Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Apr 23;16(4):e0249978. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249978

Prevalence and determinants of severity levels of anemia among children aged 6–59 months in sub-Saharan Africa: A multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis

Getayeneh Antehunegn Tesema 1,*, Misganaw Gebrie Worku 2, Zemenu Tadesse Tessema 1, Achamyeleh Birhanu Teshale 1, Adugnaw Zeleke Alem 1, Yigizie Yeshaw 1,3, Tesfa Sewunet Alamneh 1, Alemneh Mekuriaw Liyew 1
Editor: Frank T Spradley4
PMCID: PMC8064743  PMID: 33891603

Abstract

Background

Anemia is a major public health problem affecting more than half of children under the age of five globally. It has serious short- and long-term consequences including growth retardation, impaired motor and cognitive development, and increased morbidity and mortality. Despite anemia is the leading cause of child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa, there is limited evidence on the prevalence and determinants of anemia among under-five children in sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence and determinants of severity levels of anemia among children aged 6–59 months in sub-Saharan Africa.

Methods

This study was based on the most recent Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data of 32 sub-Saharan African countries. A total weighted sample of 135,619 children aged 6–59 months was included in the study. Considering the hierarchical nature of DHS data and the ordinal nature of anemia, a multilevel ordinal logistic regression model was applied. Proportional odds assumption was tested by Brant test and it was satisfied (p-value = 0.091). Besides, deviance was used for model comparison. Variables with a p-value ≤0.2 in the bivariable analysis were considered for the multivariable analysis. In the multivariable multilevel proportional odds model, the Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were reported for potential determinant factors of severity levels of anemia.

Results

The overall prevalence of anemia among children aged 6–59 months in sub-Saharan Africa was 64.1% [95% CI: 63.9%, 64.4%]. Of which, 26.2% were mildly anemic, 34.9% moderately anemic and 3% severely anemic. Poor maternal education, lower household wealth status, large family size, being male child, multiple births, having fever in the last two weeks, having diarrhea in the last two weeks, higher-order birth, maternal anemia, underweight, wasted, and stunted were significantly associated with increased odds of higher levels of anemia. Whereas, being 24–59 months age, taking drugs for an intestinal parasite, and born from mothers aged ≥ 20 years were significantly associated with lower odds of higher levels of anemia.

Conclusion

Severity levels of anemia among children aged 6–59 months in sub-Saharan Africa was a major public health problem. Enhancing maternal education, providing drugs for an intestinal parasite, designing interventions that address maternal anemia, febrile illness, and diarrheal disease, and strengthening the economic status of the family are recommended to reduce childhood anemia. Furthermore, it is better to strengthen the strategies of early detection and management of stunted, wasted, and underweight children to decrease childhood anemia.

Background

Anemia is a condition characterized by an insufficient number of healthy red blood cells, often in conjunction with decreased haemoglobin levels or irregular blood cell morphology, that impairs blood from delivering oxygen to the body’s tissues [1, 2]. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines anemia among under-five children as a Hb concentration below 110 g/L [3]. The childhood period is a critical period for children’s growth and development, and they are more vulnerable to anemia [4]. Nutritional deficiencies (such as iron, folate, vitamins B12 and A); hemoglobinopathies, and infectious diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, and hookworm) are the most common causes of anemia in children [57].

Anemia is a significant global public health concern that affects young children and pregnant women in particular [8, 9]. Globally, anemia affects 600 million children [10], with 43% of children under-five years of age estimated to be anemic [9, 11]. Based on the 2016 World Bank report, the prevalence in East African countries was ranged from 36% in Rwanda to 60% in Mozambique whereas in West African countries the prevalence was from 62% in Beni to 86% in Burkina Faso. Whereas, in South African countries, the prevalence of under-five children ranged from 37% in South Africa to 51% in Angola, and in Central Africa varied from 51% in Angola to 73% in Chad [12]. The prevalence varies across countries, with the highest-burden in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia [13]. It has significant short-and long-term consequences to the health of the children. Anemia has a detrimental impact on children’s health, including developmental delay, reduced cognitive development (impaired learning and decreased school performance), low immunity, fatigue, difficulty of focusing, lethargy, increased mortality, and vulnerability to infection [14]. Moreover, childhood anemia is associated with decreasing the ability to fight infections and that causes significant morbidity and mortality in children [15].

The causes of anemia are multifactorial, and though infectious diseases and nutritional deficiencies are the leading causes of anemia in SSA [16, 17]. The finding of previous literature revealed that different factors are associated with anemia among children. These include: maternal age [18], twin births [19], birth order [20], residence [21], child age [22, 23], place of delivery [24, 25], deworming [26], childhood nutritional status [27], household wealth status [18], maternal education [28], infectious diseases (malaria, hookworm) [29], and maternal anemia [30, 31]. Besides, in developing countries, anemia varies by socioeconomic factors [17, 32].

Despite the appreciable global progress in the socio-economic and health status of the community, sub-Saharan African countries are still faced with a huge number of under-five mortality [33]. About 67.6% of under-five children in Africa are suffering from anemia and responsible for 5–18% of under-five mortality. To achieve the targets of reducing child mortality of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-2030, it is necessary to generate adequate evidence on individual and community-level factors of anemia, which is highly crucial for the development of timely interventions in anemia prevention and treatment. There are studies conducted on the prevalence of anemia and its associated factors among children aged 6–59 months in sub-Saharan Africa. But these studies are unable to capture the ordinal nature of anemia status since the effects of anemia differ depending on the severity level of anemia (non-anemic, mild, moderate, and severe anemia). Therefore, we applied the multilevel ordinal logistic regression model to get a reliable estimate and avoid loss of information. This study has both public health and methodological significance. Regarding the public health perspective, this study was based on the pooled DHS data of 32 sub-Saharan African countries with very large sample size and this could increase the power of the study and the estimate can be generalized. Besides, the use of a multilevel approach can take into account the neighborhood effect, and the result can give the overall picture of SSA. Regarding the methodological perspective, as you can see previously published literature treat anemia as a binary outcome by categorizing no/yes but as you can understand treating mild, moderate, and severe anemia as yes is not statistically appropriate since there is a loss of information because the factor responsible for mild anemia may not be similar with the factor that can cause severe anemia.

Methods

Data source and sampling procedure

A secondary data analysis was done based on the most recent Demographic Health Survey (DHS) datasets conducted in 32 sub-Saharan African countries from 2005 to 2018. These datasets were appended together to investigate the prevalence and determinants of the severity of anemia among children aged 6–59 months in sub-Saharan Africa. The DHSs were a nationally representative survey that collects data on basic health indicators like mortality, morbidity, family planning service utilization, fertility, maternal and child health-related indicators. The data were derived from the measure DHS program and the detailed information about the surveys can be found in each countries DHS report. In the beginning, the country was stratified and selected in two stages. Each region/county of the country was stratified into urban and rural areas. Then, samples of Enumeration Areas (EAs) were selected independently in each stratum in two stages. Stratification and proportional allocation were achieved at each of the lower administrative levels by sorting the sampling frame within each sampling stratum before sample selection, according to administrative units in different levels, and by using a probability proportional to size selection at the first stage of sampling. In the first stage, Enumeration Areas (EAs) were randomly selected. In the second stage of selection, a fixed number of 20 to 28 households per cluster were selected with an equal probability systematic selection. Then, hemoglobin testing was carried out among children aged 6–59 months in the selected households using HemoCue rapid testing methodology. For the test, a drop of capillary blood was taken from a child’s fingertip or heel and was drawn into the micro cuvette which was then analyzed using the photometer that displays the hemoglobin concentration. Then, anemic status was determined based on the hemoglobin level. Each country’s survey consists of different datasets including men, women, children, birth, and household datasets. For this study, we used the Kids Record dataset (KR file). Using the KR file we extract the dependent and independent variables for each country and then we append the data using the STATA command "append using". We pooled the DHS survey data of the 32 sub-Saharan Africa countries. For this study, a total weighted sample of 135,619 children aged 6–59 months was included.

Study variables and measurements

Dependent variable

The response variable of this study was the anemic status of children, which is an ordered categorical variable categorized into four ordinal categories; mildly anemic (hemoglobin level 10.0–10.9g/dl, moderately anemic (hemoglobin level 7.0–9.9g/dl), severely anemic (hemoglobin level <7.0g/dl), and not anemic (hemoglobin ≥11.0 g/dl). It was assessed based on the hemoglobin concentration in blood adjusted to the altitude.

In DHS, before determining a child is anemic or not, they take into account altitude. Then, they have adjusted, the hemoglobin adjustment was done by subtracting or adding the adjusted Hgb value to each individual observed Hgb value.

The Hgb adjustment was made using the formula;

=0.0322(altitude*0.0032808)or
+0.022(altitude*00032808)2

The adjustment for altitude was done to take into account the reduction in oxygen saturation of the blood.

Independent variables

Consistent with the study’s objectives and given the hierarchical nature of DHS data where children and mothers were nested within the cluster, two levels of independent variables were considered. Individual-level factors considered were categorized as household-related characteristics, maternal-related and child-related characteristics. Household-related factors were household wealth status, the number of a household member, source of drinking water, sex of household head, and media exposure. Maternal related factors were maternal age, maternal education, marital status, maternal anemia, mothers Body Mass Index (BMI), the number of Antenatal Care (ANC) visits during pregnancy, place of delivery, Postnatal Care visit, taking an iron supplement during pregnancy, wanted birth, mothers current employment status, and maternal smoking status. Among child-related factors; the age of a child, size of child at birth, sex of a child, type of birth, birth order, diarrhea in the last two weeks, fever in the last two weeks, cough in the last two weeks, taking the drug for the intestinal parasite in the last six months, vitamin A supplementation in the last 6 months wasting status (Z-scores for Weight-for-Height (WHZ)), underweight status (Z-scores for Weight-for-Age (WAZ)) and stunting status (Z-scores for Height-for-Age (HAZ)). Level 2 (contained community-level variables) was the sub-Saharan African region and residence.

Stunting is defined as the children with height-for-age Z-score (HAZ) <−2SD, wasting is defined as the children with weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ) <−2SD and underweight is defined as the children with weight-for-age Z-score (WAZ) <−2SD. Maternal anemia was categorized into mild, moderate, and severe anemia for non-pregnant women was 10–11.9 g/dl, 7–9.9 g/dl, and <7 g/dl, respectively and for pregnant women, 10–10.9 g/dl, 7–9.9 g/dl, and <7 g/dl, respectively.

Data management and analysis

The data were weighted using sampling weight, primary sampling unit, and strata before any statistical analysis to restore the representativeness of the survey and take into account the sampling design when calculating standard errors, to get reliable statistical estimates. STATA version 14 statistical software was used for the data management and analysis. Owing to the ordinal nature of the outcome variable (non-anemic, mild, moderate, and severe anemic), a typical approach was the ordinal logistic regression model. To choose the appropriate ordinal model for the data, we have checked the Proportional Odds (PO) assumptions, which states that the effects of all independent variables are constant across categories of the outcome variable. After fitting the proportional odds model, the proportional odds assumption was tested using the Brant test. It tests the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the effects of independent variables across the levels of anemia. The Brant test revealed that the proportional odds assumption was fulfilled (p = 0.091). We, therefore, used the proportional odds model for assessing the association between anemia and independent variables.

Besides, the DHS data has hierarchical nature. Therefore, children and mothers nested within a cluster, and we assume that study subjects in the same cluster may share similar characteristics to participants in another cluster. This violates the independence observations and equal variance assumptions between clusters of the ordinal logistic regression model. This implies the need to take into account the heterogeneity between clusters by using an advanced model. Therefore, a multilevel proportional odds model was performed to get a reliable estimate and standard error.

Hence, since the Brant test was met, the multilevel proportional odds model gave a single Odds Ratio (OR) for an explanatory variable (severe vs moderate/mild/non-anemia, severe/moderate vs mild/non-anemia, and severe/moderate/mild vs non-anemic. Likelihood Ratio (LR) test, Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and Median Odds Ratio (MOR) were computed to measure the variation of anemia across clusters. The ICC quantifies the degree of heterogeneity of anemia between clusters (the proportion of the total observed variation in anemia that is attributable to between cluster variations) [34].

ICC=ϭ2/(ϭ2+π2/3).

Where: the standard logit distribution has a variance of π23,σμ2 indicates the cluster variance.

The MOR quantifies the variation or heterogeneity in anemia between clusters in terms of odds ratio scale and is defined as the median value of the odds ratio between the cluster at high likelihood of anemia and cluster at lower risk when randomly picking out individuals from two clusters (EAs) [35].

MOR=exp(2*2*0.6745),MOR=exp0.95*.

2 indicates that cluster-level variance

Four models were constructed for the multilevel logistic regression analysis. The first model was a null model without explanatory variables to determine the extent of cluster variation in childhood anemia. The second model was adjusted with individual-level variables; the third model was adjusted for community-level variables while the fourth was fitted with both individual and community level variables simultaneously. Model comparison was made based on deviance (-2Log-Likelihood Ratio (LLR)) since the models were nested models, and a model with the lowest deviance was the best-fitted model for the data.

Variables with a p-value ≤ 0.2 in the bi-variable multilevel proportional odds model were considered for the multivariable multilevel proportional odds model. In the multivariable multilevel proportional odds model, the Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were reported to declare the strength of association, and the statistical significance for the final model was set at p<0.05.

Ethical consideration

As the study was a secondary data analysis of publicly accessible survey data from the MEASURE DHS program, this study did not require ethical approval and participant consent. We have granted permission from http:/www.dhsprogram.com to download and use the data for this study. In the datasets, there are no names of persons or household addresses recorded.

Results

Descriptive characteristics of the study participants

A total of 135,619 children aged 6–59 months were included (Table 1). Of these, 94,592 (59.3%) were from rural area, and 55,216 (40.6%) from East Africa, 51,332 (37.9%) from West Africa, 5,178 (3.8%) in Southern Africa and 23,892 (17.6%) in Central Africa. About 86,940 (64.1%) aged 24–59 months and 68,426 (50.5%) were males. The majority (67.4%) of the children got birth at a health facility, and 22,409 (16.5%) were small size at birth. Nearly half (48.5%) of the children’s mothers were aged 20–29 years, and 52,702 (38.9%) were born to mothers who did not attain formal education. About 21,666 (16.0%), and 30,264 (22.3%) had diarrhea and fever in the last two weeks, respectively. Regarding nutritional status, 35.8%, 16.9%, and 6.2% of the children were stunted, underweight and wasted, respectively (Table 2).

Table 1. Number of study participants for this study, and survey years.

Sub-Saharan region Country Sample size (n = 135,619) Prevalence of anemia (%) Study year
East Africa Burundi 5588 60.9 2016/17
Ethiopia 8482 57.6 2016
Madagascar 4845 51.2 2008/09
Malawi 4677 63 2015/16
Mozambique 4640 69.2 2011
Rwanda 3283 36.6 2014/15
Tanzania 7828 58.7 2015/16
Uganda 3893 53.8 2016
Zambia 7626 59 2018
Zimbabwe 4354 38 2015
Southern Africa Lesotho 1138 54.1 2014
Namibia 1412 49.6 2013
Swaziland 1813 44.4 2005
South Africa 816 62 2016
West Africa Burkina Faso 6043 88 2010
Benin 5586 72 2018
Côte d’Ivoire 2693 75.7 2011/2012
Ghana 2312 66.8 2014
Gambia 2829 71.5 2013
Guinea 2973 75.3 2018
Mali 3979 82.3 2018
Nigeria 10222 68.1 2018
Niger 4549 73.7 2012
Sierra leone 4168 79.9 2013
Senegal 3206 76.8 2010/2011
Togo 2771 70.9 2013/2014
Central Africa Angola 5221 65.3 2015
DR. Congo 7164 60.1 2013/2014
Congo 3395 67.1 2011/2012
Cameroon 4190 58.2 2011
Gabon 2513 61.3 2012
São Tomé e Príncipe 1409 63.6 2008/09

Table 2. Descriptive characteristics of children aged 6–59 months in sub-Saharan Africa.

Variable Frequency (N = 135,619) Percentage (%)
Household characteristics
Household wealth status
Poorest 30,681 22.6
Poorer 29,744 21.9
Middle 27,421 20.2
Richer 26,224 19.3
Richest 21,548 15.9
Number of household members
1–4 33,048 24.4
5–8 70,468 52.0
> 8 32,103 23.6
Source of drinking water supply
Not improved 38,218 28.2
Improved 97,400 71.8
Sex of household head
Male 108,320 79.9
Female 27,299 20.1
Media exposure
No 46,737 34.5
Yes 88,882 65.5
Maternal related characteristics
Maternal age (in year)
<20 6,857 5.1
20–29 65,831 48.5
30–39 50,245 37.1
≥40 12,685 9.4
Maternal education
No formal education 52,702 38.9
Primary 47,371 34.9
Secondary 31,845 23.5
Higher 3,701 2.7
Marital status
Never married 7,500 5.5
Married 118,980 87.7
Divorced/widowed 9,139 6.7
Maternal anemia level
Severe 1,106 0.9
Moderate 17,369 13.4
Mild 36,617 28.3
No anemia 74,473 57.5
Maternal BMI
Normal 81,884 60.4
Underweight 12,503 9.2
Overweight 41,232 30.4
Number of ANC visit during pregnancy
No 52,101 38.4
1–3 30,651 22.6
≥4 52,867 39.0
Place of delivery
Home 44,186 32.6
Health facility 91,433 67.4
PNC visit
No 98,742 72.8
Yes 36,877 27.2
Taking iron supplements during pregnancy
No 63,367 46.7
Yes 72,252 53.3
Wanted birth
No 9,659 7.1
Yes 125,960 92.9
Mothers current employment status
Not working 48,892 36.0
Working 86,727 64.0
Mother’s smoking cigarette
No 134,566 99.2
Yes 1,053 0.8
Child’s characteristics
Sex of child
Male 68,426 50.5
Female 67,193 49.5
Age of child (in months)
6–23 48,679 35.9
24–59 86,940 64.1
Size of child at birth
Large 46,547 34.3
Average 66,663 49.2
Small 22,409 16.5
Type of birth
Single 131,397 96.9
Multiple 4,222 3.1
Birth order
1 28,600 21.1
2–3 47,947 35.4
4–5 31,469 23.2
≥6 27,603 20.4
Diarrhea in the last two weeks
No 113,953 84.0
Yes 21,666 16.0
Cough in the last two weeks
No 105,653 77.9
Yes 29,966 22.1
Fever in the last two weeks
No 105,355 77.7
Yes 30,264 22.3
Taking drug for intestinal parasite in the last 6 months
No 77,194 56.9
Yes 58,425 43.1
Vitamin A supplementation in the last 6 months
No 54,981 40.5
Yes 80,637 59.5
Stunting status
Normal 87,037 64.2
Stunted 48,582 35.8
Underweight status
Normal 112,720 83.1
Underweight 22,899 16.9
Wasting status
Normal 127,183 93.8
Wasted 8,436 6.2
Community-level characteristics
Residence
Rural 94,592 69.3
Urban 41,027 30.3
Region
East Africa 55,216 40.7
West Africa 51,332 37.9
Southern Africa 5,178 3.8
Central Africa 23,892 17.6

BMI: Body Mass Index, ANC: Antenatal Care.

Prevalence and severity of anemia in sub-Saharan Africa

The overall prevalence of anemia among children aged 6–59 months was 64.1% [95% CI: 63.8%, 64.4%]. This study showed that 26.2% [95% CI: 25.9%, 26.4%] of children aged 6–59 months had mild anemia, 34.9% [95% CI: 34.7%, 35.2%] moderate anemia and 3% [95% CI: 2.9%, 3.1%] severe anemia. The highest prevalence of anemia was found in children whose mothers were moderately, and severely anemic which was 76.8% and 76.7%, respectively. Regarding the severity of anemia, the highest prevalence of severe anemia was found in children whose mother was severely anemic (10.7%). Of the children born to mothers aged less than 20 years, 4.1%, 43.4%, and 26.4% of them were severely, moderately and mildly anemic, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3. The prevalence and severity of anemia based on the household related, community, child and maternal characteristics in sub-Saharan Africa.

Variable Categories Anemia status and severity level (%) Overall anemia prevalence (%)
Severely anemic Moderately anemic Mildly anemic Non-anemic
Maternal age <20 4.1 43.4 26.4 26.2 73.8
20–29 3.2 35.9 26.2 34.7 65.3
30–39 2.9 34.1 25.8 37.3 62.7
40–49 2.8 32.2 26.2 38.8 61.2
Maternal education No formal education 4.8 42.8 25.2 27.2 72.8
Primary 2.3 32.0 26.3 39.5 60.5
Secondary 1.7 29.3 27.2 41.8 58.2
Higher 1.0 20.1 26.4 52.6 47.5
Residence Urban 1.8 31.6 27.6 39.0 60.8
Rural 3.5 36.4 25.6 34.5 65.5
Household wealth status Poorest 4.4 39.2 25.7 30.7 69.3
Poorer 3.6 37.5 25.7 33.3 66.8
Middle 2.9 35.7 26.8 35.3 64.7
Richer 2.3 32.8 26.7 38.2 61.8
Richest 1.3 26.9 26.9 44.8 65.2
sub-Saharan Africa region East Africa 2.1 28.1 25.8 44.0 56.0
South Africa 1.4 25.4 23.9 49.3 50.7
West Africa 4.6 45.0 25.6 24.9 75.1
Central Africa 2.1 31.4 28.7 37.8 62.2
Maternal anemia Non-anaemic 2.1 29.8 25.6 42.5 57.5
Mild 3.7 40.2 27.1 29.0 71.0
Moderate 5.2 46.0 25.6 23.2 76.8
Severe 10.7 45.0 21.0 23.3 76.7
Sex of child Male 3.3 36.1 25.9 34.8 65.3
Female 2.8 33.8 26.4 37.1 63.0
Type of birth Single 3.0 34.8 26.2 36.0 64.0
Multiple 4.6 38.5 24.9 32.0 68.0
Birth order 1 2.9 33.3 26.1 37.7 62.3
2–3 2.8 33.9 26.1 37.2 62.8
4–5 3.0 35.8 26.9 34.4 65.6
≥6 3.5 37.4 25.6 33.5 66.5
Age of child (in months) 6–23 4.2 45.2 26.7 23.9 76.1
24–59 2.5 29.7 25.7 42.1 57.9
Stunting status Normal 2.5 33.2 26.4 38.0 62.0
Stunted 4.2 39.1 25.4 31.3 68.7
Wasting status Normal 2.8 34.7 26.2 36.3 63.8
Wasted 6.8 43.4 24.1 25.7 74.3
Underweight status Normal 2.5 33.7 26.4 37.4 62.6
Underweight 6.2 43.1 24.2 26.5 73.5
Size of child at birth Average 3.0 34.9 25.9 36.2 63.8
Small 3.9 37.2 25.3 33.6 66.5
Large 2.9 34.8 26.6 35.8 64.3
Diarrhea in the last two weeks No 2.8 34.0 26.2 36.9 63.1
Yes 4.4 41.9 25.2 28.5 71.5
Fever in the last two weeks No 2.5 33.3 26.5 37.7 62.4
Yes 5.2 42.0 24.4 28.4 71.6
Overall prevalence (95% CI) 3 [2.9, 3.1] 34.9[34.7, 35.2] 26.2 [25.9, 26.4] 35.9 [35.6, 36.1] 64.1 [63.8, 64.4]

Model fit statistics

The Brant test of parallel odds assumption showed that odds ratios appeared to have held constant across all cut-off points of childhood anemia status for the final model at a 5% significance level (p-value = 0.091). Therefore, the interpretations of odds ratio results obtained by modeling severely anemic vs moderately/mild/non-anemic; and anemic vs non-anemic were the same. In the null model, the ICC value was 12.73% [95% CI: 11.56%, 14.10], indicated that 12.73% of the total variability of level of anemia was due to differences between clusters while the remaining unexplained 87.27% of the total variability of level of anemia was attributable to the individual differences. Moreover, the MOR was 1.93 [95% CI: 1.86, 2.01] in the null model. The final model was the best-fitted model for the data since it has the lowest deviance value (Table 4).

Table 4. Individual and community-level factors associated with anemia among children aged 6–59 months in sub-Saharan Africa.

Variables Null model Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
AOR with 95% CI AOR with 95% CI AOR with 95% CI
Individual-level variables
Maternal age (in years)
<20 1 1
20–29 0.82 [0.78, 0.87] 0.82 [0.78, 0.86]**
30–39 0.69 [0.65, 0.73] 0.68 [0.65, 0.73]**
40–49 0.60 [0.56, 0.64] 0.60 [0.56, 0.64]**
Maternal education
No formal education 2.10 [1.95, 2.25] 1.73 [1.60, 1.86]*
Primary 1.27 [1.18, 1.37] 1.39 [1.29, 1.50]*
Secondary 1.21 [1.13, 1.30] 1.27 [1.18, 1.36]*
Higher 1 1
Household wealth status
Poorest 1.31 [1.26, 1.36] 1.39 [1.33, 1.45]**
Poorer 1.28 [1.23, 1.33] 1.32 [1.26, 1.37]*
Middle 1.19 [1.15, 1.24] 1.20 [1.15, 1.25]*
Richer 1.15 [1.11, 1.19] 1.15 [1.11, 1.20]*
Richest 1 1
Family size
≤4 1 1
5–8 1.05 [1.02, 1.08] 1.04 [1.01, 1.06]*
≥9 1.25 [1.21, 1.30] 1.13 [1.09, 1.16]*
Maternal anemia
No-anemic 1 1
Mild 1.62 [1.58, 1.66] 1.54 [1.51, 1.58]*
Moderate 2.20 [2.13, 2.27] 1.93 [1.87, 2.00]*
Severe 3.06 [2.73, 3.44] 2.81 [2.50, 3.16]**
Media exposure
No 1 1
Yes 1.02 [0.99, 1.04] 0.94 [0.92, 1.01]
Place of delivery
Home 1 1
Health facility 0.99 [0.97, 1.02] 1.04 [0.98, 1.07]
Sex of child
Male 1.13 [1.11, 1.16] 1.13 [1.11, 1.16]**
Female 1 1
Age of child (in months)
6–23 1 1
24–59 0.47 [0.46, 0.48] 0.46 [0.45, 0.47]*
Size of child at birth
Average 1 1
Small 0.99 [0.97, 1.02] 0.99 [0.97, 1.03]
Large 1.01 [0.99, 1.04] 0.98 [0.96, 1.01]
Type of birth
Single 1 1
Multiple 1.20 [1.13, 1.28] 1.18 [1.11, 1.25]**
Taking drug for intestinal parasite in the last 6 months
No 1 1
Yes 0.87 [0.85, 0.89] 0.91 [0.89, 0.93]**
Diarrhea in the last two weeks
No 1 1
Yes 1.11 [1.08, 1.14] 1.12 [1.09, 1.16]*
Fever in the last two weeks
No 1 1
Yes 1.45 [1.40, 1.46] 1.46 [1.42, 1.49]*
Birth order
1 1 1
2–3 1.06 [1.03, 1.10] 1.07 [1.04, 1.10]*
4–5 1.13 [1.08, 1.17] 1.14 [1.10, 1.19]**
≥6 1.18 [1.12, 1.23] 1.23 [1.17, 1.29]**
Wasting status
Normal 1 1
Wasted 1.14 [1.08, 1.19] 1.09 [1.04, 1.15]*
Underweight status
Normal 1 1
Underweight 1.30 [1.25, 1.34] 1.24 [1.20, 1.28]**
Stunting
Normal 1 1
Stunted 1.23 [1.20, 1.26] 1.29 [1.26, 1.32]**
Community level variable
Residence
Rural 1.41 [1.38, 1.44] 1.02 [0.99, 1.05]
Urban 1 1
sub-Saharan African region
West Africa 1 1
East Africa 0.40 [0.39, 0.41] 0.48 [0.47, 0.49]*
Central Africa 0.34 [0.32, 0.36] 0.59 [0.57, 0.61]*
South Africa 0.56 [0.55, 0.58] 0.45 [0.43, 0.48]*
/cut1 -0.60 [-0.61, -0.58] -0.17 [-0.26,-0.08] -0.89[-0.91,-0.86] -0.64 [-0.74, -0.55]
/cut2 0.48 [0.46, 0.50] 1.01 [0.92, 1.11] 0.23 [0.21, 0.26] 0.57 [0.47, 0.66]
/cut3 3.46 [3.43, 3.49] 4.19 [4.09, 4.28] 3.28 [3.25, 3.32] 3.77 [3.67, 3.87]
Random effect analysis result
Community level variance 0.48 [0.43, 0.54] 0.023 [0.019, 0.03] 0.029 [0.024, 0.037] 0.022 [0.017, 0.027]
LR-test Prob > = chibar2 <0.001
ICC 12.73% [11.56%, 14.10]
MOR 1.93 [1.86, 2.01]
LLR -162528.7 -158892.5 -146190.1 -144602.4
Deviance (-2LLR) 325057.4 317785 292380.2 289204.8

*p-value<0.05

**p-value<0.01: AOR = Adjusted Odds Ratio: CI: Confidence Interval: ICC = Intra-class Correlation Coefficient: LR = Likelihood Ratio: LLR = Log-likelihood Ratio: MOR: Median Odds Ratio: WAZ = Z-scores for Weight-for-Age: WHZ = Weight-for-Height: HAZ: Height-for-Age.

Individual and community-level determinants of anemia

To identify the determinants of anemia, the bivariable analysis was performed. Accordingly, maternal education, maternal age, household wealth status, family size, distance to the health facility, maternal anemia, media exposure, place of delivery, sex of the child, age of the child, size of child at birth, type of birth, taking drugs for an intestinal parasite, diarrhea, fever, birth order, wasting, stunting, underweight, residence and region were considered for the multivariable analysis(p<0.2). In the multivariable multilevel proportional odds model; maternal age, taking drugs for the intestinal parasite in the last six months and sub-Saharan African region were significantly associated with the lower odds of severity levels of anemia whereas maternal education, household wealth status, number of household members, maternal anemia, sex of the child, type of birth, fever in the last two weeks, age of the child, in the last two weeks, birth order, stunting, wasting, and underweight were significantly associated with higher odds of severity levels of anemia. The odds of having higher level of anemia among children whose mother aged 20–29 years, 30–39 years and 40–49 years were decreased by 18% [AOR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.86], 32% [AOR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.73] and 40% [AOR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.64] compared to children whose mother aged less than 20 years, respectively. Children whose mother education level at no formal education, primary education, and secondary education level had 1.73 times [AOR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.60, 1.86], 1.39 times [AOR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.29, 1.50], 1.27 times [AOR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.18, 1.36] higher odds of a higher level of anemia than children whose mother had a higher level of education, respectively. Children from poorest, poorer, middle and richer household wealth were 1.39 times [AOR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.45], 1.32 times [AOR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.26, 1.37], 1.20 times [AOR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.25], and 1.15 times [AOR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.20] higher odds of higher level of anemia compared to children from the richest household wealth, respectively. The odds of a higher level of anemia among children from the family size of 5–8 and >8 were 1.04 times [AOR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06], 1.13 times [AOR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.16] higher than children from the family size of less than 5, respectively.

Children whose mother were mildly anemic, moderately anemic, and severely anemic were 1.54 times [AOR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.51, 1.58], 1.93 times [AOR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.87, 2.00] and 2.81 times [AOR = 2.81, 95% CI: 2.50, 3.16] higher odds of having a higher level of anemia than children whose mother were not anemic, respectively. Male children and multiple births had 1.13 times [AOR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.16] and 1.18 times [AOR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.25] higher odds of being at higher level anemia status compared to female children, and singletons, respectively. The odds of having a higher level of anemia among children aged 24–59 months were decreased by 54% [AOR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.45, 0.47] compared to children aged 6–23 months. Children who were the 2nd-3rd, 4th-5th and 6th and above birth order were 1.07 times [AOR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.10], 1.14 times [AOR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.19] and 1.23 times [AOR = 1.23, 95% CI:1.17, 1.29] higher odds of having a higher level of anemia compared to first births, respectively.

The odds of being at higher anemia status among children who took drugs for the intestinal parasite in the last six months were decreased by 9% [AOR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.89, 0.93] than those who did not take drugs. Children who had diarrhea and fever in the last two weeks had 1.12 times [AOR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.16], and 1.46 times [AOR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.42, 1.49] higher odds of a higher level of anemia compared to children who did not have diarrhea and fever, respectively. Stunted, wasted and underweight children had 1.29 times [AOR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.26, 1.32], 1.09 times [AOR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.15], and 1.24 times [AOR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.20, 1.28] higher odds of higher level of anemia, respectively. The odds of being at higher level of anemia among children in East Africa, Central Africa and South Africa were decreased by 52% [AOR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.49], 41% [AOR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.57, 0.61], and 55% [AOR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.48] compared to children in West Africa, respectively (Table 4).

Discussion

The prevalence of anemia among children in sub-Saharan Africa was 64.11% [95% CI: 63.85%, 64.36%], which revealed anemia among children is still a major public health problem in sub-Saharan Africa. Even though the combined strategies particularly iron supplementation and infectious disease management (such as malaria and helminth infections) are being introduced by the WHO to combat anemia, anemia remains a serious health care problem in sub-Saharan Africa. It is higher than the prevalence reported in Brazil [36], Europe [37, 38], and Ecuador [39]. The potential reason may be due to the long-standing prevalence of severe malnutrition among under-five children, because of insufficient dietary intake of nutrients, in sub-Saharan Africa [40, 41]. Besides, sub-Saharan African children are highly affected by infectious diseases such as malaria, hookworms, Schistosoma, and visceral leishmaniasis, due to their frequent exposure to poor sanitation and environmental conditions that favor the transmission and spread of parasites [4244].

Furthermore, in the final model, we found that maternal age, taking drugs for the intestinal parasite in the last six months, and sub-Saharan African region were significantly associated with the lower odds of severity levels of anemia. Whereas maternal education, household wealth status, number of household members, maternal anemia, sex of the child, type of birth, fever in the last two weeks, age of the child, diarrhea in the last two weeks, birth order, stunting, wasting, and underweight were significantly associated with higher odds of severity levels of anemia.

Poor maternal education was significantly associated with increased odds of childhood anemia. It is consistent with studies reported in Korea [28] and Mexico [45], it may be because maternal education is a good indicator for nutritional outcomes of children [46, 47]. Maternal education contributes to raising the maternal understanding about infant health and nutrition (such as exclusive breastfeeding and appropriate complementary feeding), which in turn contributes to enhancing the quality of diets consumed by children [48]. Besides, mothers’ level of education can positively influence practices related to the health care and feeding practice of their children [49]. Children born to mothers aged less than 20 years had higher odds of a higher level of anemia compared to children born to mothers aged 20 years and above. This was consistent with studies reported in Tanzania [50] and low- and middle-income countries [51]. It could be due to babies born to younger mothers are more likely to be a preterm and low birth weight that results in the newborn prone to neonatal infections and malnutrition, these could increase their risk of anemia [52]. Furthermore, it may also predispose to deficiencies of hematopoiesis-related nutrients due to the inexperience of adolescent mothers with good infant feeding practices and prevention of infections and infestations [53].

In this study, children from families with low household wealth had increased odds of higher levels of anemia than children from rich households. It is consistent with previous studies reported in Bangladesh [54], India [30], and Nepal [55]. The possible explanation might be because poverty is strongly associated with food insecurity and hence children from households with low wealth status may not have an access to foods rich in iron, vitamin B12, and folic acid, which in turn increases their risk of developing anemia [56]. The other possible explanation is that families with low income are less likely to purchase nutrient-rich foods, secure food availability, and afford health services during illness for their children. Children from large family size had increased odds of a higher level of anemia than children from smaller family size. It is supported by previous studies in Egypt [57] and China [58]. It is because children from a large family size may not get adequate nutrition than children from small size families. So, inadequate intake of nutrients such as iron, folate, and vitamin B12 increases the risk of anemia among children [59].

Maternal anemia was significantly associated with higher odds of higher levels of anemia among children. It is in line with study findings in Southern Africa [60], Brazil [61], and Bangladesh [21]. This may be due to the mother is the primary source of food for children and the children share a similar diet, so their eating habits and quality of life could be identical [61, 62]. Also, through transplacental transmission and breastfeeding, infectious causes of anemia such as malaria and HIV/AIDS that can interfere with their development of red blood cells and iron stores may be transmitted to their infants [6365]. In addition, anemic mothers may not have adequate iron, zinc, folate, and vitamin B12 in their breast milk, which could make the child vulnerable to anemia [66].

The study at hand also revealed that male children had higher odds of a higher level of anemia compared to female children. This is in line with studies in low-income countries [67] and Bangladesh [21]. It might be due to the rapid growth and development of male children in the first few years of life [68] that could increase their micronutrient demands, including vitamin A, folate, and iron to increase their risk of anemia compared to female children. Children aged 24–59 months had higher odds of a higher level of anemia compared to children aged 6–23 months. It was consistent with studies reported in India [18] and Bangladesh [21]. It could be since the age of 6–23 months is the critical period to initiate complementary feeding and for exposure to contaminated food and water, which might increase the incidence of intestinal infections such as typhoid, amoebiasis, giardiasis, ascariasis, and hookworm infections [69].

Children with a history of diarrhea and fever had higher odds of higher levels of anemia compared to children who did not have diarrhea and fever, respectively. It is consistent with studies reported in Southern Africa [60] and Indonesia [70]. This could be due to children with febrile and diarrheal illness might have a loss of appetite, and decreased absorption of necessary nutrients (iron, folate, and vitamin B12) that might increase the likelihood of anemia [71]. Besides, the presence of diarrhea and fever might indicate the presence of infectious diseases such as visceral leishmaniasis, malaria, hookworm, ascariasis, giardiasis, and amoebiasis, which are the leading causes of anemia in children [72, 73].

In this study, stunted, wasted, and underweight children had higher odds of a higher level of anemia compared to normal children. This was consistent with studies reported in India [74], China [75], and Brazil [76]. Aside from the deprivation of nutrients required for haematopoiesis, poor nutritional status is associated with poor immunity and, therefore, infections and infestations also have synergistic effects of micronutrient deficiencies for causing anemia [77]. Besides, undernourished children are prone to micronutrient deficiencies, such as iron, vitamin A, vitamin B12, and folic acid, which are helpful for haemoglobin and DNA synthesis during red blood cell production, and in turn, results in anemia [77].

Children who took drugs for intestinal parasites in the last 6 months had lower odds of a higher level of anemia compared to children who did not take drugs for intestinal parasites. It is consistent with sub-Saharan Africa [78] and Thailand [79]. This could be because anemia can result from intestinal parasites and hence taking drugs for intestinal parasites can decrease the risk of having anemia in children [80]. Multiple births are at higher risk of a higher level of anemia compared to singletons. The possible explanation is due to multiple births are more likely to be born prematurely, have low birth weight, and are at higher risk of malnutrition than single infants, which could increase the risk of experiencing anemia [81, 82]. Children with two or more older siblings in the household had higher odds of a higher level of anemia than first birth. It is consistent with studies reported in Central India [20] and Egypt [57]. The possible explanation could be due to the reason that increasing birth order might be related to the depletion of nutrients such as iron, folate, and vitamin B12 in the mother and this could result in anemia among children [83]. This could indicate poor access to maternal health care services such as ANC services and nutritional supplementations among multiparous mothers [84].

This study has strengths and limitations. This study was based on a pooled nationally representative DHS survey of the 32 sub-Saharan African countries. In addition, the data was weighted and a multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis was done to get a reliable estimate and standard error. Besides, this study was based on a large sample size that had adequate power to detect the true effect of the independent variables. As a limitation, since the study used cross-sectional data, we cannot establish a causal relationship between anemia and the identified independent variables. In addition, since this study was based on secondary data, we were not able to investigate all factors that may be relevant to anemia in children, including eating habits, parasite infestations (malaria, Visceral Leishmaniasis, and hookworm), previous hospitalization, and use of nutritional supplements (such as vitamin B12 and folate). Moreover, variables such as the birth size of a child which is the subjective measurement of the birth size of a child were included in this study since the measured birth weight was not found for the majority of the children so this might overestimate or underestimate the effect size of birth size.

Conclusions

In conclusion, anemia among children aged 6–59 months in sub-Saharan Africa was a major public health problem. Sex of child, maternal age, maternal education, type of birth, fever in the last two weeks, diarrhea in the last two weeks, taking drugs for an intestinal parasite, stunted, wasted, underweight, child age, birth order, household wealth status, family size, maternal anemia, and sub-Saharan African region was found significant determinants of the severity level of anemia. Improving access to education, providing drugs for an intestinal parasite, interventions to address maternal anemia, febrile illness, and diarrheal disease, and strengthening the economic status of the family are recommended to reduce childhood anemia. Furthermore, it is better to strengthen the strategies of early detection and management of stunted, wasted, and underweight children to decrease child anemia.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the measure DHS program for providing the datasets.

Abbreviations

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

DHS

Demographic health survey

CI

Confidence Interval

EAs

Enumeration areas

ICC

Intra-cluster Correlation Coefficient

HAZ

Z-score for Height-for-Age

IUGR

Intra uterine growth restriction

LLR

Log likelihood ratio

LR

Likelihood ratio

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal

SSA

sub-Saharan Africa

WAZ

Z-score for Weight-for-Age

WHZ

Z-score for Weight-for-Height

Data Availability

All the data files are available from the measure. DHS program Data is available online and you can access it from www.measuredhs.com. We used the Kids Record (KR) file and extract the variables based on literature. Then, we kept the same variables in all the 32 SSA countries and appended together.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Gao J. and Monaghan S.A., Red blood cell/hemoglobin disorders, in Hematopathology. 2018, Elsevier. p. 3–56. e2. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Carlson C.A. and Rubarth L.B., 19 THE RENAL SYSTEM. Neonatal Nurse Practitioner Certification Intensive Review: Fast Facts and Practice Questions, 2019: p. 283. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Organization, W.H., Iron deficiency anemia. assessment, prevention, and control. A guide for programme managers, 2001: p. 47–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ramakrishnan U., Functional consequences of nutritional anemia during pregnancy and early childhood. Vol. 260. 2001: CRC Press, LLC, Boca Raton, Florida. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chaparro C.M. and Suchdev P.S., Anemia epidemiology, pathophysiology, and etiology in low-and middle-income countries. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2019. 1450(1): p. 15. 10.1111/nyas.14092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jonker F.A. and van Hensbroek M.B., Anaemia, iron deficiency and susceptibility to infections. Journal of Infection, 2014. 69: p. S23–S27. 10.1016/j.jinf.2014.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dreyfuss M.L., et al., Hookworms, malaria and vitamin A deficiency contribute to anemia and iron deficiency among pregnant women in the plains of Nepal. The Journal of nutrition, 2000. 130(10): p. 2527–2536. 10.1093/jn/130.10.2527 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Milman N., Anemia—still a major health problem in many parts of the world! Annals of hematology, 2011. 90(4): p. 369–377. 10.1007/s00277-010-1144-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Stevens G.A., et al., Global, regional, and national trends in haemoglobin concentration and prevalence of total and severe anaemia in children and pregnant and non-pregnant women for 1995–2011: a systematic analysis of population-representative data. The Lancet Global Health, 2013. 1(1): p. e16–e25. 10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70001-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kaur K., Anaemia ‘a silent killer’among women in India: Present scenario. European Journal of Zoological Research, 2014. 3(1): p. 32–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pasricha S.-R., Anemia: a comprehensive global estimate. Blood, 2014. 123(5): p. 611–612. 10.1182/blood-2013-12-543405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.World Health Organization, G.H.O.D.R.W.H.S., Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children under 5)—Sub-Saharan Africa. 2016.
  • 13.Kassebaum N.J., et al., A systematic analysis of global anemia burden from 1990 to 2010. Blood, 2014. 123(5): p. 615–624. 10.1182/blood-2013-06-508325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Abu-Ouf N.M. and Jan M.M., The impact of maternal iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia on child’s health. Saudi medical journal, 2015. 36(2): p. 146. 10.15537/smj.2015.2.10289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Brabin B.J., Premji Z., and Verhoeff F., An analysis of anemia and child mortality. The Journal of nutrition, 2001. 131(2): p. 636S–648S. 10.1093/jn/131.2.636S [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shaw J.G. and Friedman J.F., Iron deficiency anemia: focus on infectious diseases in lesser developed countries. Anemia, 2011. 2011. 10.1155/2011/260380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Balarajan Y., et al., Anaemia in low-income and middle-income countries. The lancet, 2011. 378(9809): p. 2123–2135. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62304-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Onyeneho N.G., Ozumba B.C., and Subramanian S., Determinants of childhood Anemia in india. Scientific reports, 2019. 9(1): p. 1–7. 10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gupta S., et al., Childhood iron deficiency anemia, maternal nutritional knowledge, and maternal feeding practices in a high-risk population. Preventive medicine, 1999. 29(3): p. 152–156. 10.1006/pmed.1999.0522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sinha N., Deshmukh P., and Garg B., Epidemiological correlates of nutritional anemia among children (6–35 months) in rural Wardha, Central India. Indian journal of medical sciences, 2008. 62(2): p. 45–54. 10.4103/0019-5359.39366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Khan J.R., Awan N., and Misu F., Determinants of anemia among 6–59 months aged children in Bangladesh: evidence from nationally representative data. BMC pediatrics, 2016. 16(1): p. 1–12. 10.1186/s12887-015-0536-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Habte D., et al., Maternal risk factors for childhood anaemia in Ethiopia. African journal of reproductive health, 2013. 17(3): p. 110–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Benti T., et al., Maternal risk factors for childhood anaemia in Ethiopia. 2013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Melku M., et al., Anemia severity among children aged 6–59 months in Gondar town, Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study. Italian journal of pediatrics, 2018. 44(1): p. 1–12. 10.1186/s13052-017-0437-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Leite M.S., et al., Prevalence of anemia and associated factors among indigenous children in Brazil: results from the First National Survey of Indigenous People’s Health and Nutrition. Nutrition Journal, 2013. 12(1): p. 1–11. 10.1186/1475-2891-12-69 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Belachew A. and Tewabe T., Under-five anemia and its associated factors with dietary diversity, food security, stunted, and deworming in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analy sis. Systematic reviews, 2020. 9(1): p. 31. 10.1186/s13643-020-01289-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Engidaye G., et al., Under nutrition, maternal anemia and household food insecurity are risk factors of anemia among preschool aged children in Menz Gera Midir district, Eastern Amhara, Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. BMC public health, 2019. 19(1): p. 1–11. 10.1186/s12889-018-6343-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Choi H.-J., et al., Effects of maternal education on diet, anemia, and iron deficiency in Korean school-aged children. BMC public health, 2011. 11(1): p. 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Koukounari A., et al., Relationships between anaemia and parasitic infections in Kenyan schoolchildren: a Bayesian hierarchical modelling approach. International journal for parasitology, 2008. 38(14): p. 1663–1671. 10.1016/j.ijpara.2008.05.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pasricha S.-R., et al., Determinants of anemia among young children in rural India. Pediatrics, 2010. 126(1): p. e140–e149. 10.1542/peds.2009-3108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Assis A.M.O., et al., Childhood anemia prevalence and associated factors in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 2004. 20: p. 1633–1641. 10.1590/s0102-311x2004000600022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Smith L.C., Ruel M.T., and Ndiaye A., Why is child malnutrition lower in urban than in rural areas? Evidence from 36 developing countries. World development, 2005. 33(8): p. 1285–1305. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.UNICEF., The state of the world’s children 2009: maternal and newborn health. Vol. 9. 2008: Unicef. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rodriguez G. and Elo I., Intra-class correlation in random-effects models for binary data. The Stata Journal, 2003. 3(1): p. 32–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Merlo J., et al., Individual and collective bodies: using measures of variance and association in contextual epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 2009. 63(12): p. 1043–1048. 10.1136/jech.2009.088310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.De Oliveira J., et al., Iron deficiency anemia in children: prevalence and prevention studies in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. Archivos latinoamericanos de nutricion, 1997. 47(2 Suppl 1): p. 41–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Male C., et al., Prevalence of iron deficiency in 12‐mo‐old infants from 11 European areas and influence of dietary factors on iron status (Euro‐Growth study). Acta Paediatrica, 2001. 90(5): p. 492–498. 10.1080/080352501750197601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Eussen S., et al., Iron intake and status of children aged 6–36 months in Europe: a systematic review. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2015. 66(2–3): p. 80–92. 10.1159/000371357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Quizhpe E., et al., Prevalence of anaemia in schoolchildren in the Amazon area of Ecuador. Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health, 2003. 13(6): p. 355–361. 10.1590/s1020-49892003000500003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bhutta Z.A., et al., Severe childhood malnutrition. Nature reviews Disease primers, 2017. 3(1): p. 1–18. 10.1038/nrdp.2017.67 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fabunmi T., et al., Nutrient intakes and nutritional status of mothers and their under-five children in a rural community of Oyo state, Nigeria. International Journal of Child Health and Nutrition, 2013. 2(1): p. 39–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Smits H.L., Prospects for the control of neglected tropical diseases by mass drug administration. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy, 2009. 7(1): p. 37–56. 10.1586/14787210.7.1.37 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wilson M.E., Geography of infectious diseases. Infectious Diseases, 2010: p. 1055. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Greenwood B., The epidemiology of malaria. Annals of Tropical Medicine & Parasitology, 1997. 91(7): p. 763–769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Villalpando S., et al., Prevalence of anemia in children 1 to 12 years of age: results from a nationwide probabilistic survey in Mexico. Salud pública de México, 2003. 45: p. 490–498. 10.1590/s0036-36342003001000005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Reed B.A., Habicht J.-P., and Niameogo C., The effects of maternal education on child nutritional status depend on socio-environmental conditions. International journal of epidemiology, 1996. 25(3): p. 585–592. 10.1093/ije/25.3.585 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Frost M.B., Forste R., and Haas D.W., Maternal education and child nutritional status in Bolivia: finding the links. Social science & medicine, 2005. 60(2): p. 395–407. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gibson E.L., Wardle J., and Watts C.J., Fruit and vegetable consumption, nutritional knowledge and beliefs in mothers and children. Appetite, 1998. 31(2): p. 205–228. 10.1006/appe.1998.0180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Vereecken C.A., Keukelier E., and Maes L., Influence of mother’s educational level on food parenting practices and food habits of young children. Appetite, 2004. 43(1): p. 93–103. 10.1016/j.appet.2004.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kejo D., et al., Prevalence and predictors of anemia among children under 5 years of age in Arusha District, Tanzania. Pediatric health, medicine and therapeutics, 2018. 9: p. 9. 10.2147/PHMT.S148515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Finlay J.E., Özaltin E., and Canning D., The association of maternal age with infant mortality, child anthropometric failure, diarrhoea and anaemia for first births: evidence from 55 low-and middle-income countries. BMJ open, 2011. 1(2). 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Trivedi S. and Pasrija S., Teenage pregnancies and their obstetric outcomes. Tropical doctor, 2007. 37(2): p. 85–88. 10.1177/004947550703700208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kotecha P.V., Nutritional anemia in young children with focus on Asia and India. Indian journal of community medicine: official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine, 2011. 36(1): p. 8. 10.4103/0970-0218.80786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Deolalikar A.B., Poverty and child malnutrition in Bangladesh. Journal of Developing Societies, 2005. 21(1–2): p. 55–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Osei A., et al., Household food insecurity and nutritional status of children aged 6 to 23 months in Kailali District of Nepal. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 2010. 31(4): p. 483–494. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Chilton M., Chyatte M., and Breaux J., The negative effects of poverty & food insecurity on child development. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 2007. 126(4): p. 262. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Elalfy M.S., et al., Pattern of milk feeding and family size as risk factors for iron deficiency anemia among poor Egyptian infants 6 to 24 months old. Nutrition research, 2012. 32(2): p. 93–99. 10.1016/j.nutres.2011.12.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Gao W., et al., Severity of anemia among children under 36 months old in rural western China. PloS one, 2013. 8(4): p. e62883. 10.1371/journal.pone.0062883 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Assefa S., Mossie A., and Hamza L., Prevalence and severity of anemia among school children in Jimma Town, Southwest Ethiopia. BMC hematology, 2014. 14(1): p. 1–9. 10.1186/2052-1839-14-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ntenda P.A., et al., Maternal anemia is a potential risk factor for anemia in children aged 6–59 months in Southern Africa: a multilevel analysis. BMC public health, 2018. 18(1): p. 1–13. 10.1186/s12889-018-5568-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Baughcum A.E., et al., Maternal feeding practices and childhood obesity: a focus group study of low-income mothers. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 1998. 152(10): p. 1010–1014. 10.1001/archpedi.152.10.1010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Fieldhouse P., Food and nutrition: customs and culture. 2013: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Anjam M.S., Identification of host genes with a role in sex determination of the plant parasitic cyst nematode, Heterodera schachtii. 2017. 10.1093/jxb/erx374 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Lucas, S.B., S.R. Zaki, and B.C. Portmann, Other viral and infectious diseases and HIV-related liver disease. MacSween’s Pathology of the Liver. 20126th ed Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Churchill Livingstone, 2011: p. 403–466.
  • 65.Despommier D.D., Gwadz R.W., and Hotez P.J., Parasitic diseases. 2012: Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Baker R.D. and Greer F.R., Diagnosis and prevention of iron deficiency and iron-deficiency anemia in infants and young children (0–3 years of age). Pediatrics, 2010. 126(5): p. 1040–1050. 10.1542/peds.2010-2576 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Schneider J.M., et al., The use of multiple logistic regression to identify risk factors associated with anemia and iron deficiency in a convenience sample of 12–36-mo-old children from low-income families. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2008. 87(3): p. 614–620. 10.1093/ajcn/87.3.614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Walker R., et al., Growth rates and life histories in twenty‐two small‐scale societies. American Journal of Human Biology: The Official Journal of the Human Biology Association, 2006. 18(3): p. 295–311. 10.1002/ajhb.20510 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Rao S., et al., Study of complementary feeding practices among mothers of children aged six months to two years-A study from coastal south India. The Australasian medical journal, 2011. 4(5): p. 252. 10.4066/AMJ.2011.607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Howard C.T., et al., Association of diarrhea with anemia among children under age five living in rural areas of Indonesia. Journal of tropical pediatrics, 2007. 53(4): p. 238–244. 10.1093/tropej/fmm011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Semrad C.E., Approach to the patient with diarrhea and malabsorption. Goldman’s cecil medicine, 2012: p. 895. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.van den Bogaart E., et al., Prevalence, features and risk factors for malaria co-infections amongst visceral leishmaniasis patients from Amudat Hospital, Uganda. PLoS Negl Trop Dis, 2012. 6(4): p. e1617. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Le H.T., et al., Anemia and intestinal parasite infection in school children in rural Vietnam. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007. 16(4). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Subramanian S., et al., Association of maternal height with child mortality, anthropometric failure, and anemia in India. Jama, 2009. 301(16): p. 1691–1701. 10.1001/jama.2009.548 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Willows N.D., et al., Dietary inadequacy is associated with anemia and suboptimal growth among preschool-aged children in Yunnan Province, China. Nutrition Research, 2011. 31(2): p. 88–96. 10.1016/j.nutres.2011.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Anticona C. and San Sebastian M., Anemia and malnutrition in indigenous children and adolescents of the Peruvian Amazon in a context of lead exposure: a cross-sectional study. Global health action, 2014. 7(1): p. 22888. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Ahmed T., Hossain M., and Sanin K.I., Global burden of maternal and child undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2012. 61(Suppl. 1): p. 8–17. 10.1159/000345165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Wilunda C., et al., Prenatal anemia control and anemia in children aged 6–23 months in sub‐Saharan Africa. Maternal & child nutrition, 2017. 13(3): p. e12375. 10.1111/mcn.12375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Watthanakulpanich D., et al., Impact of hookworm deworming on anemia and nutritional status among children in Thailand. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicineand Public Health, 2011. 42(4): p. 782. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Girum T. and Wasie A., The effect of deworming school children on anemia prevalence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The open nursing journal, 2018. 12: p. 155. 10.2174/1874434601812010155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Magadi M.A., Cross‐national analysis of the risk factors of child malnutrition among children made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS in sub‐Saharan Africa: evidence from the DHS. Tropical medicine & international health, 2011. 16(5): p. 570–578. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02733.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Linnemayr S., Alderman H., and Ka A., Determinants of malnutrition in Senegal: Individual, household, community variables, and their interaction. Economics & Human Biology, 2008. 6(2): p. 252–263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Pasricha S.-R., et al., Vitamin B-12, folate, iron, and vitamin A concentrations in rural Indian children are associated with continued breastfeeding, complementary diet, and maternal nutrition. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2011. 94(5): p. 1358–1370. 10.3945/ajcn.111.018580 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Ní Bhrolcháin M., Period parity progression ratios and birth intervals in England and Wales, 1941–1971: A synthetic life table analysis. Population Studies, 1987. 41(1): p. 103–125. 10.1080/0032472031000142556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Frank T Spradley

31 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-37075

Prevalence and determinants of severity levels of anaemia among children aged 6-59 months in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tesema,

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.

Four experts in the field handled your manuscript, and we are grateful for their time and contributions. Although interest was found in your study, several major concerns arose that require to attention. Please address ALL of the reviewers' comments in your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 12 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,

Frank T. Spradley

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 noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2020/6907395/

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

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

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: PONE-D-20-37075

The manuscript requires intense editing for spellings and grammar.

INTRODUCTION

This is deficient in the previously reported prevalence rates of childhood anaemia in different African populations. This is needed to establish the burden of anaemia in African children. The burden of anaemia in childhood should be filtered from childhood mortality studies in Africa. All these are required to justify the present study.

Lines 62-63: This is not totally relevant to childhood.

Line 86: What proportion of childhood mortality is related to anaemia?

Line 90: What “problem” and what “region”?

Lines 95-96: What is the gap in knowledge the study proposed to fill?

METHOD

Secondary data analysis. Detailed methodology.

Line 109: What does (46) represent? If it is a reference, it is inappropriate to jump from reference #32 to reference #46. Even the item #46 on the list of references does not tally with the context within the text.

RESULTS

Line 198: “About” 21666? Figures should be exact.

Lines 132 and 200: What defined which nutritional status?

Lines: 204-206: Prevalence rates should be to a single decimal place.

Line 217: “cut of” or “cut-off”

DISCUSSION

Lines 295/298: Not specific about which factor increased or decreased with the possible risk of anaemia

Line 313: Inexperience about good infant feeding practices and prevention of infections and infestations may also predispose to deficiencies of haematopoiesis-related nutrients.

Line 339: Repetition of “vitamin A”

Lines 342-344: Diarrhea in 6-23 month age group will not explain the higher odd of higher level of anaemia in the 24-59 month age group.

Lines 345-347: The role of diarrhoea in childhood anaemia could only be justified if it is frequently recurrent or protracted to cause nutrient losses and nutrient store depletion.

Lines 349-351: Give examples of intestinal parasitosis known to cause fever, diarrhoea and anaemia in children.

Lines 352-354: Not clear why wasted children were separated from stunted and underweight children since they are all at risk of higher level of anaemia.

Lines 255-359: Aside deprivation of nutrients required for haematopoiesis, poor nutrition is also associated with poor immunity. Therefore infections and infestations also compound the effects of micronutrient deficiencies.

Reviewer #2: Anaemia has been a public health burden among under-5 children in sub-Saharan African countries. Therefore, in trying to understand the prevalence and determinants of severity levels of anaemia among children aged 6-59 months in sub-Saharan Africa and ways of reducing the burden, I found merit in the paper.

The paper is well written, the issues tackled are relevant, the methodology applied is appropriate, and the results are properly written. However, the authors were not consistent with using the words anaemia and anemia, sub-Sharan, and Sub-Saharan. Therefore, the entire manuscript requires thorough proofreading and editing.

In lines 51, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 75, 78, and 79 of pages 3-4, anemia should be changed to anaemia. Please be consistent and edit the entire paper.

In lines 70, 86, and 92 of page 3, sub-Saharan Africa should be written as sub-Saharan Africa. Please check the entire paper.

Methods

In line 103 of page 4, the authors should refer the readers to Table 1 that shows the list of countries involved in the study. In lines 104 and 106, change Sub to sub. There was no elaboration on the study population and sample size. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were also missing. Highlight information got from the DHS. The paper should also explain how the datasets from the surveys were merged.

The authors failed to list the percentage distribution of anaemia in each of the 32 countries.

In line 23 of page 2, the authors wrote anaemia and later changed it to anemia in line 26 of page 2. Hence, they continued interchanging the two words. Thorough editing is highly required.

The -2LLN acronym appeared first in line 179 of page 8; therefore, the authors should write the full meaning at the location in the article.

On page 7, the authors should clearly explain the analytical strategy and process, providing references.

Results and discussion

In line 194 of page 9, the authors mention the percentage distribution of anaemia among children in East Africa. It is also necessary that the percentage distribution of childhood anaemia in West Africa, Central Africa, and Southern Africa should be mentioned.

In line 202 of page 10, change Sub to sub.

In lines 217, 219, 221, 222, and 227 of page 10, change anemia to anaemia. Please be consistent and edit the whole manuscript.

In line 272 of page 12, South Africa should be changed to Southern Africa.

Correct the anemia in line 279 and Sub-Sharan Africa in line 280 of page 12.

A table of unadjusted ORs is missing.

Lines 287, 290, 291, 296, and 307 of page 13 should also be corrected.

Correct the anemia in lines 326 and 327 of page 14.

Lines 334 and 335 of page 15 should also be corrected.

Correct the anemia in lines 372 and 381 of page 16.

Reviewer #3: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-20-37075

Prevalence and determinants of severity levels of anaemia among children aged 6-59 months in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis

Feedback to authors

This article thought to identify a one figure for anaemia prevalence for under five years old children in Sub-Saharan Africa disaggregated by severity levels (mild, moderate, and severe) as well as to identify its determinants considering the severity levels factor. The author pooled data from previously conducted DHS in Africa and analyzed it using a multilevel ordinal logistic regression.

In general, the topic is good and the analysis design was nice to address the research question. However, there are some points to be taken into consideration to make the manuscript clearer and better designed.

Abstract:

Background:

In page 2, lines 26-27; the sentence “Though anemia is preventable, it remains ...” looks odd. It is distracting from the main scope of the study. Is better to be removed.

There is no valid justification stated for this research. Thus, the word “therefore” in the sentence “Therefore, this study ...” (in Page 2, line 27) seems strange. It is advised either to give reasonable justification or to remove it.

Methods:

In page 2, line 30; “This study was based on the most recent Demographic and Health Survey data ...” what is the limit/definition of recent. How far recent Demographic and Health Survey data are accepted to be included in this study. Please define.

In page 2, lines 32-33; “... and the ordinal nature of anaemia”. What is this ordinal nature? “... a multilevel ordinal logistic regression model was applied.” What is the study outcome?

In page 2, lines 33-34; “Proportional odds assumption was tested by Brant test ...” what is the purpose of using this test?

In page 2, lines 36; “... since the models were nested models.” This part of the sentence is better be deleted.

Independent variables were not described. You don’t need to list them, but only describe them in summary; therefore, the reader could have an idea about what you are looking at.

Results:

In page 2, lines 40-41; “... prevalence of anaemia among children aged 6-59 months in sub-Saharan Africa...” in the results, use your study population and do not apply your results to the general population. So, replace sub-Saharan Africa by another expression/word to reflect your own findings.

In page 2, lines 45; “... were significantly associated with an increased odd of higher...” correct the grammar of “an increased odd” to “increased odds”

While the authors used an ordinal logistic regression, nothing is mentioned about the order of severity in the results?!!!

Conclusion:

Nothing is mentioned about the level of severity in the conclusion.

The main article:

Background:

In page 3, lines 49-50; “... World Health 60 Organization (WHO) defines childhood anemia as a Hb concentration below 110 g/L.” The WHO has three cut-off levels for defining anaemia in childhood depending on age group. Please revise and correct your statement. Ref. [3] is not a WHO publication. If you are referring your statement to the WHO as a reference organization for setting standard definitions, then you should cite reference from that organization itself and not what others stated what WHO had said! Please revise.

In page 3, lines 62-66; the author stated many causes that he did not studied. Stating such issues in the background without being related to the study seems redundancy and could distract the reader from the target of the study. Consider deleting it.

In page 3, lines 64-65; the word “hemoglobinopathies” is duplicated

In page 4, lines 79-84; the author mentioned - from previous studies - many factors associated with anaemia; however, some of them (infectious diseases (malaria, hookworm)) were not included in this study! Explain why.

In page 4, line 80; does “multiple birth” associated with childhood anaemia? Or with maternal anaemia? Revise and update.

In page 4, line 84; does “occupation” associated with childhood anaemia? Or with anaemia in adulthood? Revise and update.

In page 4, line 84; “education”, “household wealth status”, and “residence” are just repetition previous statement. Consider deleting them.

In page 4, lines 87-90; in order for the justification to be valid, the author is advised to give the link between reducing child mortality and anaemia prevention and control.

In page 4, lines 90-92; the author justified for this study the cause of “very few studied conducted” on anaemia; while he is using data from 32 studies in the region from the DHS only. This fact is contradicting the author statement. Furthermore, and since the author did not conduct an original research to fill the mentioned gab in knowledge, but only analyzing what have already done, then the limited number of publications could not be considered as an adequate justification for this research. Consider revising the gap in knowledge and restatement of the study justification.

In page 4, lines 92-93; “though the effects of anaemia differ depending on the severity level of anaemia”. You should explain how does anaemia differ depending on severity.

Methods:

In page 5, line 103; what is the cutoff time point for recent and why you chose this cutoff point? DHS; spell it out first then use abbreviation. Were there any inclusion/exclusion criteria used for selecting countries’ data? Are there any country data that was excluded?

In page 5, line 110; have you used any variable in the analysis from other data sets?

In page 5, line 113; how were households been selected?

In page 5, line 114; how were children selected within households?

In page 5, line 115; table 1 should be mentioned in the results section, not in the method section

In page 6, line 123; how was the adjustment to altitude performed? were all studies perform altitude adjustment?

In page 6, line 126; before describing how you assigned variables into the tow levels, explain and justify how and why you came up and restricted your study to the selected variables

In page 6, lines 128-129; how was maternal anaemia measured and defined? What was the haemoglobin level cut point used to define anaemia? Was pregnancy status considered to define anaemia status in women (using different cut points for pregnant and non-pregnant women to define anaemia)? How was the distance to health facility assessed? How was the size of the child being assessed and categories defined?

In page 6, lines 130-132; authors are to mention what were z-scores measuring (e.g. stunting, …) and how they were categorized (what were the cut off points used to define each category)

In page 6, lines 127-133; there are discrepancies between variables listed in the methods section and those listed in tables 2, 3, and 4. Many are in the tables and not in the methods section. Some of which are in some tables but not in other tables. It is not clear what the variables of the study are and how the selection for the model was done.

In page 6, line 138; what other software the author used for the rest of the analysis?

In page 7, lines 154-158; “Which allows the relationship between the explanatory …” This sentence may be better re-phrased to have a more expressive message.

In page 8, line 181; the bi-variable analysis (and related p-values) was not mentioned in the methods section nor presented in the results/tables of results.

In page 9, line 200; “stunted”, “underweight” and “wasted”. Describe the study definitions of these terms in the method section (see above point [In page 6, lines 130-132])

In page 9, lines 203 & 205; “… anaemia among children aged 6 – 59 months in Sub-Saharan Africa was …”. In the results section, use your study population, then at the discussion apply this to the general population if applicable. Consider replacing sub-Saharan Africa with your study population.

In page 9, lines 207-208; the author needs to define what is mother mild, moderate and severe anaemia in the methods section.

In pages 9 & 10, lines 207-212; The author is describing variation between groups. Were these variations statistically significant? In case of using comparisons, you need to show the probability of variability (p-value). Otherwise just describe the data.

In page 10, line 223; “… MOR was 2.03 …” This is different from what presented in Table 4.

In page 10, lines 224-225; “Deviance was used to …” It is better to rephrase this sentence for better understanding.

In page 11, line 241; “… mother education level at no education, primary education …”. Consider using the expression “no formal education” instead of “no education”.

In page 12, lines 287-288; why comparing Sub-Saharan Africa with Brazil and Ecuador? Consider comparison with other continents, regions or previous estimation for the same population rather than countries.

In page 14, lines 309-310; this study findings showed no association between anaemia and birth weight. How could you fix this explanation with your findings?

In page 14, lines 331-332; Transplacental and breast feeding are not common routes of Malaria, Visceral Leishmaniasis and TB transmission!! The evidence used needs to be checked.

Conclusion:

-

Tables:

In Table 1: it is better to group the countries by their sub-regions

In Table 2: many of the variables mentioned in Table 2 were not stated in the methods section, nor used in the tables 3 & 4.

In Table 2: describe abbreviations used in the Table as end note.

In Table 2: use “no formal education” instead of “no education”

In Table 3: the table title “The prevalence and severity of anemia based on the selected child and maternal characteristics in Sub-Saharan Africa”. Consider deleting “selected”, adding “community characteristics”

In Table 3: it is better to keep the order of variable in a way that makes sense. At least keep order the same way in each table.

In Table 3: mention the total number of children per each category of variable

In Table 3: use “no formal education” instead of “no education”

In Table 4: give the p-value for each AOR

In Table 4: “size of the child at birth”. the reference group is better to be the small birth weight (biologically, this makes sense)

General comments:

In the discussion, you need to consider what is the meaning and significance of your results more than justifying your findings using others results. However, the latter is accepted.

Revise grammar, punctuations and sentences clarity.

Reviewer #4: In this article the authors present data on determinants of severity levels of anaemia among children less than 6-59 months in Sub-Saharan Africa using multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis. The overall prevalence of anaemia was 64.11% of which 26% were found to be mildly anaemic and 34.93 were moderately anaemic with 3% being severely anaemic. The authors also identified a number of factors with increased odd of higher levels of anaemia. These findings are interesting and highlight the relevance of anaemia as a major public health issue in Sub-Sahara Africa not leaving out some of the suggested measures they highlighted which when implemented could help reduce the burden of anaemia. I therefore consider these findings to be of interest in this field and hence worth publishing.

A few Minor points I will like the authors to consider

- The use of the word "Anaemia" and "Anemia" is not correct. They have to decide to use one and not to mix them up. This runs throughout the whole manuscript and need to be corrected.

- Page 4 Line 78: The statement "The finding of previous literature...." is not clear., the authors should consider rephrasing it , 'from' may be better than 'of'

- Page 4 line 90-93. The data used in this analysis were obtained from studies conducted in these regions and therefore to state that state that very few studies have been conducted in this region is not too clear - elaborate a little on this with some supporting references.

- Page 4 line 93. Why do you consider non-anaemic as level of anaemia? Shouldn't these be mild, moderate and severe?

-Page 9 line 195: ...."children got birth", does not read well should consider re-writing the statement like wise what is 'small size at birth' Is it the birth weigh or the actual size of the baby? clarification needed.

- Page 10 Line 217 replace 'cut of' with "cutoff"

- Page 11 the continuous use of the word "higher levels of anaemia" throughout the text is confusing it will be good if the authors use the terms used in their definition-mild, moderate or severe or leave it as the higher odds or lower odds of developing anaemia. Consider revising them.

- Page 14 line 312-Consider revising the statement "...due to teenage mothers are less prepared' likewise line 329 the statement "this is due to the mother is a primary source..." It will have read better if it has been " this is due to the mother being the primary source...."

It will be nice if the discussion section will be relooked at briefly to address some of the points raised .

References

The authors did not meet the referencing style of this journal and therefore I suugest they reformat them to meet the referencing style of this journal

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Chigozie Louisa J. Ugwu

Reviewer #3: Yes: Khalid Elmardi

Reviewer #4: 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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript Number PONE-D-20-37075.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 23;16(4):e0249978. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249978.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Feb 2021

PLOS ONE

Point by point response for editors/reviewers comments

Manuscript title: Prevalence and determinants of severity levels of anemia among children aged 6-59 months in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-20-37075

Dear editor/reviewer.

Dear all,

We would like to thank you for these constructive, building, and improvable comments on this manuscript that would improve the substance and content of the manuscript. We considered each comment and reviewers on the manuscript thoroughly. Our point-by-point responses for each comment and question are described in detail on the following pages.

Response to reviewers comments

Reviewer#1

1. The manuscript requires intense editing for spelling and grammar.

Authors’ response: Thank you reviewer for the comments. We extensively modified the typographical and grammatical errors with the help of language experts. (See the revised manuscript)

INTRODUCTION

2. This is deficient in the previously reported prevalence rates of childhood anaemia in different African populations. This is needed to establish the burden of anaemia in African children. The burden of anaemia in childhood should be filtered from childhood mortality studies in Africa. All these are required to justify the present study.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We incorporated the prevalence of anemia in African countries and the childhood mortality related with anemia. (See the revised manuscript, line 67-72 and 90 – 92, page 3-4)

3. Lines 62-63: This is not totally relevant to childhood.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We removed these sentences in the revised manuscript

4. Line 86: What proportion of childhood mortality is related to anaemia?, Line 90: What “problem” and what “region”?, Lines 95-96: What is the gap in knowledge the study proposed to fill?

Authors’ response: Thank you reviewer for the comments. We considered these comments and modified the manuscript. (See Introduction section, page 4)

METHOD

5. Secondary data analysis. Detailed methodology.

Line 109: What does (46) represent? If it is a reference, it is inappropriate to jump from reference #32 to reference #46. Even the item #46 on the list of references does not tally with the context within the text.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We wrote the method section in detail and for further we included the link of the data sources as we used secondary data analysis. We updated the references. (See the revised manuscript, page 5-6, line 106 – 127)

6. Line 198: “About” 21666? Figures should be exact.

Lines 132 and 200: What defined which nutritional status?

Lines: 204-206: Prevalence rates should be to a single decimal place.

Line 217: “cut of” or “cut-off”

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We updated the manuscript considering these comments. (See method section, line 157 – 163, page 7 and line 232-240 and line 245, page 10-11 )

Discussion

7. Lines 295/298: Not specific about which factor increased or decreased with the possible risk of anaemia

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We write separately factors associated with increased or decreased risk of anemia. (See the Discussion section, line 319-325, page 14)

8. Line 313: Inexperience about good infant feeding practices and prevention of infections and infestations may also predispose to deficiencies of haematopoiesis-related nutrients.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comment. We rewrote it. (See the Discussion section, line 338 – 340, page 15)

9. Line 339: Repetition of “vitamin A”

Lines 342-344: Diarrhea in 6-23 month age group will not explain the higher odd of higher level of anaemia in the 24-59 month age group.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We removed the repetition of vitamin A, and explain how diarrhea can cause anemia. (See the Discussion section, line 373-377, page 16)

10. Lines 345-347: The role of diarrhoea in childhood anaemia could only be justified if it is frequently recurrent or protracted to cause nutrient losses and nutrient store depletion.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comment. We accept your statement, as you know diarrhea causes nutrient store depletion when it is recurrent or protracted. In addition, diarrhea is the manifestation of intestinal diseases such as amoebiasis, giardiasis, hookworm, ascariasis, etc, as these diseases are well-known causes of undernutrition in children. So, we are not only talking about the impact of diarrhea but also the diseases that cause diarrhea also responsible for anemia.

11. Lines 349-351: Give examples of intestinal parasitosis known to cause fever, diarrhoea and anaemia in children.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comment. The commonest intestinal parasitosis that can cause fever, diarrhea, and anemia are visceral leishmaniasis, malaria, hookworm, ascariasis, giardiasis, and amoebiasis.

12. Lines 352-354: Not clear why wasted children were separated from stunted and underweight children since they are all at risk of higher level of anaemia.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comment. We write all together in the revised manuscript. (See the Discussion section, line 381-383, page 16)

13. Lines 255-359: Aside deprivation of nutrients required for haematopoiesis, poor nutrition is also associated with poor immunity. Therefore infections and infestations also compound the effects of micronutrient deficiencies.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We accept this sentence and incorporated in the revised manuscript. (See the Discussion section, line383-386, page 16/17 )

Reviewer#2

1. The paper is well written, the issues tackled are relevant, the methodology applied is appropriate, and the results are properly written. However, the authors were not consistent with using the words anaemia and anemia, sub-Sharan, and Sub-Saharan. Therefore, the entire manuscript requires thorough proofreading and editing.

Authors’ response: Thank you reviewer for the comments. We extensively edited the overall manuscript. (See the revised manuscript)

2. In lines 51, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 75, 78, and 79 of pages 3-4, anemia should be changed to anaemia. Please be consistent and edit the entire paper.

In lines 70, 86, and 92 of page 3, sub-Saharan Africa should be written as sub-Saharan Africa. Please check the entire paper.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We consistently write as anemia and sub-Saharan Africa in the revised manuscript. (See the revised manuscript)

3. Methods

In line 103 of page 4, the authors should refer the readers to Table 1 that shows the list of countries involved in the study. In lines 104 and 106, change Sub to sub. There was no elaboration on the study population and sample size. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were also missing. Highlight information got from the DHS. The paper should also explain how the datasets from the surveys were merged.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. As we stated, we used the DHS data for this study. The study population for this study was children aged 6-59 months and we include under-five children answered the variable anemia status. So, we drop those children who were missing this variable and for further information, we included the DHS website as the data is publically available. We were not merging the data set rather we append the datasets of 32 SSA countries data after extracting similar variables. Because we aim to add observation with similar variables. When we say merging it is all about adding variables whereas appending is adding observation. So, for this study, we have done appending.

4. The authors failed to list the percentage distribution of anaemia in each of the 32 countries.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We included the prevalence of anemia across countries. (See Table 1)

5. In line 23 of page 2, the authors wrote anaemia and later changed it to anemia in line 26 of page 2. Hence, they continued interchanging the two words. Thorough editing is highly required.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the concerns. We accept and consistently write as anemia in the revised manuscript. (See the revised manuscript)

6. The -2LLN acronym appeared first in line 179 of page 8; therefore, the authors should write the full meaning at the location in the article.

Authors’ response; Thank you for the comments. We write in full term. (See the revised manuscript, line 205, page 9)

7. On page 7, the authors should clearly explain the analytical strategy and process, providing references.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comment. We stated in the method section in detail. For the descriptive results, we reported using numerical figures and percentages. For associated factors, we applied multilevel ordinal logistic regression models. (See the Method section)

8. Results and discussion

In line 194 of page 9, the authors mention the percentage distribution of anaemia among children in East Africa. It is also necessary that the percentage distribution of childhood anaemia in West Africa, Central Africa, and Southern Africa should be mentioned.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We reported the prevalence of anemia in all the SSA regions. (See the Result section, line 220-221, page 10)

9. In line 202 of page 10, change Sub to sub.

In lines 217, 219, 221, 222, and 227 of page 10, change anemia to anaemia. Please be consistent and edit the whole manuscript.

In line 272 of page 12, South Africa should be changed to Southern Africa.

Correct the anemia in line 279 and Sub-Sharan Africa in line 280 of page 12.

Lines 287, 290, 291, 296, and 307 of page 13 should also be corrected.

Correct the anemia in lines 326 and 327 of page 14.

Lines 334 and 335 of page 15 should also be corrected.

Correct the anemia in lines 372 and 381 of page 16.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We made it consistent in the revised manuscript as anemia and sub-Saharan Africa. (See the revised manuscript)

10. A table of unadjusted ORs is missing.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We have fitted a multilevel ordinal logistic regression model and we fit four models. As you can see in Table 4 we presented the AOR for four models, and if we write the Crude Odds Ratio (COR) the table will be bulky and hard to catch. If we were fitted the ordinary logistic regression we are expected to report the COR but we have fitted the multilevel logistic regression model, and if we report the COR, it will be tedious. If this doesn't convince you we are ready to report it.

Reviewer#3

Abstract

1. Background:

In page 2, lines 26-27; the sentence “Though anemia is preventable, it remains ...” looks odd. It is distracting from the main scope of the study. Is better to be removed.

There is no valid justification stated for this research. Thus, the word “therefore” in the sentence “Therefore, this study ...” (in Page 2, line 27) seems strange. It is advised either to give reasonable justification or to remove it.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We rewrote it. (See the revised manuscript)

2. Methods:

In page 2, line 30; “This study was based on the most recent Demographic and Health Survey data ...” what is the limit/definition of recent. How far recent Demographic and Health Survey data are accepted to be included in this study. Please define

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. In this study, we excluded the DHS survey of countries Eriteria as the last DHS was conducted in 1995. Therefore, we included countries with DHS survey after 2000 means following the MDGs. Fortunately, the last DHS survey of the included 32 countries was conducted from 2005 to 2016. We say recent means the last DHS of countries after 2000 as many public health programs were implemented following 2000.

3. In page 2, lines 32-33; “... and the ordinal nature of anaemia”. What is this ordinal nature? “... a multilevel ordinal logistic regression model was applied.” What is the study outcome?

In page 2, lines 33-34; “Proportional odds assumption was tested by Brant test ...” what is the purpose of using this test?

Authors’response: Thank you for the comments. As we know the scale of measurement of the outcome variable that was level of anemia was categorized as non-anemic, mild, moderate, and severe anemia. Therefore, the level of anemia is an ordinal variable as it has a kind of order. So, as you know the choice of the method of analysis is depending on the outcome variable (level of anemia), the ordinal logistic regression model is the appropriate method of analysis since the response variable has more than two choices. Besides, as our data source was the DHS data, the data has hierarchical nature and so, study subjects within the same cluster might share similar characteristics to individuals from another cluster. Therefore, we applied an advanced statistical model to take into account the clustering effect and apply a multilevel ordinal logistic regression model. In the ordinal logistic regression model, there is one basic assumption that is proportional odds assumption/parallel line assumptions. The proportional odds assumption is used to check whether the ordinal logistic regression model is the best-fitted or not. If this assumption is violated, indicates that the proportional odds model is not the appropriate model for the data and therefore, we have to consider the partial odds model or multinomial logistic regression model. In this study, the proportional odds assumption was satisfied (p-value>0.05) and indicates the multilevel ordinal logistic model is the well-fitted model for the data.

4. In page 2, lines 36; “... since the models were nested models.” This part of the sentence is better be deleted. Independent variables were not described. You don’t need to list them, but only describe them in summary; therefore, the reader could have an idea about what you are looking at.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We removed the sentences and rewrite them. (See the revised manuscript)

5. Results:

In page 2, lines 40-41; “... prevalence of anaemia among children aged 6-59 months in sub-Saharan Africa...” in the results, use your study population and do not apply your results to the general population. So, replace sub-Saharan Africa by another expression/word to reflect your own findings.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We accept the comments and rewrote it.

6. In page 2, lines 45; “... were significantly associated with an increased odd of higher...” correct the grammar of “an increased odd” to “increased odds”

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We corrected it.

7. While the authors used an ordinal logistic regression, nothing is mentioned about the order of severity in the results?!!!

Conclusion:

Nothing is mentioned about the level of severity in the conclusion.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your concern. As you can see in the result section we presented the prevalence of anemia in the order of severity whereas, in the ordinal logistic regression we reported a single OR since the proportional assumption was satisfied and the OR was constant across categories. If the proportional odds assumption was violated we were reporting the separate odds ratio for each order. Now, we mentioned the levels of anemia in the conclusion section.

8. The main article:

Background:

In page 3, lines 49-50; “... World Health 60 Organization (WHO) defines childhood anemia as a Hb concentration below 110 g/L.” The WHO has three cut-off levels for defining anaemia in childhood depending on age group. Please revise and correct your statement. Ref. [3] is not a WHO publication. If you are referring your statement to the WHO as a reference organization for setting standard definitions, then you should cite reference from that organization itself and not what others stated what WHO had said! Please revise.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We corrected the references. See the revised manuscript.

9. In page 3, lines 62-66; the author stated many causes that he did not studied. Stating such issues in the background without being related to the study seems redundancy and could distract the reader from the target of the study. Consider deleting it.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We removed these sentences in the revised manuscript. (See revised manuscript)

10. In page 3, lines 64-65; the word “hemoglobinopathies” is duplicated

In page 4, lines 79-84; the author mentioned - from previous studies - many factors associated with anaemia; however, some of them (infectious diseases (malaria, hookworm)) were not included in this study! Explain why.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We removed the duplicated word. The data source for this study was DHS data and in this dataset, the variables such as infectious diseases and other clinical factors were not found. That is why we did not incorporate as a variable in this study. Besides, we acknowledge the limitation section of the study.

11. In page 4, line 80; does “multiple birth” associated with childhood anaemia? Or with maternal anaemia? Revise and update. In page 4, line 84; does “occupation” associated with childhood anaemia? Or with anaemia in adulthood? Revise and update.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the concerns. As you know multiple births such as twin births are more likely prone to malnutrition, anemia, and other poor outcomes, they are more likely to be anemic than singletons. Regarding occupation, as you know maternal occupation is closely linked with the wealth status of the household and therefore, the woman who had occupation are more likely to afford the costs for child care and nutrition. We included these variables as previous literature reported as significantly associated factors with childhood anemia.

12. In page 4, line 84; “education”, “household wealth status”, and “residence” are just repetition previous statement. Consider deleting them. In page 4, lines 87-90; in order for the justification to be valid, the author is advised to give the link between reducing child mortality and anaemia prevention and control.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We removed the repetition. Besides, we incorporated how anemia prevention and control reduces child mortality. Anemia is responsible for the death of million of children and therefore, working on anemia can save millions of children. (See the revised manuscript)

13. In page 4, lines 90-92; the author justified for this study the cause of “very few studied conducted” on anaemia; while he is using data from 32 studies in the region from the DHS only. This fact is contradicting the author statement. Furthermore, and since the author did not conduct an original research to fill the mentioned gab in knowledge, but only analyzing what have already done, then the limited number of publications could not be considered as an adequate justification for this research. Consider revising the gap in knowledge and restatement of the study justification. In page 4, lines 92-93; “though the effects of anaemia differ depending on the severity level of anaemia”. You should explain how does anaemia differ depending on severity.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. As we stated in the background section, we justify the significance of the study from public health perspective and methodological perspective. Regarding the public health perspective, this study was based on the pooled DHS data of 32 sub-Saharan African countries with a very large sample size and this could increase the power of the study and the estimate can be generalized. Besides, the use of multilevel approach, is mainly concentrated on the ecological approach of epidemiology as it can take into account the neighborhood effect, and the result can give the overall picture of SSA. Regarding the methodological perspective, as you can see previously published literatures treat anemia as a binary outcome by categorizing no/yes but as you can understand treating mild, moderate, and severe anemia as yes is not statistically appropriate since there is the loss of information because the factor responsible for mild anemia may not be similar with the factor that can cause severe anemia. Therefore, we applied the multilevel ordinal logistic regression model to get a reliable estimate and avoid loss of information. (See the Background section)

14. Methods:

In page 5, line 103; what is the cutoff time point for recent and why you chose this cutoff point? DHS; spell it out first then use abbreviation. Were there any inclusion/exclusion criteria used for selecting countries’ data? Are there any country data that was excluded? In page 5, line 110; have you used any variable in the analysis from other data sets? In page 5, line 113; how were households been selected? In page 5, line 114; how were children selected within households?

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We spell out DHS and regarding the cutoff point just used the countries with the last DHS survey after 2000 by relating it with MDG and in our study, we included survey’s from 2005-2016 and we considered them as a factor and were not significant. We reported the DHS databases to link for further methodological procedures. In the selected households the most recent children were selected for this study. (See the Method section)

15. In page 5, line 115; table 1 should be mentioned in the results section, not in the method section

Authors’ response: Thank you. We mentioned it in the result section. (See the Result section)

16. In page 6, line 123; how was the adjustment to altitude performed? were all studies perform altitude adjustment?

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We included it in the method section. (See the method section, line 135-143, page 6)

17. In page 6, line 126; before describing how you assigned variables into the tow levels, explain and justify how and why you came up and restricted your study to the selected variables

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. As we stated above, we conducted secondary data analysis using DHS as a data source, and we considered these variables for analysis as these are the variables that we can access from DHS, and we recode based on literature.

18. In page 6, lines 128-129; how was maternal anaemia measured and defined? What was the haemoglobin level cut point used to define anaemia? Was pregnancy status considered to define anaemia status in women (using different cut points for pregnant and non-pregnant women to define anaemia)? How was the distance to health facility assessed? How was the size of the child being assessed and categories defined?

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. The cutoff point for maternal anemia was used differently for pregnant and non-pregnant mothers as we can see in the DHS guideline. Regarding health distance facility was assessed subjectively asking a question how do you see the distance to reach health facility and they responded as a big problem and not a big problem. Whereas, about the size of the child at birth, it was assessed by asking mothers what was the size of the child at birth and they responded as very small, small, average, large, and very large.

19. In page 6, lines 130-132; authors are to mention what were z-scores measuring (e.g. stunting, …) and how they were categorized (what were the cut off points used to define each category).

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We included it in the revised manuscript. (See Method section, line 161-163, page 7)

20. In page 6, lines 127-133; there are discrepancies between variables listed in the methods section and those listed in tables 2, 3, and 4. Many are in the tables and not in the methods section. Some of which are in some tables but not in other tables. It is not clear what the variables of the study are and how the selection for the model was done.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We resolve the discrepancies between variables in the method and result section. For the multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis, first, we select variables which have p-values less than 0.2 in the bi-variable multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis. Then, we used these variables for the multivariable multilevel ordinal regression analysis. Then, we have checked the proportional odds assumption to choose which ordinal model is appropriate, and the proportional odds model was the appropriate model for the data (p-value>0.05). Then, we checked whether there is a clustering effect as the DHS data has hierarchical nature. Finally, we built four models(null model, model I, model II, and model III) and we compared using deviance.

21. In page 6, line 138; what other software the author used for the rest of the analysis?

In page 7, lines 154-158; “Which allows the relationship between the explanatory …” This sentence may be better re-phrased to have a more expressive message.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We used STATA version 14 statistical software for the overall analysis. We write it. (See the revised manuscript, line 164 – 210, page 7-9)

22. In page 8, line 181; the bi-variable analysis (and related p-values) was not mentioned in the methods section nor presented in the results/tables of results.

In page 9, line 200; “stunted”, “underweight” and “wasted”. Describe the study definitions of these terms in the method section (see above point [In page 6, lines 130-132]).

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. As we mentioned in the method section, we conduct the bi-variable multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis to select variables for the multivariable multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis, and variables with a p-value less than 0.2 were considered for the multivariable analysis. In addition, we defined the variables stunted, underweight, and wasted. (See the method section, line 160-162, page 7)

23. In page 9, lines 203 & 205; “… anaemia among children aged 6 – 59 months in Sub-Saharan Africa was …”. In the results section, use your study population, then at the discussion apply this to the general population if applicable. Consider replacing sub-Saharan Africa with your study population.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We accept your comment and revised it. (See the revised manuscript)

24. In page 9, lines 207-208; the author needs to define what is mother mild, moderate and severe anaemia in the methods section

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We incorporated in the revised manuscript. (See the revised manuscript, Method section, line 162 – 165, page 7)

25. In pages 9 & 10, lines 207-212; The author is describing variation between groups. Were these variations statistically significant? In case of using comparisons, you need to show the probability of variability (p-value). Otherwise just describe the data.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. Here we need to show whether there is a difference in the prevalence of severity level of anemia across variable categories and we assessed whether this difference is significant or not using the multilevel ordinal logistic regression. As you mentioned we aim to describe severity levels of anemia across categories, that is why we did not present the p-value.

26. In page 10, line 223; “… MOR was 2.03 …” This is different from what presented in Table 4.

In page 10, lines 224-225; “Deviance was used to …” It is better to rephrase this sentence for better understanding.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. Regarding MOR, it was an editorial error and we corrected it. Concerning Deviance, based on the suggestions we rephrase it. (See the revised manuscript, line 253 – 255, page 11)

27. In page 11, line 241; “… mother education level at no education, primary education …”. Consider using the expression “no formal education” instead of “no education”.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We modified it. (See revised manuscript)

28. In page 12, lines 287-288; why comparing Sub-Saharan Africa with Brazil and Ecuador? Consider comparison with other continents, regions or previous estimation for the same population rather than countries.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. You are right but we compare our findings with these studies because we didn’t get studies at the sub-Saharan Africa level using DHS data at the SSA level. In addition, we compared this estimate with other countries in Europe and Latin American countries to detect the differences.

29. In page 14, lines 309-310; this study findings showed no association between anaemia and birth weight. How could you fix this explanation with your findings?

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. The factor we considered for this study was not birth weight rather birth size was included. Since birth weight was not found for the majority of the children, and data on mothers' perceived birth size was collected. And in our analysis birth size was not significant, probably might be because of the bias introduced by mothers as it was a subjective measurement.

30. In page 14, lines 331-332; Transplacental and breast feeding are not common routes of Malaria, Visceral Leishmaniasis and TB transmission!! The evidence used needs to be checked.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. Though the incidence is too low malaria, TB, HIV/AIDS and Vl can have the potential to transmit vertically from mothers to fetus especially when the placenta is infected. As you know congenital malaria and congenital tuberculosis are reported in literature. Now, we mentioned HIV/AIDS and malaria. (See the revised manuscript)

31. Conclusion

Tables:

In Table 1: it is better to group the countries by their sub-regions

In Table 2: many of the variables mentioned in Table 2 were not stated in the methods section, nor used in the tables 3 & 4.

In Table 2: describe abbreviations used in the Table as end note.

In Table 2: use “no formal education” instead of “no education”

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We corrected it. (See Table 1 and 2)

32. In Table 3: the table title “The prevalence and severity of anemia based on the selected child and maternal characteristics in Sub-Saharan Africa”. Consider deleting “selected”, adding “community characteristics”

In Table 3: it is better to keep the order of variable in a way that makes sense. At least keep order the same way in each table.

In Table 3: mention the total number of children per each category of variable

In Table 3: use “no formal education” instead of “no education”

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We modified the manuscript considering the concerns. (See the revised manuscript)

33. In Table 4: give the p-value for each AOR

In Table 4: “size of the child at birth”. the reference group is better to be the small birth weight (biologically, this makes sense)

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We did not report p-value for each AOR because OR is more informative than p-value as it can give information about the sample size in addition to the significance and strength of association. Besides, we also represent the p-value using asterisk, as you can see, we presented in the footnotes of Table 4.

34. General comments:

In the discussion, you need to consider what is the meaning and significance of your results more than justifying your findings using others results. However, the latter is accepted. Revise grammar, punctuations and sentences clarity.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We extensively edited for any typographical and grammatical errors. (See the revised manuscript)

Reviewer # 4

1. In this article the authors present data on determinants of severity levels of anaemia among children less than 6-59 months in Sub-Saharan Africa using multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis. The overall prevalence of anaemia was 64.11% of which 26% were found to be mildly anaemic and 34.93 were moderately anaemic with 3% being severely anaemic. The authors also identified a number of factors with increased odd of higher levels of anaemia. These findings are interesting and highlight the relevance of anaemia as a major public health issue in Sub-Sahara Africa not leaving out some of the suggested measures they highlighted which when implemented could help reduce the burden of anaemia. I therefore consider these findings to be of interest in this field and hence worth publishing.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We suggested the measures should be taken to reduce the prevalence of childhood anemia and its consequence in the discussion section of the manuscript.

2. A few Minor points I will like the authors to consider

The use of the word "Anaemia" and "Anemia" is not correct. They have to decide to use one and not to mix them up. This runs throughout the whole manuscript and need to be corrected.

Page 4 Line 78: The statement "The finding of previous literature...." is not clear., the authors should consider rephrasing it , 'from' may be better than 'of'

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We modified and write consistently. (See the revised manuscript)

3. - Page 4 line 90-93. The data used in this analysis were obtained from studies conducted in these regions and therefore to state that state that very few studies have been conducted in this region is not too clear - elaborate a little on this with some supporting references.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We elaborate it. (See the Background section, line 95-105, page 4/5 )

4. Page 4 line 93. Why do you consider non-anaemic as level of anaemia? Shouldn't these be mild, moderate and severe?

-Page 9 line 195: ...."children got birth", does not read well should consider re-writing the statement like wise what is 'small size at birth' Is it the birth weigh or the actual size of the baby? clarification needed.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. As we know the scale of measurement of the outcome variable that was level of anemia was categorized as non-anemic, mild, moderate and severe anemia. Therefore, the level of anemia is ordinal variable as it has a kind of ordering. So, as you know the choice of the method of analysis is depending on the outcome variable (level of anemia), the ordinal logistic regression model is the appropriate method of analysis since the response variable has more than two choices. Whereas, about size of child at birth, it was assessed by asking mothers what was the size of the child at birth and they responded as very small, small, average, large, and very large. So, birth size is the about mothers perceived birth size and we recode it as small (very small plus small), average and large (large plus very large).

5. - Page 10 Line 217 replace 'cut of' with "cutoff"

- Page 11 the continuous use of the word "higher levels of anaemia" throughout the text is confusing it will be good if the authors use the terms used in their definition-mild, moderate or severe or leave it as the higher odds or lower odds of developing anaemia. Consider revising them.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We replace it and we modified it.

6. - Page 14 line 312-Consider revising the statement "...due to teenage mothers are less prepared' likewise line 329 the statement "this is due to the mother is a primary source..." It will have read better if it has been " this is due to the mother being the primary source...."

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We revised it.

7. References

The authors did not meet the referencing style of this journal and therefore I suugest they reformat them to meet the referencing style of this journal

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We modified it.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point by point response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Frank T Spradley

8 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-37075R1

Prevalence and determinants of severity levels of anemia among children aged 6-59 months in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tesema,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 22 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Previous reviewer comment

Point 8. The main article:

In background section:

Reviewer comment: In page 3, lines 49-50; “... World Health Organization (WHO) defines childhood anemia as a Hb concentration below 110 g/L.” The WHO has three cut-off levels for defining anaemia in childhood depending on age group. Please revise and correct your statement. Please revise.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We corrected the references. See the revised manuscript

Reviewer feedback 1: childhood do not denote for under five years old children. As mentioned above this cut-off level of haemoglobin is not valid for all childhood age categories. It is only valid for children under the age of 5 years. Author has corrected the reference but not the sentence. Kindly, correct your statement about this. Moreover, this reference used from the WHO is less relevant. It is about iron deficiency anaemia. The WHO has other resources which tell exactly what is the different cut-off levels for defining anaemia in different age, population, and physiological status. Furthermore, the reference used was not properly cited.

Previous reviewer comment

Point 13. In page 4, lines 90-92; the author justified for this study the cause of “very few studied conducted” on anaemia; while he is using data from 32 studies in the region from the DHS only. This fact is contradicting the author statement. Furthermore, and since the author did not conduct an original research to fill the mentioned gab in knowledge, but only analyzing what have already done, then the limited number of publications could not be considered as an adequate justification for this research. Consider revising the gap in knowledge and restatement of the study justification.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. As we stated in the background section, we justify the significance of the study from public health perspective and methodological perspective. Regarding the public health perspective, this study was based on the pooled DHS data of 32 sub-Saharan African countries with a very large sample size and this could increase the power of the study and the estimate can be generalized. Besides, the use of multilevel approach, is mainly concentrated on the ecological approach of epidemiology as it can take into account the neighborhood effect, and the result can give the overall picture of SSA. Regarding the methodological perspective, as you can see previously published literatures treat anemia as a binary outcome by categorizing no/yes but as you can understand treating mild, moderate, and severe anemia as yes is not statistically appropriate since there is the loss of information because the factor responsible for mild anemia may not be similar with the factor that can cause severe anemia. Therefore, we applied the multilevel ordinal logistic regression model to get a reliable estimate and avoid loss of information. (See the Background section).

Reviewer feedback 2: these justifications are acceptable. But the statement of “very few studied conducted” is not acceptable. This undermines others’ work. In fact, there are many studies on anaemia prevalence and its determinants available as articles and other resource literature. You can include what you have stated above in your article, but you need to revises the phrase about availability of “very few studies on anaemia” as a justification.

Previous reviewer comment

Point 14. Methods:

In page 5, line 113; how were households been selected? In page 5, line 114; how were children selected within households?

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. …. We reported the DHS databases to link for further methodological procedures. In the selected households the most recent children were selected for this study. (See the Method section)

Reviewer feedback 3: In your study, you need to describe the methodology clearly and in details. Sample selection method should receive special concern and detailed description to ensure that the study design is properly fit the data and its collection method. Yes, you could refer readers to the website/other reference for more details, but the details that describe your study. In your case, describing selection of the sample at each level has its implication on choosing the multilevel model for your analysis and the way that you considered the levels. More over describing the methodology will give an indication about the extent to which methods are homogenous in all countries and that they could be used in your study without the need for prior manipulation/re-arrangement. If children were not randomly selected then how can you explain avoiding bias in selection.

So, you need to describe how households were selected. The same apply for child selection with each household.

Previous reviewer comment

Point 18. In page 6, lines 128-129; … How was the distance to health facility assessed? How was the size of the child being assessed and categories defined?

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. …. Regarding health distance facility was assessed subjectively asking a question how do you see the distance to reach health facility and they responded as a big problem and not a big problem. Whereas, about the size of the child at birth, it was assessed by asking mothers what was the size of the child at birth and they responded as very small, small, average, large, and very large.

Reviewer feedback 4: The author needs to mention these explanations the article to clarify these issues. However, in response to point 29 in the discussion section, this subjective measurement of size of the baby creates incomparable results with what is available in the literature as stated by the author! So, the author may think of removing variables with non-specific definitions/measurement.

Related to this is that, “distance to health facility” was removed from the text while it was still there in table 4. However, it is not mentioned in tables 2 and 3! Kindly, assure consistency and cohesion.

More issues related to this include mismatch between what is in the text as variables and what is in table 2 and 3. PNC visit was mentioned in table 2 where it is not there in the article. For table 3, many important variables disappeared from table 3 while they were mentioned in table 2. These includes source of drinking water, sex of the head of the household, wanted pregnancy, employment status of the mother, smoking status of the mother, cough, receiving antiparasitic drugs and vit. A supplementation.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes: Chigozie Louisa J. Ugwu

Reviewer #3: Yes: Khalid Elmardi

Reviewer #4: 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 Apr 23;16(4):e0249978. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249978.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Mar 2021

Point by point response for editors/reviewers comments

PLOS ONE Journal

Manuscript title: Prevalence and determinants of severity levels of anemia among children aged 6-59 months in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-20-37075R1

Dear editor.

Dear all,

We would like to thank you for these constructive, building, and improvable comments on this manuscript that would improve the substance and content of the manuscript. We considered each comment and clarification questions of editors and reviewers on the manuscript thoroughly. Our point-by-point responses for each comment and question are described in detail on the following pages. Further, the details of changes were shown by track changes in the supplementary document attached.

Response to Reviewer comment

Reviewer#3

1. - Point 8. The main article:

In background section:

Reviewer comment: In page 3, lines 49-50; “... World Health Organization (WHO) defines childhood anemia as a Hb concentration below 110 g/L.” The WHO has three cut-off levels for defining anaemia in childhood depending on age group. Please revise and correct your statement. Please revise.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We corrected the references. See the revised manuscript

Reviewer feedback 1: childhood do not denote for under five years old children. As mentioned above this cut-off level of haemoglobin is not valid for all childhood age categories. It is only valid for children under the age of 5 years. Author has corrected the reference but not the sentence. Kindly, correct your statement about this. Moreover, this reference used from the WHO is less relevant. It is about iron deficiency anaemia. The WHO has other resources which tell exactly what is the different cut-off levels for defining anaemia in different age, population, and physiological status. Furthermore, the reference used was not properly cited.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comment. We accept the comment and rewrite as anemia among under-five children. (See the revised manuscript)

2. Previous reviewer comment

Point 13. In page 4, lines 90-92; the author justified for this study the cause of “very few studied conducted” on anaemia; while he is using data from 32 studies in the region from the DHS only. This fact is contradicting the author statement. Furthermore, and since the author did not conduct an original research to fill the mentioned gab in knowledge, but only analyzing what have already done, then the limited number of publications could not be considered as an adequate justification for this research. Consider revising the gap in knowledge and restatement of the study justification.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. As we stated in the background section, we justify the significance of the study from public health perspective and methodological perspective. Regarding the public health perspective, this study was based on the pooled DHS data of 32 sub-Saharan African countries with a very large sample size and this could increase the power of the study and the estimate can be generalized. Besides, the use of multilevel approach, is mainly concentrated on the ecological approach of epidemiology as it can take into account the neighborhood effect, and the result can give the overall picture of SSA. Regarding the methodological perspective, as you can see previously published literatures treat anemia as a binary outcome by categorizing no/yes but as you can understand treating mild, moderate, and severe anemia as yes is not statistically appropriate since there is the loss of information because the factor responsible for mild anemia may not be similar with the factor that can cause severe anemia. Therefore, we applied the multilevel ordinal logistic regression model to get a reliable estimate and avoid loss of information. (See the Background section).

Reviewer feedback 2: these justifications are acceptable. But the statement of “very few studied conducted” is not acceptable. This undermines others’ work. In fact, there are many studies on anaemia prevalence and its determinants available as articles and other resource literature. You can include what you have stated above in your article, but you need to revises the phrase about availability of “very few studies on anaemia” as a justification.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We accept the suggestions and modified the revised manuscript. (See the revised manuscript)

3. Point 14. Methods:

In page 5, line 113; how were households been selected? In page 5, line 114; how were children selected within households?

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. …. We reported the DHS databases to link for further methodological procedures. In the selected households the most recent children were selected for this study. (See the Method section)

Reviewer feedback 3: In your study, you need to describe the methodology clearly and in details. Sample selection method should receive special concern and detailed description to ensure that the study design is properly fit the data and its collection method. Yes, you could refer readers to the website/other reference for more details, but the details that describe your study. In your case, describing selection of the sample at each level has its implication on choosing the multilevel model for your analysis and the way that you considered the levels. More over describing the methodology will give an indication about the extent to which methods are homogenous in all countries and that they could be used in your study without the need for prior manipulation/re-arrangement. If children were not randomly selected then how can you explain avoiding bias in selection.

So, you need to describe how households were selected. The same apply for child selection with each household.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We included the statement about how the households selected under the method section of the manuscript. (See the revised manuscript)

4. Point 18. In page 6, lines 128-129; … How was the distance to health facility assessed? How was the size of the child being assessed and categories defined?

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. …. Regarding health distance facility was assessed subjectively asking a question how do you see the distance to reach health facility and they responded as a big problem and not a big problem. Whereas, about the size of the child at birth, it was assessed by asking mothers what was the size of the child at birth and they responded as very small, small, average, large, and very large.

Reviewer feedback 4: The author needs to mention these explanations the article to clarify these issues. However, in response to point 29 in the discussion section, this subjective measurement of size of the baby creates incomparable results with what is available in the literature as stated by the author! So, the author may think of removing variables with non-specific definitions/measurement.

Related to this is that, “distance to health facility” was removed from the text while it was still there in table 4. However, it is not mentioned in tables 2 and 3! Kindly, assure consistency and cohesion.

More issues related to this include mismatch between what is in the text as variables and what is in table 2 and 3. PNC visit was mentioned in table 2 where it is not there in the article. For table 3, many important variables disappeared from table 3 while they were mentioned in table 2. These includes source of drinking water, sex of the head of the household, wanted pregnancy, employment status of the mother, smoking status of the mother, cough, receiving antiparasitic drugs and vit. A supplementation.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. regrading distance to health facility, we have removed from the manuscript as it is more of subjective, and we included PNC in the variable of the study section but was not included in the model as it has p-value>0.2 in the bi-variable analysis. Regrading birth size of a child, as you know birth weight of the child was assessed in two ways such as mothers perceived birth size of a child and measured birth weight of the child but the measured weight were missed in more than 80 percent of child’s. So, in developing countries mothers perceived size is commonly used and it has more than 90 percent overall agreement with the measured Birth weight. Besides, we acknowledge in the limitation section.

For Table 3, we presented the severity level of anemia by selecting the commonly reported predictors of anemia that is why we missed some of the variables in Table three.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point by point response.docx

Decision Letter 2

Frank T Spradley

29 Mar 2021

Prevalence and determinants of severity levels of anemia among children aged 6-59 months in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis

PONE-D-20-37075R2

Dear Dr. Tesema,

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,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 #3: 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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Khalid Elmardi

Acceptance letter

Frank T Spradley

13 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-37075R2

Prevalence and determinants of severity levels of anemia among children aged 6-59 months in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis

Dear Dr. Tesema:

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. Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Manuscript Number PONE-D-20-37075.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Point by point response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Point by point response.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All the data files are available from the measure. DHS program Data is available online and you can access it from www.measuredhs.com. We used the Kids Record (KR) file and extract the variables based on literature. Then, we kept the same variables in all the 32 SSA countries and appended together.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES