Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 25;16(1):e0245825. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245825

Determinants of preterm birth among women delivered in public hospitals of Western Ethiopia, 2020: Unmatched case-control study

Muktar Abadiga 1,*, Bizuneh Wakuma 1, Adugna Oluma 1, Ginenus Fekadu 2, Nesru Hiko 1, Getu Mosisa 1
Editor: Florian Fischer3
PMCID: PMC7833256  PMID: 33493193

Abstract

Background

Worldwide, preterm birth accounts for 1 million deaths of infants each year and 60% of these deaths occur in developing countries. In addition to the significant health consequences on the infant, preterm birth can lead to economic costs. There was a lack of study in western Ethiopia, and most of those studies conducted in other parts of a country were based on card review with a cross-sectional study design. The risk factors of preterm birth may vary from region to region within the same country due to variation in socioeconomic status and health care service coverage. Therefore, this study aimed to identify determinants of preterm birth in western Ethiopia.

Methods

An institutional-based case-control study was conducted from February 15 to April 15, 2020, in western Ethiopia. The eligible 188 cases and 377 controls were randomly selected for this study. Cases were women who gave birth after 28 weeks and before 37 completed weeks of gestation, and controls were women who gave birth at and after 37 weeks of gestation from the first day of the last normal menstrual period. Data were collected by a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire. The collected data were entered into Epi info version 7 and exported to SPSS version 21 for analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify determinants of preterm birth at P-value <0.05.

Results

From a total of 565 eligible participants, 516 (172 cases and 344 controls) participated in this study with a response rate of 91.3%. The result of the multivariable analysis shows that mothers who developed pregnancy-induced hypertension (AOR = 3.13, 95% CI; 1.78, 5.50), only one time ANC visits (AOR = 5.99, 95% CI; 2.65, 13.53), experienced premature rupture of membrane (AOR = 3.57, 95% CI; 1.79, 7.13), birth interval less than two years (AOR = 2.96, 95% CI; 1.76, 4.98), developed anemia during the current pregnancy (AOR = 4.20, 95% CI; 2.13, 8.28) and didn’t get dietary supplementation during the current pregnancy (AOR = 2.43, 95% CI; 1.51, 3.91) had statistically significant association with experiencing preterm birth.

Conclusion

Antenatal care service providers should focus on mothers with pregnancy-induced hypertension, premature rupture of membrane, and anemia during pregnancy, and refer to the senior experts for early management to reduce the risk of preterm delivery. Antenatal care services such as counseling the mother on the benefit of dietary supplementation during pregnancy, antenatal care follow up, and lengthening birth interval should be integrated into the existing health extension packages. New and inclusive strategies such as the establishment of comprehensive mobile clinic services should also be designed to reduce the burden of preterm birth among women living in the rural community. Lastly, we recommend future researchers to conduct longitudinal and community-based studies supplemented with qualitative methods.

Introduction

Although under-five mortality rates were reducing over the past years, neonatal mortalities have been shown less improvement [1]. World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that about 8 million infants die each year worldwide, from which 1 million are due to preterm birth (PTB) [2]. In Ethiopia, it was estimated that about 320,000 births are PTB each year from the total newborns in the country [3]. PTB is one of the most common causes of neonatal death and is defined as a baby born too early or before 37 completed weeks of gestation from the first day of the last normal menstrual period [4]. PTB can be occurred spontaneously or is initiated by clinicians for different medical or nonmedical reasons before 37 weeks of gestation [5].

Globally, about 15 million infants were born prematurely, of which the highest proportion (60–80%) occurred in low and middle-income countries [6]. The WHO estimates that the prevalence of PTB ranges between 5–18% across 184 countries around the world [7]. The rate of PTB is about 12.8% in South Asia and 60% in sub-Saharan Africa, 10.2% in Central and Eastern European centers [8, 9], 15.8% in the French Caribbean population of African descent [10], and 13.7% in Saudi Arabia [11]. In African countries, the magnitude of PTB is 18.3% in Kenya [12], 9.26% in Algeria [13], 11.8% in Nigeria [14] and 16.3% in Malawi [15]. In Ethiopia, the rate of PTB is about 16.15% in the capital city Addis Ababa [16], 13.3% in Axum and Adwa [17], 12.8% in Debretabor town [18], and 16.9% in Shire Sihul hospital [19].

Worldwide, around 1 million children die each year due to complications related to PTB and 60% of these complications occur in developing countries [20]. Literature showed that PTB accounts for 28% of all 4 million annual early neonatal deaths [21]. In Ethiopia, PTB is the first cause of neonatal death accounting for 34% and contributes to 12.5% of deaths of under five children [22]. PTB is the second leading cause of death for children under-five years of age next to pneumonia, and about 24,400 less than 5 years of children die due to the direct effect of PTB in Ethiopia [23]. It remains a public health issue responsible for neonatal morbidity and mortality especially in low-income countries despite the improved antenatal coverage [24].

PTB has a greater risk of developmental disabilities and growth problems leading to 75% of perinatal deaths and 50% of neurological abnormalities [25]. It leads to short-term and long-term problems in motor development, impairment in behavior, and poor academic performance in later life [26]. In addition to the significant health consequences to the infant, PTB can lead to economic costs for families, communities, and the nation at large [27]. It also has impacts on the health care system demanding rehabilitation service, special education placement, and specialized health care professionals [28]. More than 90% of preterm babies die in developing countries within the first few days of life while only less than 10% die in high-income countries [7].

Literature showed that extreme maternal age [29, 30], pregnancy induced hypertension (PIH) [11, 15, 3136], antepartum hemorrhage (APH) [11, 33, 35], fewer antenatal care (ANC) visits [29, 33, 34, 36, 37], decreased hemoglobin level [17, 18, 31], multiple pregnancy [16, 34, 36], short birth interval [16, 29, 36], premature rupture of membrane (PROM) [11, 17, 33, 35, 36], maternal malnutrition [17, 38], chronic medical illness [16, 29] and being HIV sero-positive mothers [15, 17, 32] were some of the factors which contributed to the occurrence of PTB.

Although different interventions have been employed to prevent as well as to improve the outcome of PTB, the burden of PTB remains high in developing countries including Ethiopia, and control strategies have been given little attention [39]. Due to the enormous economic and emotional burden of PTB, identifying the risk factors for PTB has the potential to help in preventing the impacts. It is important to understand the risk factors of PTB especially in developing countries in which the rate of PTB is high. However, no study was conducted on the determinants of PTB in the western part of Ethiopia. Due to variations in socioeconomic status and health care service coverage, the risk factors of PTB may vary from region to region and time trends even within the same country. On the other hand, most of the studies conducted in other parts of a country were based on card review, and therefore, the risk factors of PTB were not fully addressed. On the contrary, this study was based on primary data and included many risk factors that would be associated with PTB. Besides, most of the studies conducted in Ethiopia were cross-sectional and this study used a case-control study design that is stronger than cross-sectional. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the determinants of PTB in western Ethiopia. The finding of this study is important for policymakers and health care workers by providing important information related to risk factors of PTB in designing an effective strategy to prevent and control PTB.

Methods

Study design, setting, and population

A hospital-based prospective unmatched case-control study was employed. This study was conducted in public hospitals of Wollega zones, western Ethiopia from February 15 to April 15, 2020. The total population of Wollega zone is about 3,345,675, from which 1,739,751 are females and 1,605,924 are males [40]. For administrative purposes, the Wollega zone is divided into 4 independent zones, namely; Horro Guduru Wollega zone, West Wollega zone, Kellem Wollega zone, and East Wollega zone. According to each zone’s health bureau report, the Wollega zone has 13 primary hospitals, 9 general hospitals, 2 comprehensive specialized hospitals, 401 health posts, and 102 health centers. We conducted this study in six randomly selected hospitals found in Wollega zones, namely; Nedjo general hospital, Gimbi general hospital, Nekemte specialized hospital, Arjo hospital, Wollega university specialized hospital, and Shambu general hospital. According to a report from the zone, an estimated total number of 85,345 births have been registered annually in the zones. In this study, the source population was all mothers who gave birth in public hospitals of the Wollega zones and the study population was all women who gave birth at the randomly selected hospitals of Wollega zones during the study period. All immediate postnatal women who gave birth at the selected hospitals of Wollega zones during the study period were included in the study. Women with unknown last menstrual period (LMP) or not reliable ultrasonography (not early taken at ≤20 completed weeks of gestation) and unable to communicate due to serious medical illness were excluded. Cases (preterm births) were women who gave birth after 28 weeks (fetal viability) and before 37 completed weeks of gestation from the first day of the last normal menstrual period. Controls were women who gave birth at and after 37 weeks of gestation from the first day of the last normal menstrual period. Post-term births occur after 37 weeks of gestation and are not similar to preterm births, and therefore it was included under controls in this study. On the other hand, deliberately or medically terminated pregnancies before 37 and after 28 weeks of gestation were also included as preterm birth.

Sample size determination and sampling techniques

The Sample size was calculated using the double population proportion using EPI-Info 3.5.1 version statistical software. The proportion of experiencing PROM, preeclampsia/eclampsia, ANC <4 times, and APH in the current pregnancy was used to determine the sample size from a study done in Ghana [33]. Having experience of PROM was chosen as an independent variable since it brought a higher sample size among other computed explanatory variables. The assumptions for the sample size calculation were as follows: the proportion of mothers having experience of premature rupture of membrane among controls, a minimum detectable odds ratio of 2, confidence level of 95% (Zα/2 = 1.96), power of 80% (Zβ = 0.80) and a case to control ratio of 1:2 and proportion of case among an exposed group (premature rupture of membrane) of 35.4% [33]. After adding a 5% non-response rate, the total calculated sample size was 565 (188 cases and 377 controls).

First, six hospitals were randomly selected from the public hospitals that provide institutional delivery services in the Wollega zone. Then, the number of cases and controls were proportionally allocated to each hospital based on the number of mothers who gave birth at each selected hospital within four months before the data collection time. Then, the average number of mothers expected to give birth within 2 months in each of the respective hospitals was estimated. Finally, the eligible case was selected consecutively and the consecutive two controls were selected until the required sample size was achieved. Accordingly, we included 34 cases and 68 controls from Nekemte specialized Hospital, 32 cases and 64 controls from Wollega university specialized hospital, 20 cases and 40 controls from Arjo Hospital, 43 cases and 86 controls from Gimbi general hospital, 29 cases and 58 controls from Shambu Hospital and 30 cases and 60 controls from Nedjo hospital.

Data collection tool and procedure

Data were collected by a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire adapted from the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey and other similar studies [23, 29, 3335, 38, 41] and necessary modifications were done. The outcome variable was PTB and the exposure variables were socio-demographic variables, gynecologic and obstetric related factors, pre-conception related variables, nutritional and dietary related factors, behavior-related factors, mothers’ history of pre-existing medical illness, and health facility-related factors (S1 Questionnaire). We used LMP date and ultrasonography finding (if performed at ≤20 completed weeks of gestation) to estimate gestational age (GA). If the LMP date and ultrasound date don’t correlate/disparity happened, defaulting to ultrasound for GA assessment is required and therefore we took the ultrasound date based on the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommendation [42]. Women with unknown LMP and the ultrasound measurement not taken at an appropriate time (at ≤20 completed weeks of gestation) were excluded from the study. The interview was held in a separate room after a woman is stabilized and ready to be discharged. In addition to the interview, the data collectors abstracted clinical data by reviewing the mothers’ and the babies’ medical records. The mother's mid-upper arm circumference was measured using a flexible non-stretchable tape measure. Maternal hemoglobin level was reviewed from mothers’ cards to determine anemia. The data was collected by 12 trained BSc midwives recruited from other hospitals not included in this study for 2 months. Six Master of Science qualified midwives supervised the overall data collection process.

Data quality control

The questionnaire was translated to the local language Afan Oromo and then back to English by two different language experts to check for consistency. Five percent of the questionnaire (32 study participants) was pre-tested at the same study area 5 days before data collection and modification were made based on pre-test results. Two days training on the objectives of the study, sampling technique, ethical consideration, and data collection techniques were given for data collectors and supervisors. Continuous follow-up and supervision of data collection were made by the supervisors. The collected data were checked by the supervisor daily for completeness.

Data processing and analysis

The collected data were coded, cleaned, and entered into Epi info version 7 and exported to SPSS version 21 for analysis. Descriptive statistics like frequencies and percentages were performed. Some categories of the variables with few numbers of participants in the cases and /or controls were merged to fulfill the assumptions of the binary logistic regression. Bivariable logistic regression analysis was used to see the unadjusted effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable and variables which have P-value of less than 0.25 were entered into a multivariable logistic regression model. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify independent determinants of PTB. Model fitness was tested with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test and omnibus tests of model coefficients. Variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance tests were also used to check multicollinearity. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to determine the strength of an association. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant in multivariable logistic regression.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the institutional review boards of Wollega University ethical review board with approval ID: HIS/213/20. A permission letter was obtained from each hospital administrative office. All participants of the study were provided written consent, clearly stating the objectives of the study and their right to refuse. Then, written informed consent was obtained from the study participants. For minors, informed consent was received from their parents or legal guardians. To ensure confidentiality, names, or identifying information was not indicated on the questionnaires. Mothers were interviewed in private rooms to ensure their privacy. The filled questionnaires were carefully handled ensuring confidentiality and were kept under the secured custody of the corresponding author.

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants

From a total of 565 eligible participants (188 cases and 377 controls), 516 respondents (172 cases and 344 controls) were participated in the study making a response rate of 91.3%. The age of mothers ranges from 15–48 years with the mean and standard deviation (±SD) of 28.71 and ±6.24 respectively. The majority of the study participants, 148 (86.0%) of the cases and 297 (86.3%) of the controls were Oromo in ethnicity. Regarding religion, 89 (51.7%) of the cases and 179 (52.0%) of the controls were protestant religion followers. Thirty-nine (22.7%) of the cases and 77 (22.4%) of the controls had no formal education. Regarding monthly income, 34 (19.8%) of the cases and 108 (31.4%) of the controls get a monthly income of 1000–2000 Ethiopian birr. Concerning residence, about 116 (67.4%) of the cases and 214 (62.2%) of the controls were rural dwellers (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of mothers attending birth at public hospitals of Western Ethiopia, 2020 (n = 516; cases: 172 and controls: 344).

Variables Category Cases N (%) Controls N (%) Total N (%)
Age of mother 15–24 years 50(29.1) 87(25.3) 137(26.6)
25–34 years 83(48.3) 192(55.8) 275(53.3)
≥35 years 39(22.7) 65(18.9) 104(20.2)
Age at first marriage <18 years 18(10.5) 50(14.5) 68(13.2)
18–23 years 137(79.7) 267(77.6) 404(78.3)
>23 years 17(9.9) 27(7.8) 44(8.5)
Ethnicity Oromo 148(86.0) 297(86.3) 445(86.2)
Amhara 16(9.30) 41(11.9) 57(11.0)
Gurage 8(4.7) 6(1.7) 14(2.7)
Religion Protestant 89(51.7) 179(52.0) 268(51.9)
Orthodox 36(20.9) 79(23.0) 115(22.3)
Catholic 6(3.5) 20(5.8) 26(5.0)
Muslim 35(20.3) 58(16.9) 93(18.0)
Others* 6(3.5) 8(2.3) 14(2.7)
Marital status Married 156(90.7) 319(92.7) 475(92.1)
Unmarried 7(4.1) 9(2.6) 16(3.1)
Others** 9(5.2) 16(4.7) 25(4.8)
Educational status Unable to read and write 39(22.7) 77(22.4) 116(22.5)
Completed grade 1–8 39(22.7) 89(25.9) 128(24.8)
Completed grade 9–12 36(20.9) 70(20.3) 106(20.5)
Diploma and above 58(33.7) 108(31.4) 166(32.2)
Occupation of mother Government employee 40(23.3) 94(27.3) 134(26.0)
Private employee 38(22.1) 50(14.5) 88(17.1)
Farmer 43(25.0) 99(28.8) 142(27.5)
Merchant 47(27.3) 84(24.4) 131(25.4)
Others*** 4(2.3) 17(4.9) 21(4.1)
Occupation of husband Government employee 53(30.8) 108(31.4) 161(31.2)
Private employee 43(25.0) 75(21.8) 118(22.9)
Merchant 34(19.8) 49(14.2) 83(16.1)
Farmer 37(21.5) 97(28.2) 134(26.0)
Others**** 5(2.9) 15(4.4) 20(3.9)
Residence of mother Rural 116(67.4) 214(62.2) 330(64.0)
Urban 56(32.6) 130(37.8) 186(36.0)
Family size 1–3 children 76(44.2) 163(47.4) 239(46.3)
4–6 children 83(48.3) 146(42.4) 229(44.4)
>6 children 13(7.6) 35(10.2) 48(9.3)
Monthly income <1000 birr 23(13.4) 39(11.3) 62(12.0)
1000–2000 birr 34(19.8) 108(31.4) 142(27.5)
2001–3000 birr 37(21.5) 71(20.6) 108(20.9)
3001–4000 birr 41(23.8) 57(16.6) 98(19.0)
>4000 birr 37(21.5) 69(20.1) 106(20.5)
Time to reach health facility <1 hour 110(64.0) 221(64.2) 331(64.1)
1–2 hour 31(18.0) 79(23.0) 110(21.3)
>2 hour 31(18.0) 44(12.8) 75(14.5)

*Wakefata and non-follower of any religion

**Divorced and widowed

***House wife and daily laborer

****Student, daily laborer and student.

Obstetrics related characteristics of the study participants

Sixty-five (37.8%) of the cases and 129 (37.5%) of the controls have greater than four births. Regarding the use of family planning, 128 (74.4%) of the cases and 253 (73.5%) of the controls had used family planning before the current pregnancy. About 121 (70.3%) of the cases and 278 (80.8%) of the controls were planned their pregnancy. Eighty (46.5%) of the cases and 183 (53.2%) of the controls were attended ANC more than or equal to four times. Regarding birth space, 118 (68.6%) of the cases and 288 (83.7%) of the controls were more than or equal to 2 years. Concerning the previous history of PTB, 156 (90.7%) of the cases and 316 (91.9%) of the controls had no history of PTB. Ninety-one (52.9%) of the cases and 208 (60.5%) of the controls were delivered through spontaneous vaginal delivery. One hundred forty (81.4%) of the cases and 321 (93.3%) of the controls didn’t experience PROM, and 134 (77.9%) of the cases and 294 (85.5%) of the controls had no history of abortion (Table 2).

Table 2. Obstetrics related characteristics of mothers attending birth at public hospitals of Western Ethiopia, 2020 (n = 516; cases: 172 and controls: 344).

Variables Category Cases N (%) Controls N (%) Total N (%)
Parity 1st pregnancy 34(19.8) 91(26.5) 125(24.2)
2 times 8(4.7) 12(3.5) 20(3.9)
3 times 13(7.6) 22(6.4) 35(6.8)
4 times 52(30.2) 90(26.2) 142(27.5)
>4 times 65(37.8) 129(37.5) 194(37.6)
Pregnancy type Singleton 168(97.7) 337(98.0) 505(97.9)
Multiple 4(2.3) 7(2.0) 11(2.1)
Use family planning Yes 128(74.4) 253(73.5) 381(73.8)
No 44(25.6) 91(26.5) 135(26.2)
Plan of pregnancy Yes 121(70.3) 278(80.8) 399(77.3)
No 51(29.7) 66(19.2) 117(22.7)
Frequency of ANC visit One time 27(15.7) 17(4.9) 44(8.5)
Two times 22(12.8) 52(15.1) 74(14.3)
Three times 43(25.0) 92(26.7) 135(26.2)
≥ four times 80(46.5) 183(53.2) 263(51.0)
Birth interval <2 years 54(31.4) 56(16.3) 110(21.3)
≥2 years 118(68.6) 288(83.7) 406(78.7)
History of preterm birth Yes 16(9.3) 28(8.1) 44(8.5)
No 156(90.7) 316(91.9) 472(91.5)
History of PROM Yes 32(18.6) 23(6.7) 55(10.7)
No 140(81.4) 321(93.3) 461(89.3)
Mode of delivery SVD 91 (52.9) 208 (60.5) 299 (57.9)
Forceps 11(6.4) 16(4.7) 27(5.2)
Cesarean section 42(24.4) 71(20.6) 113(21.9)
Vacuum 22(12.8) 46(13.4) 68(13.2)
Destructive 6(3.5) 3(0.9) 9(1.7)
How labor started Spontaneous 142(82.6) 288(83.7) 430(83.3)
Induced 30(17.4) 56(16.3) 86(16.7)
History of abortion Yes 38(22.1) 50(14.5) 88(17.1)
No 134(77.9) 294(85.5) 428(82.9)

Medical history related-characteristics of the study participants

The majority of the study participants, 294 (85.4%) of the controls and 137 (79.7%) of the cases had no history of hypertension. About 339 (98.5%) of the controls and 167 (97.1%) of the cases had no history of cardiac diseases. Concerning the history of diabetes mellitus (DM), 165 (95.9%) of the cases and 316 (91.9%) of the controls had no diabetes. Concerning HIV status, 156 (90.7%) of the cases, and 336 (97.7%) of the controls were HIV seronegative. The majority of the study participants, 136 (79.1%) of the cases and 318 (92.4%) of the controls have no anemia during the current pregnancy. About 165 (95.9%) of the cases and 328 (95.3%) of the controls have no malaria during pregnancy. The proportion of sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy-induced hypertension was slightly higher among cases 15 (8.7%) and 48 (27.9%) than controls 20 (5.8%) and 35 (10.2%) respectively (Table 3).

Table 3. Medical illness related characteristics of mothers attending birth at public hospitals of Western Ethiopia, 2020 (n = 516; cases: 172 and controls: 344).

Variables Category Cases N (%) Controls N (%) Total N (%)
Anemia during pregnancy Yes 36(20.9) 26(7.6) 62(12.0)
No 136(79.1) 318(92.4) 454(88.0)
Malaria during pregnancy Yes 7(4.1) 16(4.7) 23(4.5)
No 165(95.9) 328(95.3) 493(95.5)
Sexually transmitted disease Yes 15(8.7) 20(5.8) 35(6.8)
No 157(91.3) 324(94.2) 481(93.2)
Pregnancy induced hypertension Yes 48(27.9) 35(10.2) 83(16.1)
No 124(72.1) 309(89.8) 433(83.9)
History of DM Yes 7 (4.1) 28 (8.1) 35 (6.8)
No 165 (95.9) 316 (91.9) 481(93.2)
History of hypertension Yes 35 (20.3) 50 (14.5) 85 (16.5)
No 137 (79.7) 294 (85.5) 431(83.5)
History of cardiac disease Yes 5 (2.9) 5 (1.5) 10 (1.9)
No 167 (97.1) 339 (98.5) 506 (98.1)
HIV/AIDS status Positive 5 (2.9) 1(0.3) 6 (1.2)
Negative 156 (90.7) 336 (97.7) 492 (95.3)
Unknown 11(6.4) 7 (2.0) 18 (3.5)

Social and behavioral related characteristics of mothers

One hundred fifty-seven (91.3%) of the cases and 317 (92.2%) of the controls had no history of physical abuse. Regarding the use of traditional medicine, 162 (94.2%) of the cases and 325 (94.5%) of the controls were not used traditional medicine. About 90 (52.3%) of the cases and 226 (65.7%) of the controls had dietary supplementation during the current pregnancy. Regarding maternal social support, 111 (64.5%) of the cases and 225 (65.4%) of the controls have social support. The proportion of substance use among cases (20.9%) was approximately twice of substance use in controls 42 (12.2%). Similarly, the percentage of mothers who experienced stress was higher among cases (24.4%) than controls (19.2%).

Determinants of preterm birth

Bivariable logistic regression analysis showed that age at marriage, ethnicity, age of mother, husband & mothers occupation, residence, monthly income, time to reach a health facility, frequency of ANC visit, birth interval, mode of delivery, plan of pregnancy, history of PROM, history of abortion, history of DM & hypertension, HIV/AIDS status, anemia during pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, PIH, dietary supplementation during pregnancy, substance use, parity, the experience of stress, and maternal mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) were significantly associated with the PTB at a p-value 0.25.

Variables significantly associated with PTB at P value less than 0.25 in the bivariable analysis were entered into the multivariable model. The multivariable analysis showed that lower ANC visits, short birth interval, PROM, anemia during pregnancy, PIH, and lack of dietary supplementation during pregnancy were significantly associated with the PTB. Women who had only onetime ANC attendance had 5.99 higher odds of PTB than women who attended four and above times (AOR = 5.99, 95% CI; 2.65, 13.53). Women who experienced PROM had 3.57 folds higher odds of PTB than women who do not experience PROM (AOR = 3.57, 95% CI; 1.79, 7.13). On the other hand, women who had less than a two-year birth interval had experienced 2.96 times higher odds of PTB than their counterparts (AOR = 2.96, 95% CI; 1.76, 4.98). Women who developed anemia during the current pregnancy had 4.20 folds higher odds of PTB than their counterparts (AOR = 4.20, 95% CI; 2.13, 8.28). Furthermore, the study found that women who didn’t get dietary supplementation during pregnancy had 2.43 higher odds of PTB than their counterparts (AOR = 2.43, 95% CI; 1.51, 3.91). The study also revealed that mothers who developed PIH were 3.13 times higher odds of developing PTB than their counterparts (AOR = 3.13, 95% CI; 1.78, 5.50) (Table 4).

Table 4. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis of PTB among women who gave birth at public hospitals of western Ethiopia, 2020 (n = 516; cases: 172 and controls: 344).

Variables Preterm birth COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) P-Value
Cases (%) Controls (%)
Age at marriage <18 years 18(10.5) 50(14.5) 0.57(0.254, 1.287) 0.35(0.12, 1.03) 0.058
18–23 years 137(79.7) 267(77.6) 0.82(0.429, 1.547) 1.00(0.46, 2.17) 0.99
>23 years 17(9.9) 27(7.8) 1 1
Ethnicity Oromo 148(86.0) 297(86.3) 1 1
Amhara 16(9.30) 41(11.9) 0.78(0.425, 1.442) 1.06(0.43, 2.61) 0.89
Gurage 8(4.7) 6(1.7) 2.68(0.912, 7.853) 1.50(0.33, 6.83) 0.60
Age of mother 15–24 years 50(29.1) 87(25.3) 0.95(0.56, 1.62) 1.39(0.70, 2.79) 0.34
25–34 years 83(48.3) 192(55.8) 0.72(0.45, 0.93) 0.79(0.44, 1.43) 0.45
≥35 years 39(22.7) 65(18.9) 1 1
Husband’s occupation Gov’t employee 53(30.8) 108(31.4) 1 1
Private employee 43(25.0) 75(21.8) 1.17(0.710, 1.924) 1.21(0.67, 2.20) 0.52
Merchant 34(19.8) 49(14.2) 1.41(0.818, 2.444) 1.29(0.67, 2.51) 0.44
Farmer 37(21.5) 97(28.2) 0.78(0.471, 1.283) 0.48(0.25, 0.95) 0.056
Others 5(2.9) 15(4.4) 0.680(.234, 1.969) 0.97(0.26, 3.62) 0.96
Residence of mother Rural 116(67.4) 214(62.2) 1 1
Urban 56(32.6) 130(37.8) 0.80(0.540, 1.169) 0.83(0.40, 1.71) 0.62
Mothers occupation Gov’t employee 40(23.3) 94(27.3) 1 1
Private employee 38(22.1) 50(14.5) 1.79(1.019, 3.130) 1.83(0.84, 3.98) 0.12
Farmer 43(25.0) 99(28.8) 1.02(0.610, 1.708) 2.03(0.68, 6.11) 0.20
Merchant 47(27.3) 84(24.4) 1.32(0.786, 2.199) 1.27(0.60, 2.68) 0.53
Others 4(2.3) 17(4.9) 0.55(0.175, 1.747) 0.55(0.13, 2.36) 0.42
Monthly income <1000 birr 23(13.4) 39(11.3) 1.10(0.573, 2.111) 1.72(0.71, 4.16) 0.22
1000–2000 birr 34(19.8) 108(31.4) 0.59(0.337, 1.023) 0.65(0.32, 1.32) 0.23
2001–3000 birr 37(21.5) 71(20.6) 0.97(0.553, 1.707) 1.21(0.60, 2.42) 0.58
3001–4000 birr 41(23.8) 57(16.6) 1.34(0.761, 2.363) 1.53(0.77, 3.01) 0.21
>4000 birr 37(21.5) 69(20.1) 1 1
Time to reach health facility <1 hour 110(64.0) 221(64.2) 1 1
1–2 hour 31(18.0) 79(23.0) 0.79(.491, 1.267) 1.14(0.61, 2.10) 0.67
>2 hour 31(18.0) 44(12.8) 1.42(0.847, 2.365) 1.53(0.74, 3.16) 0.24
Frequency of ANC visit One time 27(15.7) 17(4.9) 3.63(1.875, 7.038) 5.99(2.65, 13.53) 0.000*
Two times 22(12.8) 52(15.1) 0.97(.551, 1.700) 0.76(0.37, 1.57) 0.46
Three times 43(25.0) 92(26.7) 1.07(0.684, 1.672) 0.95(0.54, 1.66) 0.86
≥ four times 80(46.5) 183(53.2) 1 1
Birth interval <2 years 54(31.4) 56(16.3) 2.35(1.530, 3.621) 2.96(1.76, 4.98) 0.000*
≥2 years 118(68.6) 288(83.7) 1 1
Mode of delivery SVD 91 (52.9) 208 (60.5) 1 1
Forceps 11(6.4) 16(4.7) 1.57(0.702, 3.519) 0.99(0.34, 2.88) 0.98
CS 42(24.4) 71(20.6) 1.35(0.859, 2.129) 0.85(0.46, 1.57) 0.61
Vacuum delivery 22(12.8) 46(13.4) 1.09(0.622, 1.923) 0.70(0.33, 1.45) 0.34
Destructive 6(3.5) 3(0.9) 4.57(1.119, 18.68) 4.14(0.79, 21.67) 0.09
Plan of pregnancy Yes 121(70.3) 278(80.8) 1 1
No 51(29.7) 66(19.2) 1.78(1.163, 2.711) 1.42(0.77, 2.61) 0.25
History of PROM Yes 32(18.6) 23(6.7) 3.19(1.802, 5.649) 3.57(1.79, 7.13) 0.000*
No 140(81.4) 321(93.3) 1 1
History of Abortion Yes 38(22.1) 50(14.5) 1.67(1.044, 2.664) 1.08(0.29, 3.44) 0.99
No 134(77.9) 294(85.5) 1 1
History of DM Yes 7 (4.1) 28 (8.1) 0.48(0.205, 1.119) 0.33(0.11, 0.92) 0.064
No 165(95.9) 316(91.9) 1 1
History of hypertension Yes 35 (20.3) 50 (14.5) 1.50(.932, 2.421) 1.21(0.62, 2.37) 0.56
No 137 (79.7) 294 (85.5) 1 1
HIV/AIDS Status Positive 5 (2.9) 1(0.3) 1 1
Negative 156 (90.7) 336 (97.7) 0.09(0.011, 0.801) 1.59(0.12, 20.34) 0.72
Unknown 11(6.4) 7 (2.0) 0.31(0.030, 3.285) 1.97(0.11, 32.94) 0.63
Anemia during this pregnancy Yes 36(20.9) 26(7.6) 3.24(1.881, 5.572) 4.20(2.13, 8.28) 0.000*
No 136(79.1) 318(92.4) 1 1
Sexually transmitted disease Yes 15(8.7) 20(5.8) 1.55(0.772, 3.105) 2.34(0.97, 5.63) 0.058
No 157(91.3) 324(94.2) 1 1
Pregnancy induced hypertension Yes 48(27.9) 35(10.2) 3.42(2.109, 5.539) 3.13(1.78, 5.50) 0.000*
No 124(72.1) 309(89.8) 1 1
Dietary supplementation Yes 90(52.3) 226(65.7) 1 1
No 82(47.7) 118(34.3) 1.75(1.202, 2.534) 2.43(1.51, 3.91) 0.000*
History of substance use Yes 36(20.9) 42(12.2) 1.90(1.167, 3.104) 1.74(0.97, 3.12) 0.060
No 136(79.1) 302(87.8) 1 1
Experienced stress Yes 42(24.4) 66(19.2) 1.36(0.877, 2.112) 0.98(0.52, 1.84) 0.95
No 130(75.6) 278(80.8) 1 1
Parity 1st pregnancy 34(19.8) 91(26.5) 1 1
2 times 8(4.7) 12(3.5) 1.78(0.671, 4.742) 2.74(0.80, 9.31) 0.10
3 times 13(7.6) 22(6.4) 1.58(0.717, 3.487) 2.03(0.76, 5.46) 0.15
4 times 52(30.2) 90(26.2) 1.55(0.918, 2.604) 2.37(1.15, 4.88) 0.19
>4 times 65(37.8) 129(37.5) 1.35(0.823, 2.210) 2.15(1.09, 4.26) 0.27
Maternal MUAC ≥23cm 106(61.6) 245(71.2) 1 1
<23 cm 66(38.4) 99(28.8) 1.54(1.048, 2.267) 1.00(0.49, 2.07) 0.98

*shows significant at P-value <0.05.

COR: AOR: Adjusted Odd Ratio, CI: Confidence Interval.

Discussions

PTB remains to be a global agenda as its complication accounts for 35% of neonatal death worldwide. There is a paucity of data on risk factors of PTB in Ethiopia, particularly in the western part of the country.

The current study found a short birth interval as a risk factor for PTB. This finding is consistent with the study conducted in the Amhara region [29], Jimma Medical center [36], Axum and Adwa town [17]. It is also supported by a meta-analysis of eight studies that found pregnancy intervals of < 6 months were associated with PTB compared with pregnancy intervals of 18–23 months [43]. Another study conducted in the USA on adolescent women also reported a similar finding with our current study [44]. However, the finding of this study contrast with a study done in Debretabor town, Sidama zone, and Kenya [12, 18, 35] where the birth interval was not associated with preterm delivery. This finding implies that there is a need to focus on increasing access to and use of contraception for potentially delaying the second pregnancy. Increasing mothers’ use of effective contraception can address both unintended births and PTB.

The current study also pointed out the PROM as a risk factor of PTB. This finding is supported by a study done in Amhara Region Referral Hospitals [31], Sidama Zone [35], Jimma medical center [36], Debretabor town [18], and Axum and Adwa town [17]. Some of the studies conducted in African countries including Kenya [12] and Ghana [33] also support the current study finding. This finding is contrary finding with similar studies on preterm delivery, which observed that PROM was not associated with pre-term delivery [16, 32]. PROM can lead to uterine contraction as amniotic fluid contains prostaglandin which in turn may result in PTB. Besides, PROM elevates fetal plasma interleukin-6 which may trigger preterm labor and leads to preterm delivery. PROM is also associated with lower latency from membrane rupture until delivery and causes around 25–30% of all preterm deliveries [45].

Furthermore, this study revealed that PIH is another risk factor of PTB. PIH can cause vascular damage to the placenta causing abruption placenta which results in PTB. Also, uteroplacental ischemia is a plausible explanation for the PTB associated with PIH. When the blood pressure becomes uncontrollable, the quickest means of emptying the uterus become the choice accounting for the preterm delivery. In addition, elevated blood pressure in pregnancy compromises perfusion to the fetus and has a medical risk of cardiovascular complications for the mother. This finding is in line with the existing evidence from Amhara Region Referral Hospitals [31], Gondar town [32], Addis Ababa [16], Ghana [33], Central zone of Tigray [34], Kenya [12], Sidama zone [35] and Jimma medical center [36]. Literature from China also indicated that PIH is a significant risk factor for PTB and that the risk of PTB is higher among women with PIH [46]. However, this finding is not supported by some of the previously conducted studies [18, 19, 37].

This study finding also showed that the frequency of ANC visits was associated with PTB. This finding is consistent with the study done in Ghana [33], the Central zone of Tigray [34], Amhara region [29], Dodola town [37], Jimma medical center [36], and Debretabor town [18]. Some of the studies conducted in African countries including Ethiopia [12, 17] didn’t show an association between the frequency of ANC visits and PTB. The less frequent a mother visits for ANC; the late obstetric problems are identified which as a result end with PTB. It is also known that ANC visits during pregnancy help to monitor the wellbeing of the fetus. Besides, higher ANC visit maximizes the opportunity for early identification and treatment of obstetric complications. Therefore, the lack of adequate ANC visits during pregnancy decreases the chance of identifying risks of PTB and providing appropriate interventions for its prevention.

Lack of dietary supplementation during pregnancy was another independent predictor of PTB in the present study. This finding is similar to the results of the study conducted in Tigray [38] and Debretabor town [18]. However, the studies conducted in Dodola town [37], Jimma medical center [36], Ghana [33], and Central zone of Tigray [34] show no association of dietary supplementation with PTB. When the mother’s nutritional status is poor; they will be prone to chronic infection which may lead to the activation of the maternal-fetal immune system causing preterm labor.

Moreover, the study identified anemia as a risk factor of PTB, and this finding is consistent with the study conducted in Shire Sihul [19], Debretabor town [18], Amhara Region Referral Hospitals [31], and Axum and Adwa town [17]. This finding is also supported by the study conducted in Malawi and Indonesia [47, 48]. However, this study findings contrast with a study done in Sidama zone [35], Tigray [34], Addis Ababa [16], Ghana [33], and Kenya [12] where the presence of anemia during pregnancy was not associated with preterm delivery. Anemia may lead to decreased blood flow to the placenta and results in preterm labor which in turn results in PTB. Also, anemia may cause hypoxia which can induce fetal stress, which stimulates the production of the corticotrophin-releasing hormone (CRH) leading to preterm labor. Iron deficiency may also increase the risk of maternal infections which can again stimulate the production of CRH predisposing to PTB. Even though available evidence suggests multiple pregnancies, history of abortion, and history of PTB as an independent predictor of PTB, all of them showed no statistically significant association with PTB in the current study [17, 19, 29, 31, 3436].

Limitation of the study

There may be recall bias from mothers due to the nature of some question which dealt with past information. To reduce this recall bias, information gathered from the mothers through the interview was cross-checked from their antenatal records. Due to the sensitive nature of some questions and face-to-face techniques of data collection, there is a possibility of falsified reporting (social desirability bias) among mothers. We made an effort to minimize this by assuring mothers for the confidentiality of their information. Another limitation of the study is being an institution-based quantitative study. It would be better if a community-based and qualitative approach study was triangulated with the quantitative part to investigate further factors on PTB. On the other hand, the strength of this study is we used a strong design with a large sample size with a 1:2 ratio of cases to controls.

Conclusions

ANC service providers should focus on mothers with PIH, PROM, and anemia during pregnancy, and refer to the senior experts for early management to reduce the risk of preterm delivery. ANC services such as counseling the mother on the benefit of dietary supplementation during pregnancy, ANC follow up, and lengthening birth interval should be integrated into the existing health extension packages. Emphasizing these determinants with appropriate care during pregnancy is essential to reduce the occurrence of PTB. Increasing the awareness of contraceptive utilization and counseling to enhance birth spacing, ANC visits, folic acid, and dietary supplementation during pregnancy should be given strict attention by healthcare providers. New and inclusive strategies such as the establishment of comprehensive mobile clinic services should also be designed to reduce the burden of PTB among women living in the rural community. Lastly, we recommend future researchers to conduct longitudinal and community-based studies supplemented with qualitative methods.

Supporting information

S1 Questionnaire

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the Wollega zone health bureau and each hospital administrative office for their cooperation. We are also grateful to the study participants who voluntarily agreed to be interviewed and participated in the study.

Abbreviations

AIDS

Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

ANC

Antenatal care

AOR

Adjusted odds ratio

APH

Antepartum hemorrhage

CI

Confidence interval

COR

Crude odd ratio

CRH

Corticotrophin-releasing hormone

DM

Diabetes mellitus

HIV

Human immunodeficiency virus

LMP

Last menstrual period

MUAC

Mid-upper arm circumference

PIH

Pregnancy-induced hypertension

PROM

Premature rupture of membrane

PTB

Preterm birth

SD

Standard deviation

SPSS

Statistical package for social science

VIF

Variance inflation factor

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the Wollega university. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J. Neonatal survival 1 4 million neonatal deaths: When? Where? Why? Lancet. 2009;2005(365):891–900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.WHO. Health topics: preterm birth: WHO; 2014. [Accessed: 6 Nov 2019]. Available: http://www.who.int/topics/preterm_birth/en/ [Google Scholar]
  • 3.US Agency International Development Project Concern International, “Ethiopia profile of preterm and low birth weight prevention and care,” ReliefWeb, Ethiopia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.WHO. Preterm birth fact sheet. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Blencowe H, et al. Born Too Soon: The global epidemiology of 15 million preterm births. Reprod Health. 2013;10:S2.s 10.1186/1742-4755-10-S1-S2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gravett M. G., Rubens C. E., and Nunes T. M., “Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (2 of 7): discovery science,” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, vol. 10, supplement 1, article S2, 2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard M, et al. National, regional and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends for selected countries since 1990: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2012; 379(9832):2162–72. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60820-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Blencowe H, Cousens S, Chou D, Oestergaard M, Say L, Moller A, et al. Born too Soon: the global epidemiology of 15 million preterm births. ?. 2013;10(Suppl 1):1–14. 10.1186/1742-4755-10-S1-S2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Arora CP, Kacerovsky M, Zinner B, Ertl T, Ceausu I, Rusnak I, et al. Disparities and relative risk ratio of preterm birth in six Central and Eastern European centers. Croat Med J. 2015;56(2):119 27 10.3325/cmj.2015.56.119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rouget F, Lebreton J, Kadhel P, Monfort C, Bodeau-Livinec F, Janky E, et al. Medical and sociodemographic risk factors for preterm birth in a French Caribbean population of African descent. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17(6):1103–11. 10.1007/s10995-012-1112-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Alabbasi KH, Kruger E, Tennent M. Maternal variables as potential modifiable risk indicators of preterm labor in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. J Pregnancy Child Health. 2015;2(3):3–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wagura P, Wasunna A, Laving A, Wamalwa D, Ng’ang’a P. Prevalence and factors associated with preterm birth at kenyatta national hospital. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2018) 18:107 10.1186/s12884-018-1740-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Demmouche A, Mai AH, Kaddouri MS, Ghani A, Rahmani S, Beddek F, et al. Etiology of preterm birth in Relizane region (West of Algeria). J Nutr Food Sci. 2014;4(5):292. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mokuolu OA, Suleiman BM, Adesiyun OO, Adeniyi A. Prevalence and determinants of pre-term deliveries in the University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital, Ilorin, Nigeria. Pediatr Rep. 2010;2(1):11–4. 10.4081/pr.2010.e3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Van Den Broek NR, Jean-Baptiste R, Neilson JP. Factors associated with preterm, early preterm and late preterm birth in Malawi. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3):1–8. 10.1371/journal.pone.0090128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Deressa AT, Cherie A, Belihu TM, Tasisa GG. Factors associated with spontaneous preterm birth in Addis Ababa public hospitals, Ethiopia: cross sectional study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2018) 18:332 10.1186/s12884-018-1957-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Aregawi G, Assefa N, Mesfin F, Tekulu F, Adhena T, Mulugeta M, et al. Preterm births and associated factors among mothers who gave birth in Axum and Adwa Town public hospitals, Northern Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes (2019) 12:640 10.1186/s13104-019-4650-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mekonen DG, Yismaw AE, Nigussie TS, Ambaw WM. Proportion of Preterm birth and associated factors among mothers who gave birth in Debretabor town health institutions, northwest, Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes (2019) 12:2 10.1186/s13104-018-4037-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kelkay B, Omer A, Teferi Y, Moges Y. Factors Associated with Singleton Preterm Birth in Shire Suhul General Hospital, Northern Ethiopia. Journal of Pregnancy, Volume 2019, Article ID 4629101, 9 pages 10.1155/2019/4629101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rubens CE, et al. Prevention of preterm birth: harnessing science to address the global epidemic. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(262):262sr5 10.1126/scitranslmed.3009871 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.The Global and Regional Toll, March of Dimes White Paper on Preterm Birth, March of Dimes Foundationc, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.USAID, PCI, gapps and ACNM: Ethiopian profile of preterm and low birth weight prevention and care from Every Preemie- SCALE, http://www.EveryPreemie.org, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Adane AA, Ayele TA, Ararsa LG, Bitew BD, Zeleke BM. Adverse birth outcomes among deliveries at Gondar University Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14:90 10.1186/1471-2393-14-90 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Liu L, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality in 2000–13, with projections to inform post-2015 priorities: an updated systematic analysis. Lancet. 2015;385(9966):430–40 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61698-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Marlow N., Wolke D., Bracewell M. A., and Samara M., “Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 352, no. 1, pp. 9–19, 2005. 10.1056/NEJMoa041367 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Moreira R. S., Magalhaes L. C., and Alves C. R., “Effect of preterm birth on motor development, behavior, and school performance of school-age children: a systematic review,” Journal de Pediatria, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 119–134, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Harrison MS, Goldenberg RL. Global burden of prematurity in seminars in fetal and neonatal medicine. New York: Elsevier; 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dominique Haumont LZaSM, “The situation and the challenges with regard to preterm birth in Europe,” 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Woday A, Muluneh MD, Sherif S (2019), Determinants of preterm birth among mothers who gave birth at public hospitals in the Amhara region, Ethiopia: A case-control study. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0225060 10.1371/journal.pone.0225060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Soltani M, Tabatabaee HR, Saeidinejat S, Eslahi M, Yaghoobi H, Mazloumi E. Assessing the risk factors before pregnancy of preterm births in Iran: a population based case-control study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:57 10.1186/s12884-019-2183-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mekuriyaw AM, Mihret MS, Yismaw AE. Determinants of Preterm Birth among Women Who Gave Birth in Amhara Region Referral Hospitals, Northern Ethiopia, 2018: Institutional Based Case Control Study. International Journal of Pediatrics; Volume 2020, Article ID 1854073, 8 pages 10.1155/2020/1854073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gebreslasie K. Preterm Birth and Associated Factors among Mothers Who Gave Birth in Gondar Town Health Institutions. Advances in Nursing Volume 2016, Article ID 4703138, 5 pages 10.1155/2016/4703138 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Aseidu EK, Bandoh DA, Ameme DK, Nortey P, Akweongo P, Sackey SO, et al. Obstetric determinants of preterm delivery in a regional hospital, Accra, Ghana. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2019) 19:248 10.1186/s12884-019-2404-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Teklay G, Teshale T, Tasew H, Meriye T, Berihu H, Zeru T. Risk factors of preterm birth among mothers who gave birth in public hospitals of central zone, Tigray, Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes (2018) 11:571 10.1186/s13104-018-3693-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sifer SD, Kedir BS, Demisse GA, et al. Determinants of preterm birth in neonatal intensive care units at public hospitals in Sidama zone, South East Ethiopia; case control study. J Pediatr Neonatal Care. 2019;9(6):180‒186. 10.15406/jpnc.2019.09.00403 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Abaraya M, Seid SS, Ibro SA. Determinants of preterm birth at Jimma University Medical Center, southwest Ethiopia. Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics 2018:9 101–107 10.2147/PHMT.S174789 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Woldeyohannes D, Kene C, Gomora D, Seyoum K, Assefa T. Factors associated with preterm birth among mothers who gave birth in Dodola town hospitals, southeast Ethiopia: Institutional based cross sectional study. Clinics Mother Child Health. 2019;16:317 10.24105/2090-7214.1000317 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Berhe T, Gebreyesus H, Desta H. Determinants of preterm birth among mothers delivered in Central Zone Hospitals, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes (2019) 12:266 10.1186/s13104-019-4307-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.WHO: Born Too Soon The Global Action Report on PTB. In. Geneva; 2012: 128 [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Authority CS. Population and housing census of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Authority CS; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Central Statistical Agency (CSA). Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey Indicators. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Maryland, Neyork; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Quinn J.-A., Munoz F. M., Gonik B. et al. , “Preterm birth: case definition & guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data,” Vaccine, vol. 34, no. 49, pp. 6047–6056, 2016. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.03.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermudez A, Kafury-Goeta AC. Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006; 295(15):1809–1823. [PubMed: 16622143] 10.1001/jama.295.15.1809 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Nerlander Lina M., Callaghan William M., Smith Ruben A., and Barfield Wanda D. Short Interpregnancy Interval Associated with Preterm Birth in US Adolescent. Matern Child Health J. 2015. April; 19(4): 850–858. 10.1007/s10995-014-1583-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Weissmann-Brenner A, O’Reilly-Green C, Ferber A, Divon MY. Values of amniotic fluid index in cases of preterm premature rupture of membranes. J Perinat Med 2009;37(3):232–235. Epub ahead of print. 10.1515/JPM.2009.078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lu CQ, Lin J, Yuan L, Zhou JG, Liang K, Zhong QH. et al. Pregnancy induced hypertension and outcomes in early and moderate preterm infants. Pregnancy hypertension 14 (2018), 68–71 10.1016/j.preghy.2018.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dayanithi M., “Low birth weight and premature births and their associated maternal factors,” International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, vol.5, no.6, pp.2277– 2285,2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.van den Broek N. R., Jean-Baptiste R., Neilson J. P., and Hawkins S. M., “Factors associated with preterm, early preterm and late preterm birth in Malawi,” PloS ONE, vol.9, no.3, p.e90128, 2014. 10.1371/journal.pone.0090128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Florian Fischer

14 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-17494

Determinants of preterm birth among women delivered in public hospitals of Western Ethiopia, 2020: Unmatched case-control study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abadiga,

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 Oct 29 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,

Florian Fischer

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. In the manuscript text, please provide additional details regarding participant consent. Please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians.

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.

In addition, in the Methods, please describe how the questionnaire was pre-tested and/or validated. If this did not occur, please provide the rationale for not pre-testing or validating the questionnaire.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Abstract

It is good but the result and the conclusions needs a revision. The result does not show the association in clearly and the direction of association is not clear. In the conclusion, it lacks bold and clear suggestion for the policy and programmatic startegic implication of the study.

Background

The introduction has well written about the contexts. However, it lacks some depth about the reason why the need of conducting this study and in this section, the knowledge gap was not clearly explained clearly, how would the study help the country to increase attentions in PTB prevention and control strategies? At the same time, the literature the authors mentioned some research conducted on similar topic in the same country, method with only difference in districts. Hence, the researcher needs to justify and the passion of doing this as an additional interest.

Methods

• The researcher needs to mention and show the sampling done and the potential selection bias that might be introduced in the methodology.

• In the analysis and model fitting-, how the researcher manage the small observation in the outcome variable particularly in the multiple regression is not well explained this might affect the final picture and findings of the findings. Therefore the researcher needs to clearly show this problem in the method section.

Discussion

1. The discussion at times looks a replica of the result and just bring the other studies that looks alike. However, please focused and build on mainly the justification for those differences and learning aspects from the findings

2. At the same time, the research needs to clearly state where this research limitation and strength. How those issues resolved

Conclusion and recommendation

Can the researcher show clearly, the significance to the public health and policy or implication in broader perspective. What are importance and the contribution from the existing system? can give concert suggestions to make a change based on the evidence of their study.

Reviewer #2: Review Report for manuscript number “PONE-D-20-17494”

1) General comments: This study is relevant as it was conducted on preterm birth which is one of the leading causes of neonatal deaths in Ethiopia. However, it needs language revisions throughout the manuscript. Moreover, major changes should be made by taking the provided comments into account.

2) Specific Comments:

Abstract:

A) Background: Line 27 states that “There were few studies on determinants of preterm birth in Ethiopia…”. I don’t think that. There are a number of studies in Ethiopia in this issue. You would rather mention their gaps.

B) Method: Line 37; the term “Data” is plural word. So, replace “was” with “were”.

C) Conclusion: please propose certain recommendations based on your key findings.

Introduction

A) I kindly recommend you to summarize the statement of the problem with 4 paragraphs: 1) the nature of the problem, 2) the known aspects of the problem (causes, magnitude risk factors, intervention (i.e., what is known?)), 3) the unknown aspects (any knowledge, intervention, methodology gaps (i.e., what is unknown?)), and 4) the expectation (s) from this study (i.e., so what?)

B) Please work out to improve the coherence.

C) I kindly request you for clarification: Line 55-57; it has to be clear in which regions or countries this classification works? For Example, in Ethiopia context, any termination of pregnancy prior to 28 completed weeks of gestational age is termed as "abortion".

D) Please correct flaring errors. For example, line 58 states that “about 15 million infant born prematurely.” Herein, please change the infant to its plural form (i.e., infants). Ditto for line 86; change “literatures” to literature.

E) Line 64-66; could you please provide information on the aggregate prevalence of preterm birth in Ethiopia.

Methods:

A) Line 123-125; generally further elaborations would be included regarding the case definition, inclusion and exclusion criteria. The cases and controls would be defined clearly, ‘’ not reliable ultrasonography’ has to be measurable. What measures have been made when gestational age disparity happened across records from LNMP and “early ultrasound”. Have you included post term births to controls? Have you included those preterm births which have been terminated deliberately? In general, ACOG definition would be used.

B) Line 128-132; It is not clear why the authors took reference from Ghana for sample size calculation as a number of studies are here in Ethiopia (For instance; look at https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1854073).

Result:

A) Line 198-199; “Thirty-nine (22.67%) of cases and 77 (22.38%) of controls had no formal education” please add the article “the” in before “cases” &” controls”

B) Line 201-202; “Concerning residence, about two-third of the cases 116 (67.44%) and 214 (62.21%) of the controls were rural dwellers” would be corrected as one of the following:

1) Concerning residence, about 116 (67.44%) of the cases and 214 (62.21%) of the controls were rural dwellers or 2) Concerning residence, about two-third (67.44%) of the cases and three-fifth (62.21%) of the controls were rural dwellers.

C) Line 208; “… majority of the study participants, 128 (74.42%) of the cases 253 (73.55%) of the controls …” needs English language editing.

D) The regression table (i.e., “table 4”) poses major issues:

�One category of occupation is “others”, what “others” stands for? List them by using foot note.

�One category of “Marital status” is “widowed”. However, the number of cases in this category is only one and the corresponding 95% CI is too wide (i.e., 0.029, 1.809). In other words, about 1780 differences observed between the upper and lower limit which violates one of the assumptions of the binary logistic regression model. So, I kindly recommend you to merge the some categories of the variables with few numbers of participants in the cases and / or controls. Thereafter, you need to undertake re-analysis provided that all variables which are entered to the model should fulfill the assumptions of the Binary logistic regression model.

�About 50 cases and 87 controls were in the age group of 15-24 which implies that minors have been included in the study. If so, how have you addressed the ethical issues? In this occasion, let me raise one another important concern; why have you failed in incorporating a sub-section of “Ethical approval”?

�The sum of each category of variables under the cases has to be 100%. Ditto for controls. However, that was not true in your study. This implies that you have considered the “row” percentages in the “crosstab” that is recommended for cross sectional study design. For case – control study design, however, “column” percentages should be reported over “row” percentages. Therefore, you need to address this concern while you perform re-analysis as per the above recommendation.

Discussion:

Your way of discussion is interesting. However, still it needs revision for language:

A) Tense or spelling errors: For instance; line 274; change “remained” to be “remains”, line 309; edit “Gonder” to be “Gondar”

B) Certain phrases have been employed frequently. For example “the odds of developing preterm birth...”, “…due to the fact that…”

C) Be consistent in using the abbreviations Vs the extended forms. For example; line 302; you have utilized “Pregnancy induced hypertension”, whereas at line 303; you have used its abbreviation for “PIH”, again at line 305, 307, 311…; you have employed its extended form “Pregnancy induced hypertension”???Moreover, the abbreviation “PIH “has not been listed under the “Abbreviations” section. On the contrary, the abbreviation “PIHTN” has been found under the list although it has not been used at the main document at all. I kindly recommend you to put the extended form of each abbreviation followed by its abbreviated form in bracket at its first appearance. Then you can use the abbreviated form alone throughout the document and don’t forget mentioning it at the lists of “abbreviations “section.

D) The limitations of your study as well as the efforts made to overcome those limitations would be stated.

References:

A) Reference 6(line 374-376) & 28 (line 430-432) are similar.

B) You would use certain recently published articles. For example “Determinants of Preterm Birth among Women Who Gave Birth in Amhara Region Referral Hospitals, Northern Ethiopia, 2018: Institutional Based Case Control Study”, which is available at https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1854073 , has not been cited in your manuscript.

**********

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: Yes: Muhabaw Shumye Mihret

[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 25;16(1):e0245825. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245825.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Sep 2020

Point by point response

Journal Requirements:

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

Response: yes, we made our manuscript meet PLOS ONE's style requirements.

2. In the manuscript text, please provide additional details regarding participant consent. Please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians.

Response: Sorry for not including ethics and participant consent in the previous version of our manuscript. We included all these informations in this revised version of our manuscript as follows:

“Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the institutional review boards of Wollega University ethical review board with approval ID: HIS/213/20. Permission letter was also obtained from each hospital administrative office. All participants of the study were provided written consent, clearly stating the objectives of the study and their right to refuse. Then, written informed consent was obtained from the study participants. For minors, informed consent was received from their parents or legal guardians. To ensure confidentiality, names or identifying information was not indicated on the questionnaires. Mothers were interviewed in private rooms to ensure their privacy. The filled questionnaires were carefully handled ensuring confidentiality and was kept under secured custody of the corresponding author”.

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.

Response: The questionnaire used in this study was adapted from the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey and other similar studies. The necessary modifications were done to be applicable to the current study and population. We included this information in the methods part of this revised manuscript. The reference from which this questionnaire was adapted were indicated in brackets. The English version of this questionnaire is also provided as supplementary file in this revised submission.

4. In addition, in the Methods, please describe how the questionnaire was pre-tested and/or validated. If this did not occur, please provide the rationale for not pre-testing or validating the questionnaire.

Response: Five percent of the questionnaire (32 study participants) was pre-tested 5 days prior to data collection and modification was made based on pre-test result. This information is included in this revised manuscript under “data quality control”.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

Abstract

It is good but the result and the conclusions needs a revision. The result does not show the association in clearly and the direction of association is not clear.

Response: We re-wrote the result in a way it can show direction of association in this revised manuscript. We re-wrote as follows: “Multivariable analysis show that mothers who developed pregnancy-induced hypertension (AOR=3.16, 95% CI; 1.800, 5.542), only one time ANC visits (AOR=5.88, 95% CI; 2.570, 13.454), experienced premature rupture of membrane (AOR=3.75, 95% CI; 1.872, 7.511), less than two year birth interval (AOR=3.10, 95% CI; 1.832, 5.248), developed anemia during the current pregnancy (AOR=4.60, 95% CI; 2.338, 9.064) and didn’t get dietary supplementation during pregnancy (AOR=2.41, 95% CI; 1.489, 3.911) had statistically significant association with experiencing preterm birth”.

In the conclusion, it lacks bold and clear suggestion for the policy and programmatic strategic implication of the study.

Response: Based on your request, we gave bold suggestion in this revised manuscript. The suggestion given is as follows: “Antenatal care service providers should focus on mothers with pregnancy-induced hypertension, premature rupture of membrane and anemia during pregnancy, and refer to the senior experts for early management in order to reduce risk of preterm delivery. Antenatal care services such as counseling the mother on the benefit of dietary supplementation during pregnancy, antenatal care follow up and lengthening birth interval should be integrated into the existing health extension packages. New and inclusive strategies such as establishment of comprehensive mobile clinic services should also be designed to reduce the burden of preterm birth among women living in the rural community. Lastly, we recommend future researchers to conduct longitudinal and community-based studies supplemented with qualitative methods”.

Background

The introduction has well written about the contexts. However, it lacks some depth about the reason why the need of conducting this study and in this section, the knowledge gap was not clearly explained clearly, how would the study help the country to increase attentions in PTB prevention and control strategies? At the same time, the literature the authors mentioned some research conducted on similar topic in the same country, method with only difference in districts. Hence, the researcher needs to justify and the passion of doing this as an additional interest.

Response: We included the following information to justify our study. “Due to the enormous economic and emotional burden of preterm birth, identifying the risk factors for preterm birth has the potential to help in preventing the impacts. It is very important to understand the risk factors of preterm birth especially in developing countries in which the rate of preterm birth is high. However, no study was conducted on determinants of preterm birth in western part of a country. Due to variation in socioeconomic status and health care service coverage, the risk factors of preterm birth may vary from region to region and time trends even within the same country. On the other hand, most of the studies conducted in other parts of a country were based on card review and therefore, the risk factors of preterm birth were not fully addressed. Hence, only limited risk factors of preterm birth were assessed in the previous study conducted in Ethiopia. On the contrary, this study was based on primary data and included many risk factors which would be associated with preterm birth. In addition, most of the studies conducted in Ethiopia were cross-sectional and our study used case-control study design which is stronger than cross-sectional. Therefore, this study was aimed to identify determinants of preterm birth in western part of Ethiopia using strong design. The finding of this study is important for policymakers and health care workers by providing important information related to risk factors of preterm birth in designing an effective strategy to prevent and control preterm birth. All these informations are included in this revised manuscript.

Methods

• The researcher needs to mention and show the sampling done and the potential selection bias that might be introduced in the methodology.

Response: First, six hospitals found in Wollega zones were randomly selected, namely; Nedjo general hospital, Gimbi general hospital, Nekemte specialized hospital, Arjo hospital, Wollega university specialized hospital and Shambu general hospital. Then, the number of cases and controls were proportionally allocated to each hospital based on the number of mothers who gave birth at each selected hospital within four months prior to the data collection time. Finally, the eligible case was selected consecutively and the consecutive two controls were selected until the required sample size was achieved. Accordingly, we included 34 cases and 68 controls from Nekemte specialized Hospital, 32 cases and 64 controls from Wollega university specialized hospital, 20 cases and 40 controls from Arjo Hospital, 43 cases and 86 controls from Gimbi general hospital, 29 cases and 58 controls from Shambu Hospital and 30 cases and 60 controls from Nedjo hospital. The interview was held in a separate room after a woman is stabilized and ready to be discharged. These all informations are included in this revised version of our manuscript.

• In the analysis and model fitting-, how the researcher manages the small observation in the outcome variable particularly in the multiple regression is not well explained this might affect the final picture and findings of the findings. Therefore, the researcher needs to clearly show this problem in the method section.

Response: Thank you very much for this important comment. Some of the categories of our variables have small observation in the outcome variable. For example: mothers age (category ‘>44’ years) and marital status (category ‘widowed’) have small observations. We didn’t account this problem during the previous analysis of our data. Therefore, based on your comments, we merged some categories of the variables with few numbers of participants in the cases and / or controls and undertake re-analysis to fulfill the assumptions of the Binary logistic regression. So, there are some differences in finding of cross-tabulation, AOR, CI and P value between the former and this revised manuscript. These measures taken were explained in the method section of this revised manuscript.

Discussion

1. The discussion at times looks a replica of the result and just bring the other studies that looks alike. However, please focused and build on mainly the justification for those differences and learning aspects from the findings

Response: We included many results which contradicts our finding and justification for the differences in this revised manuscript. Thank you for this important comment.

2. At the same time, the research needs to clearly state where this research limitation and strength. How those issues resolved

Response: We forgot including limitation of the study in the previous submission. We included limitation of this study in this revised submission as follows: “There may be recall bias from mothers due to the nature of some question which dealt with past informations. To reduce this recall bias, information gathered from the mothers through the interview were crosschecked from their antenatal records. Due to the sensitive nature of some questions and face-to-face techniques of data collection, there is a possibility of falsified reporting (social desirability bias) among mothers. We made an effort to minimize this by assuring mothers for the confidentiality of their informations. Another limitation of the study is being institution-based quantitative study. It would be better if community-based and qualitative approach study was triangulated with quantitative part to investigate further factors on preterm birth. On the other hand, the strength of this study is we used strong design with large sample size with 1:2 ratio of cases to controls”.

Conclusion and recommendation

Can the researcher show clearly, the significance to the public health and policy or implication in broader perspective? What are importance and the contribution from the existing system? can give concert suggestions to make a change based on the evidence of their study.

Response: We agree that our conclusion lacks bold suggestion for health care provider and policy makers. However, we gave bold and clear suggestion in this revised submission. The suggestion we gave in this revised submission is as follows: “Antenatal care service providers should focus on mothers with pregnancy-induced hypertension, premature rupture of membrane and anemia during pregnancy, and refer to the senior experts for early management in order to reduce risk of preterm delivery. Antenatal care services such as counseling the mother on the benefit of dietary supplementation during pregnancy, antenatal care follow up and lengthening birth interval should be integrated into the existing health extension packages. Giving emphasis to these determinants with appropriate care during pregnancy is essential to reduce the occurrence of preterm birth. Increasing the awareness of contraceptive utilization and counseling to enhance birth spacing, antenatal care visits, folic acid and dietary supplementation during pregnancy should be given strict attention by healthcare providers. New and inclusive strategies such as establishment of comprehensive mobile clinic services should also be designed to reduce the burden of PTB among women living in the rural community. Lastly, we recommend future researchers to conduct longitudinal and community-based studies supplemented with qualitative methods”.

Reviewer #2:

1) General comments: This study is relevant as it was conducted on preterm birth which is one of the leading causes of neonatal deaths in Ethiopia. However, it needs language revisions throughout the manuscript. Moreover, major changes should be made by taking the provided comments into account.

Response: Thank you very much for your important comments. The previous version of our manuscript has some grammatical and editorial problems. All authors intensively reviewed the document and corrected grammatical and editorial problems. We also used free online grammar correction to solve this problem in this revised version of our manuscript. We also contacted an expert to edit the English in this manuscript.

2) Specific Comments:

Abstract:

A) Background: Line 27 states that “There were few studies on determinants of preterm birth in Ethiopia…”. I don’t think that. There are a number of studies in Ethiopia in this issue. You would rather mention their gaps.

Response: We agree with a reviewer that mentioning the gaps of previous study is better to justify one study. Therefore, we justified in this revised submission as follows: “It is very important to understand the risk factors of preterm birth especially in developing countries in which the rate of preterm birth is high. However, though there were numerous studies in Northern, southern and eastern part of Ethiopia, no study was conducted on determinants of preterm birth in western part of a country. Due to variation in socioeconomic status and health care service coverage, the risk factors of preterm birth may vary from region to region and time trends even within the same country. On the other hand, most of the studies conducted in other parts of a country were based on card review, and therefore, the risk factors of preterm birth were not fully addressed. Hence, only limited risk factors of preterm birth were assessed in the previous study conducted in Ethiopia. On the contrary, this study was based on primary data and included many risk factors which would be associated with preterm birth. In addition, most of the studies conducted in Ethiopia were cross-sectional and our study used case-control study design which is stronger than cross-sectional. Therefore, this study aimed to identify determinants of preterm birth in western part of Ethiopia. These informations are shortened in the abstract as follows: “There were lacking of study in western Ethiopia and most of those studies conducted in other parts of a country were based on card review with cross-sectional study design. The risk factors of preterm birth may vary from region to region within the same country due to variation in socioeconomic status and health care service coverage, and therefore this study aimed to identify determinants of preterm birth in western part of Ethiopia”.

B) Method: Line 37; the term “Data” is plural word. So, replace “was” with “were”.

Response: Replaced in this revised submission.

C) Conclusion: please propose certain recommendations based on your key findings.

Response: We agree with a reviewer that our previous conclusion lacks recommendation. Based on your suggestion, we gave recommendation in this revised submission as follows: “Antenatal care service providers should focus on mothers with pregnancy-induced hypertension, premature rupture of membrane and anemia during pregnancy, and refer to the senior experts for early management in order to reduce risk of preterm delivery. Antenatal care services such as counseling the mother on the benefit of dietary supplementation during pregnancy, antenatal care follow up and lengthening birth interval should be integrated into the existing health extension packages. Giving emphasis to these determinants with appropriate care during pregnancy is essential to reduce the occurrence of preterm birth. Increasing the awareness of contraceptive utilization and counseling to enhance birth spacing, antenatal care visits, folic acid and dietary supplementation during pregnancy should be given strict attention by healthcare providers. New and inclusive strategies such as establishment of comprehensive mobile clinic services should also be designed to reduce the burden of PTB among women living in the rural community. Lastly, we recommend future researchers to conduct longitudinal and community-based studies supplemented with qualitative methods”.

Introduction

A) I kindly recommend you to summarize the statement of the problem with 4 paragraphs: 1) the nature of the problem, 2) the known aspects of the problem (causes, magnitude risk factors, intervention (i.e., what is known?)), 3) the unknown aspects (any knowledge, intervention, methodology gaps (i.e., what is unknown?)), and 4) the expectation (s) from this study (i.e., so what?)

B) Please work out to improve the coherence.

Response: This is really very interesting comment and even teaching in our future research. Based on your recommendation, we tried to summarize our introduction as per your request in this revised manuscript.

C) I kindly request you for clarification: Line 55-57; it has to be clear in which regions or countries this classification works? For Example, in Ethiopia context, any termination of pregnancy prior to 28 completed weeks of gestational age is termed as "abortion".

Response: We took this classification of preterm birth from a review of the global/international epidemiology of preterm births. We put this classification in the background of our manuscript just to show as PTB has sub-category based on gestational age. However, we agree with a reviewer that this classification makes confusion in differentiating abortion from preterm birth especially in Ethiopian context and therefore, we removed this sentence from this revised manuscript.

D) Please correct flaring errors. For example, line 58 states that “about 15 million infant born prematurely.” Herein, please change the infant to its plural form (i.e., infants). Ditto for line 86; change “literatures” to literature.

Response: We made these two changes in this revised submission.

E) Line 64-66; could you please provide information on the aggregate prevalence of preterm birth in Ethiopia.

Response: There is no systematic review conducted to shows the aggregate prevalence of preterm birth in Ethiopia. One systematic review and meta-analysis protocol on preterm birth was published, but its finding is not published yet. So, it is difficult to provide the aggregate prevalence of preterm birth in Ethiopia. However, we tried to provide the number of estimated preterm birth occurred each year in Ethiopia and other individual studies conducted in different parts of a country.

Methods:

A) Line 123-125; generally further elaborations would be included regarding the case definition, inclusion and exclusion criteria. The cases and controls would be defined clearly, ‘’ not reliable ultrasonography’ has to be measurable. What measures have been made when gestational age disparity happened across records from LNMP and “early ultrasound”. Have you included post term births to controls? Have you included those preterm births which have been terminated deliberately? In general, ACOG definition would be used.

Response: Cases (preterm births) were women who gave birth after 28 weeks (fetal viability) and before 37 completed weeks of gestation from the first day of the last normal menstrual period. Controls were women who gave birth at and after 37 weeks of gestation from the first day of the last normal menstrual period.

All immediate postnatal women who gave birth at the selected hospitals of Wollega zones during the study period were included in the study. Women with unknown last menstrual period (LMP) or not reliable ultrasonography (not early taken at ≤20 completed weeks of gestation) and unable to communicate due to serious medical illness were excluded. Not reliable ultrasonography was considered if the U/S was not taken at appropriate time (at ≤20 completed weeks of gestation).

We used LMP date and ultrasonography finding (if performed at ≤20 completed weeks of gestation) to estimate GA. If the LMP date and ultrasound date don’t correlate/disparity happened, defaulting to ultrasound for GA assessment is required and therefore we took ultrasound date. When the LMP was unknown, the ultrasound date was taken. If the women’s LMP is unknown and the ultrasound measurement was not taken at appropriate time (at ≤20 completed weeks of gestation), we excluded the mother from the study because we can’t assess GA.

Post term births are not preterm birth and therefore it was included under controls. Yes, deliberately or medically terminated pregnancy before 37 weeks of gestation were also included as preterm birth in this study. All these informations were included in this revised manuscript

B) Line 128-132; It is not clear why the authors took reference from Ghana for sample size calculation as a number of studies are here in Ethiopia (For instance; look at https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1854073).

Response: The study conducted by Abebayehu Melesew Mekuriyaw et al. in Amhara Region Referral Hospitals (https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1854073 is very interesting (case-control) and would be used as refence in calculating sample size. However, it was published (10 January 2020) after we fixed the sample size and conception of this study. Apart from this study, all of other studies conducted in Ethiopia were cross-sectional (except study in Tigray and Amhara region) and cannot be used as a reference in sample size calculation. We tried to use these two studies (Tigray and Amhara region) as a reference in sample size calculation, but they gave us relatively small sample size and therefore, we used the study conducted in African countries (Ghana) which gave us relatively higher sample size (565) for better reproducibility of the finding.

Result:

A) Line 198-199; “Thirty-nine (22.67%) of cases and 77 (22.38%) of controls had no formal education” please add the article “the” in before “cases” ” controls”

Response: “The” was added before “cases” ” controls” in this revised manuscript.

B) Line 201-202; “Concerning residence, about two-third of the cases 116 (67.44%) and 214 (62.21%) of the controls were rural dwellers” would be corrected as one of the following:

1) Concerning residence, about 116 (67.44%) of the cases and 214 (62.21%) of the controls were rural dwellers or 2) Concerning residence, about two-third (67.44%) of the cases and three-fifth (62.21%) of the controls were rural dwellers.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation and we correct as per your request in this revised manuscript.

C) Line 208; “… majority of the study participants, 128 (74.42%) of the cases 253 (73.55%) of the controls …” needs English language editing.

Response: The sentence was edited in this revised manuscript as follows: “Regarding the use of family planning, 128 (74.42%) of the cases and 253 (73.55%) of the controls had used family planning before the current pregnancy”.

D) The regression table (i.e., “table 4”) poses major issues: �One category of occupation is “others”, what “others” stands for? List them by using foot note. �One category of “Marital status” is “widowed”. However, the number of cases in this category is only one and the corresponding 95% CI is too wide (i.e., 0.029, 1.809). In other words, about 1780 differences observed between the upper and lower limit which violates one of the assumptions of the binary logistic regression model. So, I kindly recommend you to merge some categories of the variables with few numbers of participants in the cases and / or controls. Thereafter, you need to undertake re-analysis provided that all variables which are entered to the model should fulfill the assumptions of the Binary logistic regression model.

Response: Thank you very much for these important comments. We indicated what “Others” stands for using foot note in this revised manuscript. Some of the categories of our variables have small observation in the outcome variable and their confidence intervals are wide. For example: mothers age (category ‘>44’ years) and marital status (category ‘widowed’) have small observations and wide CI. We didn’t account this problem during the analysis of our data. Therefore, based on your comments, we merged some categories of the variables with few numbers of participants in the cases and / or controls and undertake re-analysis to fulfill the assumptions of the Binary logistic regression. Marital status which was associated with PTB at Bivariable analysis in the previous analysis is now not significant, and mothers age which was previously not associated with PTB at bivariate analysis is now significant. However, no difference was seen on the variables which were associated with PTB at multivariable analysis (No variable which previously significant is non-significant in this new analysis and vise versa). But there are some differences in results of cross-tabulation, AOR, and P value between the former and this revised manuscript

�About 50 cases and 87 controls were in the age group of 15-24 which implies that minors have been included in the study. If so, how have you addressed the ethical issues? In this occasion, let me raise one another important concern; why have you failed in incorporating a sub-section of “Ethical approval”?

Response: Sorry for not including ethics and participant consent in the previous version of our manuscript. We included these informations in this revised version of our manuscript as follows:

“Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study was approved by the institutional review boards of Wollega University ethical review board with approval ID: HIS/213/20. Permission letter was also obtained from each hospital administrative office. All participants of the study were provided written consent, clearly stating the objectives of the study and their right to refuse. Then, written informed consent was obtained from the study participants. For minors, informed consent was received from their parents or legal guardians. To ensure confidentiality, names or identifying information was not indicated on the questionnaires. Mothers were interviewed in private rooms to ensure their privacy. The filled questionnaires were carefully handled ensuring confidentiality and was kept under secured custody of the corresponding author”.

�The sum of each category of variables under the cases has to be 100%. Ditto for controls. However, that was not true in your study. This implies that you have considered the “row” percentages in the “crosstab” that is recommended for cross sectional study design. For case – control study design, however, “column” percentages should be reported over “row” percentages. Therefore, you need to address this concern while you perform re-analysis as per the above recommendation.

Response: Thank you again for this crucial comment and we performed as per your request in this revised manuscript.

Discussion:

Your way of discussion is interesting. However, still it needs revision for language:

A) Tense or spelling errors: For instance; line 274; change “remained” to be “remains”, line 309; edit “Gonder” to be “Gondar”

Response: Thank you for this important correction and we made it in this revised revision.

B) Certain phrases have been employed frequently. For example “the odds of developing preterm birth...”, “…due to the fact that…”

Response: We re-wrote these and other phrases to prevent the frequent use of these phrases.

C) Be consistent in using the abbreviations Vs the extended forms. For example; line 302; you have utilized “Pregnancy induced hypertension”, whereas at line 303; you have used its abbreviation for “PIH”, again at line 305, 307, 311…; you have employed its extended form “Pregnancy induced hypertension”???Moreover, the abbreviation “PIH “has not been listed under the “Abbreviations” section. On the contrary, the abbreviation “PIHTN” has been found under the list although it has not been used at the main document at all. I kindly recommend you to put the extended form of each abbreviation followed by its abbreviated form in bracket at its first appearance. Then you can use the abbreviated form alone throughout the document and don’t forget mentioning it at the lists of “abbreviations “section.

Response: Thank you for this important comment and we put as your request throughout the document.

D) The limitations of your study as well as the efforts made to overcome those limitations would be stated.

Response: We forgot including limitation of the study in the previous submission. We included limitation of this study in this revised submission as follows: “There may be recall bias from mothers due to the nature of some question which dealt with past informations. To reduce this recall bias, information gathered from the mothers through the interview were crosschecked from their antenatal records. Due to the sensitive nature of some questions and face-to-face techniques of data collection, there is a possibility of falsified reporting (social desirability bias) among mothers. We made an effort to minimize this by assuring mothers for the confidentiality of their informations. Another limitation of the study is being institution-based quantitative study. It would be better if community-based and qualitative approach study was triangulated with quantitative part to investigate further factors on preterm birth. On the other hand, the strength of this study is we used strong design with large sample size with 1:2 ratio of cases to controls”.

References:

A) Reference 6(line 374-376) & 28 (line 430-432) are similar.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We removed reference 28 from the list in this revised submission and replaced with other.

B) You would use certain recently published articles. For example “Determinants of Preterm Birth among Women Who Gave Birth in Amhara Region Referral Hospitals, Northern Ethiopia, 2018: Institutional Based Case Control Study”, which is available at https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1854073 , has not been cited in your manuscript.

Response: We thorough read this article and we found it very interesting. It was recently published (10 January 2020) and we didn’t get this article when finalizing our research. So, based on your request, we now included and used as a reference in this revised manuscript. We used it as reference number “38” and cited as follows: “Mekuriyaw AM, Mihret MS, Yismaw AE. Determinants of Preterm Birth among Women Who Gave Birth in Amhara Region Referral Hospitals, Northern Ethiopia, 2018: Institutional Based Case Control Study. International Journal of Pediatrics; Volume 2020, Article ID 1854073, 8 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1854073”

Thank you very much for your crucial comments!

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Florian Fischer

8 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-17494R1

Determinants of preterm birth among women delivered in public hospitals of Western Ethiopia, 2020: Unmatched case-control study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abadiga,

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 encourage you to let the manuscript be checked for proof-reading by a native English speaker.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 22 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,

Florian Fischer

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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #2: Manuscript number: PONE-D-20-17494R1

This paper has been greatly improved and almost all my concerns have been addressed. However, the manuscript has still certain glaring errors. For example, line 25-26 “…1 million death…and 60% of this death occur in ….” has to be corrected as …1 million deaths… and 60% of these deaths occur in…

Therefore, the manuscript needs to be revised for language thoroughly.

**********

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 #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 25;16(1):e0245825. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245825.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Dec 2020

Date: 13/12/2020

To PLOS ONE

Dear Academic editor,

Subject: Submission of revised Manuscript “Determinants of preterm birth among women delivered in public hospitals of Western Ethiopia, 2020: Unmatched case-control study”. Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the editor and reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. We have carried out the revisions that the editor and reviewers requested and revised the manuscript accordingly. We hope the revised version is now suitable for publication and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Sincerely,

Muktar Abadiga

Corresponding author

Wollega University, Ethiopia

Point by point response

Editor comments:

We encourage you to let the manuscript be checked for proof-reading by a native English speaker.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion to improve our manuscript. Based on your recommendation, we contacted native English speaker to correct the grammar, and we hope this version of our manuscript is now suitable for publication.

Reviewer comments:

Reviewer #2: Manuscript number: PONE-D-20-17494R1

This paper has been greatly improved and almost all my concerns have been addressed. However, the manuscript has still certain glaring errors. For example, line 25-26 “…1 million death…and 60% of this death occur in ….” has to be corrected as …1 million deaths… and 60% of these deaths occur in… Therefore, the manuscript needs to be revised for language thoroughly.

Response: Thank you very much once again for your great contribution in the improvements of this manuscript. The previous version of our manuscript has some grammatical and editorial problems. In this revised submission, all authors intensively reviewed the document and corrected grammatical and editorial problems. We also used free online grammar correction to solve this problem and contacted native English speaker to correct the grammar, and we hope this version of our manuscript is now suitable for publication.

Thank you very much

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Florian Fischer

17 Dec 2020

Determinants of preterm birth among women delivered in public hospitals of Western Ethiopia, 2020: Unmatched case-control study

PONE-D-20-17494R2

Dear Dr. Abadiga,

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,

Florian Fischer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Florian Fischer

14 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-17494R2

Determinants of preterm birth among women delivered in public hospitals of Western Ethiopia, 2020: Unmatched case-control study

Dear Dr. Abadiga:

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. Florian Fischer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Questionnaire

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES