Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Aug 11;17(8):e0272571. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272571

The time to initiate trophic feeding and its predictors among preterm neonate admitted to neonatal intensive care unit, Multicenter study, Northwest Ethiopia

Daniel Adimasu Kebede 1, Yilikal Tafere 2, Tewodros Eshete 2, Ermias Abebaw 3,*, Mekonen Adimasu 4, Bekalu Endalew 2
Editor: Harsh Shah5
PMCID: PMC9371352  PMID: 35951594

Abstract

Background

Trophic feeding is a small volume, hypo-caloric feeding, gut priming or minimal enteral feeding acclimate the immature gut of enteral fasting preterm neonates. Delayed starting of trophic feeding had resulted in short and long-term physical and neurological sequels. The current study aimed to estimate the time to initiate trophic feeding and its predictors among preterm neonates admitted in the neonatal intensive care unit of Debre Markos, Felege Hiwot, and Tibebe Ghion comprehensive specialized hospitals.

Methods

An institutional-based prospective follow-up study was conducted among 210 neonates. The data were collected with interview and chart review, entered into Epi data 3.1 and exported to Stata 14.1 for analysis. Multivariable Cox regression models were fitted to identify predictors of time to initiate trophic feeding.

Result

A total of 210 neonates were followed for 10136 person-hours of risk time and 191 (90.95%) of neonates were started trophic feeding. The overall incidence of starting trophic feeding was 2 per 100 (95% CI: 2, 2.2) person-hours observations. The median survival time was 42 hours (95% CI: 36, 48). APGAR- score at first minute <7 (AHR: 0.6, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.82), gestational age of <34 weeks (AHR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.5, 0.94), presence of respiratory distress syndrome (AHR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.68), presence of hemodynamic instability (AHR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.57), presence of perinatal asphyxia (AHR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.89), cesarean section delivery (AHR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44, 89) and being delivered within the study hospitals (AHR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.74) were found to be statistically significant predictors of time to initiate trophic feeding.

Conclusion

There was a significant delay to initiate trophic feeding in the studied hospitals. Gestational age of below 34 weeks, APGAR-score of less than seven, out-born delivery, cesarean delivery, presence of respiratory distress syndrome; perinatal asphyxia, and hemodynamic instability were predictors of delay in starting of trophic feeding. Standardized feeding guideline has to be implemented to overcome delays in enteral feeding initiation.

Background

Preterm birth is defined as a birth before 37 completed weeks of gestation or fewer than 259 days from the first date of a woman’s last menstrual period. The global estimate of preterm birth was 11.1% and 10.6% in 2010 and 2014, respectively. This has a great regional variation which was ranged approximately 5% in some European countries; and 18% in Sub-Saharan countries. This showed that low and middle-income countries account for the majority of the world’s preterm births, 60% of it occurred in Sub-Saharan and South Asia countries [1,2].

Provision of intense nutritional support with both parenteral and enteral nutrition to preterm neonates born prematurely is necessary. This helps to attain the rate and composition of weight gain approximating the normal neonate at the postmenstrual age, to minimize postnatal growth failure and the risk of enterocolitis; and to optimize neurodevelopmental and long term health outcomes. To tackle this problem trophic feeding (TF) is the preferred choice of preterm feeding [3].

Trophic feeding is usually defined as serving small volumes of enteral feeding (EF) which is started within the first few postnatal days. It is minimal enteral nutrition (MEN), gut priming, or hypo-caloric feeding that acclimate the immature gut of enteral fasting in preterm neonates. It is feeding nutritionally insignificant amounts (1–2 mL/kg/dose or 10-15ml/kg/day) for immature neonates but stimulates and supplies nutrients to the developing gastrointestinal system [3]. Its aim is not to feed the baby but the intestine, preferably with colostrum [4]. It is the nutrition provided shortly after birth in an attempt to avoid or reduce parenteral nutrition and its related complications [58].

Those starting TF have more energy intake, improved feeding tolerance, greater and faster weight gain and head growth, less sepsis, significantly fewer days of parenteral nutrition and oxygen supplementation, and consequently earlier discharge [914].

TF reduces the incidence of complications related to enteral fasting and parenteral nutrition like hyper-bilirubinemia, gut atrophy, decrease gastrointestinal mass, infections, and cholestasis [13,1520], and metabolic complications [16] without an increase in the risk of NEC [13]. Early initiation of EF with the mother’s own milk and prevention of postnatal growth failure is the target of nutrition in preterm neonates [4,6].

Researches demonstrated that there is a considerable delay in the initiation of enteral feeding in preterm neonates worldwide. For instance, researchers reported that 80 to 90% of neonates did not start TF until 48 hours of age. And in another study, 40% of neonates were in enteral fasting until 96 hours of age [21,22]. According to one study 76% of preterm neonates had been kept nothing per os (NPO) during the first 24 hours and 22% were kept for 72 hours. These neonates who started enteral feeding was getting only 10% dextrose intravenously. Overall, the neonates were kept NPO in 26.8% of the time while they were in NICU [23].

Despite the general recommendation to initiate early enteral feeding, a considerable number of the preterm neonates are kept NPO in the first few days and receiving only maintenance fluid. The inherent problems of immature gut motility and function as well as the fear of necrotizing enterocolitis and feeding intolerance are the two major reasons that delay the start of preterm feeding [13]. This is associated with an increased risk of neonatal mortality [23]. There is a marked dose response of increasing risk of neonatal mortality with increasing delay in initiation of breastfeeding. The overall late initiation was associated with a 2.4-fold increase in the risk of neonatal mortality [24] and other neonatal bad outcomes [23,25] and highly associated with postnatal growth failure [26].

The initiation, mode, and rate of advancement of TF remained a topic of argument [20,27]. Practices across NICUs and professionals are different. This variability includes preterm feeding practice which is not in line with the national guidelines [23].

Different findings indicate that there is a significant delay in starting TF across the globe and evidence on time to TF among preterm neonates admitted to NICU in Ethiopia is not adequately searched. Therefore, this study was aimed to estimate the time to initiate TF among preterm neonates admitted to NICU in three comprehensive specialized hospitals found in Debre Markos and Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia.

Methods

Study design and settings

An institutional-based prospective follow up study was conducted. The study was conducted in neonatal intensive care units of Debre Markos, Felege Hiwot, and Tibebe Ghion comprehensive specialized hospitals, that the former found in Debre Markos town and the latter two found in Bahir Dar town, Amhara.

Debre Markos is located 300km from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia, and 256 km from Bahir-Dar, which is 556 km away from Addis Ababa. Debre Markos (DMCSH), Felege Hiwot (FHCSH), and Tibebe Ghion (TGCSH) Comprehensive Specialized Hospitals have 162, 230, and 151 monthly and 1845, 2479, and 1652 annual neonatal admission according to the 2012 EFY report, respectively. Of these 63, 89, and 67; and 612, 834, and 660 were monthly and annual admissions of preterm neonates, respectively. These hospitals are equipped with 28, 43, and 27 neonatal beds and 24, 35, and 18 maternal beds respectively.

All of these hospitals are the final referral choice for other health institutions around and provide tertiary level neonatal care and are organized with necessary materials, equipment and health care workers with different professions (nurses, physicians, laboratory and pharmacist).

These are organized into different service areas including term, preterm, isolation, and procedure rooms with kangaroo mother care (KMC) and maternal waiting rooms. The major services are general neonatal care, blood and exchange transfusion, phototherapy, and ventilation support such as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). This study was conducted in these hospitals from October 1 to November 30, 2020.

The study population included all preterm neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit of Debre Markos, Felege Hiwot, and Tibebe Ghion comprehensive specialized hospitals during the study period. Neonates born after 28 completed weeks, but before 37 completed weeks, and admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit of these hospitals were included in the study while Neonates who had started direct breast milk or other option of feeding before the time of admission either at home or referred facilities, pre-diagnosed stage II/III necrotizing enter colitis, stage III perinatal asphyxia, unknown gestational age, unknown APGAR score, and birth weight, neonates who had started TF before admission were excluded from this study.

Sample size and sampling techniques

The sample size was computed by using STATA (version 14) considering this statistical assumptions; two-sided significant level (α) of 5%, power 80%, Za/2 = Z value at 95% confidence interval = 1.96, death rate = 50%, Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.5, Survival probability = 0.5, the proportion of withdrawal = 0.15 [28].

The study population was preterm neonates on whom trophic feeding is more commonly practiced. Neonates that fulfill eligibility criteria were recruited from respective study hospitals. From neonates who were twin or triplet, only one of them was included by lottery method at each spot. Finally, 210 neonates were selected by using simple random sampling technique considering admission records as sampling frame.

Measurements and variables

Time to initiate trophic feeding was the outcome variable of this study. Socio-demographic characteristics (Gestational age, birth weight, age of the mother, residence and educational status), neonatal related factors (First minutes APGAR score, fifth minutes APGAR score, meconium passage, sucking reflex, continuous positive air pressure, perinatal asphyxia, hemodynamic instabilities, birth defect, obstructions, respiratory distress syndrome, meconium aspiration syndrome, blood transfusion and Phototherapy) maternal related factors (sero-status of the mother, hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, mode of delivery, birth type, place of delivery, parity, postpartum hemorrhage and diabetes mellitus) and health service related factor (frequency of order revision) were the study’s independent variables.

Operational definitions

Early feeding: neonates start trophic feeding within 24 hours of birth [26,29].

Delayed feeding: neonates start trophic feeding after 24 hours of birth [29].

Survival time: the length of time in hours followed starting from birth to the first trophic feeding

Event: the neonates who had started first trophic feeding within the follow-up period.

Censored: neonates who died left against medical advice, transferred or referred before starting trophic feeding, or not started at end follow-up

Follow up time: time from birth to the first seven days of life.

Hemodynamic instabilities: Blood group and RH incompatibility, anemia, polycythemia, bleeding disorders, blood glucose disturbances [30].

Trophic feeding: The first minimal enteral feeding to prime the gut regardless of method or volume [29].

Data collection tools and procedure

Data was collected using a semi-structured pretested English version questionnaire and extraction checklist through face to face interview and chart review. The content of the questionnaire includes neonatal and maternal socio-demographic variables (gestational age, birth weight, age of the mother, residence and educational status), neonatal (first and fifth minutes APGAR score, meconium passage, sucking reflex, continuous positive air pressure, perinatal asphyxia, hemodynamic instabilities, birth defect, obstructions, respiratory distress syndrome, meconium aspiration syndrome, blood transfusion, phototherapy) and maternal related factors (sero-status of the mother, hypertensive disorder during pregnancy, mode of delivery, birth type, place of delivery, parity, postpartum hemorrhage and diabetes mellitus) and health service-related factors (frequency of order revision). The data extraction checklist and questionnaire were adapted from different related literature, books, and guidelines [17,26,3139].

Besides the principal investigator, six nurses working at NICU, two from each respective hospital, as a data collector, and three nurses as a supervisor were participated throughout the data collection process and data extraction was also done by data collectors.

Baseline data were obtained soon after admission, and the rest of the data were obtained every day in the follow-up period. Both supervisors and the principal investigator checked the completeness and consistency of the data on the daily basis.

Data quality control

The questionnaire and the checklist was prepared in English and translated to Amharic which is the local and working language in the study area and back to English by language experts to maintain consistency.

Prior to data collection, one-day training was given for data collectors and supervisors on the study objectives, data collection instruments, techniques, and producers. A pretest was done on 11 neonates (5%) at Debre Markos specialized hospital and necessary amendments were done based on the pre-test findings. The consistency and completeness of data were checked by the principal investigator and supervisors on daily basis.

Data processing and analysis

The data were checked for completeness, coded, and entered into Epi-data version 3.1; and exported to Stata/SE 14.0 for data cleaning and analysis.

Continuous data were reported with a mean (standard deviation) and median (interquartile range). The data with categorical nature was described with frequency and proportion. The outcomes of study participants were dichotomized into (code ‘1’) as a failure (starting trophic feeding) and (code ‘0’) as a censor. Some continuous variables were categorized for ease of analysis and otherwise used as continuous. The variance inflation factor (VIF) and correlation matrix were used to assess multi-collinearity.

The Kaplan Meier survival curve was used to estimate survival time, and a log-rank test was used to compare the survival curves of categorical variables. The necessary assumption of the Cox-proportional hazard regression model was checked using the Schoenfeld residual test, the graphical methods, and the presence of a time-dependent covariate. The overall model adequacy and fineness were assessed using the Cox-Snell residuals and global fit test, respectively. The Log likelihood ratio was used to select the final variables of the model and also bi-variable Cox-regression was computed for each predictor variable and a P-value of <0.25 was used as a cut-off point to enter variables to multi-variable Cox-regression. The variables were selected through backward stepwise procedures. The confounding effect was minimized using proper inclusion and exclusion criteria and a multi-variable analysis.

The result of the final model was expressed in terms of adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) with 95% confidence intervals. The significant association was declared with a p-value less than 0.05 in a multivariable Cox regression model. Finally, the result of this study is presented with tables, graphs, or text narrations.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethical approval letter was obtained from Debre Markos University research and ethical committee, college of medicine and health science (Ref.No/HSC/R/C /Ser/co/44/ 11/13). In addition, letters of authorization was obtained from Debre Markos Specialized Hospital, Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital and Felege Hiwot Specialized Hospitals before contacting the participants. The participants were then fully briefed about the study’s purpose and benefits and obtained informed written consent for both data collection and publication. Confidentiality was maintained through anonymity and privacy measures were taken to preserve the right of the participants throughout the research work including publication. Finally, the selected participants were asked about their willingness to join the study. Any study participant willing to engage in the study and those who wanted to stop an interview at any time were allowed to do so. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Results

Neonatal and maternal socio-demographic characteristics

A total of 278 preterm neonates were hospitalized to these units in this prospective follow-up study conducted from October 1 to November 30, 2020. Of these 68 were ruled out. This left with a total of 210 preterm neonates with the mean gestational age of 33 (±3 standard deviation) completed weeks and a minimum of 28 to a maximum of 36 weeks. About 191 (90.95%) neonates were started TF and 19 (9.1%) were censored due to death.

Among neonates included in the study, all of them were low birth weight with a mean weight of 1549.9 (±353.5 standard deviation) grams with a minimum of 850 grams to a maximum of 2400 grams. Concerning weight for gestational age, about 157 (74.8%) was appropriate for their gestational age. The mean age of mothers was 27.4 (±5.05 standard deviation) years with a minimum of 18 years and a maximum of 40 years. Among mothers interviewed, greater than half (60.9%) were residing in a rural area (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the mothers and neonates admitted in NICU of DMCSH, FHCSH, and TGCSH comprehensive specialized hospitals, Amhara, Northwest Ethiopia, 2020 (N = 210).

Variables Categories Frequency Percentage
Maternal education Not attend formal education 79 37.6
Primary 47 22.4
Secondary 47 22.4
Secondary &above 37 17.6
Gestational age in week <34 weeks 124 59.05
≥ 34 weeks 86 40.95
Birth weight in gram 850–1499 86 40.95
1500–2499 124 59.05
Maternal age ≤19 11 5.2
20–24 56 26.7
25–29 65 31
30–34 58 27.6
≥35 20 9.5

Maternal and neonatal related factors

The mean APGAR-score of neonates at the first and fifth minute was 6 (±1.96 standard deviation) and 7.4 (±1.29 standard deviation), respectively. In this study, most (86.38%) of neonates were passed their first meconium before starting TF. Among neonates included in the study, 54.76% were referred from other health care facilities to the study hospitals. More than half 142 (67.62%) of them were born out of the study hospitals with spontaneous vaginal delivery. Almost half (54.76%) of mothers were primiparous and 110 (52.38%) of their current birth was a singleton (Table 2).

Table 2. Characteristics of neonates and their mothers ‘admitted in NICU of DMCSH, FHCSH, and TGCSH comprehensive specialized hospitals, Amhara, Northwest Ethiopia, 2020.

Variables Frequency Percentage
APGAR score at 1st minute
    <7 score 110 52.38
    ≥7 score 100 47.62
APGAR at 5th minute
    <7 score 46 21.90
    ≥7 score 164 78.10
Sustained sucking reflex of the neonate until starting TF
    No 137 65.24
    Yes 73 34.76
Hemodynamic instability
    No 170 80.95
    Yes 40 19.05
Order revision frequency
    At least every 24 hours 92 43.81
    Greater than 24 hours 118 56.19
Respiratory distress syndrome
    No 88 41.90
    Yes 122 58.10
Maternal education Not attend formal education 79
Primary 47
Secondary 47
Secondary &above 37
Gestational age in week <34 weeks 124
≥ 34 weeks 86
Birth weight in gram 850–1499 86
1500–2499 124
Maternal age ≤19 11
20–24 56
25–29 65
30–34 58
≥35 20

Survival status of neonates on time to initiate TF

A total of 210 neonates to mother pairs were followed for 10136 person-hours of risk time. The minimum and maximum time of follow-up was 5 and 141 hours, respectively. The cumulative probabilities of starting TF by the end of 24, 48, and 72 hours were 22%, 53.8%, and 72.74%, respectively. The overall incidence of starting TF was 2 per 100 (95% CI: 1.6, 2.2) person-hours. The incidence rate that preterm neonates start TF was 5.67, 2.51, 1.53, and 0.94 per 100 person-hours in the first 24, 48, 72, and greater than 72 hours after birth, respectively. The median follow-up time was 38 (IQR: 25–70) hours. The median survival time was 42 (IQR: 26–72) (95% CI: 36, 48) hours (Table 3).

Table 3. Survival probabilities to start TF among neonates admitted in NICU of DMCSH, FHCSH, and TGCSH comprehensive specialized hospitals, Amhara, Northwest Ethiopia, 2020.

Time interval Beginning total Start feeding Censored Cumulative survival probability 95% CI
0 to 24 210 41 6 0.8019 (0.74, 0.85)
24 to 48 163 71 10 0.4416 (0.37, 0.52)
48 to 72 82 31 2 0.2726 (0.21, 0.34)
72to 96 49 25 0 0.1335 (0.09, 0.19)
96 to 120 24 13 1 0.0597 (0.03, 0.11)
120 to 144 10 10 0 0.0000 . .

In addition to the overall survival estimate, the survival experience of neonates with different categorical variables was executed to compare the status of TF between or across groups. For instance, there was a significant difference in median survival status which was 48 (IQR: 32–74, CI: 42–57) and 30 (IQR: 24–41, CI: 20–56) hours among neonates with gestational age of less than 34 weeks and 34 and more weeks, respectively. Similarly, neonates who had APGAR score of less than seven did not start TF until the median time of 55 (IQR: 30–90, CI: 42–67) hours and those with APGAR score of seven and above were not started TF until the median time of 32 (IQR: 20–52, CI: 28–41) hours. Neonates born outside of the hospital were did not start TF 53 (IQR: 30–90, CI: 42–69) hours, whereas neonates born inside the study hospitals were did not start TF until the median survival time of 32 (IQR: 22–49, CI: 28–42) hours (Table 3). Further analysis comparing the median time to initiate TF among neonates on presence of respiratory distress syndrome showed that there was a significant difference in median starting time, 53 (IQR: 33–82, CI: 45–65) hours and 27 (IQR: 16–47, CI: 22–32) hours among those with and with no respiratory distress syndrome. The statistical significance of the difference in the survival experience of TF was checked with a log-rank test (p<0.05) (Table 4).

Table 4. The group-specific median time of starting TF among neonates admitted in NICU of DMCSH, FHCSH, and TGCSH, Amhara, Northwest Ethiopia from October to November /2020 (n = 210).

Predictors Category Median survival time in hours (95% CI) Log-rank test p-Value
Respiratory distress syndrome No 27 (21.42, 32.58) <0.0001
yes 53 (44.80, 61.20)
Perinatal asphyxia No 37 (31.24, 42.76) 0.002
Yes 65 (45.32, 84.68)
Hemodynamic instability No 37 (31.36, 42.65) <0.0001
Yes 96 (83.62, 108.38)
Gestational age <34 weeks 48 (42.07, 53.93) <0.0001
≥34 weeks 30 (24.71, 35.29)
1st minute APGAR score ≥7 score 32 (25.32, 38.68) <0.0001
<7 score 55 (42.19, 67.81)
Place of delivery in-born 32 (27.50, 36.50) <0.0001
out-born 53 (38.19, 67.81)
Mode of delivery SVD 36 (30.21, 41.79) 0.002
Cesarean section 60 (40.16, 79.85)

SVD- spontaneous vaginal delivery.

From graphs below, the first graph shows the overall survival curves to initiate TF among followed neonates (Fig 1).

Fig 1. The Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of time to initiate TF among neonates admitted to NICU of DMCSH, FHCSH, and TGCSH, Amhara, Northwest Ethiopia from October to November/2020 (n = 210).

Fig 1

As indicated in Fig 2 the survival probability of initiating TF was longer in neonates with a birth weight of <1500 grams compared to those with ≥1500 grams (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier survival estimate of starting TF based on the gestational age of neonates admitted in NICU of DMCSH, FHCSH, and TGCSH, Amhara, Northwest Ethiopia from October to November/2020 (n = 210).

Fig 2

Cox-proportional hazard assumption

The assumptions of Cox proportional hazard of all predictor variables were checked with graphical method of log-log plot curves and Kaplan–Meier curves among different groups of categorical predictors. The Schoenfeld residual test and time-varying covariate were used to test Cox proportional hazard assumptions statistically.

Predictors of time to initiate TF

After bi-variable cox regression, diabetes mellitus, gestation, educational status, residence, age of the mother, meconium aspiration syndrome, meconium passage, sucking reflex, obstructions, blood transfusion, sero-status of the mother, and birth defect were not entered into multi-variable analysis because of p-value > 0.25. Then, Multivariable analysis was executed for gestational age, birth weight, Weight for gestational age, first minutes APGAR-score, fifth minutes APGAR-score, continuous positive air pressure, phototherapy, perinatal asphyxia, hemodynamic instabilities, respiratory distress syndrome, frequency of order revision, maternal hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, parity, mode and place of delivery. Finally, seven variables were identified as statistically significant independent predictors (95% CI) for time to initiate TF (Table 5).

Table 5. The final model containing predictors of time to initiate TF among neonates who were admitted to NICU of DMCSH, FHCSH and TGCSH, Amhara, Northwest Ethiopia from October to November /2020 (n = 210).

Predictor variables Categories Starting TF CHR (95% CI) AHR (95% CI)
Yes No
First minute APGAR score <7 score 99 11 0.48 (0.35, 0.64) 0.6 (0.44, 0.82)*
≥7 score 92 8 1 1
Gestational age <34 weeks 113 11 0.59 (0.44, 0.78) 0.69 (0.5, 0.94)*
≥34 weeks 78 8 1 1
Respiratory distress syndrome Yes 112 10 0.47 (0.35, 0.63) 0.5 (0.36, 0.68)**
No 79 9 1 1
Perinatal asphyxia Yes 45 5 0.59 (0.42, 0.82) 0.63 (0.44, 0.89)*
No 146 14 1 1
Weight for gestational age SGA 47 6 0.7 (0.54, 0.97) 0.74 (0.52, 1.04)
AGA 144 13 1
Hemodynamic instability Yes 39 1 0.26 (0.17, 0.38) 0.37 (0.24, 0.57)**
No 152 18 1 1
Place of birth Out-born 107 8 0.47 (0.36, 0.65) 0.54 (0.39, 0.74)**
In-born 84 11 1 1
Mode of delivery CS 63 5 0.62 (0.46, 0.84) 0.63 (0.44, 89)*
SVD 128 14 1 1

Note

* indicates p-value <0.05

** indicates p-value ≤0.001, both * and ** indicates statistically significant variables in the multi-variable analysis, CHR-crude hazard ratio, AHR-adjusted hazard ratio, CI-confidence interval, SVD- spontaneous vaginal delivery, CS-cesarean section.

Multi-variable cox regression analysis revealed that the first minute APGAR-score, gestational age (less than 34 weeks), respiratory distress syndrome, perinatal asphyxia, small weight for gestational age, hemodynamic instability, and place of birth and mode of delivery were statistically significant variables of this study.

Accordingly, the hazard of Starting TF among neonates scored below seven APGAR at the first minute were 40% less likely as compared to neonates with seven and above score (AHR: 0.6, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.82). The hazard of starting TF among neonates born with less than 34 weeks of gestation was 31% less likely compared to those born with 34 and above weeks of gestation (AHR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.5, 0.94) (Table 4).

The hazard of starting TF was 52% less likely among neonates who had respiratory distress syndrome compared to their counterparts (AHR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.68) (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Kaplan-Meier survival estimate of starting TF based on respiratory distress syndrome among neonates admitted in NICU of DMCSH, FHCSH, and TGCSH, Amhara, Northwest Ethiopia from October to November/2020 (n = 210).

Fig 3

The hazard of starting TF among neonates who have hemodynamic instability was 67% less likely compared to neonates with no these problems (AHR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.56). The hazard among neonates diagnosed with perinatal asphyxia was 36% less likely to start TF compared with their counterparts (AHR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.89).

In addition to these predictors, the hazard of giving delivery with cesarean section was 31% less likely to start TF than that of spontaneous vaginal delivery (AHR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44, 89) (Table 4). Neonates, who were not born within the study hospitals, were 47% less likely to start TF than those born within the study hospitals (AHR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.74).

Statistical model and assumptions

The value of log likelihood ratio was used to select different models by adding and removing variables entered in to multivariable regression. Then, a model with variables resulting maximum likelihood ratio was taken as final model for interpretation.

The overall adequacy of the final fitted model was checked by the Cox-Snell residuals were estimated based on the Kaplan–Meier estimated survivor function. This graphical plot of the cumulative hazard versus cox-Snell residuals showed an approximate straight line with slope one and indicates the model fits the data. And in addition to the Cox-Snell residuals graph, the final model was tested statistically for its fitness by using the global goodness of fit test which was decided as adequate if its p-value is greater than 0.05. Based on this, the global goodness of fit test for this final model was p-value = 0.59 (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Cox-Snell residual graph, based on the Kaplan–Meier estimated survivor function, to test the overall adequacy of the Cox proportional hazard model of time to initiate TF and its predictors among neonates admitted to NICU of DMCSH, FHCSH, and TGCSH, Amhara, Northwest Ethiopia, 2020 (N = 210).

Fig 4

Discussion

This study aimed to estimate the time to initiate TF and its predictors among preterm neonates admitted in the study hospitals within the study period. In this study, the incidence of starting TF was 2 per 100 person-hours of risk time. At the end of follow-up, 90.9% of neonates (95% CI: 86.2%, 94.2%) were started TF. The rest of neonates (9.1%) were not started TF as a result of death just before starting TF. Among those who started TF, only 52 (24.76%) of preterm neonates started within the first 24 hours of birth. This indicates that only a small proportion of preterm neonates started TF within the first 24 hours of birth. This finding is lower as compared to an observational study in Tuscany (74.1%), a cohort study in Iran (36%), and New Zealand (60%) [21,40]. The finding of this study on the proportion of neonates who were started TF within 48 hours was consistent with the finding of a cohort study conducted on preterm neonates in NICU of the Islamic Republic of Iran (63.2%) [21], but higher than the finding of Nigerian Special Care Baby Unit (40%) [41]; and lower than finding of a study conducted in Uganda rural hospitals (80%) [26] and New Zealand (80%) [37].

This prospective follow-up study, the median time to start TF was 42 (IQR: 26–72) hours which is higher than the finding of a retrospective study in New Zealand (24 hours) [42]. The difference might be due to the study setup, study design (prospective versus retrospective), sample size (210 versus 647), and socio-demographic variations, and differences in regional variation in neonatal management protocols (Ethiopia versus New Zealand).

Multi variable cox regression of this study revealed that gestational age of below 34 weeks, APGAR-score of less than seven, out-born delivery, cesarean delivery, respiratory distress syndrome, perinatal asphyxia, and hemodynamic instability were predictors of delay in starting of trophic feeding.

The hazard of starting TF among neonates born less than 34 weeks of gestation was less likely compared to those born 34 and above weeks of gestation. This might be due to differences in physiological maturity among these groups of neonates on whom necrotizing enterocolitis and feeding intolerance are common in the former group of neonates. This finding is supported by a web-based survey on tertiary NICUs in different countries that revealed that the lower gestational age was the reason for the delayed starting of TF [43]. Another survey research done in the United States and Canada also identified lower gestational age as the primary predictor of TF [44]. This is also a reason to delay initiation of TF among neonates with a gestational age of <31 weeks. Additionally, a survey done on feeding practice among 98 Spanish neonatal units revealed that the smaller GA was the main predictor for delayed initiation of TF [39]. This is also supported with a prospective follow up study conducted in teaching university hospitals in Ethiopia that showed the time neonates kept NPO was increased with lower gestational age [23].

The first minute APGAR-score was another statistically significant predictor. The hazard of starting TF among neonates scored below seven APGAR at the first minute was 40% less likely as compared to neonates with a seven and above score. This finding might be because that first-minute APGAR-score is the signal of intrauterine hypoxia which is an indication of decreased blood flow to GIT and increased risk of NEC. Likewise, the hazard among neonates diagnosed with perinatal asphyxia was 37% less likely to start TF compared with their counterparts. This might be due to professionals’ fear of necrotizing enterocolitis and feeding intolerance secondary to intrauterine hypoxia and decreased blood flow to GIT. This finding is supported with an observational study in Spain, reported that perinatal asphyxia was the reason for the delay in 88% of the neonate [39]. But, contrary to this, the Ethiopian national NICU guideline recommended that TF can be started for asphyxiated neonates if the neonate is passing meconium, clear gastric content, normo-active bowel sound [29]. Additionally, a guideline on preterm neonates recommended that birth asphyxia was not a contraindication to initiate TF [45]. Another statistically significant predictor was hemodynamic instability. With this regard, the hazard of starting TF among neonates who have hemodynamic instability was 67% less likely compared to neonates with the absence of these problems. This indicates neonates who had hemodynamic instability were more likely have delayed initiation of TF than those who had no such problems. The presence of these groups of problems such as blood group and RH incompatibility, anemia, polycythemia, and bleeding disorders may affect clinicians’ decision to initiate TF due to fear of perceived feeding intolerance and necrotizing enterocolitis. This finding is supported by an observational study in Spain that reported hemodynamic instabilities were the reason for the delay to start TF in 100% of the neonates [39]. Another study conducted in regional referral hospitals in Tanzania showed hemodynamic instability and its perceived risk of necrotizing enterocolitis was the reason for the delayed initiation of TF [46].

Furthermore, the hazard of starting TF in neonate with respiratory distress syndrome was 50% less likely among neonates compared with their counterparts. This may be because the presence of respiratory distress might be aggravated with pressure from the abdominal cavity that is further complicated by physiological instability with bradycardia and desaturation events, which have been associated with an increased risk of aspiration during feeding [47]. This may influence professionals’ decision to delay starting TF. Contrary to this finding, some guidelines across the globe recommend a minimal EF can be initiated in neonates with respiratory distress syndrome within the first 24 hours of life [45].

Place of delivery was also found to be statistically significant predictors of time to initiate TF. Neonates born out of the study hospitals were 48% less likely to start TF than those born within the study hospitals. However, there is a lack of evidence to support the relationship between place of birth and time to initiate trophic feeding; the possible explanation might be due to transportation delay.

The hazard of giving delivery with a cesarean section was 37% less likely to start TF as compared with those delivered via spontaneous vaginal delivery. Mothers, who gave birth with cesarean section, might not bring expressed milk upon request by the clinician. In contrast to this finding, research reports revealed that mode of delivery had no statistically significant effect on time to initiate enteral feeding [48]. This difference might be due to the difference in sample size which was 729 in the previous study and 210 in this study, difference in the study design, and general socio-demographic characteristics of the study population.

Limitation of the study

The sample size was calculated with Stata package because of an absence of previous related literature that reported essential parameters used for calculation.

Conclusion

There was a considerable delay to initiate trophic feeding. The time of starting trophic feeding was delayed in the study hospitals. After adjustment for confounding, APGAR-score of less than seven, gestational age of below 34 weeks, being out-born, cesarean delivery, presence of respiratory distress syndrome, perinatal asphyxia, and hemodynamic instability were predictors found to hinder the time of starting trophic feeding. Therefore, health care institutions providing neonatal intensive care services shall work on these mentioned predictors to shorten the initiation of trophic feeding and to reduce its complications related to the delay.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Debre Markos University of Gondar, College of Health Sciences for support of this research project. The authors also extend their special thanks to both data collectors and supervisors.

Abbreviations

AGA

Appropriate for Gestational Age

AHR

Adjusted Hazard Ratio

APGAR

Appearance, Pulse, Grammies, Activity, Respiration

BW

Birth Weight

CHR

Crude Hazard Ratio

CI

Confidence Interval

CPAP

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

DMCSH

Debre Markos Comprehensive Specialized Hospital

ELBW

Extremely Low Birth Weight

EN

Enteral Nutrition

EF

Enteral Feeding

EFY

Ethiopian Fiscal Year

FHCSH

Felege Hiwot Comprehensive Specialized Hospital

GA

Gestational Age

HR

Hazard Ratio

IQR

Interquartile Range

IUGR

Intrauterine Growth Restriction

KMC

Kangaroo Mother Care

LBW

Low Birth Weight

LGA

Large For Gestational Age

MEN

Minimal Enteral Nutrition

NEC

Necrotizing Enterocolitis

NICU

Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

PPH

Postpartum Hemorrhage

NPO

Nothing Per Os

SD

Standard Deviation

SGA

Small for Gestational Age

TGCSH

Tibebe Ghion Comprehensive Specialized Hospital

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Vogel J.P., et al., The global epidemiology of preterm birth. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2018. 52: p. 3–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pinto F., et al., Born Preterm: A Public Health Issue. Portuguese Journal of Public Health, 2019. 37(1): p. 38–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dutta S., et al., Guidelines for feeding very low birth weight infants. Nutrients, 2015. 7(1): p. 423–442. doi: 10.3390/nu7010423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kültürsay N., Bilgen H., and Türkyılmaz C., Turkish Neonatal Society guideline on enteral feeding of the preterm infant. Turk pediatri arsivi, 2018. 53(Suppl 1): p. S109–S118. doi: 10.5152/TurkPediatriArs.2018.01811 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.A., L., Enteral nutrition. In Nutritional Needs of the Preterm Infant: Scientific Basis and Practical Guidelines, Tsang RC, et al., eds. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins,. 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Churchill E., feeding and nutrion in preterm infant, in Health, Fitness & Dieting, Elizabeth M. Jones A., Caroline King, BSc(Hons), SRD, Editor. 2005, Amazon.com. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cheah F.-C., feeding the preterm infant, a practical handbook. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ramani M. and Ambalavanan N., Feeding practices and necrotizing enterocolitis. Clinics in perinatology, 2013. 40(1): p. 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2012.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Akram Sallakh-Niknezhad*1, M.F.B.-H., MD; Niloofar Satarzadeh1,MSc; Morteza Ghojazadeh3, PhD, and Golnesa Sahnazarli1, MSc, Early versus Late Trophic Feeding in Very Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants. Iran J Pediatr, 2012.; Vol 22 (No 2). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.McClure R.J. and Newell S.J., Randomised controlled study of clinical outcome following trophic feeding. Archives of Disease in Childhood—Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 2000. 82(1): p. F29. doi: 10.1136/fn.82.1.f29 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Krishnamurthy S., et al., Slow versus rapid enteral feeding advancement in preterm newborn infants 1000–1499g: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Paediatrica, 2010. 99(1): p. 42–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01519.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Liu J., et al., Optimal timing for introducing enteral nutrition in the neonatal intensive care unit. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr, 2015. 24(2): p. 219–26. doi: 10.6133/apjcn.2015.24.2.14 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Richard J. Martin, A.A.F., Michele C. Walsh, NEONATAL-PERINATAL MEDICINE, Diseases of the Fetus and Infant. 10th ed. Vol. 1. 2015.
  • 14.Hay W.W. Jr, Strategies for feeding the preterm infant. Neonatology, 2013. 94(4): p. 245–254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.King C., What’s new in enterally feeding the preterm infant? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2010. 95(4): p. F304–8. doi: 10.1136/adc.2008.148197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kennedy K.A. and Tyson J.E., Early versus delayed initiation of progressive enteral feedings for parenterally fed low birth weight or preterm infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2000(1). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001970 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.De Waard M., et al., Time to Full Enteral Feeding for Very Low-Birth-Weight Infants Varies Markedly Among Hospitals Worldwide But May Not Be Associated With Incidence of Necrotizing Enterocolitis: The NEOMUNE-NeoNutriNet Cohort Study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2019. 43(5): p. 658–667. doi: 10.1002/jpen.1466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ho M.-Y. and Yen Y.-H., Trend of Nutritional Support in Preterm Infants. Pediatrics & Neonatology, 2016. 57(5): p. 365–370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kleingman, S.G., Blum, Sham, Tasker, Wilson, Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics. 21th ed.
  • 20.Christine A. Gleason, M., Sandra E. Juul, MD, PhD, Avery’s Diseases of the Newborn. 10th ed. 2018, Washington.
  • 21.Sallakh-Niknezhad A., et al., Early versus Late Trophic Feeding in Very Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants. Iranian Journal of Pediatrics, 2012. 22(2): p. 171–176. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Reeding R.A., The nutrient intakes and feeding prescriptions of low birth weight infants at chris hani baragwanath academic hospital. 2017, Stellenbosch University. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gidi N.W., et al., Preterm Nutrition and Clinical Outcomes. Glob Pediatr Health, 2020. 7: p. 2333794X20937851. doi: 10.1177/2333794X20937851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Edmond K.M., et al., Effect of early infant feeding practices on infection-specific neonatal mortality: an investigation of the causal links with observational data from rural Ghana. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007. 86(4): p. 1126–1131. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/86.4.1126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Moyses H.E., et al., Early parenteral nutrition and growth outcomes in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2013. 97(4): p. 816–826. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.042028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nakubulwa C., et al., Delayed initiation of enteral feeds is associated with postnatal growth failure among preterm infants managed at a rural hospital in Uganda. BMC Pediatr, 2020. 20(1): p. 86. doi: 10.1186/s12887-020-1986-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Piya Biswas J.S1., Mujibul Hoque Md2. Moni Hossain3, Manajjir Ali4, Comparative Study of Early Versus Delayed Enteral Feeding in Development of Necrotizing Enterocolitis for Preterm Small for Date Babies. Bangladesh Journal of Child Health, 2018. Vol 41 No 2(84–91). [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ryan T.P., Sample size determination and power. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Federal Ministry of Health, E., Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) Training, Participants’ Manual. 2014: Addis Ababa. p. 194.
  • 30.Engle W.A., F. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on, and Newborn, Age terminology during the perinatal period. Pediatrics, 2004. 114(5): p. 1362–4. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-1915 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dumpa V., et al., The effects of oral feeding while on nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants. Journal of perinatology: official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2020. 40(6): p. 909–915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bozkurt O., et al., Prolonged minimal enteral nutrition versus early feeding advancements in preterm infants with birth weight ≤1250 g: a prospective randomized trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2020: p. 1–7. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1716723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Razak A., Two-Hourly versus Three-Hourly Feeding in Very Low-Birth-Weight Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Perinatol, 2019. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1691767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mercado K., et al., Neonatal Intensive Care Unit-Specific Lactation Support and Mother’s Own Breast Milk Availability for Very Low Birth-Weight Infants. Adv Neonatal Care, 2019. 19(6): p. 474–481. doi: 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000684 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ezomike U.O., et al., Evaluation of Impact of Perinatal Factors on Time to First Meconium Passage in Nigerian Neonates. Malawi Med J, 2019. 31(2): p. 150–154. doi: 10.4314/mmj.v31i2.8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Quan M.Y., et al., Multi-center Study of Enteral Feeding Practices in Hospitalized Late Preterm Infants in China. Biomed Environ Sci, 2018. 31(7): p. 489–498. doi: 10.3967/bes2018.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.McKenzie B.L., et al., Nutrition Practices and Predictors of Postnatal Growth in Preterm Infants During Hospitalization: A Longitudinal Study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr, 2018. 66(2): p. 312–317. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000001747 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Patwardhan G., et al., Factors Associated with Time to Full Feeds in Preterm Very Low Birth Weight Infants. Journal of tropical pediatrics, 2017. 64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Moreno Algarra M.C., et al., Variability in enteral feeding practices of preterm infants among hospitals in the SEN1500 Spanish neonatal network. Anales de Pediatría (English Edition), 2017. 87(5): p. 245–252. doi: 10.1016/j.anpedi.2016.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Berti E., et al., Feeding Practices in Very Preterm and Very Low Birth Weight Infants in an Area Where a Network of Human Milk Banks Is in Place. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 2018. 6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ogunlesi T.A. and Ogunfowora O.B., The Influence of Method, Timing of Onset and Duration of Enteral Feeding on the Duration of Hospitalization of Newborn Infants in a Nigerian Special Care Baby Unit. Annals of medical and health sciences research, 2015. 5(6): p. 397–402. doi: 10.4103/2141-9248.177991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Jackson B.N., et al., Predictors of the time to attain full oral feeding in late preterm infants. Acta Paediatrica, 2016. 105(1): p. e1–e6. doi: 10.1111/apa.13227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Klingenberg C., et al., Enteral feeding practices in very preterm infants: an international survey. Archives of Disease in Childhood—Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 2012. 97(1): p. F56. doi: 10.1136/adc.2010.204123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gregory K.E. and Connolly T.C., Enteral Feeding Practices in the NICU: Results from a 2009 Neonatal Enteral Feeding Survey. Advances in Neonatal Care, 2012. 12(1): p. 46–55. doi: 10.1097/ANC.0b013e3182425aab [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Smith J.R., Early Enteral Feeding for the Very Low Birth Weight Infant: The Development and Impact of a Research-Based Guideline. Neonatal Network, (4): p. 9–19. doi: 10.1891/0730-0832.24.4.9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hyera R.A., Evelyne Kazimoto, Theodore Leyna, Germana McHomvu, Francis Zuechner Antke, Enhancing early breast milk for sick and preterm neonates admitted at regional referral hospitals in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Pineda R., et al., Preterm infant feeding performance at term equivalent age differs from that of full-term infants. J Perinatol, 2020. 40(4): p. 646–654. doi: 10.1038/s41372-020-0616-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kirollos D.W. and Abdel-Latif M.E., Mode of delivery and outcomes of infants with gastroschisis: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Archives of Disease in Childhood—Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 2018. 103(4): p. F355. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Joseph Donlan

26 May 2022

PONE-D-21-32465

The Time To Initiate Trophic Feeding And Its Predictors Among Preterm Neonate Admitted To Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Multicenter study, Northwest Ethiopia, 2020.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Belay,

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.

Your manuscript has been assessed by two expert reviewers, whose comments are appended to this letter. The reviewers have raised several concerns about the presentation of the methodology, details of the statistical analysis and aspects of the conclusions. Please ensure you respond to each of the points carefully in your response to reviewers and revise your manuscript accordingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 02 2022 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joseph Donlan

Editorial Office

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

3. Please upload a copy of Figure 5, to which you refer in your text on page 20. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Your manuscript entitled "The Time To Initiate Trophic Feeding And Its Predictors Among Preterm Neonate

Admitted To Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Multicenter study, Northwest Ethiopia, 2020" has the potential to be published...

The standard of English language was suitable. It described a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions.

Reviewer #2: Comment 1: Title and aim of the study should be revisited. In Abstract (Line 40), it was mentioned that aim of the study to assess the time to initiate the TF, In background (Line 116): The aim of the study to estimate the time of initiate the TF. The Title should suggest predictors of early initiation of TF or survival of neonates who have been initiated TF early?

Background Section:

Comment 2: Line 111: The initiation, mode, and rate of advancement of TF remained a topic of controversy. Revise the sentence with a more suitable word other than "controversy."

Comment 3: Line 135: Kindly revise or define the word " health professional mixes."

Comment 4: Line 137 and 139 Extend the short name when authors use it the first time. kangaroo mother care (KMC) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)

Comment 5: Use the proper way to write the date: Line 139. Write November 30, 2020 instead of November 30/2020.

Methodology Section:

The methodology needs revision.

Comment 6: Revisit the flow: Line 140 & 141 should be placed after inclusion and exclusion criteria or during the description - sample selection. Here, it creates duplications.

Comment 7: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Does the study include or exclude neonates given TF at previously admitted hospitals? Does the study include the neonate who had hemodynamic instability or any other complications after initiating the TF?

Comment 8: Revisit line 158." Neonates that don't fulfill eligibility criteria were recruited from respective study hospitals": Why did the study recruit the non-eligible study samples?

Comment 9: Line 160: Check the English grammar and describe: was it a simple random sampling method or a different randomization method?

Comment 10: Revisit the Data collection method: Mention the variables included in the checklists, brief on the contents of the semi-structured questionnaire and who has undertaken the data collection for both.

Comment 11: The study also assigned the NICU nurses as data collectors and supervisors. Kindly explain - How the data collection process was not biased despite assigning NICU working nurses & supervisors for data collection? Who checked the completeness of the data? (Authors or Supervisors?) What steps had been taken to avoid it?

Comment 12: Line 179: "The outcomes of study participants were dichotomized into (code '1') as a failure and (code '0') as a censor." What was the outcome assigned to the study participants?

Result Section: Required to maintain the flow of the results based on objectives and planned analysis.

Comment 13: Check the grammar in lines 212 (278 preterms) and 213 (of these, 48..)

Comment 14: Line 228: Referred to study hospitals (outborn) or referred to other centers from study hospitals.? Please clarify.

Comment 15: Line 234: The cumulative probabilities of starting or the cumulative proportions?

Comment 16: Line 240: Describe the survival estimates to build the flow for model of predictors.

Comment 17: Defined all categorical variables in methodology. (line 243-244)

Comments 18: Revisit the line 255, 256

Comment 19:

median survival time of the neonates would have higher impact on the data variables. Here, I recommend to reframe the results. In Table 3; Mention that the survival (time to initiate the feeding) time (hours)

The variables in Cox hazard and Kaplan-Meier survival model, the most appropriate subset of these predictors are to be selected in the multivariable model based on their contribution to the maximized log partial likelihood of the model (−2LL).

The interpretations based on further analysis and translate the findings. The other important step is considering variables that are nonsignificant at univariable analysis but it could be confounders. The effect of adding each of the variables should be checked with −2LL(). It was undertaken here. but this should be outlined in the methodology and in result section with title of the statical model.

At the final step, the Wald test is to be used to assess the significance of reasonable and possible interactions if possible.

Discussion :

Remove duplication of the results. Reduce number of words.

Comment 20: Line 300. To assess or to estimate.

Comment 21: Line 301, English Grammar- study hospitals

Comment 22: Line 323: Reframe the sentence

Comment: 23 Discussion should also mention the neonates were not started TF and reasons.

Conclusion:

Outline the specific recommendations revealed out from the study. in the conclusion section, it is not clear to the reader what are the specific recommendations for the hospitals. Clear 'Action points' need to be described accordingly.

********** 

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Shooka Mohammadi

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Harsh Shah

[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. 2022 Aug 11;17(8):e0272571. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272571.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Jun 2022

Point by point response

Title: The Time to Initiate Trophic Feeding and Its Predictors among Preterm Neonate Admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Multicenter study, Northwest Ethiopia.

Review Comments to the Author

Comment : Reviewer #1: Your manuscript entitled "The Time To Initiate Trophic Feeding And Its Predictors Among Preterm Neonate Admitted To Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Multicenter study, Northwest Ethiopia, 2020" has the potential to be published...

The standard of English language was suitable. It described a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions

Response: Thank you and comments are accepted.

Comment: Reviewer #2: Comment 1: Title and aim of the study should be revisited. In Abstract (Line 40), it was mentioned that aim of the study to assess the time to initiate the TF, In background (Line 116): The aim of the study to estimate the time of initiate the TF. The Title should suggest predictors of early initiation of TF or survival of neonates who have been initiated TF early?

Response: We appreciate this insight but the aim of this study was to estimate the time of initiation to TF because there was no baseline study indicating the median time of TF initiation. Hence the first study shall be estimating the time of initiation to TF then after the above raised issue will proceed. Therefore, we didn’t investigate neonates who have started TF early before admission as indicated in the exclusion criteria.

Background Section:

Comment 2: Line 111: The initiation, mode, and rate of advancement of TF remained a topic of controversy. Revise the sentence with a more suitable word other than "controversy."

Response: We appreciate this intention and we revised this sentence. See line 91 in the revised manuscript.

Comment 3: Line 135: Kindly revise or define the word “health professional mixes."

Response: we have revised. See line 115 in the revised manuscript.

Comment 4: Line 137 and 139 Extend the short name when authors use it the first time. kangaroo mother care (KMC) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)

Response: Thank you, we now corrected it.

Comment 5: Use the proper way to write the date: Line 139. Write November 30, 2020 instead of November 30/2020.

Response: It is corrected on the revised manuscript.

Methodology Section:

The methodology needs revision.

Comment 6: Revisit the flow: Line 140 & 141 should be placed after inclusion and exclusion criteria or during the description - sample selection. Here, it creates duplications.

Response: We tried to re-arrange the whole methodology part as per the comment given.

Comment 7: Question1: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Does the study include or exclude neonates given TF at previously admitted hospitals?

Response: We excluded neonates who were started TF at referring hospitals. See line 126-127 of the revised manuscript.

Question2: Does the study include the neonate who had hemodynamic instability or any other complications after initiating the TF?

Response: No, because the aim of this study was assessing time to starting trophic feeding; follow up was until the event (starting trophic feeding) developed. So we don’t have any data about the study participants after the follow up period.

Comment 8: Revisit line 158." Neonates that don't fulfill eligibility criteria were recruited from respective study hospitals": Why did the study recruit the non-eligible study samples?

Response: Sorry, it was type error and corrected. See line 137 in the revised manuscript.

Comment 9: Line 160: Check the English grammar and describe: was it a simple random sampling method or a different randomization method?

Response: We checked the grammar and the sampling method we used was simple random sampling technique by using the admission registration as sampling frame. See line 139-140 in the revised manuscript.

Comment 10: Revisit the Data collection method: Mention the variables included in the checklists, brief on the contents of the semi-structured questionnaire and who has undertaken the data collection for both.

Response: We revised this section accordingly. See line 168-176 &180 of the revised manuscript. We also tried to mention the independent variables and the questionnaire contents at the “measurement and variables section” of our revised manuscript.

Comment 11: The study also assigned the NICU nurses as data collectors and supervisors. Question1: Kindly explain - How the data collection process was not biased despite assigning NICU working nurses & supervisors for data collection?

Response: Before data collection there was one day training for both data collectors and supervisors who were working at NICU of all study areas on the study objective, data collection tools, procedures and necessary methodological setups. Next to this our study objective was to estimate the time to initiate trophic feeding, this issue does not measure the performance of the NICU nurses and their responsibility is giving the service while the mothers came to their room. The primary responsibility of early linking for trophic feeding is for Midwives who are working at the delivery room. So firstly, we give training on the purpose of the study; next the principal investigator checked the data on daily basis randomly by taking the medical registration number of the study participants and lastly the topic/ issue is not as such sensitive for the NICU nurses. Therefore, we assured that the data were not biased by data collectors and supervisors as we tried to justify in the above.

Question 2 : Who checked the completeness of the data? (Authors or Supervisors?) What steps had been taken to avoid it?

Response: The data was checked by both the assigned supervisor and the principal investigator. The steps are mentioned in the response of question one. See line 182-183 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 12: Line 179: "The outcomes of study participants were dichotomized into (code '1') as a failure and (code '0') as a censor." What was the outcome assigned to the study participants?

Response: The outcome variable of this study was time to initiate trophic feeding and failure coded as”1”were neonates who started trophic feeding during the follow up period. See line 198-199.

Result Section: Required to maintain the flow of the results based on objectives and planned analysis.

Response: We tried to maintain the flow of the result accordingly.

Comment 13: Check the grammar in lines 212 (278 preterms) and 213 (of these, 48..)

Response: We checked and amend accordingly. See line 232-233 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 14: Line 228: Referred to study hospitals (out born) or referred to other centers from study hospitals? Please clarify.

Response: Those neonates referred from other health facilities to study hospitals and we corrected in the revised manuscript. See line 250-251.

Comment 15: Line 234: The cumulative probabilities of starting or the cumulative proportions?

Response: It was cumulative probability. Because survival probability is calculated as the number of subjects surviving divided by the number of patients at risk and the reported numbers were done so. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059453/

Comment 16: Line 240: Describe the survival estimates to build the flow for model of predictors

Response: We described the survival estimates of each predictor in the revised manuscript. See line 271-284.

Comment 17: Defined all categorical variables in methodology (line 243-244).

Response: We corrected it. Please See line 141-151 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 18: Revisit the line 255, 256

Response: We appreciate this insight and we amended it accordingly. See line 348-351 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 19: median survival time of the neonates would have higher impact on the data variables. Here, I recommend to reframe the results. In Table 3; Mention that the survival (time to initiate the feeding) time (hours). The variables in Cox hazard and Kaplan-Meier survival model, the most appropriate subset of these predictors are to be selected in the multivariable model based on their contribution to the maximized log partial likelihood of the model (−2LL).

The interpretations based on further analysis and translate the findings. The other important step is considering variables that are non-significant at uni-variable analysis but it could be confounders. The effect of adding each of the variables should be checked with −2LL (). It was undertaken here. But this should be outlined in the methodology and in result section with title of the statical model. At the final step, the Wald test is to be used to assess the significance of reasonable and possible interactions if possible.

Response: We tried to correct it based on your suggestion. See line 107-108 of the methodology section and line 348-351 of the result section of the revised manuscript.

Discussion :

Remove duplication of the results. Reduce number of words.

Response: We saw the whole discussion part thoroughly and acted accordingly.

Comment 20: Line 300. To assess or to estimate.

Response: To estimate

Comment 21: Line 301, English Grammar- study hospitals

Response: We corrected it. See line 367

Comment 22: Line 323: Reframe the sentence

Response: We reframed it. Please see line 390-391.

Comment: 23 Discussion should also mention the neonates were not started TF and reasons.

Response: We tried to add on it.

Conclusion:

Outline the specific recommendations revealed out from the study. In the conclusion section, it is not clear to the reader what are the specific recommendations for the hospitals. Clear 'Action points' need to be described accordingly

Response: We wrote the specific recommendation based on our findings accordingly.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response for reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Harsh Shah

22 Jul 2022

The Time To Initiate Trophic Feeding And Its Predictors Among Preterm Neonate Admitted To Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Multicenter study, Northwest Ethiopia.

PONE-D-21-32465R1

Dear Dr. Belay,

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,

Harsh Shah, MD

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: our manuscript entitled "The Time To Initiate Trophic Feeding And Its Predictors Among Preterm Neonate

Admitted To Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Multicenter study, Northwest Ethiopia, 2020" has the potential to be published...

It described a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Shooka Mohammadi

**********

Acceptance letter

Harsh Shah

2 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-32465R1

The Time to Initiate Trophic Feeding and Its Predictors among Preterm Neonate Admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Multicenter study, Northwest Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Abebaw:

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. Harsh Shah

Guest 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: Response for reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES