Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 23;16(3):e0248976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248976

Timely initiation of breastfeeding and associated factors among mothers having children less than two years of age in sub-Saharan Africa: A multilevel analysis using recent Demographic and Health Surveys data

Achamyeleh Birhanu Teshale 1,*, Getayeneh Antehunegn Tesema 1
Editor: Bárbara Hatzlhoffer Lourenço2
PMCID: PMC7987153  PMID: 33755702

Abstract

Background

Despite the significant advantages of timely initiation of breastfeeding (TIBF), many countries particularly low- and middle-income countries have failed to initiate breastfeeding on time for their newborns. Optimal breastfeeding is one of the key components of the SDG that may help to achieve reduction of under-five mortality to 25 deaths per 1000 live births.

Objective

To assess the pooled prevalence and associated factors of timely initiation of breastfeeding among mothers having children less than two years of age in sub-Saharan Africa.

Methods

We used pooled data from the 35 sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). We used a total weighted sample of 101,815 women who ever breastfeed and who had living children under 2 years of age. We conducted the multilevel logistic regression and variables with p<0.05, in the multivariable analysis, were declared significantly associated with TIBF.

Results

The pooled prevalence of TIBF in SSA was 58.3% [95%CI; 58.0–58.6%] with huge variation between countries, ranging from 24% in Chad to 86% in Burundi. Both individual and community level variables were associated with TIBF. Among individual-level factors; being older-aged mothers, having primary education, being from wealthier households, exposure to mass media, being multiparous, intended pregnancy, delivery at a health facility, vaginal delivery, single birth, and average size of the child at birth were associated with higher odds of TIBF. Of community-level factors, rural place of residence, higher community level of ANC utilization, and health facility delivery were associated with higher odds of TIBF.

Conclusion

In this study, the prevalence of TIBF in SSA was low. Both individual and community-level factors were associated with TIBF. The authors recommend interventions at both individual and community levels to increase ANC utilization as well as health facility delivery that are crucial for advertising optimal breastfeeding practices such as TIBF.

Background

Breastfeeding is one of the effective interventions that can reduce 55% to 87% of neonatal mortality and morbidity, particularly due to infections like diarrhea, neonatal sepsis, and pneumonia [15]. Globally, optimal breastfeeding can avoid the deaths of more than 800,000 under-fives annually. In lower and middle-income countries, an estimated 13% of all child deaths can be prevented if optimal breastfeeding is practiced [6]. Timely initiation of breastfeeding (TIBF) is giving breast milk to the newborn within one hour of birth [5]. This enables the newborn to take colostrum, which stimulates milk production and promote oxytocin release. In addition, taking colostrum helps the newborn to get protective factors such as antibodies [7]. TIBF can also facilitate bonding between the mother and her baby, reduce the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, and ensure longer breastfeeding duration [8, 9]. Furthermore, TIBF reduces about 22% of neonatal deaths [1].

Despite the major public health implication of TIBF, many countries (especially low and middle-income countries) failed to initiate breastfeeding promptly for their newborns [10, 11]. Every year, in the world, about half of the newborns do not get breast milk in the first hour after delivery [12]. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the prevalence of TIBF is 52.83% ranging from 17% in Guinea to 95% in Malawi [13, 14].

Studies conducted elsewhere revealed that factors such as maternal age, maternal education, wealth status, maternal occupation, place of birth, antenatal care (ANC) visit, mode of delivery, pregnancy intention, size of the child at birth, and place of residence are associated with TIBF [10, 1521].

By 2030, the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) aimed to reduce under-five mortality to 25 deaths per 1000 live births and one of the best strategy to achieve this plan is through increasing optimal feeding habits among children [22]. Besides, the 2010 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) identified suboptimal breastfeeding practice as the top three leading contributors of disease in Sub Saharan Africa [23]. The number of studies undertaken in sub-Saharan Africa did not involve the community-level factors related to TIBF. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the pooled prevalence and associated factors of timely initiation of breastfeeding in sub-Saharan Africa. The findings of this study could help policymakers to make a wise decision regarding optimal breastfeeding practices such as TIBF.

Methods

Data source

We used pooled data from the 35 SSA countries Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), which were conducted from 2008–2019. All these surveys used a stratified two-stage cluster sampling technique. The most recent DHS data was selected for analysis from each country specifically for those countries that have more than one surveys. For our study, we used kids data set with a total weighted sample of 101,815 women who ever breastfeed and who had living children under 2 years of age.

Variables of the study

Dependent variable

The outcome variable was timely initiation of breastfeeding and it is giving breast milk to the newborn within one hour of birth. It was measured based on maternal report and coded as 1 "if the mother initiated breast milk within 1 hour" and 0 "otherwise".

Independent variables

Both individual and community level independent variables were incorporated in this study. The individual-level factors used in this study were; maternal age, maternal education, maternal occupation, marital status, household wealth status, mass media exposure, parity, pregnancy intention, ANC visit, place of delivery, mode of delivery, type of birth, size of the child at birth, and sex of the child. The Six community-level variables included were; place of residence, community-level media exposure, community level of women education, community poverty level, community level of ANC utilization, and community level of delivery at a health facility. The community-level factors (community level media exposure, community level of women education, community level of ANC utilization, community level of poverty, and community level of delivery at a health facility) were generated by aggregating individual-level factors, as these factors were not directly found from surveys (Table 1).

Table 1. Categories/Description of independent variables.
Variables Categorization and description of variables
Individual-level variables
Maternal age It is the current age of women categorized as 15–19, 20–14, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, 40–44, and 45–49 in the DHS data set.
Maternal education The level of education a woman achieved and categorized as no education, primary, secondary, and tertiary and above education
Maternal occupation It is based on the working status of women and categorized in to working and not working
Marital status The current marital status re-categorized as married and unmarried
Household wealth status It is categorized as first (lowest), second, third (middle), fourth, and fifth (highest) wealth quantiles
Mass media exposure Generated by combining whether a respondent reads the newspaper, listens to the radio, and watch television and coded as "yes" if the mother was exposed to at least one of the three media and "no" otherwise.
Parity Re-categorized as Primiparous, multiparous, grand multiparous
Pregnancy intention Re-categorized as intended (if the pregnancy was wanted) and unintended (incorporated both mistimed and unintended)
ANC visit It is the number of ANC visits for the last pregnancy and re-categorized as no visit, 1 to 3 visit, and 4 & above visits
Place of delivery The place where the mother gave the last birth and re-categorized as delivery at home and health facility
Mode of delivery The route of delivery, which is categorized as delivery by cesarean section and delivery through vagina
Type of birth Re-categorized as single and multiple (if the mother gave 2 or more child during the last birth)
Size of the child at birth This is based on the maternal report about the size of the recent child and re-categorized as average, small, and large-sized baby
sex of the child The sex of the last child and re-categorized as male and female
Community-level variables
Place of residence The area where the women live and categorized as rural residence and urban residence
Community-level of media exposure A community-level variable measured by the proportion of women who had exposed to at least one media; television, radio, or newspaper and categorized based on national median value as low (communities with ≤ 50% of women exposed) and high (communities with >50% of women exposed) community-level media exposure.
Community-level of women education Aggregate values measured by the proportion of women with a minimum of primary level of education derived from data on respondents’ level of education. Then, it was categorized using national median value to values: low (communities with ≤ 50% of women have at least primary education) and high (communities with > 50% of women have at least primary education) community level of women education.
Community-level health facility delivery Aggregate values measured by the proportion of women with health facility delivery and recoded as low (communities with ≤ 50% of women delivered at the health facility) and high (communities with >50% of women have delivered at health facility) community level of health facility delivery.
Community-level ANC utilization Aggregate values measured by the proportion of women with a minimum of four or more ANC visits. We categorized it using national median value to values: low (communities with ≤ 50% of women have at four ANC visits) and high (communities with > 50% of women have at least four ANC visits) community level of ANC utilization.
Community poverty level Aggregated variable from household wealth status (proportion of women from the first and second quantiles) and like the above community-level variables, it was recoded as low and high community poverty level.

Data management and statistical analysis

Appending data, extraction, re-coding, and statistical analysis were performed using Stata version 14 software. Sample weight was applied to adjust over or under sampling and we used the SVY command to account for the complex survey design and generalizability [24]. Because of the hierarchical nature of the DHS data, we conducted the multilevel analysis. While doing the multilevel analysis, we fitted four models: the null model (with only the outcome variable), Model I (containing individual-level factors only), model II (fitted with community-level factors only), and Model III (fitted with both individual and community-level factors). To examine clustering and the extent to which community-level factors explain the unexplained variance of the null model, the Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), a proportional change in variance (PCV), and median odds ratio (MOR) were checked. Model fitness was checked by deviance and the model with the lowest deviance was used as the best-fitted model. Variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to assess Multicollinearity and there was no Multicollinearity between independent variables, with a mean VIF of 1.81 (the minimum and the maximum VIF was 1.01 and 3.96 respectively). The bivariable analysis was used to select eligible variables for multivariable analysis (variables with a p-value <0.20 were eligible). Then, in the multivariable analysis, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% Confidence interval (CI) were reported, and variables with p<0.05 in the multivariable analysis were declared to be significantly associated with TIBF.

Ethical consideration

Since this is a secondary DHS data analysis, ethical approval was not required. However, from the DHS online archive (www.dhsprogram.com), we requested the DHS datasets, obtained permission to access, and download the data files.

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents and newborns

The majority of the study participants were from Benin followed by the Democratic Republic of Congo (S1 Table). The median age of the respondents was 27 (IQR = 22–32) years. Most (59.54%) of the participants had some formal education and 48.19% of respondents were multiparous. Greater than half (53.64%) of respondents had four or more ANC visits and more than two-thirds (69.92%) of the respondents gave birth at the health facility. The majority (95.13%) of women gave birth through the vagina and 98.30% of the mother gave a single birth. Regarding place of residence, most (69.11%) of women were rural dwellers (Table 2).

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents and newborns.

Variables Frequency (N = 101,815) Percentage (%)
Individual-level variables
Maternal age (years)
 15–19 10705 10.51
 20–24 25489 25.03
 25–29 27384 26.90
 30–34 19628 19.28
 35–39 12638 12.41
 40–44 4871 4.78
 45–49 1100 1.08
Maternal educational
 No education 41190 40.46
 Primary 33692 33.09
 Secondary 24125 23.69
 Tertiary and above 2808 2.76
Marital status
 Married 89572 87.97
 Unmarried 12243 12.03
Maternal occupation
 Working 70423 69.17
 Not working 31392 30.83
Wealth quantiles
 First 22984 22.57
 Second 22138 21.74
 Third 20699 20.33
 Fourth 19476 19.13
 Fifth 16518 16.22
Mass media exposure
 No 37163 36.50
 Yes 64652 63.50
Parity
 Primiparous 21891 21.50
 Multiparous 49061 48.19
 Grand multiparous 30863 30.31
Pregnancy intention
 Intended 73785 72.47
 Unintended 28030 27.53
ANC visits
 No visit 9979 9.80
 1 to 3 visit 37219 36.56
 4 & above visits 54617 53.64
Place of delivery
 Home 30628 30.08
 Health facility 71187 69.92
Mode of delivery
 Cesarean section 4957 4.87
 Vaginal 96858 95.13
Type of birth
 Single 100083 98.30
 Multiple 1732 1.70
Size of the child at birth
 Average 49773 48.89
 Small 16316 16.03
 Large 35726 35.09
Sex of child
 Male 51292 50.38
 Female 50522 49.62
Community-level variables
Residence
 Urban 31448 30.89
 Rural 70367 69.11
Community-level of women education
 Low 50465 49.57
 High 51350 50.43
Community poverty level
 Low 51209 50.30
 High 50606 49.70
Community-level ANC utilization
 Low 50179 49.28
 High 51636 50.72
Community-level delivery at a health facility
 Low 50670 49.77
 High 51145 50.23
Community-level of media exposure
 Low 50885 49.98
 High 50930 50.02

Prevalence of timely initiation of breastfeeding in sub-Saharan Africa

The pooled prevalence of timely initiation of breastfeeding in SSA was 58.3% [95%CI; 58.0–58.6%] with huge variation between countries, ranging from 24% [95%CI; 23–25%] in Chad to 86% [95%CI; 85–87%] in Burundi (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Forest plot showing the pooled prevalence of TIBF in SSA countries.

Fig 1

Factors associated with timely initiation of breastfeeding in sub-Saharan Africa

Fixed effect analysis

We used the final model (Model III) to assess the factors associated with TIBF in SSA. All independent variables were eligible for multivariable analysis since all had a p-value <0.20. In the multivariable multilevel analysis, both individual and community-level variables were associated with TIBF. The odds of TIBF was higher among mothers whose age was 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, 40–44, and 45–49 years as compared to those mothers whose age was young (15–19 years). The odds of TIBF was 1.25 [AOR = 1.25; 95%CI: 1.19–1.31] times higher among mothers who had primary education compared to those who had no formal education. Those mothers who were from households with third, fourth, and fifth wealth quantiles had 1.12 [AOR = 1.12; 95%CI: 1.05–1.20], 1.17 [AOR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.08–1.25], and 1.36 [AOR = 1.36; 95%CI: 1.24–1.49] times higher odds of TIBF as compared to those from households with first wealth quantile. Mothers who have been exposed to mass media had 12% [AOR = 0.88; 95%CI: 0.83–0.92] lower odds of TIBF as compared to their counterparts. The odds of TIBF was 1.15 [AOR = 1.15; 95%CI: 1.09–1.22] times higher among multiparous women as compared to Primiparous women. Regarding pregnancy intention, mothers whose pregnancy was unintended had 7% [AOR = 0.93; 95%CI: 0.89–0.98] lower odds of TIBF as compared to those whose pregnancy was intended. Looking at the place and mode of delivery, mothers who were delivered at the health facility and those who were delivered through cesarean section had 1.73 [AOR = 1.73; 95%CI: 1.64–1.83] times higher and 72% [AOR = 0.28; 95%CI: 0.25–0.31] lower odds of TIBF respectively as compared to their counterparts. The odds of TIBF was 27% [AOR = 0.73; 95%CI: 0.63–0.83] lower among mothers who gave multiple births as compared to those who gave a single birth. Mothers who gave small and large-sized babies had 23% [AOR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.73–0.81] and 17% [AOR = 0.83; 95%CI: 0.79–0.87] lower odds of TIBF respectively as compared to those who gave the average-sized baby. Among community-level factors, mothers from the rural area had 1.43 [AOR = 1.43; 95%CI: 1.33–1.53] times higher odds of TIBF as compared with those from urban areas. Mothers from communities with higher community levels of ANC utilization and health facility delivery had 1.08 [AOR = 1.08; 95%CI: 1.02–1.14] and 1.10 [AOR = 1.10; 95%CI: 1.03–1.17] times higher odds of TIBF respectively as compared with their counterparts (Table 3).

Table 3. Multivariable multilevel analysis for factors associated with TIBF in SSA.
Variables Null model Model I AOR[95%CI] Model II AOR[95%CI] Model III AOR[95%CI]
Maternal age (years)
 15–19 1.00 1.00
 20–24 1.09[1.02–1.17] 1.09[1.01–1.17] *
 25–29 1.21[1.11–1.31] 1.21[1.11–1.31] ***
 30–34 1.26[1.15–1.38] 1.26[1.15–1.38] ***
 35–39 1.30[1.17–1.45] 1.31[1.17–1.45] ***
 40–44 1.31[1.16–1.49] 1.32[1.16–1.49] ***
 45–49 1.29[1.04–1.58] 1.28[1.04–1.58] *
Maternal educational
 No education 1.00 1.00
 Primary 1.24[1.18–1.30] 1.25[1.19–1.31] ***
 Secondary 0.95[0.89–1.01] 0.99[0.94–1.06]
 Tertiary and above 0.95[0.83–1.08] 1.01[0.87–1.14]
Marital status
 Married 0.92[0.87–0.98] 0.90[0.82–1.01]
 Unmarried 1.00 1.00
Maternal occupation
 Working 0.87[0.83–0.91] 0.86[0.77–1.02]
 Not working 1.00 1.00
Household wealth quantiles
 First 1.00 1.00
 Second 1.02[0.96–1.09] 1.03[0.97–1.09]
 Third 1.08[1.02–1.15] 1.12[1.05–1.20] ***
 Fourth 1.04[0.97–1.12] 1.17[1.08–1.25] ***
 Fifth 1.10[1.01–1.19] 1.36[1.24–1.49] ***
Mass media exposure
 No 1.00 1.00
 Yes 0.86[0.82–0.91] 0.88[0.83–0.92] ***
Parity
 Primiparous 1.00 1.00
 Multiparous 1.13[1.07–1.20] 1.15[1.09–1.22] ***
 Grand multiparous 1.03[0.95–1.12] 1.03[0.95–1.12]
Pregnancy intention
 Intended 1.00 1.00
 Unintended 0.93[0.89–0.97] 0.93[0.89–0.98] **
ANC visits
 No visit 1.00
 1 to 3 visit 1.01[0.93–1.09] 0.99[0.92–1.09]
 4 & above visits 1.01[0.93–1.09] 1.01[0.93–1.09]
Place of delivery
 Home 1.00 1.00
 Health facility 1.68[1.60–1.77] 1.73[1.64–1.83] ***
Mode of delivery
 Cesarean section 0.28[0.25–0.30] 0.28[0.25–0.31] ***
 Vaginal 1.00 1.00
Type of birth
 Single 1.00 1.00
 Multiple 0.72[0.63–0.83] 0.73[0.63–0.83] ***
Size of the child at birth
 Average 1.00 1.00
 Small 0.77[0.73–0.81] 0.77[0.73–0.81] ***
 Large 0.82[0.79–0.86] 0.83[0.79–0.87] ***
Sex of child
 Male 1.00 1.00
 Female 1.03[0.99–1.06] 1.02[0.99–1.06]
Residence
 Urban 1.00 1.00
 Rural 1.21[1.14–1.28] 1.43[1.33–1.53] ***
Community-level of women education
 Low 1.00 1.00
 High 1.01[0.96–1.07] 1.01[0.95–1.06]
Community poverty level
 Low 1.00 1.00
 High 0.99[0.94–1.05] 1.01[0.95–1.07]
Community-level ANC utilization
 Low 1.00 1.00
 High 1.08[1.02–1.14] 1.08[1.02–1.14] *
Community-level delivery at the health facility
 Low 1.00 1.00
 High 1.01[0.95–1.07] 1.10[1.03–1.17] **
Community-level of media exposure
 Low 1.00 1.00
 High 1.01[0.94–1.05] 1.02[0.97–1.09]

Note:

*** = p<0.001,

** = p≤0.01,

* = pvalue<0.05.

Random effect analysis

Table 4 revealed the random effect analysis. The ICC and the MOR in the null model support the presence of significant variations of TIBF between clusters and countries. For example, the higher MOR value (1.37) in the null model indicates that if we randomly choose women from two different clusters, a woman from a cluster with higher rates of TIBF had 1.37 times higher odds of TIBF as compared to a woman who came from a cluster with lower rates of TIBF. Furthermore, the higher PCV in the final model revealed most of the variations of TIBF were attributable to both individual and community-level factors. Moreover, as shown in Table 4, the best-fitted model was the final model (model III) since it had the lowest deviance (Table 4).

Table 4. Random effect analysis and model fitness for assessing factors associated with TIBF in SSA.
Parameters Null model Model I Model II Model III
Community level variance[SE] 0.111[0.010] 0.109[0.010] 0.103[0.009] 0.102[0.009]
ICC 0.033 0.032 0.030 0.030
MOR 1.37[1.34–142] 1.36[1.33–1.41] 1.35[1.32–1.39] 1.35[1.32–1.39]
PCV Reference 0.02 0.07 0.08
Model fitness
Log-likelihood -69112.78 -67283.28 -69023.89 -67087.79
Deviance 138225.56 134566.56 138047.78 134175.58

Discussion

This study aimed to assess timely initiation of breastfeeding and associated factors in SSA using multilevel analysis. The pooled prevalence of TIBF in SSA was 58.3%. When we compared with different individual studies, this figure is in line with studies conducted in Ethiopia and Western Nepal [15, 25]. The finding is higher than the findings from SSA, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh [14, 2628]. The prevalence found in this study is lower than studies conducted in Ethiopia [29] and Nepal [30]. The divergence of this finding from other studies may be attributable to discrepancies in access to health facilities between countries. The other possible reason may be due to the variations in sociodemographic features, and socio-cultural practices between countries. The difference in sample size (since most of the studies were based on a single country) and study period might be the other possible explanation of the discrepancy between our findings and other studies’ findings.

In the multilevel multivariable analysis, both individual and community-level factors were associated with TIBF. Being in the older age group had higher odds of TIBF as compared with the younger age group. This is in concordance with studies done in Tanzania [17]. This is because older mothers might have experience in everything during previous pregnancies and childbirths and more likely to be exposed to information regarding optimal breastfeeding practices [31]. Mothers who had formal education were more likely to start breastfeeding timely for their newborns. This is consistent with studies done in Nigeria and Tanzania [16, 17, 30]. This may be because education plays an important role in shifting mothers’ views and behaviors about breastfeeding, maximizing ANC follow-up and raising the probability of delivery at health institutions [32, 33]. The impact of education may also be explained by the possibility that educated mothers would readily receive and comprehend health promotion messages such as infant feeding styles [34, 35].

Consistent with studies conducted elsewhere [1820], mothers from third, fourth, and fifth household wealth quantiles had higher odds of TIBF as compared with mothers from the first household wealth quantile. This might be because mothers from wealthy households have easy access to education and maternal health care services such as institutional delivery services that enforce the practice of TIBF [36, 37].

Mothers who have been exposed to mass media had lower odds of TIBF as compared to their counterparts. This might be due to the aggressive advertising of infant formula feedings, milk substitutes, teats, and bottles in different media recently [38, 39]. This may also mean that these media (radio, television, and newspaper) were not readily available and sufficient to encourage appropriate breastfeeding practices. However, the authors suggest further inquiry in this regard.

The study at hand also revealed that multiparous women were more likely to start breastfeeding timely as compared to Primiparous mothers. This is in agreement with the findings of different studies conducted in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and low and middle-income countries [15, 19, 4042]. This could be because if a mother has more birth experience, it is more probable that the next baby would be put in the breast within 1 hour of birth, as through her successive pregnancies and deliveries the mother will be exposed to information on appropriate breastfeeding practices [43].

Delivery at the health facility was associated with higher odds of TIBF, in this study. This is in concordance with studies done in Ethiopia [21, 29], Tanzania [44], and Nepal [30]. This is an expected finding since many of the Health Care Centers and Hospitals already have certified midwives or any other qualified professionals available to enable and assist the mother to start breastfeeding early during childbirth.

Mode of delivery was another factor that was associated with TIBF in this study. Mothers who gave birth by cesarean section had lower odds of TIBF as compared to those who gave birth vaginally. This is in line with studies done in Ethiopia [21, 45], Nigeria [19], Turkey [46], Saudi Arabia [47], Lebanon [48], Brazil [49], and India [28]. The possible explanation is both the newborn delivered by cesarean section and the mothers who gave birth by cesarean section typically remain under various obstetric-related health conditions such as general anesthesia effect, pain, and fatigue [50]. This finding can also be attributed to long postoperative care, which delays mother-baby contact [51]. This result suggests that midwives should be aware of the negative relationship between cesarean delivery and breastfeeding initiation to mitigate delayed breastfeeding initiation in mothers with cesarean delivery.

Mothers with unintended pregnancies were less likely to initiate breastfeeding within 1 hour. This is in agreement with a study done in Ethiopia [52]. The possible reason may be mothers with unintended pregnancies are less likely to utilize maternal health services and due to this, they might not gain information regarding appropriate breastfeeding practices [53]. Moreover, women who experienced mistimed pregnancy might lose support from their families or partners for good healthcare-seeking behaviors of their children [54].

In this study, the type of birth was significantly associated with TIBF. Mothers with multiple births were less likely to initiate breastfeeding within 1 hour. This finding is supported by a study conducted in low and middle-income countries [41]. The possible explanation is mothers with multiple pregnancy are more likely to give birth by a cesarean section [55], which in turn increase delayed initiation of breastfeeding.

Congruent with studies conducted in low and middle-income countries [41], Namibia [56], and Zimbabwe [42], being mothers with small and large-sized babies at birth was associated with lower odds of TIBF as compared to mothers who gave an average-sized baby. The reason behind this might be, in most cases, babies with abnormal weights might be separated from their mothers for longer periods after delivery as they may suffer from other comorbid conditions that need intervention [57]. This separation results in the babies not being able to access breast milk early.

Moreover, community-level factors were associated with TIBF. Mothers from rural areas had higher odds of TIBF. This is a surprising finding that is in line with a study done in Zimbabwe [42] and Malawi [58]. The plausible explanation is the extended health extension program in remote areas to encourage women of reproductive age to utilize maternal health services [59], which in turn helps them to gain information regarding optimal breastfeeding practices. However, it is an unusual finding and we recommend a further investigation in this regard.

Antenatal care and institutional delivery are the best opportunity to promote and educate mothers on essential healthy behaviors like appropriate newborn feeding practices [60]. The study at hand also revealed that, the higher number of women who had ANC visits and who gave birth at the health facility in a community, the more likely to develop a norm that encourages appropriate breastfeeding practices for the newborns such as TIBF. This suggests that improving community participation to increase maternal and child health service utilization can improve optimal breastfeeding practices, such as early breastfeeding initiation [21, 61].

The current study was conducted in SSA by using a multilevel analytical approach, which identifies factors associated with TIBF at both individual and community levels. Moreover, the results are representative of the entire SSA countries because we used appropriate analysis techniques such as weighting and multilevel analysis to get appropriate statistical estimates. Therefore, this study could help policymakers and responsible bodies to plan appropriate strategies and implement interventions. Despite the use of the nationally-representative data of each country, the study was not without limitation. Since the outcome was assessed based on the maternal report, there is a possibility of recall bias. Besides, the DHS did not collect some information such as maternal beliefs and knowledge towards breastfeeding so there may be residual confounding. In addition, we are unable to do a three level analysis, to account the country level heterogeneity, due to the convergence problem. Moreover, since it was a cross-sectional study, we are unable to show the cause and effect relationship between TIBF and independent variables.

Conclusion

The prevalence of TIBF in SSA was low, considering the huge variation between countries and according to the WHO recommendation that all babies should benefit from breastfeeding early in life. Both individual and community level variables were associated with TIBF. Therefore, emphasis should be given to young women, women with poor socioeconomic status, mothers with lower parity, mothers who delivered by cesarean section, women who gave birth at home, and mothers who gave multiple births to plan appropriate strategies and implement interventions.

Supporting information

S1 Table. The 35 SSA countries used for analysis and their sample size.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

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

Abbreviations

ANC

Antenatal Care

DHS

Demographic and Health Surveys

ICC

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient

MOR

Median Odds Ratio

PCV

Proportional Change in Variance

SSA

Sub Saharan Africa

TIBF

Timely Initiation of Breastfeeding

VIF

Variance inflation factor

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Edmond KM, Kirkwood BR, Amenga-Etego S, Owusu-Agyei S, Hurt LS. Effect of early infant feeding practices on infection-specific neonatal mortality: an investigation of the causal links with observational data from rural Ghana. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2007;86(4):1126–31. 10.1093/ajcn/86.4.1126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. Collaborative Study Team on the Role of Breastfeeding on the Prevention of Infant Mortality. Effect of breastfeeding on infant and child mortality due to infectious diseases in less developed countries: a pooled analysis. Lancet. 2000. February;355(9202):451–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Darmstadt GL, Bhutta ZA, Cousens S, Adam T, Walker N, De Bernis L, Lancet Neonatal Survival Steering Team. Evidence-based, cost-effective interventions: how many newborn babies can we save?. The Lancet. 2005. March 12;365(9463):977–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lamberti LM, Walker CL, Noiman A, Victora C, Black RE. Breastfeeding and the risk for diarrhea morbidity and mortality. BMC public health. 2011. December;11(3):1–2. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.WHO. Breastfeeding-early initiation: World Health Organization; 2012 [updated 2012]. http://www.who.int/elena/titles/early_breastfeeding/en/ Accessed 5 April 2013.
  • 6.WHO. 10 facts on breastfeeding. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012. www.who.int/features/factfiles/breastfeeding/en/.
  • 7.Organization WH. Guiding principles for feeding infants and young children during emergencies: World Health Organization; 2004.
  • 8.Brandtzaeg P. Mucosal immunity: integration between mother and the breast-fed infant. Vaccine. 2003;21(24):3382–8. 10.1016/s0264-410x(03)00338-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Goldman AS. Modulation of the gastrointestinal tract of infants by human milk. Interfaces and interactions. An evolutionary perspective. The Journal of nutrition. 2000;130(2):426S–31S. 10.1093/jn/130.2.426S [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Patel A, Bucher S, Pusdekar Y, Esamai F, Krebs NF, Goudar SS, et al. Rates and determinants of early initiation of breastfeeding and exclusive breast feeding at 42 days postnatal in six low and middle-income countries: a prospective cohort study. Reproductive Health. 2015;12(S2):S10. 10.1186/1742-4755-12-S2-S10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Unicef. The State of the World’s Children 2015: Reimaging the Future: Innovation for Every Child. Executive Summary: Unicef; 2015.
  • 12.Organization WH. Reaching the every newborn national 2020 milestones: country progress, plans and moving forward. 2017.
  • 13.Bee M, Shiroor A, Hill Z. Neonatal care practices in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition. 2018;37(1):1–12. 10.1186/s41043-018-0141-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Issaka AI, Agho KE, Renzaho AM. Prevalence of key breastfeeding indicators in 29 sub-Saharan African countries: a meta-analysis of demographic and health surveys (2010–2015). BMJ open. 2017;7(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ekubay M, Berhe A, Yisma E. Initiation of breastfeeding within one hour of birth among mothers with infants younger than or equal to 6 months of age attending public health institutions in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. International breastfeeding journal. 2018;13(1):4. 10.1186/s13006-018-0146-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Yahya WB, Adebayo SB. Modelling the Trend and Determinants of Breastfeeding Initiation in Nigeria. Child Development Research. 2013;2013:1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Victor R, Baines SK, Agho KE, Dibley MJ. Determinants of breastfeeding indicators among children less than 24 months of age in Tanzania: a secondary analysis of the 2010 Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey. BMJ open. 2013;3(1). 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mihrshahi S, Kabir I, Roy SK, Agho KE, Senarath U, Dibley MJ, et al. Determinants of infant and young child feeding practices in Bangladesh: secondary data analysis of Demographic and Health Survey 2004. Food and nutrition bulletin. 2010;31(2):295–313. 10.1177/156482651003100220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Berde AS, Yalcin SS. Determinants of early initiation of breastfeeding in Nigeria: a population-based study using the 2013 demograhic and health survey data. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2016;16(1):32. 10.1186/s12884-016-0818-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tilahun G, Degu G, Azale T, Tigabu A. Prevalence and associated factors of timely initiation of breastfeeding among mothers at Debre Berhan town, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. International breastfeeding journal. 2016;11(1):27. 10.1186/s13006-016-0086-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Belachew A. Timely initiation of breastfeeding and associated factors among mothers of infants age 0–6 months old in Bahir Dar City, Northwest, Ethiopia, 2017: a community based cross-sectional study. International breastfeeding journal. 2019;14(1):5. 10.1186/s13006-018-0196-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.UNICEF. Progress for every child in the SDG era. New York; 2018. https://www.unicef.org/media/56516/file.
  • 23.Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The lancet. 2012;380(9859):2224–60. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.The DHS Program. Sampling and Weighting with DHS Data. Sep 2015. Avialable at https://blog.dhsprogram.com/sampling-weighting-at-dhs/
  • 25.Sreeramareddy CT, Joshi HS, Sreekumaran BV, Giri S, Chuni N. Home delivery and newborn care practices among urban women in western Nepal: a questionnaire survey. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2006;6(1):27. 10.1186/1471-2393-6-27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hanif HM. Trends in breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices in Pakistan, 1990–2007. International Breastfeeding Journal. 2011;6(1):1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Haider R, Rasheed S, Sanghvi TG, Hassan N, Pachon H, Islam S, et al. Breastfeeding in infancy: identifying the program-relevant issues in Bangladesh. International Breastfeeding Journal. 2010;5(1):21. 10.1186/1746-4358-5-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Patel A, Banerjee A, Kaletwad A. Factors associated with prelacteal feeding and timely initiation of breastfeeding in hospital-delivered infants in India. Journal of Human Lactation. 2013;29(4):572–8. 10.1177/0890334412474718 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Alebel A, Dejenu G, Mullu G, Abebe N, Gualu T, Eshetie S. Timely initiation of breastfeeding and its association with birth place in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International breastfeeding journal. 2017;12(1):44. 10.1186/s13006-017-0133-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Adhikari M, Khanal V, Karkee R, Gavidia T. Factors associated with early initiation of breastfeeding among Nepalese mothers: further analysis of Nepal Demographic and Health Survey, 2011. International breastfeeding journal. 2014;9(1):21. 10.1186/s13006-014-0021-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.DiGirolamo AM, Grummer-Strawn LM, Fein S. Maternity care practices: implications for breastfeeding. Birth. 2001;28(2):94–100. 10.1046/j.1523-536x.2001.00094.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yaya S, Bishwajit G, Ekholuenetale M, Shah V, Kadio B, Udenigwe O. Factors associated with maternal utilization of health facilities for delivery in Ethiopia. International Health. 2018;10(4):310–7. 10.1093/inthealth/ihx073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dankwah E, Zeng W, Feng C, Kirychuk S, Farag M. The social determinants of health facility delivery in Ghana. Reproductive health. 2019;16(1):101. 10.1186/s12978-019-0753-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.McKinn S, Linh DT, Foster K, McCaffery K. Distributed health literacy in the maternal health context in Vietnam. HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(1):e31–e42. 10.3928/24748307-20190102-01 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jiang H, Li M, Wen LM, Hu Q, Yang D, He G, et al. Effect of short message service on infant feeding practice: findings from a community-based study in Shanghai, China. JAMA pediatrics. 2014;168(5):471–8. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.58 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tey N-P, Lai S-l. Correlates of and barriers to the utilization of health services for delivery in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The Scientific World Journal. 2013;2013. 10.1155/2013/423403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Arba MA, Darebo TD, Koyira MM. Institutional delivery service utilization among women from rural districts of Wolaita and Dawro zones, southern Ethiopia; a community based cross-sectional study. PloS one. 2016;11(3):e0151082. 10.1371/journal.pone.0151082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Organization WH. Marketing of breast-milk substitutes: National implementation of the international code, status report 2018. 2018.
  • 39.Vinje KH, Phan LTH, Nguyen TT, Henjum S, Ribe LO, Mathisen R. Media audit reveals inappropriate promotion of products under the scope of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes in South-East Asia. Public Health Nutrition. 2017;20(8):1333–42. 10.1017/S1368980016003591 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.El Gilany A, Sarraf B, Al Wehady A. Factors associated with timely initiation of breastfeeding in AI-Hassa province, Saudi Arabia. EMHJ-Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 18 (3), 250–254, 2012. 2012. 10.26719/2012.18.3.250 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Patel A, Bucher S, Pusdekar Y, Esamai F, Krebs NF, Goudar SS, et al. Rates and determinants of early initiation of breastfeeding and exclusive breast feeding at 42 days postnatal in six low and middle-income countries: a prospective cohort study. Reproductive Health. 2015. December 1;12(S2):S10. 10.1186/1742-4755-12-S2-S10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mukora-Mutseyekwa F, Gunguwo H, Mandigo RG, Mundagowa P. Predictors of early initiation of breastfeeding among Zimbabwean women: secondary analysis of ZDHS 2015. Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology. 2019;5(1):2. 10.1186/s40748-018-0097-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rollins NC, Bhandari N, Hajeebhoy N, Horton S, Lutter CK, Martines JC, et al. Why invest, and what it will take to improve breastfeeding practices? The lancet. 2016;387(10017):491–504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Exavery A, Kanté AM, Hingora A, Phillips JF. Determinants of early initiation of breastfeeding in rural Tanzania. International breastfeeding journal. 2015;10(1):27. 10.1186/s13006-015-0052-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mekonen L, Seifu W, Shiferaw Z. Timely initiation of breastfeeding and associated factors among mothers of infants under 12 months in South Gondar zone, Amhara regional state, Ethiopia; 2013. International breastfeeding journal. 2018;13(1):17. 10.1186/s13006-018-0160-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Örün E, Yalçin SS, Madendag Y, Üstünyurt-Eras Z, Kutluk S, Yurdakök K. Factors associated with breastfeeding initiation time in a Baby-Friendly Hospital. The Turkish journal of pediatrics. 2010;52(1):10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dorgham LS, Hafez SK, Kamhawy H, Hassan W. Assessment of initiation of breastfeeding, prevalence of exclusive breast feeding and their predictors in Taif, KSA. Life Sci J. 2014;11(1):1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Batal M, Boulghourjian C, Abdallah A, Afifi R. Breast-feeding and feeding practices of infants in a developing country: a national survey in Lebanon. Public health nutrition. 2006;9(3):313–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Vieira TO, Vieira GO, Giugliani ERJ, Mendes CM, Martins CC, Silva LR. Determinants of breastfeeding initiation within the first hour of life in a Brazilian population: cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Chen C, Yan Y, Gao X, Xiang S, He Q, Zeng G, et al. Influences of cesarean delivery on breastfeeding practices and duration: a prospective cohort study. Journal of Human Lactation. 2018;34(3):526–34. 10.1177/0890334417741434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Regan J, Thompson A, DeFranco E. The influence of mode of delivery on breastfeeding initiation in women with a prior cesarean delivery: a population-based study. Breastfeeding Medicine. 2013;8(2):181–6. 10.1089/bfm.2012.0049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Gebremeskel SG, Gebru TT, Gebrehiwot BG, Meles HN, Tafere BB, Gebreslassie GW, et al. Early initiation of breastfeeding and associated factors among mothers of aged less than 12 months children in rural eastern zone, Tigray, Ethiopia: cross-sectional study. BMC research notes. 2019;12(1):671. 10.1186/s13104-019-4718-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Cheng D, Schwarz EB, Douglas E, Horon I. Unintended pregnancy and associated maternal preconception, prenatal and postpartum behaviors. Contraception. 2009;79(3):194–8. 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Miller BC, Benson B, Galbraith KA. Family relationships and adolescent pregnancy risk: A research synthesis. Developmental review. 2001;21(1):1–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kim B-Y. Factors that influence early breastfeeding of singletons and twins in Korea: a retrospective study. International breastfeeding journal. 2016;12(1):1–10. 10.1186/s13006-016-0094-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ndirangu MN, Gatimu SM, Mwinyi HM, Kibiwott DC. Trends and factors associated with early initiation of breastfeeding in Namibia: analysis of the demographic and health surveys 2000–2013. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2018. December 1;18(1):171. 10.1186/s12884-018-1811-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ng S-K, Olog A, Spinks AB, Cameron CM, Searle J, McClure RJ. Risk factors and obstetric complications of large for gestational age births with adjustments for community effects: results from a new cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):1–10. 10.1186/1471-2458-10-460 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Walters CN, Rakotomanana H, Komakech JJ, Stoecker BJ. Maternal determinants of optimal breastfeeding and complementary feeding and their association with child undernutrition in Malawi (2015–2016). BMC public health. 2019;19(1):1503. 10.1186/s12889-019-7877-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Lewin S, Munabi-Babigumira S, Glenton C, Daniels K, Bosch-Capblanch X, Van Wyk BE, et al. Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2010(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Biks GA, Tariku A, Tessema GA. Effects of antenatal care and institutional delivery on exclusive breastfeeding practice in northwest Ethiopia: a nested case–control study. International breastfeeding journal. 2015;10(1):30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lassi ZS, Das JK, Salam RA, Bhutta ZA. Evidence from community level inputs to improve quality of care for maternal and newborn health: interventions and findings. Reproductive health. 2014;11(S2):S2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bárbara Hatzlhoffer Lourenço

25 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-27660

Timely initiation breastfeeding and its associated factors among mothers with under 24 months living children in Sub Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis using DHS Data from 35 Sub Saharan African countries

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Teshale,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 09 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,

Bárbara Hatzlhoffer Lourenço, Ph.D.

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)

[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: I Don't Know

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: The manuscript submitted by Achamyeleh Birhanu Teshale and Getayeneh Antehunegn Tesema aims to investigate timely initiation breastfeeding and its associated factors in Sub Saharan African countries. This manuscript presents results that would be of interest to the community of scientists and clinicians concerned with delay initiation breastfeeding rates. Prior to publication, the following points should be addressed.

Title:

The title could be more succinct. Note that the location (Sub Saharan Africa) is repeated.

Abstract:

-Please, note that the abstract exceeds the number of words allowed.

-Kindly check if all the factors you described in the results section are community level factors. See that you presented “Among community level factors” and “of community level factors”.

-The conclusion paragraphs repeat the information presented in results.

Background:

-Please, consider if in addition to the ranges it is possible to inform the prevalence of TIBF in SSA.

-Does “Residence” mean area of residence?

-When you explain that previous studies only considered a single country, are you talking about studies performed in Africa? Please review this paragraph. I do not think that the limitation of the previous studies has a connection with the previous sentence.

Methods:

-What exactly does “KR” mean? Kids, what else?

-In the dependent variable paragraph, please, add the definition of TIBF and how it was measured. This information was mentioned in the discussion section (maternal report).

-In the independent variables paragraph, could you please add the categorization used for each variable in the analyses?

-Why did you categorize maternal age in that way? Please, explain the rationale for those ranges. Consider recategorizing the variable into less categories since in the discussion section you describe just "older and younger mothers".

-Please, note that in the independent variables paragraph you said “four community level variables” but there were 5 mentioned (including residence).

-Regarding the community level factors, based on what did you set a 50% cut-off point?

-Please, note that in table 1 you also presented a “Community poverty level” that was not described in methods section.

-In table 3, What does AOR mean? It was not mentioned in statistical analysis section. Besides, is the confidence interval 95%? Please add this information.

Results:

-The following information was given before: “total weighted sample of 101815 women was used for our analysis.”

-Please check the following sentence “Most (40.46%) of the respondents had no formal education” note that most of the participants (59.5% ) had some formal education.

-Observe that the main purpose of the study is to investigate associated factor of TIBF. However, in this section you used the following title: “Determinants of timely initiation of breastfeeding…”

-Concerning “…those from a higher risk cluster had 1.37 times higher odds of TIBF as compared to those individuals who come from the lower risk cluster” Please, clarify what a higher risk refers to? In this case higher odds of TIBF would be beneficial/expected, right? It seems contradictory to talk about higher risk of having 1.37 times higher odds of TIBF. See if you can reformulate the sentence.

-The information given from line 172 to 177 is repeating what was described from line 178 on.

-In table 3, I think that null model column is not necessary.

-Please, review the labels of the categories in the wealth index. You can name the quintiles from the first (lowest) to the fifth (highest), instead of “the lowest and the second quintile”. It will be useful for describing this factor in the results and discussion section.

Discussion and conclusion:

-Please, conclude the first paragraph of the discussion. You compared the results of the study with other literature, but what does 58% of TIBF mean? Does it comply with the recommendation? (WHO reference: Infant and Young Child Feeding. A tool for assessing national practices, policies and programmes. Geneva. 2003).

-The text from line 214 to 219 has already been described in the results section.

-In relation to “This is because educated mothers might have exposure to appropriate breastfeeding practices” could you explain it better?

In relation to “Contrary to our expectation, mothers who have been exposed to media had lower odds of TIBF as compared to their counterparts.” Why “contrary to our expectation”? What about the aggressive advertising of infant formula industry, milk substitutes, teats, and bottles regarding the media?

-The discussion on community levels of ANC utilization and health facility delivery is not clear. Can you give more details and expand the discussion?

-Line 292, determinants of TIBF, or associated factors?

-It is important that the discussion includes not only the comparison of the results with other studies and the authors conclusions, but also the theoretical basis for these conclusions. Please, support all your conclusions with bibliographic references.

-Please, review the conclusion: what was found in the study and the recommended "special emphasis", repeats the information.

References and general comments:

-Please, check all the references and make sure the institutions names are consistently cited. (Organization WH., WHO., World Health Organization, Unicef., UNICEF.?)

-Please, remove the space between lines (for example, between line 56 and 57). Check all the text and make sure the format is consistent.

-Please, avoid the following text structure (mistimed/unintended, inappropriate/suboptimal, physicians/midwives). If possible, choose one word or use “and” when necessary.

-Overall: I recommend editing the text to achieve a more appropriate grammar structure and scientific language.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for the opportunity to review this interesting paper. The paper is well-written the methodology is very clear and the results are well presented. My suggestions are as follows:

Abstract

Line 19 …’despite its major implication…’ perhaps it should read ‘despite THE major implications of…’ – However, I would suggest having this first line revised in its totality.

Methodology

The authors have stated that they selected DHS data from 35 countries. Malawi, for example, has the most recent DHS data in 2015-16, why did the authors choose to analyse the 2011 (which I suppose should be 2010 data) instead of the most recent data?

The analysis is a pooled one, with 35 different countries having their respective weighting variables according to their sample selection. It would be appropriate for the authors to describe whether they generated pooled weights and briefly explain how this was done.

Did the authors check for multicollinearity of their models?

Under the data analysis section, authors aught to mention that adjusted odds ratio and 95% CI were reported…

Results

This is just a 'cosmetic' comment in the presentation of the results: It would look great if the fixed effects are presented first then random effects later thus Table 2 could be Table 3 while the current Table 3 may be changed to Table 2.

Discussion

Line 285-290 – More explanation needed and if possible, provide some refs. Why would women coming from communities with high ANC utilization more likely to develop a norm of early BF initiation?

In the conclusion section, the authors have mention that the prevalence of TIBF was relatively lower, ,, lower compared to what? What are they comparing this prevalence to?

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[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 Mar 23;16(3):e0248976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248976.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Dec 2020

Date: December 2020

Point by point response to editor and reviewers comment

Title: Timely initiation breastfeeding and its associated factors among mothers with under 24 months living children in Sub Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis using DHS Data from 35 Sub Saharan African countries

Manuscript number: PONE-D-20-27660

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

Response to editor comment

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

Author’s response: Thank you. The revised manuscript is prepared according to PLOS ONE's style.

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

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

Response to reviewers comment

Reviewer #1:

1. Title:

The title could be more succinct. Note that the location (Sub Saharan Africa) is repeated.

Author’s response: Thank you for the important comment you raised. We amended the title accordingly in the revised manuscript.

2. Abstract:

-Please, note that the abstract exceeds the number of words allowed.

Author’s response: Thank you. According to PLOS ONE journal submission guideline, the number of words in the abstract should not be above 500 and we prepared based on this and the total words in the abstract is below 500 (around 360) in the revised manuscript.

-Kindly check if all the factors you described in the results section are community level factors. See that you presented “Among community level factors” and “of community level factors”.

Author’s response: Thank you. It was to mean “Among individual level factors” and we amended it in the revised manuscript.

-The conclusion paragraphs repeat the information presented in results.

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider your comment in the revised manuscript.

3. Background:

-Please, consider if in addition to the ranges it is possible to inform the prevalence of TIBF in SSA.

Author’s response: Thank you. We incorporated the prevalence of TIBF in SSA in the revised manuscript (see line 61 & 62).

-Does “Residence” mean area of residence?

Author’s response: Yes, it was to mean “place of residence” or “area of residence” and we amend residence to place of residence in the revised manuscript.

-When you explain that previous studies only considered a single country, are you talking about studies performed in Africa? Please review this paragraph. I do not think that the limitation of the previous studies has a connection with the previous sentence.

Author’s response: Thank you. We amended these statements in the revised manuscript (see line 67-72).

4. Methods:

-What exactly does “KR” mean? Kids, what else?

Author’s response: Thank you. It was to mean Kids data set and in the revised manuscript, we remove the abbreviation since we hope it add nothing.

-In the dependent variable paragraph, please, add the definition of TIBF and how it was measured. This information was mentioned in the discussion section (maternal report).

Author’s response: Thank you. We add the definition of TIBF in the revised manuscript.

-In the independent variables paragraph, could you please add the categorization used for each variable in the analyses?

Author’s response: Thank you. We incorporate the categorization of each variables (see table 1 in the revised manuscript).

-Why did you categorize maternal age in that way? Please, explain the rationale for those ranges. Consider recategorizing the variable into less categories since in the discussion section you describe just "older and younger mothers".

Author’s response: Dear reviewer thank you for raising this important issue. We did not re-categorize the age group for our analysis; we used the DHS categorization as it is. Many studies done on DHS data use this categorization. In addition, in the interpretation and in the discussion section we consider your comment. Dear reviewer we say older age because we compared with younger age groups (all consecutive age groups are older as compared with 15-19 age groups). If this does not convince you, we are open to consider your concern again and categorize to less categories.

-Please, note that in the independent variables paragraph you said “four community level variables” but there were 5 mentioned (including residence).

Author’s response: Thank you. We amend it to read “Six community level variables” in the revised manuscript.

-Regarding the community level factors, based on what did you set a 50% cut-off point?

Author’s response: Since the distribution of the community level variables were not normally distributed (to use the mean value), we used the national median value (50%) as a cut-off point.

-Please, note that in table 1 you also presented a “Community poverty level” that was not described in methods section.

Author’s response: Thank you very much. We consider your comment (we added community poverty level in the revised manuscript, which was missed in the method section).

-In table 3, What does AOR mean? It was not mentioned in statistical analysis section. Besides, is the confidence interval 95%? Please add this information.

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider your comment in the data management and statistical analysis section of the revised manuscript.

5. Results:

-The following information was given before: “total weighted sample of 101815 women was used for our analysis.”

Author’s response: Thank you for the comment. We avoided the redundancy in the revised manuscript.

-Please check the following sentence “Most (40.46%) of the respondents had no formal education” note that most of the participants (59.5% ) had some formal education.

Author’s response: Thank you. We amended it per your recommendation.

-Observe that the main purpose of the study is to investigate associated factor of TIBF. However, in this section you used the following title: “Determinants of timely initiation of breastfeeding…”

Author’s response: Thank you for the comment. We amended to read, “Factors associated with timely initiation of breastfeeding …” in the revised manuscript.

-Concerning “…those from a higher risk cluster had 1.37 times higher odds of TIBF as compared to those individuals who come from the lower risk cluster” Please, clarify what a higher risk refers to? In this case higher odds of TIBF would be beneficial/expected, right? It seems contradictory to talk about higher risk of having 1.37 times higher odds of TIBF. See if you can reformulate the sentence.

Author’s response: Thank you for the comment. We consider your comment and amend accordingly in the revised manuscript (see line 172-175).

-The information given from line 172 to 177 is repeating what was described from line 178 on.

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider your comment and remove redundancy in the revised manuscript.

-In table 3, I think that null model column is not necessary.

Author’s response: Dear reviewer thank you for the comment. It is the case in the multilevel model and if we remove the null model in the table, the table will be incomplete and may mislead the readers. Therefore, we prefer to put it in Table 3. We are open to remove the column showing the null model if you are not still convinced.

-Please, review the labels of the categories in the wealth index. You can name the quintiles from the first (lowest) to the fifth (highest), instead of “the lowest and the second quintile”. It will be useful for describing this factor in the results and discussion section.

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider your comment in the revised manuscript.

6. Discussion and conclusion:

-Please, conclude the first paragraph of the discussion. You compared the results of the study with other literature, but what does 58% of TIBF mean? Does it comply with the recommendation? (WHO reference: Infant and Young Child Feeding. A tool for assessing national practices, policies and programmes. Geneva. 2003).

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider your comment in the revised manuscript

-The text from line 214 to 219 has already been described in the results section.

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider your comment and avoid redundancy in the revised manuscript.

-In relation to “This is because educated mothers might have exposure to appropriate breastfeeding practices” could you explain it better?

Author’s response: Thank you. We explained it in a better way in the revised manuscript.

In relation to “Contrary to our expectation, mothers who have been exposed to media had lower odds of TIBF as compared to their counterparts.” Why “contrary to our expectation”? What about the aggressive advertising of infant formula industry, milk substitutes, teats, and bottles regarding the media?

Author’s response: Really thank you for your concern and giving direction. We amended this statement accordingly in the revised manuscript.

-The discussion on community levels of ANC utilization and health facility delivery is not clear. Can you give more details and expand the discussion?

Author’s response: Thank you. We discussed these community level variables in detail in the revised manuscript.

-Line 292, determinants of TIBF, or associated factors?

Author’s response: We amended it to read, “Factors associated with TIBF”

-It is important that the discussion includes not only the comparison of the results with other studies and the authors conclusions, but also the theoretical basis for these conclusions. Please, support all your conclusions with bibliographic references.

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider your comment and put references in the revised manuscript accordingly.

-Please, review the conclusion: what was found in the study and the recommended "special emphasis", repeats the information.

Author’s response: Thank you again for raising this issue. We revised the conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

7. References and general comments

-Please, check all the references and make sure the institutions names are consistently cited. (Organization WH., WHO., World Health Organization, Unicef., UNICEF.?)

Author’s response: We revise the reference section in the revised manuscript.

-Please, remove the space between lines (for example, between line 56 and 57). Check all the text and make sure the format is consistent.

Author’s response: Thank you. We check the overall manuscript and we amended any errors encountered.

-Please, avoid the following text structure (mistimed/unintended, inappropriate/suboptimal, physicians/midwives). If possible, choose one word or use “and” when necessary.

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider your comment in the revised manuscript.

-Overall: I recommend editing the text to achieve a more appropriate grammar structure and scientific language.

Author’s response: Thank you. We extensively read our manuscript and edit it for language usage, spelling, and grammar after consulting our colleagues and language experts in our university.

Reviewer #2:

1. Abstract

Line 19 …’despite its major implication…’ perhaps it should read ‘despite THE major implications of…’ – However, I would suggest having this first line revised in its totality.

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider your comment in the revised manuscript.

2. Methodology

The authors have stated that they selected DHS data from 35 countries. Malawi, for example, has the most recent DHS data in 2015-16, why did the authors choose to analyse the 2011 (which I suppose should be 2010 data) instead of the most recent data?

Author’s response: Dear reviewer thank you for raising this important concern. We were used the 2015/16 survey data for Malawi, however we reported as we used the 2011 survey data. Therefore, in the revised manuscript and figure, we checked and modify to read, “2015/16”.

The analysis is a pooled one, with 35 different countries having their respective weighting variables according to their sample selection. It would be appropriate for the authors to describe whether they generated pooled weights and briefly explain how this was done.

Author’s response: Dear thank you for raising this important issue. We appended the data sets and we apply weighting. That is weighting was conducted using the primary sampling unit variable, stratification variable, and the weight variable after appending the DHS data sets.

Did the authors check for multicollinearity of their models?

Author’s response: Thank you very much. Variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to assess Multicollinearity and there was no Multicollinearity between explanatory variables, with a mean VIF of 1.81 (the minimum and the maximum VIF was 1.01 and 3.96 respectively) (see line 113-115).

Under the data analysis section, authors aught to mention that adjusted odds ratio and 95% CI were reported…

Author’s response: Thank you. We mentioned it in data management and analysis section of the revised manuscript.

3. Results

This is just a 'cosmetic' comment in the presentation of the results: It would look great if the fixed effects are presented first then random effects later thus Table 2 could be Table 3 while the current Table 3 may be changed to Table 2.

Author’s response: Thank you. We accepted your comment in the revised manuscript.

4. Discussion

Line 285-290 – More explanation needed and if possible, provide some refs. Why would women coming from communities with high ANC utilization more likely to develop a norm of early BF initiation?

Author’s response: Thank you. We consider your comment in the revised paper. Moreover, women coming from communities with high ANC utilization are more likely to develop a norm of early BF initiation since there is higher probability of sharing information regarding infant feeding practices among mothers in the community.

5. In the conclusion section, the authors have mention that the prevalence of TIBF was relatively lower, ,, lower compared to what? What are they comparing this prevalence to?

Author’s response: Thank you. We said low based on the clinical impact (since it is a major public health problem) and comparison with the other previous studies. However, we consider your comment and amend to read, “The prevalence of TIBF in SSA was good, consistent with the WHO rating of the TIBF practice as good”

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER.docx

Decision Letter 1

Bárbara Hatzlhoffer Lourenço

21 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-27660R1

Timely initiation of breastfeeding and associated factors among mothers having children less than two years of age in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis using recent Demographic and Health Surveys Data

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Teshale,

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

In addition to the comments below, I highlight that:

  • As nicely pointed out by Reviewer #2, it is important to consider performing a three-level analysis to assess between-country heterogeneity, in view of the large interval of TIBF among SSA countries.

  • While TIBF rate in SSA countries was "good" overall, according to WHO all babies (except in few cases where BF is contraindicated) should benefit from breastfeeding early in life. As indicated by Reviewer #1, such a finding should consider the great variation in SSA [note here that results from the three-level analysis could be quite informative] and also the great room for improvements in breastfeeding, including actions for the protection, promotion and support of this practice. Please revise the manuscript throughout.

  • After revising your analysis, please make sure to properly reference the hypothesis drawn and/or underlying mechanisms suggested for the observed associations while discussing your findings.

  • An extensive review of the abstract is needed (in up to 300 words), as well as of the structure of the discussion section.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 07 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,

Bárbara Hatzlhoffer Lourenço, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors followed most of the reviewer's suggestions; however, some points still need to be reviewed, especially in the discussion section. The general comments below may guide the authors:

Please, check with the journal editor the number of words allowed in the abstract. In "Submission guidelines" - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-abstract - Parts of submission - abstract, says: Not exceed 300 words.

Introduction:

Please, could you review the following sentence? “Even though there is a study conducted on the prevalence of TIBF in SSA [14], without identifying the hindering factors of TIBF, it is unlikely that TIBF can occur and reduce under-five mortality.” Could you briefly explain this better? I think the sentence is not clear.

Discussion:

-Please, review all the paragraphs and support your conclusions with bibliographic references. See an example:

“In this study, EBF was higher among multiparous mothers…. Cultural practices of early introduction of teas, water, and foods along with BM, probably have a greater impact on practices with the first child when mothers are not well supported for exclusive breastfeeding (reference). Thus, mothers with previous experience in the breastfeeding process and possibly older, are usually more mature in what concerns care and feeding of a child when compared to primiparous women.”

-I thank the authors for the English revision of the text. However, in the discussion section, I think the text could be more fluid. Please note that all paragraphs discussing the associated factors have the same structure: "This is because ..., This may be because ..., This might be because ..., This might be due to ..., This could be because ... ".

-I recommend the authors to further discuss the following factors: type of birth (single/multiple) and place of residence.

-Lastly, TIBF rate was good according to WHO (countries are consider good when at least 50% of the babies initiate BF in the first hour of life), but it is important to note that also according to WHO all babies (except when BF is contraindicated - few cases) should benefit from breastfeeding early in life. So, although the TIBF rate found in the study was good, it could be improved, especially because you found huge variation between countries. I think some words about it will complete your idea when you talk about "to plan appropriate strategies and implement interventions." Please, see if this makes sense to you.

Thank you for your previous response letter and for accepting most of the suggestions!

Reviewer #2: Thank you, authors, for adequately addressing my previous comments. I am following up with a few more comments that may need your consideration.

Abstract

Line21-22, the sentence should be rewritten as it stands, it may mean that the SDG on reduction of <5 mortality solely depends on optimal breastfeeding. In as much as optimal breastfeeding is an important component in achieving this SDG goal, there are other indicators such as vaccination that are also important. Maybe authors can just state that ‘optimal breastfeeding is one of the key components that may help achieve reduction of <5 mortality….’

In the abstract conclusion (Line 42), authors state that the prevalence of TIBF was GOOD in SSA. ‘Good’ based on what standard?

Introduction

Line 70-72 in the introduction section is not clear.

Methods

- Please state that the most recent DHS data was selected for analysis from each country specifically for those countries that have more than 1 surveys.

- Line 81-82; ‘after appending….’ I think this is misplaced. Perhaps include it in the data management section.

- I want clarification whether authors constructed new cluster and stratum variables and whether the weights were redefined considering that they had appended the datasets from several countries.

Results

For the pooled estimates, did the authors adjust for survey (i.e., country)? I think the results would be more interesting if a variable called ‘country/survey’ is included.

Follow up suggestion on the above comment: The authors did a two-level analysis, where individuals, and communities were analysed. As this survey pooled several countries, a three-level analysis would have been more interesting to not only observe community-level heterogeneity, but also assess between country heterogeneity

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 23;16(3):e0248976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248976.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


29 Jan 2021

Date: January 29, 2021

Response to editor and reviewer

Title: Timely initiation of breastfeeding and associated factors among mothers having children less than two years of age in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis using recent Demographic and Health Surveys Data

Manuscript number: PONE-D-20-27660R1

Dear editor and reviewers thank you for raising the important concerns for the betterment of the manuscript. Here is the point-by-point response from the authors.

Response to editor

1. As nicely pointed out by Reviewer #2, it is important to consider performing a three-level analysis to assess between-country heterogeneity, in view of the large interval of TIBF among SSA countries.

Author’s response: Thank you for the important comment you raised and your recommendation. We have tried to did a three level analysis to encounter the between country heterogeneity and unfortunately the output is not generated (we have convergence problem). We hope that as far as we account community-level heterogeneity the estimates are not that much different. Dear editor, we have acknowledged this as the limitation in the revised manuscript.

2. While TIBF rate in SSA countries was "good" overall, according to WHO all babies (except in few cases where BF is contraindicated) should benefit from breastfeeding early in life. As indicated by Reviewer #1, such a finding should consider the great variation in SSA [note here that results from the three-level analysis could be quite informative] and also the great room for improvements in breastfeeding, including actions for the protection, promotion and support of this practice. Please revise the manuscript throughout.

Author’s response: Thank you. We have considered your concern in the revised manuscript. Considering the variations of TIBF in SSA and the WHO recommendation of all babies should benefit from breastfeeding early in life, we amend it to read, “TIBF in SSA countries was low”.

3. After revising your analysis, please make sure to properly reference the hypothesis drawn and/or underlying mechanisms suggested for the observed associations while discussing your findings.

Author’s response: Thank you. We have revised the underlying mechanisms suggested for the observed associations while discussing our findings.

4. An extensive review of the abstract is needed (in up to 300 words), as well as of the structure of the discussion section.

Author’s response: Thank you. We have considered your comment in the revised manuscript. We minimized the abstract to 300 words and we review and amend the structure of the discussion section.

Response to reviewer

Reviewer #1:

1. Please, check with the journal editor the number of words allowed in the abstract. In "Submission guidelines" - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-abstract - Parts of submission - abstract, says: Not exceed 300 words.

Author’s response: Thank you. We amend the abstract section (we minimize the number of words to 300).

2. Introduction:

Please, could you review the following sentence? “Even though there is a study conducted on the prevalence of TIBF in SSA [14], without identifying the hindering factors of TIBF, it is unlikely that TIBF can occur and reduce under-five mortality.” Could you briefly explain this better? I think the sentence is not clear.

Author’s response: Thank you. We make it clear in the revised manuscript.

3. Discussion:

-Please, review all the paragraphs and support your conclusions with bibliographic references. See an example: “In this study, EBF was higher among multiparous mothers…. Cultural practices of early introduction of teas, water, and foods along with BM, probably have a greater impact on practices with the first child when mothers are not well supported for exclusive breastfeeding (reference). Thus, mothers with previous experience in the breastfeeding process and possibly older, are usually more mature in what concerns care and feeding of a child when compared to primiparous women.”

Author’s response: Thank you. We have reviewed all the paragraphs and we have putted the conclusions we made with bibliographic references.

-I thank the authors for the English revision of the text. However, in the discussion section, I think the text could be more fluid. Please note that all paragraphs discussing the associated factors have the same structure: "This is because ..., This may be because ..., This might be because ..., This might be due to ..., This could be because ... ".

Author’s response: Really thank you for the important comment you raised. We consider your issue in the revised manuscript.

-I recommend the authors to further discuss the following factors: type of birth (single/multiple) and place of residence.

Author’s response: Thank you. The above stated variables are discussed in the revised manuscript.

-Lastly, TIBF rate was good according to WHO (countries are consider good when at least 50% of the babies initiate BF in the first hour of life), but it is important to note that also according to WHO all babies (except when BF is contraindicated - few cases) should benefit from breastfeeding early in life. So, although the TIBF rate found in the study was good, it could be improved, especially because you found huge variation between countries. I think some words about it will complete your idea when you talk about "to plan appropriate strategies and implement interventions." Please, see if this makes sense to you.

Author’s response: Thank you for your comment and direction. We have considered your recommendation and revised the statement accordingly.

Reviewer #2:

1. Abstract

Line21-22, the sentence should be rewritten as it stands, it may mean that the SDG on reduction of <5 mortality solely depends on optimal breastfeeding. In as much as optimal breastfeeding is an important component in achieving this SDG goal, there are other indicators such as vaccination that are also important. Maybe authors can just state that ‘optimal breastfeeding is one of the key components that may help achieve reduction of <5 mortality….’

Author’s response: Dear reviewer, thank you for the nice comment you raised. We have considered your comment as well as recommendation and amended the statement accordingly.

In the abstract conclusion (Line 42), authors state that the prevalence of TIBF was GOOD in SSA. ‘Good’ based on what standard?

Author’s response: Thank you. It is amended to read “The prevalence of TIBF in SSA was low” and we said low based on the huge variations between countries and according to the WHO recommendation that all babies should benefit from breastfeeding early in life.

2. Introduction

Line 70-72 in the introduction section is not clear.

Author’s response: Thank you. We make it clear in the revised manuscript (see line 67 and 68).

3. Methods

- Please state that the most recent DHS data was selected for analysis from each country specifically for those countries that have more than 1 surveys.

Author’s response: Thank you. We have considered it in the revised manuscript (see line 76 & 77).

- Line 81-82; ‘after appending….’ I think this is misplaced. Perhaps include it in the data management section.

Author’s response: Thank you. We considered your comment in the revised manuscript (The first sentence of the data management and analysis section, line 99).

- I want clarification whether authors constructed new cluster and stratum variables and whether the weights were redefined considering that they had appended the datasets from several countries.

Author’s response: Dear reviewer, thank you for the important concern you raised. As you know, the weighting variables are coded in similar in each DHS we have weighted the data using sample weight, v005 that is helpful to adjust over and under sampling and the SVY set command to account for the complex survey design and generalizability of the findings.

4. Results

For the pooled estimates, did the authors adjust for survey (i.e., country)? I think the results would be more interesting if a variable called ‘country/survey’ is included.

Dear reviewer: We have weighted the data using sample weight, v005 ,that is helpful to adjust over and under sampling and the SVY set command to account for the complex survey design and generalizability of the findings.

Follow up suggestion on the above comment: The authors did a two-level analysis, where individuals, and communities were analysed. As this survey pooled several countries, a three-level analysis would have been more interesting to not only observe community-level heterogeneity, but also assess between country heterogeneity

Author’s response: Dear reviewer we have weighted the data to adjust sampling and to account for complex survey design. However, we are unable to conduct a three level analysis since we have convergence difficulty (even we tried to conduct a three level analysis to identify both community-level heterogeneity and country heterogeneity but we are unable to get the output). Dear reviewer, many multilevel studies conducted using pooling of the DHS data also adjust for community level heterogeneity only due to similar issue. Therefore, we acknowledge it in the revised manuscript as limitation of our study (see line 273 &274). Hope this convinces you, however, we are open to accept directions and recommendations if you have.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer ver#2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Bárbara Hatzlhoffer Lourenço

9 Mar 2021

Timely initiation of breastfeeding and associated factors among mothers having children less than two years of age in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis using recent Demographic and Health Surveys Data

PONE-D-20-27660R2

Dear Dr. Teshale,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bárbara Hatzlhoffer Lourenço, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Prior to publication, reviewers have suggested that an English review would benefit the readability of the manuscript and, more specifically:

1. In the discussion section, conclusions for "unintended pregnancies and average size of the child at birth" should be supported with appropriate literature;

2. In the abstract and conclusion, rate of TIBF was indicated as low, but in the discussion section it was indicated as good --it would be important to keep suc statements consistent throughout the text.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

Prior to publication, please, review the following suggestions:

-In the discussion section, the conclusions of "unintended pregnancies and average size of the child at birth" should also be supported with bibliographic references.

In the abstract and conclusion section you stated that the rate of TIBF was low, but in the discussion section you said it was good. Please, keep your conclusion consistent throughout the text.

Reviewer #2: Thank you authors for addressing my previous comments. The paper is technically sound. Minor English edits would be essential but otherwise, I am happy with the responses

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Bárbara Hatzlhoffer Lourenço

12 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-27660R2

Timely initiation of breastfeeding and associated factors among mothers having children less than two years of age in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis using recent Demographic and Health Surveys Data

Dear Dr. Teshale:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bárbara Hatzlhoffer Lourenço

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. The 35 SSA countries used for analysis and their sample size.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer ver#2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES