 years. Other previous scholars also put the age range, not the interpretation (http://theicph.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/11.-VIVIN-EKA-RAHMAWATI.pdf).

Therefore, to be consistent and to avoid the confusion, we just delete the interpretation and put the age range, instead.

20. Use the table/figures to represent the Maternal Characteristics and Environmental characteristics of the newborns.

Authors’ response: Comment accepted and amendment has been done!

21. Change the table number in line 383.

Authors’ response: Comment accepted!

22. Add an extra column in table 3 to indicate the p-values.

Authors’ response: Dear, we did intentionally ignore to add one column to present the p-values estimate and use the asterisk (*) to show the degree of association in order not to make the table bulk, which we believe it’s scientifically acceptable. Anyways, we have added a column and put the respective as per your comment.

23. Add the meaning of ‘1’ in notes section under the table 3.

Authors’ response: Comment accepted!

24. In line 405, you said that the overall stunting at birth was 41.7 % (37% - 46.7%). What’s the basis of this statement? Is this your findings?

Authors’ response: Dear, your comment is appreciated and accepted. We have noticed the mistake after submitting the manuscript to the journal. We had uploaded the old version of our manuscript. We’ve made changes to the manuscript, especially in the second paragraph of the discussion section. The true finding is the one that appeared both in the abstract and results section i.e. 30.5 %( 95% CI: 26.3%, 34.8%), not 41.7 % (37% - 46.7%). In a nutshell, we’ve revised and made change to the second paragraph of the discussion section.

25. As income is not associated with the stunting then why authors made the recommendation.

Authors’ response: You are right that income doesn’t associate with stunting in our study, and in the discussion section we have declared that the variable is not found to be significant, nevertheless, that doesn’t mean it has no effect on nutritional status. Dear, we believe that relying only on statistical association and give inference might not be always good, as statistics is not always certain. We’ve to think of this gap and look at the scientific connection that income has on nutritional status. Further, it’s recommended to discuss important variables even though that doesn’t show an association just to give emphasis to the issue in order to enforce policymakers not to ignore the issue assuming the finding is disputable across various studies in the field.

26. It is pretty obvious that malnourished mothers will give low birth weight children in most cases that causes stunting/malnutrition among newborn and the findings showed high correlation why authors tried to justify this findings?

Authors’ response: You are quite right that the effect of maternal malnutrition on child stunting is a well-established truth and other studies witnessed similar finding in this regard. However, keeping the common justification given to the association by different scholars in the field, there are also important justification points that have been missed by some scholars, making justification variable across different studies in the field. We believe that showing the possible justifications to the observed association would strengthen the other’s justification given by different scholars, and urge the policymakers to counteract the problem.

27. Policy recommendation is missing in this study.

Authors’ response: Dear, we see that your comment is critical and in the conclusion section we’ve forwarded recommendations to policymakers.

28. Provide a list of abbreviation.

Authors’ response: Comment accepted and provided!

29. Add the reference(s) in line number 71, 89, 91, 97, 124, 126, 140, 197, 226, 227, 249, and 420.

Authors’ response: Comment accepted and cited!

30. Correctly cite the reference in line number 127.

Authors’ response: Comment accepted!

C. Reviewer #2

1. The data about low birth weight was not presented. Only small for gestational age (SGA), that's not the same with low birth weight.

Authors’ response: You are right that the prevalence of low birth weight was not presented, rather only the mean birth weight was recorded. Dear, as we’ve included preterm births in our study, we didn’t use the criteria used for term newborns i.e <2500g to define low birth weight, we instead applied birthweight adjusted to gestational age regardless of the maturity level of the newborn, and classified as LGA, SGA, and AGA using the INTERGROWTH-21st reference guideline. Finally, we reported the SGA’s estimate as LBW.

2. Classification of the mother's age.

Authors’ response: We’ve modified and presented the age range only. Dear, here, our concern is to examine the association of extreme maternal age (adolescent (10-19) and advanced age (>35)) with stunting, considering the truth that extreme age groups (old/advanced and/or adolescent) are/is a risk factor to give birth to stunted newborns as compared to mothers aged between 20 and 35 years. Initially, we had labeled the maternal age as ‘adolescent’ ‘young’, and ‘old/advanced’. There is no problem to operationalize ‘adolescent’ and ‘old/advanced’ age as there are established and standard definitions for both, however, there is no definition for mothers’ age from 20-35 years, who are considered to be safe groups to give birth to stunted babies. Therefore, to avoid confusion, we just deleted the interpretation and put the age range instead.

3. Define intention of pregnancy

Authors’ response: Comment accepted and the variable has been defined and added in the operational definition section.

4. Malnourished mother (what criteria that was used for determining malnourished; MUAC?, it should be described

Authors’ response: Dear, we do define maternal malnutrition based on MUAC measurement. As can be seen in the optional definition and data collection procedures section, the mother’s MUAC measurement <23.5 was defined as ‘malnourished’. Actually, in that section, the variable is read as ‘chronic energy deficiency’, which is the usual and appropriate interpretation for MUAC measurements. We thus keep the variable name as it’s, however, we are ready to change the naming in the next revision if it’s your recommendation.

5. Please consider the definition of stunting at birth, because the length of birth is associated with gestational age. The length <48 cm maybe only for a term newborn in general, while for preterm we have to look at the growth chart that we used. If the length for gestational age is appropriate, we cannot say that is stunted newborn.

Preferably data on the mean or median birth length of the stunted newborn are presented.

Authors’ response: Your concern and reflection is quite admissible. Similar to the birth weight of the newborn, we defined stunting considering the gestational age and analyzed using the INTERGROWTH-21st software prepared to determine the birthweight and length of the newborn considering the gestational age. As can be seen in the operational definition section, we defined using newborns length and gestational age to generate percentile, not simply by measuring only the length of the newborn.

Taking all together, we don’t define using the simple measurement of length and labeled as ‘stunted’ and ‘not stunted’, we instead use a growth reference chart that considers gestational age and length irrespective of the maturity level of the newborns(term and preterm), according to the INTERGROWTH-21st project’s recommendation. We didn’t use (<48cm) to define stunting for term newborns.

6. The are several typing errors, and abbreviations that are not common (Px; pregnancy)

Authors’ response: Comment accepted!

7. Tables: it is not common to put the size of the samples (n) on the title of the table

Authors’ response: Comment accepted and revision has been done accordingly.

8. Discussions: Semarang is one of the city in Indonesia, so it cannot be written as two different cities or country. Please check the citation.

Authors’ response: Comment accepted and corrected accordingly.

Thank you very much for your time!

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Clive J Petry

4 Jan 2021

Stunting at birth and associated factors among newborns delivered at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital.

PONE-D-20-32536R1

Dear Dr. Gonete,

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,

Clive J Petry, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Clive J Petry

8 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-32536R1

Stunting at birth and associated factors among newborns delivered at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospital.

Dear Dr. Gonete:

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. Clive J Petry

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES