Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0246210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246210

Trends and projections of under-5 mortality in Bangladesh including the effects of maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services

Mostaured Ali Khan 1,2, Nuruzzaman Khan 3,4, Obaidur Rahman 5,6, Golam Mustagir 1, Kamal Hossain 1, Rafiqul Islam 1,*, Hafiz T A Khan 7
Editor: Russell Kabir8
PMCID: PMC7861360  PMID: 33539476

Abstract

Objective

This study examines trends and puts forward projections of under-5 mortality (U5M) in Bangladesh and identifies the effects of maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services.

Methods

Data from seven waves of the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (1994–2014) were analyzed for trends and projections of U5M and a Chi-square (χ2) test was used to identify if there was any association with maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine the effects of fertility behaviors and healthcare usage on the occurrence of U5M adjusting with confounders.

Results

U5M declined from 82.5 to 41.0 per 1000 livebirths during 1994–2014 and is projected to further reduce to 17.6 per 1000 livebirths by 2030. The study identified a noticeable regional variation in U5M with maternal high-risk fertility behaviours including age at birth <18 years (aOR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.23–2.76) and birth interval <24 months (aOR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.02–2.37) found to be significant determinants. There was a 39–53% decline in this rate of mortality among women that had used antenatal care services at least four times (aOR, 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27–0.97), delivery care (aOR, 0.47, 95% CI: 0.24–0.95), and had received postnatal care (aOR, 0.61, 95% CI: 0.41–0.91) in their last birth. Cesarean section was found to be associated with a 51% reduction in U5M (aOR, 0.49, 95% CI: 0.29–0.82) compared to its non-use.

Conclusion

The Sustainable Development Goals require a U5M rate of 25 per 1000 livebirths to be achieved by 2030. This study suggests that with the current trend of reduction, Bangladesh will achieve this target before the deadline. This study also found that maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and non-use of maternal healthcare services are very prevalent in some regions of Bangladesh and have increased the occurrence of U5M in those areas. This suggests therefore, that policies and programmes designed to reduce the pregnancy rates of women that are at risk and to encourage an increase in the use of maternal healthcare services are needed.

Introduction

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are focused (Target 3.2) on reducing neonatal mortality (NM) and under-five mortality (U5M) rates to 12 and 25 deaths per 1,000 live births respectively by 2030 [1]. Success in meeting these aims will require significant reductions in current rates in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (77.5 and 27.7 deaths per 1000 live births for U5M and NM, respectively) and South Asian countries (42.1 and 25.8 deaths per 1000 live births for U5M and NM, respectively) where the majority of current child deaths occur [2]. The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) made little difference towards such a reduction in LMICs between 2000 and 2015 [3, 4]. For instance, only 13 of the 95 LMICs achieved the MDG’s target reduction in the U5M rate, though noticeable progress was reported in other countries (at around 53%) [36]. Bangladesh, a lower-middle-income country of South Asia, also achieved a significant reduction in U5M (from 133 to 30.2 deaths per 1000 live births between 1990 and 2018) following the successful implementation of the MDG [3, 7]. However, the rates are still high among South Asian countries and Bangladesh is in 3rd position after Pakistan (69.3 per 1000 live births) and India (36.6 per 1000 live births) [8, 9]. There is no doubt that extensive work and continued efforts are important for ensuring further reductions of NM and U5M in order to achieve the respective SDG targets.

There are numerous reasons for the higher rates of NM and U5M in LMICs, however, rurality is the important one [1, 10, 11]. The causes are higher illiteracy and lower availability and utilisation of maternal healthcare services including antenatal care (ANC), delivery care, and postnatal care [12]. Moreover, early marriage and adolescent fertility are higher in LMICs, particularly in rural areas, that serve to increase the occurrence of U5M. These groups of women are very likely to experience nutritional disorders including undernutrition and anemia, pregnancy complications, and birth defects [5, 10, 1315]. These disorders are independent risk factors that can lead to adverse birth outcomes, along with preterm birth and low- birth weight, as well as NM and U5M [16, 17]. Socio-demographic risk factors, such as the low education of a woman’s partner, plus women engaged in marginal or lower-paid jobs, and poor household wealth are also frequently mentioned as determinants of U5M in LMICs [10, 14, 15]. Certain birth-characteristics have been identified by a number of studies around the death of children such as U5M being higher among girls, among children with a history of sibling deaths, and among children born within <2 years of their most-recent sibling [10, 18, 19]. The non-use of tetanus toxoids vaccination is another important factor for U5M and NM [20, 21]. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that a 5% usage of cesarean sections (CS) could ensure better maternal and child health outcomes [22], but unnecessary overuse of CS (higher than 15%) could be responsible for higher rates of still births and perinatal deaths, with this particular burden significantly higher in LMICs [23]. These figures indicate that reaching a further reduction in the U5M rate is challenging and needs consideration of myriad factors and preferably a multi-sectoral approach.

Bangladesh is currently implementing a range of programmes that include improving accessibility of maternal healthcare services and vaccine coverage in order to help achieve the SDG targets for NM and U5M. However, there has been no systematic assessment of the success or otherwise of these programmes and also a lack of studies that project the future occurrence of NM and U5M that is important for policymakers in devising evidence-based policies. Of the few studies that looked into child-mortality, a number of specific risk factors were identified such as birth order, birth interval, child’s gender, maternal age at birth, parental education and employment status, delivery complications, and anemia [7, 13, 18, 20]. However, none of these studies considered spatial variations of U5M that is higher in Bangladesh and could be key for devising area-targeted policies to enhance their effectiveness [24]. Maternal high-risk fertility behaviours (age at birth >18 year, birth interval >24 months, birth order >3) [17, 25] and lower usage of maternal healthcare services are common in Bangladesh [7, 17, 18, 26] and could be major contributors to the occurrence of U5M. Studies conducted in LMICs repeatedly reported these effects [1, 13, 19, 2729] but there is no clear evidence available in the case of Bangladesh. This study addresses this gap and its aims are: (i) to project the reduction rate of U5M up to 2030 based on current estimates, (ii) to show spatial variations in the occurrence of U5M in Bangladesh, and (iii) to assess the effects of maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and usage of maternal healthcare services on U5M.

Methods

Study design

Data for this study were extracted from seven waves of the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Surveys (BDHSs) conducted between 1994 and 2014. These cross-sectional surveys were carried out every three years in each of the seven administrative divisions of Bangladesh [30]. In each round, all married women aged 15–44 years in a nationally representative sample of households were interviewed using a two-stage stratified cluster sampling design. In the first stage, a fixed number of primary sampling units (PSU) were selected with the probability proportional to the unit size. In the second stage, a total of 30 households was selected in each primary sampling unit through systematic random sampling [30]. Structured questionnaires were used to collect data on respondents’ background, community-level factors, and different health issues including maternal health, child health, family planning, and use of maternal healthcare services. The National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT) conducted all these surveys and there was a 98% overall response rate for each survey. Broad descriptions regarding each of the BDHSs is published elsewhere [3036]. The BDHS data is publicly available upon request on: https://dhsprogram.com/

Analysis sample

The data from a total of 46,592 children aged below five years was analysed for this study covering each of the following years: 1994 (n = 3,874); 1997 (n = 6,189); 2000 (n = 6,832); 2004 (n = 6,908); 2007 (n = 6,150); 2011 (n = 8,753); 2014 (n = 7,886). This sample was generated from interviews with 87,452 women in seven different surveys conducted in each of the following years: 1994 (9,640); 1997 (9,127); 2000 (10,544); 2004 (11,440); 2007 (10,996); 2011 (17,842); and 2014 (17,863) [3036]. The criteria for collecting this data involved women that had complete birth histories that had occurred five years prior to the survey date (whether each child was alive at the time of the survey or not), including the month and year of the child’s birth, and how old a child was if s/he had died. These retrospective data sets were used to identify the number of children born in the last five years and age of children at death.

Outcome variable

Neonatal Mortality (NM), infant mortality (IM) and Under 5 Mortality (U5M) are considered as the outcome variables for this study. The BDHSs recorded this information by asking women “Did you give birth to any children within five years?” and if the answer was yes, they were then asked “Is the child alive?”. Respondents were asked similar follow-up questions for every child if they had given birth to multiple children within this time frame. If death was recoded to this item (for every child; single or multiple) then the follow-up question was asked in order to record timing of death (in days). For this study, these responses were placed into three categories: NM (if death occurs within first 28 days of birth), IM (if death occurs before reaching the first birthday), and U5M (if death occurs before reaching the fifth birthday).

Predictor variables

Maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services were considered as main predictor variables for under-five mortality. For this situation, a dichotomous variable on maternal high-risk fertility behaviours (1, yes and 0, no) was generated where positive responses were considered if women reported they were aged <18 years in their most recent birth, or had a birth interval <24 months in their most recent successive births, or were aged >34 years at their last birth, or had birth order >3. Another generated dichotomous variable covered multiple high-risk fertility behaviours (1, yes and 0, no) where a positive was coded if women reported at least two of the previously mentioned characteristics. The WHO’s guidelines were used to classify use of healthcare services covering antenatal (<4, ≥4), delivery (yes, no), and postnatal care (yes, no) services [14, 18, 25, 30, 37, 38]. The WHO changed their guideline on ANC in 2016 with a new recommendation of eight visits but for this study, the pre-2016 guideline was followed as data up to the year 2014 was used. A complete list of explanatory variables is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. A complete list of explanatory variables.

Explanatory variables Collected data Answer category
Socio-demographic variables
Maternal current age (in year) Maternal age at the time of the survey 1 = 15–24 years; 2 = 25–34 years; 3 = 35–49 years
Maternal education1 Maternal highest level of education 1 = No education; 2 = Primary; 3 = Secondary & above
Residence Place of residence 1 = Urban; 2 = Rural
Economic status2 Wealth index of the family 1 = Poor; 2 = Middle; 3 = Rich
Employment status Respondents are employed or not 0 = Unemployed; 1 = Employed
Unwanted birth The birth was not wanted at that time 0 = No; 1 = Yes
Very low birth weight (VLBW) of child The baby was born with very low birth weight (<1500gm) (according to mother’s perception about size of the baby at birth was obtained. Very small baby size at birth considered as a useful proxy of LBW)2 0 = No; 1 = Yes
Maternal high-risk fertility behaviors
Maternal age at birth <18 years The mother whose age at the time of the birth was less than 18 years 0 = No;
1 = Yes
Maternal age at birth >34 years The mother whose age at the time of the birth was greater than 34 years 0 = No;
1 = Yes
Birth interval <24 months The mother who gave birth with a birth interval of less than 24 months 0 = No;
1 = Yes
Birth order >3 The mother whose birth order was higher than 3 0 = No;
1 = Yes
Maternal age at birth <18 years and Birth interval <24 months3 The mother whose age at the time of the birth was less than 18 years with an interval of less than 24 months 0 = No;
1 = Yes
Maternal age at birth >34 years and Birth interval <24 months4 The mother whose age at the time of the birth was greater than 34 years with an interval of less than 24 months 0 = No;
1 = Yes
Birth interval <24 months and birth order >3 The mother whose birth order was higher than 3 with interval of less than 24 months 0 = No;
1 = Yes
Maternal healthcare utilization
Taken ANC at least 4 times The mother who had taken ANC at least 4 times during pregnancy 0 = No;
1 = Yes
Institutional delivery The delivery was taken place in a hospital or clinic etc. 0 = No;
1 = Yes
Skilled birth attendants (SBA) The baby was delivered by an SBA like doctor, nurse, trained health personnel etc. 0 = No;
1 = Yes
Cesarean section (CS) The delivery was a cesarean section delivery 0 = No;
1 = Yes
Postnatal care (PNC) The mother and baby had taken postnatal care (2 months) 0 = No;
1 = Yes

Note: The analysis was restricted for respondents (mothers) who have given birth within 5 years prior to the survey.

1Primary and secondary education is defined as completing grade 5 and 10, respectively.

2 Followed standard BDHS measure.

3 Includes the category age at birth <18 years with birth order >3 and age at birth <18 years with interval <24 months and birth order >3.

4 includes the category age at birth <34 years with interval <24 months and age at birth <34 years with interval <24 months and birth order >3.

Confounding adjustment

In this study, the effects of maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services on the prevalence of U5M were determined through adjusting different individual, household/family and community level characteristics that were selected by reviewing the literature [14, 18, 25, 30, 37, 38].

Statistical analysis

A linear regression model was used to project the U5M rate up to the year 2030, the year where the current round of development goals, that is, the SDG are due to be achieved. The model is y = a0+a1x+e; where y = predicted rate, x = given year, a0 = the constant, a1 = the regression coefficient and e = the standard error. The parameters of the model were identified through a time series ARIMA analysis. A robust nonlinear smoothing technique (4253H, twice) enabled adjustment for various unexpected distortions before completion of the projection for U5M [39]. The overall decline in the U5M rate was then calculated by using the formula, U5MtU5MoU5M0×100. The Annual Rate of Reduction (ARR) of U5M was calculated using the formula r=(U5MtU5M0n1)×100; where U5M0 = U5M rate of any given year; U5Mt = U5M rate of tth year; r = ARR; n = number of years between two surveys [40]. Chi-square tests (set at p<0.05 level of significance) helped determine if there were any associations between under-five mortality with the characteristics of maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services. Finally, the effects of maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services were determined through the multivariate logistic regression model. Bangladesh has seen rapid socio-economic developments over the last decade and so the multivariate analysis was restricted to the most recent BDHS 2014 data. The model was adjusted for regions, residence, education, economic status, unwanted birth, and very low birth weight (VLBW). Results were reported by odds ratios (ORs) with its 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) and all analyses, taking into account complex survey design and sample weights of the surveys, were conducted using the statistical programme called Stata version 13.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

Ethics statement

The study analysed secondary data of BDHS. The BDHS is a part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) programme. The Bangladesh Ministry of Health and Family Welfare provided ethical approval for the surveys. The National Institute of Population Research and Training conducted the surveys with the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The survey protocol was approved by the National Research Ethics Committee in Bangladesh and ORC Macro (Macro International Inc.) Institutional Review Board. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Results

Trends and projections of U5M

Trends of NM, IM, and U5M in Bangladesh over the survey years 1994–2014 are presented in Table 2. The rates of decline covering these years were around 42% for NM, 48% for IM and 50% for U5M; the annual rate of reduction (ARR) was 2.7% for NM, 3.2% for IM, and 3.4% for U5M. The rates would be 11.4 for NM, 13.7 for IM, and 17.6 for U5M per 1000 live births by 2030 if the current trends continued. When compared to the 1994 estimates, these estimates would be around 77% lower for NM, 82% lower for IM, and 79% lower for U5M with a yearly decrease of 3.9%, 4.6%, and 4.2%, respectively. The estimated U5M rates were always higher in rural areas and among poor households. The projected rates of U5M per 1000 live births by 2030 are 16.9 for urban people, and 21.2 for rural people if the observed trends continued. The U5M rates among women of middle and rich socio-economic status would take the figures to 13.4 and 5.4 deaths per 1000 live births by the year 2030 and such women would experience reductions of 84.0% and 90.8% in U5M by 2030 compared to their experiences in 1994 (Table 2).

Table 2. Trends in and projection of under-5 mortality rate (per 1000 live births) according to residence and economic status in Bangladesh over the period 1994–2030.

Measures Observed rate Change (%) during 1994–2014 Projected rate Projected change (%) during 1994–2030
1994 1997 2000 2004 2007 2011 2014 Decline ARR 2025 2030 Decline ARR
Neonatal mortality 48.8 46.2 41.3 40.8 36.9 31.1 28.1 42.4 2.7 16.5 11.4 76.6 3.9
Infant mortality 76.1 80.1 64.4 63.9 50.6 40.5 39.6 47.9 3.2 23.3 13.7 81.9 4.6
Under-5 mortality 82.5 92.5 73.4 71.9 55.9 44.8 41.0 50.3 3.4 28.2 17.6 78.7 4.2
Under-5 mortality by Socio-demographic characteristics
Residence
Urban 57.7 74.1 72.9 77.9 43.5 43.1 35.0 39.3 2.5 21.8 16.9 70.7 3.4
Rural 85.2 94.3 73.5 70.5 59.4 45.3 43.0 49.5 3.4 30.3 21.2 75.1 3.8
Economic status1
Poor - - - 76.6 59.2 52.4 50.3 34.3 4.1 35.1 21.1 72.5 7.7
Middle - - - 83.9 63.1 42.3 42.4 49.5 6.6 33.3 13.4 84.0 10.8
Rich - - - 58.7 48.1 37.1 30.1 48.7 6.4 19.8 5.4 90.8 13.8

Note: All the rates are weighted. ARR, annual rate of reduction.

1 Followed standard BDHS measure and trend observed for year 2004 to 2014 due to missing data.

Spatial variations

The rates of NM, IM, and U5M across seven administrative divisions of Bangladesh are presented in Table 3. The rates were calculated using the 2014 BDHS data and were found to be higher for the Sylhet division at around 41.4 for NM; 60.5 for IM and 63.1 for U5M per 1000 live births with lower rates reported for the Barisal division (Table 3).

Table 3. Spatial variation on different forms of child mortality (per 1000 live births) in Bangladesh using data from BDHS, 2014.

Regions Types of child mortalities (%, 95% CI)
Neonatal mortality (NM) Infant mortality (IM) Under-5 mortality (U5M)
Barisal 14.5 (7.5–27.7) 19.0 (10.6–33.8) 21.8 (11.9–39.6)
Chittagong 24.7 (17.4–35.0) 45.2 (31.7–64.0) 48.9 (35.1–67.7)
Dhaka 20.4 (13.7–30.3) 28.9 (20.7–40.1) 29.6 (21.3–40.9)
Khulna 32.6 (21.5–49.1) 38.3 (26.6–54.7) 43.8 (30.6–62.4)
Rajshahi 36.2 (23.8–54.6) 41.1 (28.0–60.1) 42.7 (29.0–62.6)
Rangpur 23.4 (15.3–35.7) 30.6 (20.8–44.8) 33.8 (23.3–48.7)
Sylhet 41.4 (27.8–33.4) 60.5 (42.2–86.0) 63.1 (44.6–88.7)

Note: The sample were weighted. Calculated for row percentage and percentages may not total 100.0 because of rounding.

Maternal high-risk fertility behaviors and healthcare service use

The trend of maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and use of maternal healthcare services over the period 1994–2014 are presented in Figs 1 and 2. Almost all maternal high-risk fertility behaviours have seen a slight reduction over these years except for birth order >3 that saw a reduction to 15.2% in 2014 from 35.4% in 1994. There were significant increases in the use of maternal healthcare services such as at least 4 ANC visits (5.4% to 31.8%); institutional delivery (3.8% to 37.9%); CS delivery (3.0% to 23.9%) and delivery by a skilled birth attendant (SBA) (13.4% to 52.9%) over the period 1994 to 2014 (S2 Table).

Fig 1. Trends in maternal high-risk fertility behaviors in Bangladesh over the period 1994–2014.

Fig 1

Fig 2. Trends in healthcare service utilization in Bangladesh over the period 1994–2014.

Fig 2

Distribution of U5M

In the analysis, most of the women were aged 15–24 years (48.6%), came from poor households (41.9%), lived in rural areas (74.6%), and were unemployed (75.4%). Around 29.1% of the births were unwanted and around 7% of babies were born with VLBW (Table 4)

Table 4. Bivariate distribution of under-5 mortality according to socio-demographic characteristics, maternal risk factors i.e. high-risk fertility behaviors and health-care utilizations based on BDHS-2014.

Background characteristics Frequency in % (95% CI) Under-5 mortality p-values
% (95% CI)
Maternal current age (in years)
    15–24 48.6 (46.9–50.3) 4.1 (2.9–5.8) 0.042
    25–34 43.7 (41.9–45.4) 3.8 (2.3–6.3)
    35–49 7.7 (6.9–8.5) 5.7 (6.4–9.4)
Maternal education
    No education 16.4 (14.9–18.0) 4.3 (2.9–6.5) 0.014
    Primary 27.9 (26.6–29.4) 4.4 (2.9–6.7)
    Secondary and above 55.6 (53.6–57.6) 3.9 (2.6–5.9)
Residence
    Urban 25.4 (21.7–29.5) 3.5 (1.8–6.7) 0.152
    Rural 74.6 (70.5–78.3) 4.3 (2.9–6.3)
Economic status
    Poor 41.9 (39.4–44.4) 5.0 (3.5–7.3) 0.001
    Middle 19.4 (17.9–20.9) 4.2 (2.3–7.7)
    Rich 38.8 (35.9–41.8) 3.0 (1.8–5.1)
Employment status
    Unemployed 75.4 (73.7–77.0) 4.4 (3.1–6.3) <0.001
    Employed 24.6 (23.0–26.2) 3.1 (1.7–5.7)
Unwanted birth
    No 70.9 (68.6–73.1) 3.4 (2.2–5.3) <0.001
    Yes 29.1 (26.9–31.4) 5.4 (3.6–7.9)
Very low birth weight (VLBW) of child
    No 93.2 (92.2–94.1) 3.9 (2.6–5.7) <0.001
    Yes 6.8 (5.9–7.8) 6.2 (4.2–9.1)
Maternal high-risk fertility behavior
    Maternal age at birth <18 years
    No 86.7 (85.8–87.6) 3.8 (2.5–5.5) <0.001
    Yes 13.3 (12.4–14.2) 6.3 (4.3–9.0)
    Maternal age at birth >34 years
    No 95.7 (95.1–96.2) 4.1 (2.8–5.9)
    Yes 4.3 (3.8–4.9) 4.9 (2.4–9.8) 0.745
    Birth interval <24 months
    No 88.7 (87.5–89.8) 3.4 (2.4–5.1)
    Yes 11.3 (10.2–12.5) 8.3 (5.5–12.1) <0.001
    Birth order >3
    No 84.8 (83.5–85.9) 4.0 (2.7–5.9)
    Yes 15.2 (14.0–16.5) 4.5 (2.9–7.0) 0.085
    Maternal age at birth <18 years and Birth interval <24 months2
    No 98.9 (98.5–99.2) 3.8 (2.6–5.5)
    Yes 1.1 (0.7–1.5) 16.3 (10.3–24.7) <0.001
    Maternal age at birth <34 years and Birth interval <24 months3
    No 95.1 (94.2–95.8) 4.0 (2.7–5.9)
    Yes 4.9 (4.2–5.8) 4.6 (1.9–10.7) 0.590
    Birth interval <24 months and Birth order >3
    No 96.9 (96.3–97.6) 3.8 (2.6–5.6)
    Yes 3.02 (2.4–3.7) 15.2 (8.7–25.1) <0.001
Maternal health-care utilization
    Taken ANC at least 4 times
    No 68.7 (66.2–71.1) 4.9 (3.5–6.7) <0.001
    Yes 31.8 (28.8–33.7) 2.1 (1.0–4.5)
    Institutional delivery
    No 62.2 (59.4–64.8) 4.5 (3.1–6.7) 0.151
    Yes 37.9 (35.2–40.6) 3.2 (2.1–4.8)
    Skilled birth attendant (SBA)
    No 47.1 (44.5–49.8) 5.4 (3.5–8.2) <0.001
    Yes 52.9 (50.2–55.5) 2.8 (1.9–4.0)
    Cesarean section (CS) delivery
    No 76.0 (73.8–78.1) 4.6 (3.1–6.8) 0.001
    Yes 23.9 (21.8–26.1) 2.2 (1.3–3.5)
    Post-natal care (PNC)
    No 36.5 (33.5–39.6) 5.8 (3.8–8.6) <0.001
    Yes 63.5 (60.4–66.5) 3.0 (1.9–4.7)

Note: The sample are weighted. Frequency is calculated for column percentage and percentages may not total 100.0 because of rounding. Percentages of U5M is calculated for row percentage. “No” values for U5M is omitted from table.

2 Includes the category age at birth <18 years with birth order >3 and age at birth <18 years with interval <24 months and birth order >3.

3 Includes the category age at birth <34 years with interval <24 months and age at birth <34 years with interval <24 months and birth order >3.

The distribution of U5M across the variables of maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services are presented in Table 4. The U5M rate was found to be higher among women whose age at birth was <18 years (6.3%) and a birth interval of <24 months (8.3%). The rate of U5M increased substantially once multiple characteristics of high-risk behaviours were considered together. For instance, around 16% of U5M was found among women whose age at birth was <18 years and had a birth interval <24 months. Similarly, around 15.2% of U5M was found among women that had a birth order >3 and birth interval of <24 months. The burden was found to be lower among women that had at least 4 ANC visits (2.1%), had SBA services during delivery (2.8%), received CS delivery (2.2%), and had taken up PNC (3.0%). The U5M rate was also found to be higher among unwanted births (5.4%) and children born with VLBW (6.2%) (Table 4).

Association between selected variables and U5M

The effects of maternal risk-fertility behaviours and use of maternal healthcare services on U5M are presented in Table 5. The risk of U5M was found to be around 1.84 times (95% CI: 1.23–2.76) higher among women aged <18 years at their most recent birth compared to their counterparts. A birth interval of less than 24 months was found to be associated with 1.56 times (95% CI: 1.02–2.37) higher likelihood of U5M than with a birth interval >24 months. The risk of U5M was further increased for those women exhibiting multiple high-risk fertility behaviours. For instance, women aged <18 at their most recent birth and had a previous birth at an interval of <24 months from the most recent birth, was found to have a 226% higher likelihood of U5M (aOR, 2.26, 95% CI: 1.09–4.70) than did their counterparts. The risk was around 333% (aOR, 3.33, 95% CI: 1.28–8.70) higher for women that had >3 births with an interval of <24 months in the two most recent successive births, than did their counterparts. This analysis indicates there is a strong positive effect on reducing U5M when healthcare services are used. For example, it was discovered that there is a nearly 50% lower likelihood of U5M among women who had received at least 4 ANC visits and had their delivery by CS (aOR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29–0.82) in their most recent birth compared to those that had not. There is evidence that among women that received SBA there was a 53% decline (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24–0.95) in U5M cases and a 40% decline in such cases (aOR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.41–0.91) among women that had received PNC compared to women that had not used these services. The same results were found for NM and IF although these results are not shown (Table 5).

Table 5. Association between under-5 mortality and maternal risk factors i.e., high-risk fertility behaviors and health-care utilizations using data BDHS-2014.

Measures Under-5 mortality
Unadjusted Adjusted
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
    Maternal age at birth <18 years
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 1.72 (1.27–2.31) *** 1.84 (1.23–2.76) **
    Maternal age at birth >34 years
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 1.21 (0.57–2.58) 0.76 (0.15–3.80)
    Birth interval <24 months
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 2.49 (1.90–3.27) *** 1.56 (1.02–2.37) *
    Birth order >3
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 1.13 (0.71–1.81) 0.67 (0.32–1.46)
    Maternal age at birth <18 years and birth interval <24 months
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 4.91 (3.00–8.04) *** 2.26 (1.09–4.70) *
    Maternal age at birth <34 years and birth interval <24 months
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 1.16 (0.46–2.92) 0.89 (0.15–5.53)
    Birth interval <24 months and birth order >3
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 4.48 (2.51–8.01) *** 3.33 (1.28–8.70)**
Maternal health-care utilization
    Taken ANC at least 4 times
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 0.42 (0.23–0.78) ** 0.51 (0.27–0.97) *
    Institutional delivery
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 0.69 (0.49–0.96) * 1.74 (0.98–3.07)
    Skilled birth attendant (SBA)
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 0.51 (0.37–0.71) *** 0.47 (0.24–0.95)*
    Cesarean section (CS) delivery
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 0.46 (0.28–0.77) ** 0.49 (0.29–0.82) **
    Post-natal care (PNC)
    No (RC) 1.00 1.00
    Yes 0.51 (0.34–0.75) *** 0.61 (0.41–0.91) **

Note: High-risk fertility behavior variables categorization followed BDHS standard measure. Model adjusted for regions, residence, education, economic status, unwanted birth, very low birth weight, and all the predictors included in this table (weighted sample). Values with superscript asterisks *,**and *** indicate p<0.05, p<0.01, and p<0.001, respectively. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; ANC: antenatal care.

Discussion

This study has examined the trends and projections of the rate of U5M in Bangladesh and explored the effects of risky maternal fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services on this rate. The U5M rate was found to be gradually declining in Bangladesh and if this decline continues, then it would take the rate to 17.6 per 1000 live births by 2030 that is under the current development goal (SDG) rate of 25 U5M per 1000 live births to be achieved by that year. This rate is also around five times lower than it was in 1994. The NM and IF are also predicted to be at similar rates by 2030. However, these rates of decline are not happening in all regions of Bangladesh and this study has uncovered evidence of high regional variations in U5M with a higher rate reported in the Sylhet region and a lower rate in the Barisal region. The likelihood of U5M was found to be higher among women that reported one or multiple high-risk fertility behaviour and had not used healthcare services. These findings suggest therefore, that there is a need for region-specific policies where priority is given to women that are engaged in such risky behaviour.

This study has provided evidence of the gradual decline of NM, IM, and U5M rates in Bangladesh over the past 20 years (1994–2014) that is consistent with the global trend [7, 9]. The ARR for U5M was 3.4% that is consistent with a 3.9% ARR at the global level during this period [41]. A global comparable decline of U5M in Bangladesh is good news to report but the higher burden of maternal nutrition, poverty, and urban-rural inequality in use of healthcare services cannot also be reported [25, 42]. This study also identifies evidence of a higher rate of U5M among rural and poor women that has been shown in other studies conducted in similar settings [10, 13, 18, 29]. The current trend for a decline in the U5M rate would enable Bangladesh to achieve the relevant SDG target (SGD 3.2) by 2030, but it would not be experienced across all regions. Therefore, policies are urgently needed to reduce existing inequalities in the use of healthcare services between urban and rural areas and making such services available to all women should be a priority in order to achieve a significant reduction in U5M. These steps would help to speed up the process for achieving the relevant SDG target.

This study also finds there is enormous variation in the child mortality rate across different regions in Bangladesh. For example, NM was found to be higher in the Khulna division, whilst both IM and U5M were found to be higher in the Sylhet division. A recent study conducted by Gruebner et al found similar results [43] and another study reported that around 12.8% of areas in Bangladesh failed to meet the MDG target 4 of reducing child mortality although the country taken as a whole did achieve it [44]. Taking these regional variation factors into account, country-level policies and programmes that are focused on the regions should provide effective ways for reducing the rate of U5M and enable Bangladesh to actually meet the relevant SDG targets in all its areas.

This study identifies that maternal high-risk fertility behaviours including childbirth before the age of 18 or after 34 plus a higher birth order and shorter birth interval are very influential in prompting U5M in Bangladesh. Women in the younger age cluster (<18 years) have comparatively immature reproductive systems and are less able to handle any complications during childbirth [4547], that serves to increase the occurrence of adverse outcomes in the health of newborns [4648]. Women of a higher age during pregnancy are usually faced with undernutrition as well as with other chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension. [48] and can generally take less care of themselves during pregnancy [48]. In addition, pregnancies at a later age are mostly unwanted. These behaviours represent independent risk factors for LBW, premature birth, and child malnutrition [46] that further increases the likelihood of U5M [45, 46]. In addition, a shorter birth interval (<24 months) can adversely affect maternal health and nutritional status. These factors can lead to complications during pregnancy as well as child deaths, particularly in the neonatal and infancy periods [19, 49]. Importantly, these adverse consequences are responsible for U5M among women that had more than one high risk fertility behaviour at a time [17, 25, 50].

The use of maternal healthcare services including antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care were found to be important factors for reducing U5M as reported in other studies in LMICs [20, 38, 51]. Using healthcare services during pregnancy ensures that necessary care is provided for mothers and children and help to reduce complications during pregnancy. Women that are educated are knowledgeable about other care and services including vaccination, iron-folic supplements, and tetanus toxoids injections [38, 52]. These further services could help to ensure healthy pregnancies by identifying susceptible risks that could further contribute to a reduction in the occurrence of U5M [20, 26, 38, 52, 53]. The use of healthcare services enables women and service providers to identify risks and the need for CS that could further help to reduce pregnancy complications as well as U5M [54].

This study has a number of strengths and limitations. Firstly, nationally representative data was used along with appropriate statistical methods that took into account complex survey design and sample weights. The trends and projection of U5M were identified by using available survey data that is the first of its kind in Bangladesh. Determining the effects of maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and the use of maternal healthcare services on the rate of U5M, with adjustments to take into account a range of confounders, is also the first of its kind to be carried out in Bangladesh. When taken together, these approaches provide the study with strong foundations for its conclusions. However, this study is also based on secondary data that was collected on the last birth that occurred within the five years preceding the survey dates and with this type of data collection, recall bias is common. Putting forward high-risk fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services as risk factors of U5M gives the study strength, but other factors such as preterm birth, malnutrition and vaccination may also lead to U5M and these need to be given further consideration. Data from the 2014 BDHS was used to assess determinants of U5M that could be considered as dated but this was the most recently available dataset in Bangladesh and the projection of U5M for 2020 was similar to the projection for 2014. This provides validity for the findings of this study.

Conclusion

The rate of U5M in Bangladesh is decreasing significantly. If this trend continues, the SDG goal concerning U5M is predicted to be achieved by 2030. The trend also postulates existing inequalities in rural-urban differentials and also in economic conditions. However, maternal high risk fertility behaviours and poor use of healthcare services are important predictors of U5M and can impede progress towards SDG 3.2. These findings suggest a need for region-specific policies where priority should be given to women most likely to exhibit high-risk fertility behaviours and not make use of maternal healthcare services.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Information on model fittings of linear regression model.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Information about plotting of Figs 1 and 2.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to MEASURE DHS for granting data use permission for this study and also acknowledge the support of the Department of Population Science and Human Resource Development, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh, where this study was conducted. Authors would like to express their gratitude to the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, University of Oxford for academic support where Professor Hafiz T.A. Khan is also an Associate Professorial Fellow and also express their gratitude to Dr. Helen Findlay for final checking and editing of the manuscript.

Abbreviations

U5M

Under-5 Mortality

NM

Neonatal Mortality

IM

Infant Mortality

LMIC

Low- and Middle-Income Country

BDHS

Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey

ARR

Annual Rate of Reduction

ANC

Antenatal Care

SBA

Skilled Birth Attendant

LBW

Low Birth Weight

CI

Confidence Interval

OR

Odds Ratio

Data Availability

The data underlying this study (BDHSs, 1993-2014) are owned by a third party. However, the authors had no special access privileges and other researchers may access the data in the same manner from the MEASURE DHS Archive via the instructions included in the following link: http://dhsprogram.com/data/Using-Datasets-for-Analysis.cfm.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Chao F., et al. , National and regional under-5 mortality rate by economic status for low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic assessment. The Lancet Global Health, 2018. 6(5): p. e535–e547. 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30059-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.IGME. UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. 2018; Available from: https://childmortality.org/data/UNICEF [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report. 2015, The United Nations: New York, USA.
  • 4.You D., et al. , Global, regional, and national levels and trends in under-5 mortality between 1990 and 2015, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. 2015. 386(10010): p. 2275–2286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Victora C.G., et al. , Association between ethnicity and under-5 mortality: analysis of data from demographic surveys from 36 low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet Global Health, 2020. 8(3): p. e352–e361. 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30025-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Doku D.T., Bhutta Z.A., and Neupane S., Associations of women’s empowerment with neonatal, infant and under-5 mortality in low- and /middle-income countries: meta-analysis of individual participant data from 59 countries. BMJ Global Health, 2020. 5(1): p. e001558 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001558 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Khan J.R. and Awan N., A comprehensive analysis on child mortality and its determinants in Bangladesh using frailty models. Archives of Public Health, 2017. 75(1): p. 58 10.1186/s13690-017-0224-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.UNICEF, 2018–2021 Progress Report—Save Newborns. UNICEF South Asia, 2018.
  • 9.WHO, WHO | Under-five mortality. World Health Organization, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Adekanmbi V.T., et al. , Contextual socioeconomic factors associated with childhood mortality in Nigeria: a multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2015. 69(11): p. 1102 10.1136/jech-2015-205457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ezeh O.K., et al. , Risk factors for postneonatal, infant, child and under-5 mortality in Nigeria: a pooled cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open, 2015. 5(3). 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nuamah G.B., et al. , Access and utilization of maternal healthcare in a rural district in the forest belt of Ghana. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019. 19(1): p. 6 10.1186/s12884-018-2159-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Abir T., et al. , Risk factors for under-5 mortality: evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2004–2011. BMJ Open, 2015. 5(8). 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Agho K.E., et al. , Factors associated with under-5 mortality in three disadvantaged East African districts. International Health, 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Van Malderen C., et al. , Socioeconomic factors contributing to under-five mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: a decomposition analysis. BMC Public Health, 2019. 19(1): p. 760 10.1186/s12889-019-7111-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Silveira M.F., et al. , Low birthweight and preterm birth: trends and inequalities in four population-based birth cohorts in Pelotas, Brazil, 1982–2015. International Journal of Epidemiology, 2018: p. dyy106–dyy106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rahman M., Hosen A., and Khan M.A., Association between Maternal High-Risk Fertility Behavior and Childhood Morbidity in Bangladesh: A Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Survey. 2019. 101(4): p. 929–936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hossain M.M., Mani K.K., and Islam M.R., Prevalence and determinants of the gender differentials risk factors of child deaths in Bangladesh: evidence from the Bangladesh demographic and health survey, 2011. PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2015. 9(3): p. e0003616 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Conde-Agudelo A., et al. , Effects of birth spacing on maternal, perinatal, infant, and child health: a systematic review of causal mechanisms. Stud Fam Plann, 2012. 43(2): p. 93–114. 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2012.00308.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Abir T., et al. , The impact of antenatal care, iron–folic acid supplementation and tetanus toxoid vaccination during pregnancy on child mortality in Bangladesh. PLOS ONE, 2017. 12(11): p. e0187090 10.1371/journal.pone.0187090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ghimire P.R., et al. , Under-Five Mortality and Associated Factors: Evidence from the Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (2001⁻2016). International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. 16(7): p. 1241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Khan M.N., et al. , Socio-demographic predictors and average annual rates of caesarean section in Bangladesh between 2004 and 2014. PloS one, 2017. 12(5): p. e0177579 10.1371/journal.pone.0177579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sobhy S., et al. , Maternal and perinatal mortality and complications associated with caesarean section in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 2019. 393(10184): p. 1973–1982. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32386-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bhutta Z.A., Mapping the geography of child mortality: a key step in addressing disparities. The Lancet Global Health, 2016. 4(12): p. e877–e878. 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30264-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rahman M., et al. , Association between high-risk fertility behaviours and the likelihood of chronic undernutrition and anaemia among married Bangladeshi women of reproductive age. Public Health Nutr, 2017. 20(2): p. 305–314. 10.1017/S136898001600224X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Roy S. and Haque M.A., Effect of antenatal care and social well-being on early neonatal mortality in Bangladesh. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2018. 18(1): p. 485 10.1186/s12884-018-2129-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Aheto J.M.K., Predictive model and determinants of under-five child mortality: evidence from the 2014 Ghana demographic and health survey. BMC Public Health, 2019. 19(1): p. 64 10.1186/s12889-019-6390-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Amouzou A., et al. , Skilled attendant at birth and newborn survival in Sub–Saharan Africa. Journal of global health, 2017. 7(2). 10.7189/jogh.07.020504 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bado A.R. and Susuman A.S., Determinants of under-5 mortality in Burkina Faso. Journal of Public Health, 2018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.NIPORT, Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2007. National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPROT), Mitra and Associates & Macro International, Dhaka, Bangladesh and Calverton, Maryland, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.NIPORT, Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 1993–94. National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPROT), Mitra and Associates & Macro International, Dhaka, Bangladesh and Calverton, Maryland, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.NIPORT, Bangladesh Demographic and Health Surve 1996–97. National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPROT), Mitra and Associates & Macro International, Dhaka, Bangladesh and Calverton, Maryland, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.NIPORT, Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 1999–2000. National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPROT), Mitra and Associates & Macro International, Dhaka, Bangladesh and Calverton, Maryland, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.NIPORT, Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2004. National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPROT), Mitra and Associates & Macro International, Dhaka, Bangladesh and Calverton, Maryland, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.NIPORT, Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2011. National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPROT), Mitra and Associates & Macro International, Dhaka, Bangladesh and Calverton, Maryland, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.NIPORT, Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2014. National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPROT), Mitra and Associates & Macro International, Dhaka, Bangladesh and Calverton, Maryland, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chadoka-Mutanda N. and Odimegwu C.O., Maternal health-seeking behaviour and under-five mortality in zimbabwe. Journal of biosocial science, 2017. 49(3): p. 408–421. 10.1017/S0021932016000298 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kuhnt J. and Vollmer S., Antenatal care services and its implications for vital and health outcomes of children: evidence from 193 surveys in 69 low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Open, 2017. 7(11). 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Velleman P.F., Definition and comparison of robust nonlinear data smoothing algorithms. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1980. 75(371): p. 609–615. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.UNICEF, How to calculate average annual rate of reduction of underweight prevalence. Technical note, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rajia S., et al. , Trends and future of maternal and child health in Bangladesh. PloS one, 2019. 14(3): p. e0211875–e0211875. 10.1371/journal.pone.0211875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Rahman M.S., et al. , Trends in, and projections of, indicators of universal health coverage in Bangladesh, 1995–2030: a Bayesian analysis of population-based household data. The Lancet Global Health, 2018. 6(1): p. e84–e94. 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30413-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gruebner O., et al. , Spatial variations and determinants of infant and under-five mortality in Bangladesh. Health & Place, 2017. 47: p. 156–164. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.08.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Dwyer-Lindgren L., et al. , Small area estimation of under-5 mortality in Bangladesh, Cameroon, Chad, Mozambique, Uganda, and Zambia using spatially misaligned data. Population Health Metrics, 2018. 16(1): p. 13 10.1186/s12963-018-0171-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Pelletier D.L., et al. , The effects of malnutrition on child mortality in developing countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 1995. 73(4): p. 443 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Neal S., Channon A.A., and Chintsanya J., The impact of young maternal age at birth on neonatal mortality: Evidence from 45 low and middle income countries. PLOS ONE, 2018. 13(5): p. e0195731 10.1371/journal.pone.0195731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kozuki N., et al. , The associations of parity and maternal age with small-for-gestational-age, preterm, and neonatal and infant mortality: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 2013. 13(3): p. S2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Fall C.H.D., et al. , Association between maternal age at childbirth and child and adult outcomes in the offspring: a prospective study in five low-income and middle-income countries (COHORTS collaboration). The Lancet. Global health, 2015. 3(7): p. e366–e377. 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00038-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Molitoris J., The Effect of Birth Spacing on Child Mortality in Sweden, 1878–1926. Population and Development Review, 2017. 43(1): p. 61–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Lawn J.E., Wilczynska-Ketende K., and Cousens S.N., Estimating the causes of 4 million neonatal deaths in the year 2000. Int J Epidemiol, 2006. 35(3): p. 706–18. 10.1093/ije/dyl043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bills C.B., et al. , Reducing early infant mortality in India: results of a prospective cohort of pregnant women using emergency medical services. BMJ open, 2018. 8(4): p. e019937 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019937 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Makate M. and Makate C., The impact of prenatal care quality on neonatal, infant and child mortality in Zimbabwe: evidence from the demographic and health surveys. Health policy and planning, 2016. 32(3): p. 395–404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kikuchi K., et al. , Effectiveness of Continuum of Care—Linking Pre-Pregnancy Care and Pregnancy Care to Improve Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PloS one, 2016. 11(10): p. e0164965 10.1371/journal.pone.0164965 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Molina G., et al. , Relationship Between Cesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal MortalityCesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal MortalityCesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal Mortality. JAMA, 2015. 314(21): p. 2263–2270. 10.1001/jama.2015.15553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Russell Kabir

4 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-29506

Trends in, and projections of under-5 mortality (U5M) in Bangladesh: effects of maternal high-risk fertility behaviors and healthcare service utilization on U5M.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Islam,

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 2nd December 2020. 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,

Russell Kabir, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

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

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

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

3. Please consider modifying your title to ensure that it is specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field (for example by not using acronyms in the title).

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

6. Please upload a copy of Figure 2, to which you refer in your text on page 26. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

8. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: MEL and Research.

8.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

8.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: While the statistical analysis is comprehensive, the manuscript requires extensive language editing- which affects the overall readability of the manuscript.

As an example: line 78 '....South Asian countries that placing it in the 3rd 78 positioned country after Pakistan' should probably read

'....South Asian countries which places it in the third position after Pakistan'. There are several other instances of incomplete and and ungrammatical sentences, for example line 79, 90, 92, 140-142 all in the introduction require language editing.

Other than that, the manuscript is sound.

Reviewer #2: In the present work entitled “Trends in, and projections of under-5 mortality (U5M) in Bangladesh: effects of maternal high-risk fertility behaviors and healthcare service utilization on U5M”, authors presented important aspects with sound analytical explanations for the policymakers. Here, the authors projected the under-5 mortality (U5M) in Bangladesh and explored its associations with maternal high-risk fertility behaviors and utilization of available healthcare services. The authors presented a very sound analytical piece of work, and then justified its significance using the real-life application.

I have a major concern, which needs to be addressed in the manuscript.

In line no. 152, authors used the information obtained from the women that “Did you give birth to any children within five years”. In the situations of twins and multiple births within 5 years, how the additional information “Is the child alive?” addresses the living status of children.

Authors should elaborate their explanations of outcome variables for a more practical situation and also how the model incorporated those aspects.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Annah Bengesai

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 Feb 4;16(2):e0246210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246210.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Dec 2020

Journal 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

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

Response: We have revised the manuscript as per PLOS ONE’s guidelines.

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

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

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

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

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

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

Response: As per your advice one of our colleague, who is native in English (Dr Helen Findlay, not listed in the author’ list) edited the manuscript to correct grammar, and improve readability, clarity and quality of the manuscript.

3. Please consider modifying your title to ensure that it is specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field (for example by not using acronyms in the title).

Response: We have modified the title.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Response: The data underlying this study (BDHSs, 1993-2014) are third party data, and are available from the MEASURE DHS Archive via the instructions included in the following link: http://dhsprogram.com/data/Using-Datasets-for-Analysis.cfm.

5. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

Response: The affiliations are mentioned accordingly.

6. Please upload a copy of Figure 2, to which you refer in your text on page 26. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

Response: Uploaded the figure accordingly.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response: Included accordingly.

8. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: MEL and Research.

Response: None of the authors have any competing interest in current study. The affiliation of MEL and Research, Practical Action do not have any role in this study.

8.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Response: There was no funding source for this study or the affiliation of MEL and Research, Practical Action do not have any role in this study.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

Response: There was no funding source for this study or the affiliation of MEL and Research, Practical Action do not have any role in this study.

8.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Response: The authors received no specific funding for this work, neither have any competing interest. There was no funding source for this study or the affiliation of MEL and Research, Practical Action do not have any role in this study.

Reviewer #1

While the statistical analysis is comprehensive, the manuscript requires extensive language editing- which affects the overall readability of the manuscript.

As an example: line 78 '.... South Asian countries that placing it in the 3rd 78 positioned country after Pakistan' should probably read'.... South Asian countries which places it in the third position after Pakistan'. There are several other instances of incomplete and ungrammatical sentences, for example line 79, 90, 92, 140-142 all in the introduction require language editing.

Other than that, the manuscript is sound.

Response: Thank you for your appreciations and suggestions. As per your advice one of our colleague, who is native in English (Dr Helen Findlay, not listed in the author’ list) edited the manuscript to correct grammar, and improve readability, clarity and quality of the contents.

Reviewer #2:

In the present work entitled “Trends in, and projections of under-5 mortality (U5M) in Bangladesh: effects of maternal high-risk fertility behaviors and healthcare service utilization on U5M”, authors presented important aspects with sound analytical explanations for the policymakers. Here, the authors projected the under-5 mortality (U5M) in Bangladesh and explored its associations with maternal high-risk fertility behaviors and utilization of available healthcare services. The authors presented a very sound analytical piece of work, and then justified its significance using the real-life application.

Response: Thank you for your appreciations

I have a major concern, which needs to be addressed in the manuscript.

In line no. 152, authors used the information obtained from the women that “Did you give birth to any children within five years”. In the situations of twins and multiple births within 5 years, how the additional information “Is the child alive?” addresses the living status of children.

Authors should elaborate their explanations of outcome variables for a more practical situation and also how the model incorporated those aspects.

Response: The respondents were asked follow-up questions for every child if they have given birth to multiple children within 5 years prior to the survey date. All the predictors are taken in the model was based on existing global literature.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Russell Kabir

15 Jan 2021

Trends and projections of under-5 mortality in Bangladesh including the effects of maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services

PONE-D-20-29506R1

Dear Dr. Islam,

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,

Russell Kabir, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Russell Kabir

22 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-29506R1

Trends and projections of under-5 mortality in Bangladesh including the effects of maternal high-risk fertility behaviours and use of healthcare services

Dear Dr. Islam:

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. Russell Kabir

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 Table. Information on model fittings of linear regression model.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Information about plotting of Figs 1 and 2.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying this study (BDHSs, 1993-2014) are owned by a third party. However, the authors had no special access privileges and other researchers may access the data in the same manner from the MEASURE DHS Archive via the instructions included in the following link: http://dhsprogram.com/data/Using-Datasets-for-Analysis.cfm.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES