Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jan 3;18(1):e0277912. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277912

Prevalence of scabies and associated factors among children aged 5–14 years in Meta Robi District, Ethiopia

Gemechu Ararsa 1, Emiru Merdassa 2, Tesfaye Shibiru 3, Werku Etafa 4,*
Editor: Gudina Egata5
PMCID: PMC9810185  PMID: 36595503

Abstract

Background

Scabies is a public health problem that affects children and elders predominantly. Its burden is higher in resource-poor settings, and scabies has a significant impact on the long-term health of children. In Ethiopia, there is limited information about scabies in children. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of scabies and its associated factors among children aged 5–14 years in Meta Robi District, Ethiopia.

Methods

A community-based cross-sectional study design using a multistage sampling technique was used to collect data from 457 participants by systematic random sampling. Scabies was diagnosed based on the clinical criteria set by the International Alliance for the Control of Scabies (IACS, 2020).

Findings

The prevalence of scabies among children aged 5–14 years old was 19.26% (95%CI: 17.20–22.52). In addition, over half (54.6%) of identified cases of scabies were of moderate severity. Factors like families’ low income (aOR = 2.72; 95%CI: 1.32–5.59), being a male child (aOR = 1.96, 95%CI: 1.61–4.01), using only water for hand washing (aOR = 2.01, 95%CI: 1.84–4.79), having a contact history of scabies/skin lesions (aOR = 4.15, 95%CI: 2.02–13.67), and sharing sleeping beds (aOR = 6.33, 95%CI: 2.09–19.13) were significantly associated with scabies.

Conclusion

The study highlights a high prevalence of scabies among children aged 5–14 years in the district. Provision of adequate health education for the community and children about the scabies and delivering mass drug administration to the district is suggested.

Introduction

Human scabies is an ectoparasitic infestation caused by the mite Sarcoptes scabiei variety hominis which is an obligate parasite that completes its entire life cycle on humans. Female mites burrow into the skin and lay eggs, eventually triggering a host immune response that leads to intense itching and rash [1, 2]. Scabies was listed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) under category A in 2017 because it fulfills four criteria: 1) it disproportionately affects populations living in poverty; and causes important morbidity and mortality including stigma and discrimination; 2) it primarily affects populations living in tropical and sub-tropical areas; 3) it is amenable to broad control, elimination or eradication by applying public health strategies; and 4) it is relatively neglected by research. Category A NTDs require large scale action in the portfolio of WHO’S NTD Department in order to achieve control, elimination or eradication [3].

Scabies infestation occurs in all countries, but with a high burden in developing countries and tropical areas, and among infants, children, adolescents, and older persons [4, 5]. However, scabies prevalence and incidence is substantially higher in children than in adolescents and adults, and it increases sharply from five years to twenty-five years [6]. In 2015, the prevalence of scabies was from 0·2% to 71·4% in the world [4]. Findings from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study in 2017 reported the global prevalence and incidence cases of scabies were 175.4 million and 527.5 million, respectively, and showed that its burden is on a downward trend over the last 27 years (1990–2017) [6]. The pooled prevalence of scabies infestation was 14.5% in Ethiopia among surveyed population and it ranged from 5.5% to 23.8% among children [7]. Scabies was the most commonly reported ectoparasite in the Southwest of Ethiopia [8].

The main feature of scabies is generalized itching that is more intense during nighttime, which may lead to absenteeism from school and work, sleep disturbance that affects the quality of life, and causes stigma [9, 10]. Impetigo is skin infection caused by Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes, common after persistent itching due to scabies and could complicate to severe skin and soft tissue infections, sepsis, glomerulonephritis, and acute rheumatic fever [911]. Immune-mediated disease and morbidity are also consequences of scabies [12]. The main route of transmission for scabies is direct skin-to-skin contact. However, crusted scabies is transmitted mainly through shared clothing or other indirect methods [13].

Scabies risk factors such as overcrowding, poor personal hygiene, sharing of beds or clothing, younger age, sex, educational status of caregivers, place of residence, poor access to water, larger family size, knowledge deficit with respect to scabies, parental illiteracy, and low-income of the households were reported [1418]. In Ethiopia, disasters such as flooding, drought, civil war and conflict, poor water supply and sanitation, and overcrowding living conditions were the drivers of scabies [19]. Also, available scabies-related studies in Ethiopia focused on outbreak investigation [2023]and used unmatched cases control study design [24].

Assessing the prevalence of scabies across different regions and districts of Ethiopia is important to understand the unique risk factors, to develop acceptable interventions, and beneficial to decide where resource allocation is needed. In the Western part of Ethiopia, there is no documented study on scabies and their associated factors among children aged 5–14 years in Meta Robi District, Ethiopia. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to assess the prevalence and associated factors of scabies among children in this setting. A community-based approach for this study was utilized to include children who might not go to school.

Methods

Study area and period

We conducted a study in Meta Robi District, West Shoa Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia, from February 15 to March 12, 2021. Meta Robi district is around 100 kilometers from the Northwest of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. It is 153 kilometers far from the zonal main town, Ambo.

Study design

This study was a cross-sectional study of scabies prevalence in selected kebeles of Meta Robi District. Randomly selected children five to fourteen years old and their parents/caregivers in selected kebeles were examined.

Sample size and sampling procedure

We determined the sample size using the single population proportion formula by considering the following assumptions: of a 95% confidence interval, precision level of 5% [25], an expected 23.8% proportion of scabies take from the study done in Ilu Aba Bora Zone [18], and a 10% non-response rate, 307 sample size was estimated. By considering a design effect of 1.5 [26], the final sample size was found to be 461.

A multistage sampling technique was used to select the study subjects. First, Ten kebeles were selected from twenty-six kebeles by lottery. A total of 9,801 households were present in the selected ten kebeles. Next, we chose two clusters randomly from each kebele. There were 3267 households in the chosen twenty clusters. Finally, by using a systematic random sampling technique, the study subjects were recruited. A child aged 5–14 years was selected from the family assessing scabies. If there was more than one child in the selected household, we included the youngest child.

To identify the first household, we started from the central point in each selected kebele. Study direction was identified by spinning a pencil on a clipboard. Then, every seventh (kth = 3267/461~7) household was selected and included in the study. The total sample size was allocated proportionally to the selected villages according to their household numbers. Accordingly, the selected kebeles and their respective samples were Gurji (85), Birb, Dima (28), Fale (55), Walensu (41), Haro, Dula (42), Shino 01 (59), to Kirbe (24) and Baka (43).

Data collection tools and techniques

Data were collected using a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire developed from the literature, and the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS) was used for data collection [27] (Additional file 1). It contains five parts which include information on socio-demographic factors, water, sanitation and hygiene, and environmental-related factors, caregivers’ knowledge about scabies, and health service utilization related aspects, and scabies status of children. The data collection instruments were first prepared in the English language, then translated into the local language (Afaan Oromoo), and finally retranslated back to the English language. Heads of household or household residents above 18 years old who lived with the child for more than six months and could give information were interviewed to collect the data. We recruited four healthcare workers who had previously received training about scabies to carry out the survey. Before they performed the survey, a brief training package on the basic principles of data collection and clinical diagnosis was given for two days. A trained and certified nurse supervised the study. The clinical diagnosis of scabies was based on criteria for scabies diagnosis developed by the International Alliance for the Control of Scabies (IACS, 2020) consensus criteria (Table 1) [28]. The severity of scabies was based on the number of lesions counted and defined as mild (1–10 lesions), moderate (11–49 lesions) or severe scabies (≥50 lesions) [29].

Table 1. International Alliance for the control of scabies consensus criteria for the diagnosis of Scabies, 2020.

Clinical category Description Utilized in the study
(Yes or No)
Confirmed scabies
A1 Mites, eggs or faeces on light microscopy of skin samples No
A2 Mites, eggs or faeces visualized on an individual using a high-powered imaging device No
A3 Mite visualized on an individual using dermoscopy No
Clinical scabies
B1 Scabies burrows Yes
B2 Typical lesions affecting male genitalia No
B3 Typical lesions in a typical distribution and two history features Yes
Suspected scabies
C1 Typical lesions in a typical distribution and one history feature Yes
C2 Atypical lesions or atypical distribution and two history feature Yes

In this study, scabies was diagnosed clinically without any equipment. Healthcare workers were informed to refer any suspected cases of scabies or other skin lesions to a health facility for further investigation and intervention. Scabies examination was limited to easily-exposed body areas such as foot, leg to the thigh, and hand to the upper arm, scalp, and neck. A thorough body examination was not conducted as it was not practical in the field setting. Thus, a limited examination was done on common areas (hands, feet, and lower legs) where about 90% of scabies cases are detected [30]. Children wearing shoes were instructed to remove them before the examination started. Data collectors did not examine the breasts, groin, or genitals. Examinations of these sensitive areas were excluded unless requested by participants. Based on the caregiver’s permission, a private examination was done in a separate place under adequate light. Data collectors wearing disposable gloves checked for the presence of scabies lesions and recorded whether there was itching, typical or atypical lesions, or a combination [28].

A pretest was done on 5% of the total sample size one week before data collection. To avoid scabies misdiagnosis, when data collectors faced the difficulty of distinguishing scabies from other skin disorders, they were instructed to take a photo of the affected skin to discuss with the supervisor in the afternoon meeting based on the assent of caregivers.

Data analysis and processing

Data were edited and cleaned for inconsistencies and missing values, then entered into Epi Data version 3.1 and exported to SPSS version 23 for analysis. Descriptive statistics like frequency distribution were used and presented by using a table, graph, and text. Caregivers’ knowledge of scabies examination was tested by five general questions from 11 points. These general questions focused on signs and symptoms of scabies, whether scabies is communicable, its route of transmission, whether it is preventable, and prevention mechanisms. These items were tested by using correct and incorrect options. Caregivers who answered correctly knowledge testing item obtained one (1) point and the rest zero (0) [17]. Caregivers’ knowledge is categorized as ’’adequate knowledge’’, if caregivers scored knowledge testing items above the mean, and otherwise, they were categorized as having ’’inadequate knowledge’’ [17].

The prevalence of scabies was determined relying on the 2020 IACS Criteria subcategories B3 (clinical scabies), C1, and C2 (suspected scabies), which utilize clinical features such as typical lesions (appearance of grouped or clustered lesions, and severity and degree of secondary skin lesions due to scratching in some body areas and rubbing and atypical distribution), atypical lesion (lesions without typical morphology, or that number less than three in anybody area) and history such as itch/pruritus, and a child who has any contact with an individual diagnosed with crusted scabies or close contact with individual diagnosed with scabies, itch or typical scabies lesions in a typical distribution [28].

We used binary logistic regression analysis to determine the presence of a statistical association between scabies and independent variables. Variables with a p-value <0.25 in bivariate analysis were considered as candidates to be entered into multivariable logistic regression [31]. However, multicollinearity was checked for each pair of variables before including variables in multiple logistic regressions. Collinearity diagnostic test by Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) <5 with tolerance >0.2 was considered to have no multicollinearity problem. The necessary assumption of the logistic regression model was checked by Hosmer and Lemeshow’s goodness of fit test statistics. It fits well if p-value >0.05. A p-value of<0.05 using a 95% confidence interval in multivariable logistic regressions defined a statistically significant variable.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Ethical Review Committee of Wollega University, Institute of Health Sciences (Reference number: 004CHRT/13). Permission to conduct the study was given to us by Meta Robi District Health Bureau. A written informed consent is obtained from the caregivers before they participated in the study. We explained the study object, autonomy, and confidentiality of the questionnaire, and the right to participate and withdraw at any time to both caregivers and participating children before and during collecting data.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of caregivers

A total of 457 participants enrolled in the study with a response rate of more than 99.13%. The mean age (± SD) of the involved children in the study was 9.58 ± 2.47. More than half (53.8%) of the children were from 5-to 9 years of age. Eighty-eight (19.3%) children involved in the study were attending school. Nearly three-fourths (72.9%) of the caregivers were farmers while 67.7% of them have no formal education. The average monthly income of most participants (61.9%) was more than 650 Ethiopian birr. The result showed 37.4% of the caregivers used unprotected water sources, and 79% of their traveled ≥1hour to reach a nearby health facility (Table 2).

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of caregivers, Meta Robi District, Ethiopia 2020.

Variables Category Frequency Percentage
Number of children/family ≤ 2 373 81.6
> 2 84 18.4
Age of children (year) 5–9 246 53.8
10–14 211 46.2
Sex Male 237 51.9
Female 220 48.1
Yes 88 19.3 Yes
No 369 80.9 No
Marital status Together 392 85.8
Separated 65 14.2
Occupation Farmer 333 72.9
Merchant 58 12.7
Government employee 20 4.4
Daily labor 27 5.9
Housewife 19 4.1
Family size <5 359 78.6
≥5 98 21.4
Educational status No formal education 309 67.6
Elementary school(1–8) 93 20.3
Secondary school (9–2) 35 7.7
College and above 20 4.4
Average monthly income ≤650 ETB 283 61.9
> 650 ETB 174 38.1
Sources of water Piped 91 19.9
Protected well or spring 195 42.7
Unprotected well or spring 171 37.4
Household water consumption per day <40 liters 303 66.3
41–60 liters 98 21.4
>60 liters 56 12.3
Number of rooms in house One 38 8.3
Two 187 40.9
Three 176 38.5
More than three 56 12.3
Travel time to water source <30 minutes 155 33.9
31–60 minutes 224 49.0
>60 minutes 78 17.1
Travel time to nearest health facility < 1 hour 96 21.0
≥1hour(s) 361 79.0

Characteristics and hygiene practice of children

From the total study participants, 329 (72%) of the children use water only for washing their hands, more than three quarter (75.4%) had contact history with skin itching cases/scabies and 374 (81.8%) share common sleeping bed. 75.3% had a history of contact with a person who had skin itching cases/scabies, and 81.8% shared a common sleeping bed (Table 3).

Table 3. Hygiene practice of children aged 5–14 years, Meta Robi District, Ethiopia, 2020.

Variables Category Frequency Percentage
Hand washing practiced by child With water only 329 72.0
With water and soap/local detergents 128 28.0
Contact history with skin itching cases/scabies Yes 344 75.3
No 113 24.7
Share common sleeping bed Yes 374 81.8
No 83 18.2
Share clothes with friends/relatives Yes 65 14.2
No 392 85.8
Had history of scabies diagnosed by healthcare workers Yes 110 76.0
No 347 24.0

Caregivers’ source of information and knowledge about scabies

In this study, most of the participants (88%) had heard about scabies, and their main source of information was healthcare workers (35.3%). The majority of the caregivers knew at least one symptom of scabies (94.1%) and that it is a communicable disease (84.6%). Nearly 65% reported scabies is a preventable disease and that prevention includes avoiding the sharing of fomites and beds. The overall knowledge of the caregivers was adequate (59.3%) (Table 4).

Table 4. Source of information and knowledge of caregivers about scabies, Meta Robi District, Ethiopia.

Variables Category Frequency Percentage
Ever heard about scabies Yes 402 88.0
No 55 12.0
Source of information Television 40 10.0
Radio 82 20.4
Healthcare workers 142 35.3
Neighbor/family 138 34.3
Know at least one sign/symptom of scabies Yes 396 94.1
No 25 5.9
Scabies is communicable Yes 356 84.6
No 65 15.4
Scabies route of transmission Skin to skin contact 121 34.0
Sharing contaminated fomites and bed 218 61.2
skin to skin contact and sharing fomites, bed 17 4.8
Scabies is preventable Yes 271 64.4
No 150 35.6
Scabies prevention method Medical treatment 76 28.0
Avoid skin contact 44 16.2
Avoid sharing fomite and bed 92 34.0
Avoid overcrowding 13 4.8
Improve hygiene and sanitation 46 17.0
Mean knowledge score Adequate 271 59.3
Inadequate 186 40.7

Prevalence of scabies and its diagnostic character by 2020 IACS criteria

The overall prevalence of scabies among school aged children (5–14 years) was 19.26% (95%CI: 17.20–22.52). Of the total cases of scabies (88), 53(60.2%) were diagnosed with a typical lesions in a typical distribution and two history features, whereas, 26 (29.6%) cases were identified with typical lesions or atypical distribution and two history feature. Among the identified scabies cases, 31(35.2%) had mild, 48 (54.6%) had moderate, and 9 (10.2%) had severe lesions (Table 5).

Table 5. Prevalence of scabies and its diagnostic character by 2020 IACS criteria among children aged 5–14 years in Meta Robi District, Ethiopia, 2020 (N = 457).
Variables Frequency Percentage
IACS criteria
B3 53 60.2
C1 26 29.6
C2 9 10.2
Scabies severity
Mild 31 35.2
Moderate 48 54.6
Severe 9 10.2

Factors associated with scabies

In multivariate logistic regression, the odds of having scabies were about twice as likely among children age 5–14 years whose families’ monthly income is ≤650 ETB (aOR = 2.72; 95%CI: 1.32–5.59), male children (aOR = 1.96, 95%CI: 1.61–4.01) and children who wash their hands frequently by water alone (without soap) (aOR = 2.01, 95%CI: 1.84–4.79) and more than four and six times as likely among children who had contact history of scabies/skin lesion (aOR = 4.15, 95%CI: 2.02–13.67) and share sleeping beds (aOR = 6.33, 95%CI: 2.09–19.13), respectively (Table 6).

Table 6. Multivariate analysis of factors associated with scabies among children aged 5–14 years in Meta Robi District, Ethiopia, 2020.

Variables Category Scabies Crude OR, 95%CI Adjusted OR, 95%CI P-value
Yes No
Marital status Separated 21(32.3%) 44(67.7%) 2.32 (1.29, 4.15) 1.53 (0.68, 3.46) > 0.05
Together 67(17.1%) 325(82.9%) 1 1
Monthly income ≤ 650 ETB 72(25.4%) 211(74.6%) 3.37 (1.89, 6.02) 2.72 (1.32, 5.59) 0.01*
> 650 ETB 16(9.2%) 158(90.8%) 1 1
Child’s sex Male 54(22.8%) 183(77.2%) 1.61 (1.01, 2.60) 1.96(1. 61–4.01) 0.004*
Female 34(15.5%) 186(84.5%) 1 1
Water source Unprotected 46(26.9%) 125(73.1%) 2.68 (1.31, 5.47) 0.79 (0.25, 2.52) > 0.05
Protected 31(15.9%) 164(84.1%) 1.38 (0.66, 2.88) 0.62 (0.21, 1.82) > 0.05
Piped 11(12.1%) 80(87.9%) 1 1
Travel time to water source ≥30 minutes 72(23.8%) 230(76.2%) 2.72 (1.52, 4.86) 1.16 (0.54, 2.47) > 0.05
<30 minutes 16(10.3%) 139(89.7%) 1 1
Contact history with skin itching cases/scabies No 9(8.0%) 104(92.0%) 1 1 <0.001**
Yes 79(23.0%) 265(77.0%) 3.45 (1.67,7.12) 4.15 (2.02, 13.67)
Share common sleeping bed/fomites Yes 80(21.4%) 294(78.6%) 2.55 (1.18, 5.51) 6.33 (2.09, 19.13) <0.001**
No 8(9.6%) 75(90.4%) 1 1
Washing hand with Water only 80(24.3%) 249(75.7%) 4.82 (2.26, 10.29) 2.01 (1.84, 4.79) 0.002*
Water and soap/other local detergents 8(6.3%) 120(93.8%) 1 1
Travel time to reach nearby health facility < 1 hour 13(2.8%) 83(18.2%) 1 1 > 0.05
≥ 1hour 75(16.4%) 286(62.5%) 1.67 (0.89, 3.17) 0.81 (0.35, 1.83)

Keys

**: significant at P-value < 0.001

*: significant at P-value < 0.05; OR Odds Ratio, and CI: Confidence interval

Discussion

This epidemiologic study intended to determine the prevalence of scabies and associated factors among children aged 5–14 years in Meta Robi District, Ethiopia. The overall prevalence of scabies in this district is 19.26%. Moreover, lower monthly income, being a male child, washing hands frequently with water alone (without soap), having a contact history of scabies/skin lesion, and sharing sleeping beds significantly affects scabies in the study area.

The prevalence of scabies in this study is similar to the findings in Cameroon (17.8%) and Ethiopia, Gondar town (22.5%) [15, 23]. However, it is higher than previous study findings reported in Iran (3.1%), Nigeria (13.3%), Egypt (4.4%) and Côte d’Ivoire (1%) [16, 3234]. Similarly, two previously conducted studies in Ethiopia in Yirga Cheffe (5.5%) and Dabat districts (9.3%) [8, 17] reported a lower prevalence of scabies than the current study. In contrast, the proportion of scabies reported in the Solomon Islands (54.3%), India (39.42%), and study reported in Ethiopia, in in Ilu Aba Bora Zone (23.8%) [18, 23, 29, 35]were higher than the current study finding. Studies identified personal and environmental hygiene, economic level and family size, climatic conditions (drought), and the winter season (data collection period) as the reasons for the variations in the scabies infestation rate [1, 7, 17, 18, 20, 36]. Furthermore, the difference in data collectors’ quality in the clinical diagnosis of scabies, the season of the data collection, variation in the study population, and the sample size might be another possible reason for the discrepancy between the present study and previous studies.

The Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) is working cooperatively with partners to rapidly stop the transmission of scabies outbreaks at the community level in high-risk districts [37]. These include scabies case management, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), and communication for development. The Ethiopian FMoH, in villages or districts where scabies prevalence is >15%, proposed mass drug administration (MDA) except for children less than 2years, pregnant women, and lactating mothers [37]. The current descriptive finding revealed that the prevalence of scabies (19.26%) among children aged 5–14 years requires MDA in the district. The study conducted in Ethiopia that addressed a large community within a few days of MDA revealed health extension workers and community leaders as the key to the intervention [38].

The Ethiopian government has set out its development goals in successive growth and transformation plans, which identify water and sanitation as the first list of priority areas for achieving sustainable growth and poverty reduction [39]. In addition, the Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) has also put in place governance mechanisms through which the performance of the hygiene and sanitation strategies can be tracked and monitored as integral parts of the health management information system [39]. Therefore, considering scabies as a water-washed disease, the key intervention is the provision of access to sufficient safe water for personal hygiene.

This study showed more than half of scabies diagnosed were moderate in severity which is harmonious with the findings from the Solomon Islands [29]. However, studies undertaken in Ghana and Liberia among the general population and in northern Ethiopia among school-aged children reported severe scabies among high proportions of study participants [17, 40, 41]. The severity of scabies infestation is directly related to the number of mites found on the skin and the lengthy of time between initial infestation and subsequent diagnosis and treatment [20, 28]. Also, scabies prevalence and severity vary depending on the season of the data collection [42]. For example, we collected data during winter. During this season, access to water for personal hygiene is challenging due to absence of the rainfall and occurrence of drought [43]. The Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS), 2016 report identified the water supply access coverage for rural, urban and national is 56.5%, 97.3%, and 64.85%, respectively [27]. This shows that inadequate water access coverage in the country that could expose the community at risk of communicable diseases.

According to the current study, scabies infestation is higher in males than females. This is similar to the previous studies conducted in Cameroon and Solomon Islands [15, 29]. However, it contradicts the findings in Iran [16]. Socio-cultural practices could be the possible reasons for the differences. This indicates that male children spent most of their daytime at the field playing through touching each other and handling contaminated handling articles with the scabies mite.

Also, low monthly family income was among the identified factors affecting scabies in children aged 5–14 years. Scabies more commonly affects disadvantaged populations, including poverty, household crowding, and poor access to healthcare [1, 40]. Low-incomes expose families to scabies in two dimensions. Firstly, scabies is water-washed that can be prevented and controlled via personal hygiene practices. Families with low-income, do not use soap or other detergents for washing their hands and cloth. Secondly, families of low-income could not obtain adequate food. This primarily results in scabies infestation following reduced ability of immunity. Undernutrition affects the child’s ability to mount a defense against infections or infestations and exposes them to the severest form of scabies (crust scabies).

Our analysis also showed that scabies infestation is higher among children who had a history of contact with skin itching/scabies cases similar to findings in Egypt, Nigeria, and different areas in Ethiopia [17, 21, 24, 32]. Scabies is a contagious disease mainly spread by direct and prolonged skin-to-skin contact [28]. Children share clothing with their family, family members, or friends. From the researchers’ experience, most of the body parts are not covered with a cloth during the day and night time, irrespective of the weather condition (dry or raining). This could be a possible reason for high risk of scabies in children. In overcrowded or poor families, creating community awareness regarding scabies case detection to seek immediate healthcare service is better to reduce the burden of the disease in both family and the community.

Our data further revealed that children who share sleeping beds/fomites are more affected by scabies than their counterparts. However, the previously reported studies in Ethiopia did not show a significant association between scabies and shared sleeping beds/fomites [16, 21, 24, 44, 45]. Since scabies is a contagious disease [28], and the mites can exist on the clothes/articles which facilitate the transmission. Once the community has the appropriate knowledge of the scabies manifestations, transmission, and its prevention mechanism, and practices them, probably the infestation might be declined.

In the present study, children who wash their hands with water and products used for removing cleanings like soap or other local products such as plants and ash were more protected from scabies infestation. Previous studies conducted in Ethiopia in Dabat and Wadila districts also reported similar results [17, 44]. Since soap has a chemical property that removes scabies mites from the body and decreases its risk of transmission, washing hands with soap destroys mites of scabies. The study conducted in Ethiopia suggested community social and resource mobilization helps create community understanding [46]. It is critical to keep on fighting against scabies and its infestation consequences. Our analysis did not show a significant association between scabies infestation and educational levels of caregivers, family size, and knowledge about scabies.

Conclusions

The study highlights the prevalence of scabies among children aged 5–14 years in Meta Robi district. Factors like families’ low income, being a male child, using only water for hand washing, having a contact history of scabies/skin lesions, and sharing sleeping beds were significantly associated with scabies. To control scabies in the district, expansion of adequate health education for the community, and mass drug administration is suggested. Future studies using microscopic equipment used to visualize scabies mites is better for generating adequate evidences.

Limitations of the study

This study has some limitations. First, a cross-sectional study design might not represent cause and effect relationship. The burden of scabies cases depends on the season. Our data is collected when water is limited since it was not during a rainy season, the prevalence of scabies in the study area could be high. Second, scabies’ mites are confirmed by visualizing through microscopic examination of skin samples, high-magnification devices, or dermoscopy (IACS category A, 2020). However, our diagnosis relies on clinical assessment category B (IACS, 2020). The difference in data collectors’ skill and knowledge in clinical examination of scabies could be another limitation of the study as skin diseases are intertwined and difficult to distinguish from each other. We counted scabies lesions on the limited body extremities. It could affect the categorization of the severity of scabies properly. However, our study findings can be generalized to all children aged 5–14 years living in Meta Robi district because it was conducted at the community level and included children who did not attend school and based on random selection.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(SAV)

S1 File

(DOCX)

S2 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the study participants, the Meta Robi Health Bureau district, our data collectors, and supervisors for the effort of this study.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Engelman D, Cantey PT, Marks M, Solomon AW, Chang AY, Chosidow O, et al. The public health control of scabies: priorities for research and action. The Lancet. 2019;394(10192):81–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31136-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Walton SF, Holt DC, Currie BJ, Kemp DJ. Scabies: new future for a neglected disease. Advances in Parasitology. 2004;57(57):309–76. doi: 10.1016/S0065-308X(04)57005-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Health organization W. THE WHO STRATEGIC AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP FOR NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES (WHO STAG). RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ADOPTION OF ADDITIONAL DISEASES AS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/ntds/strategic-and-advisory-group-on-neglected-tropical-diseases-(stag-ntds)/ninth-ntd-stag-report-2016-annex-adoption-additional-ntds.pdf?sfvrsn=7f13cc25_7.
  • 4.Romani L, Steer AC, Whitfeld MJ, Kaldor JM. Prevalence of scabies and impetigo worldwide: a systematic review. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2015;15(8):960–7. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00132-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Karimkhani C, Colombara DV, Drucker AM, Norton SA, Hay R, Engelman D, et al. The global burden of scabies: a cross-sectional analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2017;17(12):1247–54. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30483-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhang W, Zhang Y, Luo L, Huang W, Shen X, Dong X, et al. Trends in prevalence and incidence of scabies from 1990 to 2017: findings from the global Burden of disease study 2017. Emerging microbes & infections. 2020;9(1):813–6. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1754136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Azene AG, Aragaw AM, Wassie GT. Prevalence and associated factors of scabies in Ethiopia: systematic review and Meta-analysis. BMC infectious diseases. 2020;20(1):380. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05106-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Walker SL, Lebas E, De Sario V, Deyasso Z, Doni SN, Marks M, et al. The prevalence and association with health-related quality of life of tungiasis and scabies in schoolchildren in southern Ethiopia. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2017;11(8):e0005808. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Swe P, Reynolds S, Fischer K. Parasitic scabies mites and associated bacteria joining forces against host complement defence. Parasite immunology. 2014;36(11):585–93. doi: 10.1111/pim.12133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jackson A, Heukelbach J, Filho AFdS, Campelo Júnior EdB, Feldmeier H. Clinical features and associated morbidity of scabies in a rural community in Alagoas, Brazil. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2007;12(4):493–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Parks T, Smeesters PR, Steer AC. Streptococcal skin infection and rheumatic heart disease. Current opinion in infectious diseases. 2012;25(2):145–53. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e3283511d27 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Engelman D, Kiang K, Chosidow O, McCarthy J, Fuller C, Lammie P, et al. Toward the global control of human scabies: introducing the International Alliance for the Control of Scabies. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2013;7(8):e2167. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Scabies Chosidow O. New England Journal of Medicine. 2006;354(16):1718–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nazari M, Azizi A. Epidemiological pattern of scabies and its social determinant factors in west of Iran. Health. 2014;2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kouotou EA, Nansseu JRN, Kouawa MK, Bissek A-CZ-K. Prevalence and drivers of human scabies among children and adolescents living and studying in Cameroonian boarding schools. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9(1):1–6. doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1690-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sanei-Dehkordi A, Soleimani-Ahmadi M, Zare M, Jaberhashemi SA. Risk factors associated with scabies infestation among primary schoolchildren in a low socio-economic area in southeast of Iran. BMC pediatrics. 2021;21(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dagne H, Dessie A, Destaw B, Yallew WW, Gizaw Z. Prevalence and associated factors of scabies among schoolchildren in Dabat district, northwest Ethiopia, 2018. Environmental health and preventive medicine. 2019;24(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lulu Y, Tolesa G, Cris J. Prevalence and associated factors of skin diseases among primary school children in Illuababor zone, Oromia Regional state, South West Ethiopia. Indo American Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2017;7(1):7374–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Federal Democartic Republic oF Ethiopia. MoH. Elimination of Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) in Ethiopia. 2016.
  • 20.Enbiale W, Ayalew A. Investigation of a Scabies Outbreak in Drought-Affected Areas in Ethiopia. Tropical medicine and infectious disease. 2018;3(4). doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed3040114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ejigu K, Haji Y, Toma A, Tadesse BT. Factors associated with scabies outbreaks in primary schools in Ethiopia: a case–control study. Research and reports in tropical medicine. 2019;10:119. doi: 10.2147/RRTM.S214724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wochebo W, Haji Y, Asnake S. Scabies outbreak investigation and risk factors in Kechabira district, Southern Ethiopia: unmatched case control study. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):305. doi: 10.1186/s13104-019-4317-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yassin Z, Dadi A, Nega H, Derseh B, Asegidew W. Scabies Outbreak Investigation among “Yekolo Temaris” in Gondar Town, North Western Ethiopia, November 2015. Electronic J Biol. 2015;13(3):13. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sara J, Haji Y, Gebretsadik A. Scabies outbreak investigation and risk factors in east Badewacho district, Southern Ethiopia: unmatched case control study. Dermatology research and practice. 2018;2018. doi: 10.1155/2018/7276938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Naing L, Winn T, Rusli B. Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Archives of orofacial Sciences. 2006;1:9–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Martínez-Mesa J, González-Chica DA, Bastos JL, Bonamigo RR, Duquia RP. Sample size: how many participants do I need in my research? Anais brasileiros de dermatologia. 2014;89:609–15. doi: 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20143705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Federal Minsitry of Health E. Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey. 2016.
  • 28.Engelman D, Yoshizumi J, Hay R, Osti M, Micali G, Norton S, et al. The 2020 international alliance for the control of scabies consensus criteria for the diagnosis of scabies. British Journal of Dermatology. 2020;183(5):808–20. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Osti MH, Sokana O, Phelan S, Marks M, Whitfeld MJ, Gorae C, et al. Prevalence of scabies and impetigo in the Solomon Islands: a school survey. BMC infectious diseases. 2019;19(1):803. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4382-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Marks M, Romani L, Sokana O, Neko L, Harrington R, Nasi T, et al. Prevalence of Scabies and Impetigo 3 Years After Mass Drug Administration With Ivermectin and Azithromycin. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2020;70(8):1591–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code for Biology and Medicine. 2008;3(1):17. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-3-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sambo MN, Idris SH, Umar AA, Olorukooba AA. Prevalence of scabies among school-aged children in Katanga rural community in Kaduna state, Northwestern Nigeria. Annals of Nigerian Medicine. 2012;6(1):26. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hegab DS, Kato AM, Kabbash IA, Dabish GM. Scabies among primary schoolchildren in Egypt: sociomedical environmental study in Kafr El-Sheikh administrative area. Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology. 2015;8:105. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S78287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yotsu RR, Kouadio K, Vagamon B, N’guessan K, Akpa AJ, Yao A, et al. Skin disease prevalence study in schoolchildren in rural Cote d’Ivoire: Implications for integration of neglected skin diseases (skin NTDs). PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2018;12(5):e0006489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sarkar M. Personal hygiene among primary school children living in a slum of Kolkata, India. Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene. 2013;54(3):153. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.van der Linden N, van Gool K, Gardner K, Dickinson H, Agostino J, Regan DG, et al. A systematic review of scabies transmission models and data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of scabies interventions. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2019;13(3):e0007182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Federal Ministry of Health E. INTREM-GUIDELINE FOR MULTI-SECTORIAL SCABIES OUTBREAK EMERGENCY RESPONSE ETHIOPIA. https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/ethiopia/document/interim-guideline-multisectroal-scabies-outbreak-response-27-january.
  • 38.Enbiale W, Ayalew A, Gebrehiwot T, Mulu Y, Azage M, Zachariah R, et al. Does mass drug administration for community-based scabies control works? The experience in Ethiopia. 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Health-Ethiopia. FMo. Health Sector Transformation Plan II (HSTP II). 2020/21-2024/25.
  • 40.Amoako YA, Phillips RO, Arthur J, Abugri MA, Akowuah E, Amoako KO, et al. A scabies outbreak in the North East Region of Ghana: The necessity for prompt intervention. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2020;14(12):e0008902. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008902 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Collinson S, Timothy J, Zayzay SK, Kollie KK, Lebas E, Candy N, et al. The prevalence of scabies in Monrovia, Liberia: A population-based survey. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2020;14(12):e0008943. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Asmall T, Abrams A, Röösli M, Cissé G, Carden K, Dalvie MA. The adverse health effects associated with drought in Africa. Science of The Total Environment. 2021;793:148500. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148500 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hay RJ, Steer AC, Engelman D, Walton S. Scabies in the developing world–-its prevalence, complications, and management. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2012;18(4):313–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03798.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Haile T, Sisay T, Jemere T. Scabies and its associated factors among under 15 years children in Wadila district, Northern Ethiopia, 2019. The Pan African Medical Journal. 2020;37. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2020.37.224.25753 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mekonnin M. Scabies Outbreak investigations in Enarj Enawuga Woreda. East Gojjam Zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia. 2015.
  • 46.Enbiale W, Baynie TB, Ayalew A, Gebrehiwot T, Getanew T, Ayal A, et al. “Stopping the itch”: mass drug administration for scabies outbreak control covered for over nine million people in Ethiopia. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2020;14(06.1):28S–35S. doi: 10.3855/jidc.11701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gudina Egata

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

25 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-15754Prevalence of scabies and associated factors among children aged 5-14 years in Meta Robi District, EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Etafa,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 08 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,

Gudina Egata

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

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: Dears, authors I have read this article with passion. Although the article has substance to be published, I have several suggestions and questions for further improvement before publication. Kindly find the major and minor issues. To make the review easier for authors it is a good habit to give page number and line numbers while submission. I have done by my own anyways.

Major comments

Sample size calculation

Two issues here

1. The calculated sample size do not give 279. For as low as 23.8% prevalence the use of 5% precision is unacceptable. Authors would have better used 2-3% precision that may increase the sample size.

2. Authors have used design effect of 1.5 withy out reference. Yes, design effect 1.5 to 2 may be used but the calculated design effect must be reported in the paper to appreciate the difference of the initial assumption and the actual design effect.

Why did authors use a cut of point of 0.25 during bivariable analysis? Along with it as variable screening was used initially using stepwise method after that is trivial. Enter method is automatic method to be followed if variable screening is used already.

Measurement issues: It is not clear how authors have measured some constructs such as knowledge. It is also good to at least suggest operational definition.

How variables are categorized also needs justification. How is family size categorized for example?

Line 268: The 95% CI is not provided. It makes comparison difficult. I doubt 17.8 and 13.3 may lie within the confidence interval and taking this prevalence as lower than 19.26% is trivial. We cannot judge only from the numeric values that a prevalence of 19.26 is lower than 22.5 or 23.8%. At least it should be clear that we are talking a point prevalence. As it stands now, it seems that the authors have determined the exact point estimate 100% sure, which is not scientific anyways.

Minor comments

Line 24-25, what about elders? The statement may be broken to two to make it clear.

Line 30: which type of specific random sampling technique was used?

Line 39: What did the study highlighted about prevalence of scabies as prevalent or low?

Lines 40 to 41: These are too general recommendations and come out of nowhere.

Lines 86: Need to be cited. Indicate which of these studies focus on outbreak investigation and which are institution based.

Line 163: Did authors take assent from caregivers or from children themselves?

Lines 179 to 180: citation?

Line 190: citation?

Line 201: why verbal assent, why not written?

Lines 206-207: What about in the middle of data collection?

Tables: I would suggest putting all demographic tables in one table.

Line 210: Put exact response rate? What is more than 99%? Is that 100%?

Line 264 to 266: This statement is hard conclusion. You may wish to soften it.

Lines 307 to 311: needs citation

Line 317: What does this mean? How could this be explained in terms of sample size?

Lines 320 to 323: This statement has mix up. Needs revision.

Lines 324 to 325: This is recommendation not discussion.

Lines 313-314: The case in point is, does water supply related with scabies prevalence always? How strong are evidence about this issue? Does ample water supply suffice in scabies prevalence reduction?

Lines 373 to 375: But knowledge didn’t matter in this case as evidenced earlier.

Line 373: This popped up out of nowhere. We do not know whether there was gap in adequacy of training and whether training to HEW helped in reducing scabies prevalence.

Line 375: Why is that so? Authors may comment on the use of instrument and clinical assessment based on specificity and sensitivity

**********

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

**********

[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. 2023 Jan 3;18(1):e0277912. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277912.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Sep 2022

Date: 03 September 2022

To PLOS ONE Journal

From Werku Etafa, witafay@gmail.com

Subject: Sending revised manuscript

Dear Editor,

We greatly value the time and effort you scientifically monitored and evaluated our manuscript status entitled "Prevalence of scabies and associated factors among children aged 5-14 years in Meta Robi District, Ethiopia" (manuscript number: PONE-D-22-15754). All the comments were valuable and very constructive to improve our work. We have tried to address every comment carefully and made correction which I hope could the improved the quality of the manuscript. We also highly appreciated for reviewer's work, and revised our paper point-by-point as suggested.

Best Regards,

Werku Etafa, witafay@gmail.com

Author's point-by-point response letter

Responses to Editor

Dear editor, comments are marked in BLACK and responses are marked in RED color, pages referenced are from the final revised manuscript).

Comments and Responses

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

1. 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'.

Response: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer is provided, and labeled as separate file “Response to Reviewers”.

2. 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'.

Response: A revised manuscript with track changes is included in the current submission.

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

Response: A cleaned version of manuscript labeled as “Manuscript” is uploaded.

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

Response: Thank you for updating us with the link of journal requirement. File naming is modified in the current submission. In the revised version of the manuscript, we submitted according to the journal submission requirements.

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

Response: All relevant data are within the paper and its supporting information files. This is reported in the current submission of the manuscript.

Responses to Reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your concrete comments vital to improve the status of our manuscript. We appreciated and accepted your comments. Here the responses are given point-by-point below. The detail is found in the cleaned version and tracked version of the manuscript. Dear Reviewer, comments are marked in black and responses are marked in red, pages referenced in this manuscript are in the revised and cleaned version of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your appreciation and wish regarding our manuscript.

General comments from the reviewer

Comments

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

Response: Thank your constructive comment; we understood that our conclusion that submitted earlier looks hard. In the revised version of our manuscript, we tried to make it soft, and recommended our suggestion as one of the interventions required (open idea).

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

Response: Alright. One of the major mistakes made in this manuscript concerned with sample size calculation. Since the proportion of skin infestation we used in this study taken from Ilu Aba Bor Zone (P=23.8%) is less than 30, we had better to use precision level 2-3%. We agree with this point (Rule of thumb). However, there is also suggested idea to use precsion level=5% when the proportion is between 10% to 90% (Reference: Naing L, Winn T, Rusli B. Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Archives of orofacial Sciences. 2006;1:9-14). We are not making an argueemnt with your suggestion, since it gives a larger sample size for generating representative evidence.

The comments regarding the reviewed work in this manuscript are categorized in to major and minor comments. We appreciated the reviewer for t

The major comments are

Sample size calculation

Two issues here

1. The calculated sample size does not give 279. For as low as 23.8% prevalence the use of 5% precision is unacceptable. Authors would have better used 2-3% precision that may increase the sample size.

2. Response: We sorry for our mistake. The calculated sample actually gives 307 including non-response rates. Then, by considering 1.5 design effects we obtained 461 samples. This is modified in the revised version of our manuscript (page 5, line 108-112). One of the major mistakes made in this manuscript concerned with sample size calculation. Since the proportion of skin infestation we used in this study taken from Ilu Aba Bor Zone (P=23.8%) is less than 30, we had better to use precision level 2-3%. We agree with this point (Rule of thumb). However, there is also suggested idea to use precsion level=5% when the proportion is between 10% to 90% (Reference: Naing L, Winn T, Rusli B. Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Archives of orofacial Sciences. 2006; 1:9-14). We are not making an argument with your suggestion, since it gives a larger sample size for generating representative evidence.

3. Authors have used design effect of 1.5 without reference. Yes, design effect 1.5 to 2 may be used but the calculated design effect must be reported in the paper to appreciate the difference of the initial assumption and the actual design effect.

Response: Thank you for comment. We provided a reference in the revised version of the manuscript (page 5, line 111).

4. Why did authors use a cut of point of 0.25 during bivariable analysis? Along with it as variable screening was used initially using stepwise method after that is trivial. Enter method is automatic method to be followed if variable screening is used already.

Response: Here it was a typing error. We used enter method for assessing the association between one bivariable and multiple regression analysis. Thus, we used a p-value<0.25 for all candidate variables. This phrase “backward elimination” is removed from the revised manuscript.

5. Measurement issues: It is not clear how authors have measured some constructs such as knowledge. It is also good to at least suggest operational definition.

Response: Thank you. We have revised how the score was done for knowledge assessing items and knowledge is categorized into adequate and inadequate in the revised manuscript.Caregivers' knowledge is categorized as ''adequate knowledge'', if caregivers scored knowledge testing items above the mean, and otherwise, they were categorized as having ''inadequate knowledge'' (page 9, line 179-181).

6. How variables are categorized also needs justification. How is family size categorized for example?

Response: Very great comment. Actually, we did not use overcrowding index for classifying family size. We classified it depending on the previous study (Dagne H, Dessie A, Destaw B, Yallew WW, Gizaw Z. Prevalence and associated factors of scabies among schoolchildren in Dabat district, northwest Ethiopia, 2018. Environmental health and preventive medicine. 2019;24(1):1-8). However, since overcrowding one of the risk factor for scabies transmission, it was better to be used overcrowding index (estimated by dividing the number of usual residents in a house by the number of bedrooms in the house). I absorbed this constructive comment for future works.

7. Line 268: The 95% CI is not provided. It makes comparison difficult. I doubt 17.8 and 13.3 may lie within the confidence interval and taking this prevalence as lower than 19.26% is trivial. We cannot judge only from the numeric values that a prevalence of 19.26 is lower than 22.5 or 23.8%. At least it should be clear that we are talking a point prevalence. As it stands now, it seems that the authors have determined the exact point estimate 100% sure, which is not scientific anyways.

Response: I totally agree. The confidence interval (CI) for our study prevalence is (95%CI: 17.20-22.52) (Page 13, 242-43). This is included in the revised manuscript. We modified discussion when comparing our finding with others. For instance, since the CI of our study includes both the findings from Cameroon and Ethiopia at Gondar town. This is re-written in the discussion section, page 15, 271-72).

The minor comments are

Line 24-25, what about elders? The statement may be broken to two to make it clear.

Response: The statement is modified as “Scabies is a public health problem that affects children and elders predominantly”.

Line 30: which type of specific random sampling technique was used?

Response:

Line 39: What did the study highlighted about prevalence of scabies as prevalent or low?

Response: We considered it high. This is stated in the revised manuscript (Page 2, Line40).

Lines 40 to 41: These are too general recommendations and come out of nowhere.

Response: Revised as “Provision of adequate health education for the community and children about the scabies and delivering mass drug administration to the district is suggested” (page 2, line 41-42)

Lines 86: Need to be cited. Indicate which of these studies focus on outbreak investigation and which institution based are.

Response: This is cited in the revised manuscript (page 4, line 86). And the sentence after and is deleted because, it was written in mistake.

Line 163: Did authors take assent from caregivers or from children themselves?

Response: “Assent was obtained from children aged seven years old and above after a clear explanation about the study was given to them. Children below seven years old and above participated in the study after a caregiver has provided written consent. No child was participated in the study unless the caregivers have provided a written consent.” This is written in the manuscript (page 8, line 203-205).

Lines 179 to 180: citation?

Response: It is cited in the revised manuscript (page 8, line189)

Line 190: citation?

Response: It is cited in the revised manuscript (page 8, line192)

Line 201: why verbal assent, why not written?

Response: Written assent is advisable for children greater than nine years old. For children less than nine years a written assent is used.

Lines 206-207: What about in the middle of data collection?

Response: In the middle of data collection we also informed the data collectors to stop if the child is not calm or the families are not feeling right.

Tables: I would suggest putting all demographic tables in one table.

Response: We summarized demographic tables together (Page 9 &10, Table 1).

Line 210: Put exact response rate? What is more than 99%? Is that 100%?

Response: Thank you. We corrected it as “99.13%, page 9, line 211).

Line 264 to 266: This statement is hard conclusion. You may wish to soften it.

Response: Alright. We tried to soften it (page 13, line 242-247)

Lines 307 to 311: needs citation

Response: Cited (Page 16, line 306).

Line 317: What does this mean? How could this be explained in terms of sample size?

Response: This is removed from the sentence as it is confusing.

Lines 320 to 323: This statement has mix up. Needs revision.

Response: This statement is revised (Page 17, line 317-318).

Lines 324 to 325: This is recommendation not discussion.

Response:

Lines 313-314: The case in point is, does water supply related with scabies prevalence always? How strong are evidence about this issue? Does ample water supply suffice in scabies prevalence reduction?

Response: This is revised in the manuscript submitted currently.

Lines 373 to 375: But knowledge didn’t matter in this case as evidenced earlier.

Response: We removed this idea from the document.

Line 373: This popped up out of nowhere. We do not know whether there was gap in adequacy of training and whether training to HEW helped in reducing scabies prevalence.

Response: Right. It is not important and removed from the manuscript.

Line 375: Why is that so? Authors may comment on the use of instrument and clinical assessment based on specificity and sensitivity.

Response: Visualizing through microscopic examination of skin samples, high-magnification devices, or dermoscopy avoids considering diagnosis of other skin infestations as scabies. This is used to avoid over or under estimation of scabies cases.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Gudina Egata

7 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-15754R1Prevalence of scabies and associated factors among children aged 5-14 years in Meta Robi District, EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Etafa,

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 Nov 21 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,

Gudina Egata, PhD 

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear author, no response was given to comments provided by the reviewer in line #30 and responses provided in line #201 is not clear and confusing . It is required to re-respond to these inquires before considering your work for publication.

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

[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. 2023 Jan 3;18(1):e0277912. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277912.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 Oct 2022

Date: 25 October 2022

To PLOS ONE Journal

From Werku Etafa, witafay@gmail.com

Subject: Sending revised manuscript

Dear Editor,

We greatly value the time and effort you scientifically monitored and evaluated our manuscript status entitled "Prevalence of scabies and associated factors among children aged 5-14 years in Meta Robi District, Ethiopia" (manuscript number: PONE-D-22-15754R1). All the comments were valuable and very constructive to improve our work. We checked all reference list are complete and correct. We found reference number 18 and 35 as the same. We removed the reference in the list number 35. We also checked for the presence of retracted articles and there is no retracted article used to the level of our skill. We have tried to address every comment carefully and made correction which I hope could the improved the quality of the manuscript. We also highly appreciated for reviewer's work, and revised our paper point-by-point as suggested.

Best Regards,

Werku Etafa, witafay@gmail.com

Author's point-by-point response letter

Responses to Editor

Dear editor,

We thank you for your constructive comments. Comments are marked in BLACK and responses are marked in RED color, pages referenced are from the final revised manuscript).

Comment: 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.

Response: We carefully reviewed the entire reference list and it is complete and there is modification in sequencing. Reference number 18 and Reference number 35 were the same in the previously submitted manuscript. But, we avoided this duplication in the revised version of our manuscript. We checked all reference list and we could not find a retracted article.

Comment: 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.

Response: We included changes made in the reference list in the rebuttal letter. We did not use a retracted articles in the manuscript based on the level of our checking skill.

Responses to Reviewer

Comment: Dear author, no response was given to comments provided by the reviewer in line #30 and responses provided in line #201 is not clear and confusing. It is required to re-respond to these inquires before considering your work for publication.

Response: We apologize for our mistakes not providing responses to questions raised in the previous revision. For the question raised concerning line #30, we used a systematic type of random sampling (page 2, line 32).

Comment: Responses provided in line #201 is not clear and confusing.

Response: First, we communicated with the caregivers about the study and based on their willingness a written informed consent is obtained from the caregivers before they participate in the study (page 8, line 204-205)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Gudina Egata

6 Nov 2022

Prevalence of scabies and associated factors among children aged 5-14 years in Meta Robi District, Ethiopia

PONE-D-22-15754R2

Dear Dr. Etefa _ Werku ,

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,

Gudina Egata, PhD in Public Health

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Gudina Egata

23 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-15754R2

Prevalence of scabies and associated factors among children aged 5-14 years in Meta Robi District, Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Etafa:

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. Gudina Egata

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (SAV)

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    S2 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES