Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jan 25;18(1):e0280141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280141

The relationship between postpartum depression and appropriate infant feeding practice in eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia: A comparative cross-sectional study

Angesom Weldu 1,*, Ayele Belachew 2, Mengistu Yilma 2
Editor: Tanya Doherty3
PMCID: PMC9876352  PMID: 36696424

Abstract

Background

Understanding the relationship between postpartum depression and infant feeding practice may help to reduce the indirect impact of postpartum depression on infant feeding practice. This will further have a positive impact on reducing infant morbidity and mortality attributed to improper feeding practices. Although studies in the country have assessed the prevalence of infant feeding practices, those assessing the association between postpartum depression and infant feeding practices are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to compare appropriate infant feeding practices and their associated factors among postpartum depressed and non-depressed mothers in Eastern Tigray.

Methods

A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted from March 2019 to April 2019. A multistage random sampling technique was used to select 171 mothers with postpartum depression and 342 mothers without postpartum depression. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire from the Monitoring and Evaluating for Breastfeeding Practices toolkit, then entered into Epi- info and exported into SPSS for further analysis. A binary logistic regression was applied to determine the association between postpartum depression and appropriate infant feeding practice.

Results

The overall prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practice was 37.6% (95% CI: 33.5%-41.9%). The prevalence was higher among mothers without postpartum depression 42.7% (95% CI: 42.9%-53.2%) than among postpartum depressed mothers 27.5% (95% CI: 24.7%-32.5%). The odds of appropriate infant feeding practice among mothers with infant birth orders of three or above was 58% (AOR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.26–0.97) less than those mothers with infant birth orders of three and below. Households with monthly income 1000–1999 ETB (AOR = 2.26; 95% CI: 1.01–5.08), 2000–2999 ETB (AOR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.21–4.73) and 3000–3999 ETB (AOR = 5.13; 95% CI: 1.97–13.4) were more likely to practice appropriate infant feeding.

Conclusion

The overall prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practices in the study area was low. A significantly higher proportion of mothers without postpartum depression practice appropriate infant feeding compared to mothers with postpartum depression. In addition, households with higher monthly incomes and mothers with infant birth orders three or above were significant determinants of appropriate infant feeding practice. Therefore, strengthening the provisions of nutritional education, integrating maternal mental health with routine maternal health care services, providing economic support to mothers with low income, and health education for multiparous women is a critical interventions to improve appropriate infant feeding practice.

Introduction

World Health Organization (WHO) stated appropriate infant feeding practice for all infants who are exclusively breastfed for the first six months and receive nutritionally adequate and safe complementary foods while breastfeeding continues for up to two years of age or beyond.

Poor nutrition results from a lack of food and inappropriate feeding practices where the timing, quality, and quantity of foods given to infants are often inadequate and unsafe. Appropriate feeding practice reduces many risks, which contribute to persistent child malnutrition, mortality and morbidity, and further helps improve the nutritional status of children under two years of age [1].

Globally, inappropriate infant feeding practices are attributed to over two-thirds of these 10.9 million deaths, and suboptimal infant and young child feeding practices are attributed to 45% of all child deaths in which two-thirds of those deaths occurred in the first year of life [2]. Optimal breastfeeding could prevent 13% of deaths in children under the age of five, while appropriate complementary feeding practices could result in an additional 6% reduction in under-five mortality [3].

Although evidence of the life-saving benefits of appropriate infant feeding practices is compelling, only 58% of 0–5 month infants were exclusively breastfed in Ethiopia and 11% of infants began complementary foods before 6 months of age, which is contrary to the WHO recommendation [4].

Postpartum depression is a nonpsychotic mood disorder affecting 10–15% of women in the developed country [5], and 19.8% of women in low- and middle-income countries [6]. This proportion would be higher if the tools to measure postpartum depression were contextualized culturally and used the same cut-off points for diagnosis [7].

Unmanaged postpartum depression has negative consequences for both mothers and infants. The maternal consequences include lower quality of life, impaired social function, and poor psychological health. Increasing the risk of perceived stigma in the community could lead mothers with postpartum depression to be left undiagnosed, which causes a vicious cycle [8, 9]. The combined effect of these elements compromises maternal caregiving quality and creates an unconducive environment for optimal infant feeding practice.

Different studies have shown that maternal common mental disorders increase the risk of inappropriate infant feeding practices [10–12]. According to a study conducted in Australia, maternal psychosocial factors have a greater potential influence on exclusive breastfeeding than known less modifiable socio-demographic factors [13].

Despite the high prevalence of postpartum depression and malnutrition in the eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia [14, 15], studies that assess the association between postpartum depression and infant feeding practice are lacking. This study has important implications for the early identification of women who are at risk for developing postpartum depression and the implementation of screening strategies for postpartum depression. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the association between postpartum depression and appropriate infant feeding practices.

Materials and methods

Study area and design

A community-based comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in Kilte Awlaelo-Health and Demographic Surveillance Site (KA-HDSS), Eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia from March to April 2019. KA-DHSS has 9 rural and 3 urban kebeles (the smallest administrative units) and is located about 835 kilometers (KMs) north of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. The total population and households in KA-DHSS are 104,464 and 21,485, respectively, and are characterized by agro-climatic conditions and predominantly rural inhabitants. In the study area, under-five children and infants accounted for 8492 and 2247, respectively. There are five health centers, ten health posts, and one hospital which provide health services to the community.

Study participants

The source population were all mothers of children aged less than 12 months living in the eastern zone of Tigray. All mothers of children aged less than 12 months in the selected households during the data collection period were the study population.

Eligibility criteria

All mothers of children aged less than 12 months and mothers who had lived for at least six months in the study area were included in this study. Those mothers who are below the age of 18 years old and unable to communicate were excluded from the study.

Sample size determination

The minimum sample size was determined using the double population proportion formula with the following assumptions: the proportion of unsuccessful breastfeeding among non-postpartum depressed mothers (considered as unexposed) was estimated to be 49.8% [16]. Then, the sample size required for detecting an odds ratio of 2, at 95% confidence interval, power of the study 80%, and unexposed to exposed ratio of 2:1. Based on the above assumptions, the minimum calculated sample size was 167 exposed mothers, and 334 unexposed mothers were required. By applying a design effect of 1.5 and 5% non-response rate, a total of 175 exposed mothers, with postpartum depression and 350 unexposed mothers, without postpartum depression were required.

Sampling technique and procedure

A multistage simple random sampling was used to recruit study participants. KA-HDSS has 12 kebeles. Five of these kebeles were selected randomly using a lottery method, which included three rural and two urban kebeles. Using a coding system and the assistance of health extension workers, we identified the households of eligible mothers in selected kebeles. As a result, we identified 1236 households in selected kebeles with mothers of children aged less than 12 months.

We conducted a census in the selected kebeles and then identified mothers with and without postpartum depression through face-to-face interviews of SRQ-20. The total size of study participants was proportionally allocated to the total infant size in each selected kebele in KA-HDSS to ensure the representativeness of the study participants. For each infant of a depressed mother, two infants of a non-depressed mother were selected from the same kebeles. For those mothers who had more than one infant at study time, the last-born infant was selected.

Data collection tools and procedure

Infant feeding practices were assessed using a questionnaire adapted from a tool kit for monitoring and evaluating breastfeeding practices and programs, and the WHO’s indicator guidelines for assessing infant and young child feeding practices [17, 18]. Infant feeding practices were assessed based on a 24-hr recall method, which reflects the feeding practices of an infant one day before the interview. In this study, appropriate infant feeding practice was assessed based on adherence to WHO recommended practices. According to WHO recommended practice, only exclusive breastfeeding was considered appropriate for infants aged 0–5 months, so infants who received prelacteal foods, liquids, and solids other than vitamins and medicine were considered inappropriate. Complementary feeding practice was assessed using indicators recommended by WHO for infants aged 6–11 months, which include timely initiation of complementary foods at six months, minimum dietary diversity, minimum meal frequency, and minimum acceptable diet. Complementary feeding practice was considered appropriate if all four indicators mentioned above were fulfilled, otherwise, it was considered inappropriate.

Postpartum depression was assessed using the self-reporting questionnaire-20(SRQ-20) developed by WHO to screen for psychiatric disturbances in developing countries. The instrument contains 20 items that ask about depressive, anxiety, and somatic symptoms present in the preceding 4 weeks. The possible responses are ‘NO’ coded as 0 and ‘YES’ as 1, with a minimum and maximum score of 0 and 20, respectively. Mothers who had SRQ-20 scores of six or above were identified as having postpartum depression. A cut-off score of ≥ 6 yes to SRQ-20 questions was taken as it has been evidenced to have excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84) and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.87 [19, 20]. The questionnaire mainly addressed socio-demographic, infant feeding practice, postpartum depression, and maternal health care related characteristics.

Study variables

The main outcome variable of this study was appropriate infant feeding practice. The primary independent variable was postpartum depression, and secondary independent variables were socio-demographic and maternal health care related characteristics such as place of delivery, mode of delivery, antenatal care utilization, and postnatal care.

Data quality control

Data collectors and supervisors with prior experience were recruited and intensively trained for three days on the purpose of the study and how to collect data. The questionnaire was translated from English to Tigrigna (local language) and then translated back to English to check its consistency. A pretest was done on 5% of mothers in the study area, which was not involved in the main study. During the pre-test, the questionnaire was assessed for its understandability, time needed to complete the interview, and for cultural acceptability in the area, and any necessary corrections were made.

Data processing and analysis

Data were cleaned, coded, and entered into Epi-info version 7 and then transferred to SPSS version 23 for analysis. During analysis, a composite variable for appropriate infant feeding practice based on age was developed, which includes the sum of exclusive breastfeeding practices for infants aged 0 to 5 months and appropriate complementary feeding practices for infants aged 6 to 11 months. Descriptive analysis such as frequency tables, means, and standard deviations were used to describe the data. In bivariate analysis, crude odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval was calculated to measure the degree of association between independent variables and appropriate infant feeding practice. Variables with a p-value ≤0.25 in bivariate analysis were included in the final model of multivariable logistic regression analysis. Finally, binary logistic regression was employed to assess the strength of the association between postpartum depression and appropriate infant feeding practice by controlling potential confounding variables. The significance level was declared at p-value <0.05. Hosmer and Lemeshow test was computed to check model fitness, which was not significant (p-value = 0.955).

Operational definition

Appropriate infant feeding practice was defined as only exclusive breastfeeding for infants less than 6 months and the timely introduction of complementary feeding, minimum meal frequency, minimum dietary diversity, and minimum acceptable diet in infants aged 6–11 months.

Postpartum depression was defined as postpartum women with SRQ-20 score of six or above.

Exclusive breastfeeding was defined as infants who have received breastmilk only and no other liquids or solid foods, with the exception of vitamins or medicines in the first six months.

Appropriate complementary feeding was defined as infants 6–11 months of age who received a timely introduction of complementary feeding, minimum meal frequency, minimum dietary diversity, and minimum acceptable diet.

Ethical consideration

Ethical approval was obtained from Addis Ababa University, health research and ethics committee (REC/0018/2019), and Mekele University granted a letter of permission to conduct the study. Informed verbal consent and assent were obtained from each sampled infant’s mother. Before the beginning of data collection, adequate information was provided to study participants about the purpose of the study and the confidentiality of the information they provided during their participation, if they were willing. Finally, mothers were informed that they could refuse or withdraw from the study at any time.

Results

Socioeconomic-demographic characteristics

We retrieved complete data from a total of 513 mothers, yielding a response rate of 97.7%. The overall mean (SD) age of mothers was 31.1(4.8) years. One hundred forty-five (84.8%) of mothers with PPD and 294 (85.9%) mothers without PPD were married at the time of the survey. Regarding mother’s educational status, 38.5% and 46.2% of mothers with PPD and mothers without PPD had no formal education, respectively. The majority of the participants (58.1%) lived in the rural area. The overall median (IQR) monthly income was 1800 (1833) Ethiopian Birr. Seventy-six (44.4%) of households with postpartum depression and 47.4% of households without postpartum depression earned below the median level of income.

Of the total children enrolled in the study, 265 (51.7%) were males and 248 (48.3%) were females. The overall infant age mean (SD) was 5.61 (3.19) (13.9) months. The mean (SD) age of the immediate older child was 19.1(14.5) months for an exposed mother and 22.7(18) months for unexposed mothers. The proportion of infants with birth order of three or above was 12.7% (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants in eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia.

(N = 513).

Characteristics PPD Non PPD Total n (%) P -value
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Maternal age 0.278
< = 24 13 7.6 32 9.4 45 8.8
25–29 53 31 87 25.4 140 27.3
30–35 78 45.6 149 43.6 227 44.2
>35 27 15.8 74 21.6 101 19.7
Religion .757
Orthodox 145 84.7 283 82.7 428 83.4
Muslim 20 11.7 48 14 68 13.2
Others a 6 3.5 11 3.3 17 3.3
Marital status .898
Married 145 84.8 294 86 439 85.6
Single 6 3.5 15 4.4 21 4.1
Divorced 9 5.3 15 4.4 24 4.7
Widowed/separated 11 6.4 18 5.2 29 5.6
Maternal educational status .158
No formal education 66 38.5 158 46.2 224 43.7
Primary school 59 34.5 84 24.6 143 27.9
Secondary and above 46 26.9 100 29.2 146 28.4
Maternal Occupation .055
Housewife 90 52.6 204 59.6 294 57.3
Farmer 37 21.6 52 15.3 89 17.4
Merchant 19 11.1 39 11.4 58 11.3
Gov’t employee 15 8.8 24 7 39 7.6
Others b 10 5.9 23 6.7 33 6.4
Husband education <0.001
No formal education 54 31.8 141 41.2 195 38
Primary school 58 33.9 69 20.2 127 24.8
Secondary and above 59 34.5 132 38.6 191 37.2
Place of residence .129
Urban 79 46.2 136 39.8 215 41.9
Rural 92 53.8 206 60.2 298 58.1
Monthly income .083
< = 999 ETB 41 24 80 23.4 121 23.6
1000–1999 ETB 71 42.1 133 38.9 205 40
2000–2999 ETB 22 12.9 41 12 63 12.3
3000–3999 ETB 18 10.5 27 7.9 45 8.8
> = 4000 ETB 18 10.5 61 17.8 79 15.3
Birth order 0.925
< = 3 149 87.1 299 87.4 448 87.3
>3 22 12.3 43 12.6 65 12.7
Infant age (months) 0.377
0–5 93 54.4 200 58.5 293 57.1
6–11 78 45.6 142 41.5 220 42.9
mean (SD) 5.94 (3.01) 5.45 (3.26) 5.61 (3.19)
Paternal substance use .001
YES 13 7.6 22 6.4 35 6.8
NO 158 92.4 320 93.6 478 93.2

a protestant, catholic; Gov’t employee, Government employee

b student, unemployed; ETB, Ethiopian Birr, SD, standard deviation

Health care related characteristics

Almost all 160 (93.6%) of mothers with PPD and 322 (94.2%) of mothers without PPD had at least one antenatal care visit during their last pregnancy. More than half (61.4%) of mothers with PPD and 60.2% of mothers without PPD were multipara (2–4births). About 146 (85.4%) of depressed mothers and 295 (86.3%) of non-depressed mothers delivered their last child at a health facility. Seventy-three (42.7%) of mothers with PPD and 213 (62.3%) of mothers without PPD had received postnatal care after their last child delivery. The majority (95.7%) of the mothers answered that their current pregnancy status was planned (Table 2).

Table 2. Maternal health care related characteristics in eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia.

Characteristics PPD Non PPD Total N (%) p-value
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Place of delivery .296
Home 25 14.6 47 13.7 72 14
Health facility 146 85.4 295 86.3 441 86
ANC utilization .250
YES 160 93.6 322 94.2 482 93.4
NO 11 6.4 20 5.8 31 6.6
PNC utilization <0.001
YES 73 42.7 213 62.3 286 55.7
NO 98 57.3 129 37.7 227 44.3
Pregnancy status <0.001
Planned 155 90.6 336 98.2 491 95.7
Unplanned 16 9.4 6 1.8 22 4.3
Parity .905
Primipara 69 39.7 105 60.3 174 34
Multipara 118 37.9 193 62.1 311 60.2
Grand multipara 6 21.4 22 78.6 28 5.8

*Significant at P < 0.05

Postpartum depression among study participants

The overall mean (SD) score value (the number of yeses to the SRQ-20 questions) was 4.8(3.4), ranging between 0 and 17. The internal consistency of the SRQ-20 was assessed using the Cronbach’s alpha, with a level of 0.703. The chi-square test revealed no significant difference between mothers with PPD and mothers without PPD in basic socio-demographic factors such as maternal education, maternal occupation, and marital status. The most commonly reported symptoms of postpartum depression in mothers were: “headache” (58.7%), followed by “easily tired” (50.9%), and “feeling tired all the time” (44.8%). Overall, 3.7% of them had suicidal ideation within the last 30 days prior to the survey.

Magnitude of appropriate Infant feeding practice

The overall prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practice was 37.6% (95% CI: 33.5%-41.9%). The proportion of mothers without PPD who were practicing appropriate infant feeding practice was 42.7% (95% CI: 42.9%–53.2%), whereas only 27.5% (95% CI: 24.7%–32.5%) of mothers with PPD were practicing appropriate infant feeding.

Magnitude of appropriate exclusive breastfeeding practice

The proportion of appropriate exclusive breastfeeding was significantly higher among mothers without PPD, 59% (95% CI: 53.4%–64.6%) compared to mothers with PPD 46.2% (95% CI: 40.5%–51.9%) (p-value = 0.041).Receiving plain water was the main reason for inappropriate infant feeding practices below the age of 6 months, and it was statistically different between mothers with PPD and without PPD (p-value = 0.021) (S1 Fig).

Magnitude of appropriate complementary feeding practice

The magnitude of mothers without PPD who were practicing appropriate complementary feeding was 19.7% (95% CI: 13.5%–27.2%), whereas only 5.1% (95% CI: 1.4%–12.6%) of mothers with PPD were practicing appropriate complementary feeding. This difference was statistically significant (p-value = 0.03) (S2 Fig).

Factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding

The result from the regression analysis showed that exclusive breastfeeding was more likely among mothers who had ≥4 ANC visits (AOR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.03–2.69) than mothers who had ANC visits below four (Table 3).

Table 3. Factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding in eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia.
Characteristics Exclusive breastfeeding COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Appropriate Inappropriate
N (%) N (%)
PNC utilization
No 73(32.2) 154(67.8) 1.00
Yes 120(42) 166(58) 1.2(0.83–1.73) 1.5(1.04–2.16)
ANC visit
<4 times 84(31.2) 185(68.8) 1.00 1.00
> = 4 times 109(44.7) 135(55.3) 1.5(1.04–2.16) * 1.66(1.03–2.69) *

PNC postnatal care, ANC antenatal care

*Significant at P < 0.05

Factors associated with appropriate complementary feeding

The result shows that the odds of appropriate complementary feeding among mothers without PPD were 3.27 times higher than those mothers with postpartum depression (AOR = 3.27; 95% CI: 1.2–8.9) (Table 4).

Table 4. Factors associated with appropriate complementary feeding in eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia.
Characteristics Complementary feeding practice COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Appropriate Inappropriate
N (%) N (%)
Depression status
Postpartum depressed 47(27.5) 124(72.5) 1.00 1.00
Non postpartum depressed 146(42.7) 196(57.3) 2.73(1.03–7.24) * 3.27 (1.2–8.9) *

*Significant at P < 0.05

Factors associated with appropriate infant feeding practices

In the bivariate analysis, postpartum depression was significantly associated with appropriate complementary feeding, exclusive breastfeeding, and appropriate infant feeding practice. The odds of appropriate infant feeding practice were 1.96 times higher among mothers without postpartum depression (COR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.32–2.93). After adjusting for potential confounding factors, the odds of appropriate infant feeding practice were 2 times higher among mothers without postpartum depression compared to their counterparts (AOR = 2.03; 95% CI: 1.29–3.18).

Other variables such as monthly income and birth order were significantly associated with appropriate infant feeding practices. With regard to monthly income, mothers from households that earn 1000–1999 ETB (AOR = 2.26; 95% CI: 1.02–5.01), 2000–2999 ETB (AOR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.21–4.73) and 3000–3999 ETB (AOR = 5.31; 95% CI: 1.97–13.4) had higher odds of appropriate infant feeding practice. The odds of appropriate infant feeding practices among infants with a birth order above three was 58% (AOR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.26–0.97) less than those infants with a birth order of three and below (Table 5).

Table 5. Independent factors associated with appropriate infant feeding practice in eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia.

Characteristics Infant feeding practice COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Appropriate Inappropriate
N (%) N (%)
Depression status
Postpartum depressed 47(27.5) 124(72.5) 1.00 1.00
Non postpartum depressed 146(42.7) 196(57.3) 1.96(1.32–2.93) 2.03 (1.29–3.18) *
Marital status
Married 171 (39) 268 (61) 1.00 1.00
Divorced/separated 14 (34.1) 27(65.9) 0.81(0.41–1.59) 1.78(0.62–5.16)
Others a 8 (24.2) 25 (75.8) 0.50 (0.22–1.14) 2.17(0.93–5.08)
Maternal occupation
Housewife 144(38.8) 180 (61.2) 1.00 1.00
Farmer 24(29.3) 58 (70.7) 0.65(0.38–1.11) 0.74(0.42–1.29)
Merchant 27 (46.6) 31 (53.4) 1.38(0.78–2.42) 1.37(0.76–2.48)
Government employee 11 (29.7) 26 (70.3) 0.67(0.32–1.40) 0.77(0.35–1.68)
Others b 17 (40.5) 25(59.5) 1.07 (0.56–2.08) 1.24(0.62–2.47)
Monthly income
< = 999 ETB 41(24.0) 80(23.4) 1.00 1.00
1000–1999 ETB 71(42.1) 133(38.9) 2.12(0.97–4.64) 2.26(1.01–5.01) *
2000–2999 ETB 22(12.9) 41(12.0) 1.90(1.01–4.48) * 1.96(1.21–4.73) *
3000–3999 ETB 18(10.5) 27(7.9) 4.57(1.79–11.6) * 5.13(1.97–13.4) *
> = 4000 ETB 18(10.5) 61(17.8) 2.21(0.94–5.22) 2.22(0.93–5.33)
Infant age (months)
0–5 161(54.9) 132(45.1) 1.00 1.00
6–11 32(14.5) 188(85.5) 0.14(0.09–0.22) 0.13(0.08–0.2)
ANC utilization
No 14(43.8) 18(56.3) 1.00 1.00
Yes 179(37.2) 302(62.8) 0.94(0.49–1.80) 0.68(0.34–1.38)
Birth order
< = 3 177(39.5) 271 (60.5) 1.00 1.00
>3 16 (24.6) 49 (75.4) 0.50 (0.28–0.91) 0.42(0.26–0.97) *
Parity
Primipara 69(39.7) 105(60.3) 1.00 1.00
Multipara 118(37.9) 193(62.1) 0.93(0.64–1.36) 1.05(0.70–1.60)
Grand multipara 6(21.4) 22(78.6) 0.42(0.16–1.08) 0.73 (0.20–2.63)
Postnatal care
No 73(32.2) 154(67.8) 1.00 1.00
Yes 120(42) 166(58) 1.52(1.06–2.20) * 1.02(0.57–1.76)
ANC visit
<4 times 84(31.2) 185(68.8) 1.00 1.00
> = 4 times 109(44.7) 135(55.3) 1.78 (1.24–2.55) * 0.83 (0.44–1.57)

COR Crude odds ratio, AOR Adjusted odds ratio, CI Confidence interval

a protestant, catholic,

b student, unemployed

*Significant at P < 0.05

Discussion

Safe and adequate infant feeding practices are critical for reducing malnutrition in developing countries like Ethiopia. As a result, WHO recommended basic infant feeding practices. This study assessed the impact of postpartum depression on infant feeding practices in the eastern zone of Tigray. Postpartum depression, households with higher monthly income, and birth order of infants above three were independent predictors of appropriate infant feeding practice.

In our study, the overall prevalence of infant feeding practice was 37.6%, which was much higher than the national mini-health surveys reported in 2019 (9.76%) [21]. Likewise, this finding is higher than the previous studies conducted in different parts of Ethiopia: Bahir Dar city (7%), Arsi Negele Woreda (9.5%), Horro district in western Ethiopia (9.91%), and Shashemene Woreda (32.1%), respectively [22–25]. The possible explanation for the difference could be due to variations in maternal sociodemographic characteristics, cross-cultural differences in infant feeding practice, and access to maternal health care services. Another possible explanation could be due to the time gap between studies. However, the finding was lower when compared to studies conducted in North Showa (65.8%) [26], and Kalu district, Northeast Ethiopia (57.7%) [27]. This might be due to the high illiteracy rate compared to other study sites. Mothers with little or no education can easily be influenced by others such as peers, parents, and untrained birth attendants to practice inappropriate infant feeding.

This study demonstrated that postpartum depression is significantly associated with infant feeding practice. Similarly, a qualitative systematic review conducted in developed countries shows that women with early postpartum depression had a negative influence on infant feeding outcomes [12], and a study report from low and middle-income countries shows that depressive symptoms have been associated with a short duration of breastfeeding and mothers with depressive symptoms in the first 4–6 weeks postpartum were more likely to stop breastfeeding earlier than non-depressed mothers [28]. The possible justification could be that postpartum depression may negatively interfere with maternal self-esteem and self-confidence. Moreover, postpartum depression impairs the mother’s interaction with her infant, such as feeding, touch, and sensitivity, which increases breastfeeding difficulties and reduces appropriate infant feeding.

This study was consistent with previous results conducted in Canada that showed mothers with postpartum depression at 3 months were associated with an 11% reduction in the odds of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months [11]. In Brazil, a higher risk of early interruption of exclusive breastfeeding among mothers with postpartum depressive symptoms was reported [29], and in a subsequent study, women with postpartum depression were more likely to practice nonexclusive breastfeeding [30]. These findings clearly demonstrate that mothers with postpartum depression are less confident in their ability to breastfeed. This implies the need for early detection and effective treatment of postpartum depression in primary health care to reduce the potentially adverse effects on the mother and child. However, an inverse relationship was found in a report from northern Ghana. According to this report, there is no significant association between maternal depression and complementary feeding indicators [31]. The possible reasons could be due to using the locally invalidated tool for assessing maternal postpartum depression and the small sample size, which reduces the power of the study and makes it difficult to find the association between postpartum depression and complementary feeding practice.

The current study determined that monthly income was significantly associated with appropriate infant feeding practices. Mothers from households with a higher monthly income had higher odds of practicing appropriate infant feeding than mothers with lower monthly income. Similar to a finding reported in another study [32], mothers with higher monthly incomes are more likely to practice infant feeding appropriately. This may be due to the fact that mothers with high incomes tend to spend more time feeding their infants appropriately.

This study also revealed that birth order was found to be a significant predictor of appropriate infant feeding practice, which is congruent with the findings from Damot [33]. The possible explanation is that mothers with higher birth order infants bear a greater burden in caring for their children, making the mother unable to devote more time to proper infant feeding. Another possible justification could be due to food insecurity in a large family.

Limitation of the study

The limitation of this study is the possible inability to assess a causality/temporal relationship between postpartum depression and feeding practices for children younger than one year. However, the knowledge acquired from this research enabled us to describe the baseline information for future comparisons and/or discussions. Besides, some variables were assessed by the mother’s self-report, which mainly depends on recall; this may lead to recall bias.

Conclusion

The overall prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practice was low in the study area. This study shows postpartum depression as an important predictor of appropriate infant feeding practices. Infants with a birth order of three or above and mothers with higher household monthly income were identified as significant predictors of appropriate infant feeding practice. Therefore, early recognition, screening, and raising awareness of postpartum depression symptoms should be considered to promote appropriate infant feeding practices. Moreover, policymakers need to strengthen the provisions for nutrition education while providing economic support to households with low income, health education for multiparous women, and incorporating maternal mental health with routine maternal health care services.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The proportion of exclusive breastfeeding among exposed and unexposed mothers, Ethiopia.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. The proportion of complementary feeding among exposed and unexposed mothers in Ethiopia.

(TIF)

S1 File

(SAV)

S1 Questionnaire

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to appreciate Mekele University for their technical support and cooperation in writing support letters to the concerned bodies and/or facilitating data collection. We are grateful to Kilite Awlaelo HDSS coordinating office for providing us with the required data. We also thank the data collectors and supervisors for their hard work. Finally, our special thanks go to the study participants; without their participation, this paper would not be possible.

Abbreviations

ANC

Antenatal Care

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

CI

Confidence Interval

COR

Crude Odds Ratio

EDHS

Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey

ETB

Ethiopian Birr

EBF

Exclusive Breast Feeding

IYCF

Infant and Young Child Feeding

KA-HDSS

Kilte Awlaelo Health and Demographic Surveillance Site

PPD

Postpartum Depression

PNC

Postnatal Care

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Science

SRQ-20

Self-Reporting questionnaire-20

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The source of funding for this study was from Addis Ababa University and the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Dinesh Kumar N.K. Goel PCM and PM. Influence of Infant-feeding Practices on Nutritional Status of Under-five Children. Indian J Pediatr. 2006;73:417–22. doi: 10.1007/BF02758565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. Infant and young child feeding [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infant-and-young-child-feeding. 2016.
  • 3.World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNAIDS (2003). Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding. World Health Organization.
  • 4.Central Statistical Agency(CSA) Ethiopia and ICF. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA; 2016.
  • 5.O’Hara MW. Postpartum Depression: What We Know. J Clin Psychol. 2009;65(12):1258–69. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fisher J, Mello C De, Patel V, Rahman A, Tran T, Holmes W. Prevalence and determinants of common perinatal mental disorders in women in low- and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review. Bull World Heal Organ. 2012;(90):139–49. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.091850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Atuhaire C, Brennaman L, Cumber SN, Rukundo GZ, Nambozi G, Cumber N, et al. The magnitude of postpartum depression among mothers in Africa: a literature review. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;37(89):1–11. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2020.37.89.23572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Slomian J, Honvo G, Emonts P, Reginster J, Bruyère O. Consequences of maternal postpartum depression: A systematic review of maternal and infant outcomes. Women’s Heal. 2019;15:1–55. doi: 10.1177/1745506519844044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Thorsteinsson EB, Loi NM, Farr K. Changes in stigma and help-seeking in relation to postpartum depression: non-clinical parenting intervention sample. Peer J. 2018;1–15. doi: 10.7717/peerj.5893 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ingram J, Johnson D, Copeland M, Infant I, Specialist F, Churchill C, et al. The development of a new breastfeeding assessment tool and the relationship with breastfeeding self-efficacy. Midwifery. 2015;31(1):132–7. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2014.07.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Adedinsewo DA, Fleming AS, Steiner M, Meaney MJ, Girard AW. Maternal Anxiety and Breastfeeding: Findings from the MAVAN (Maternal Adversity, Vulnerability and Neurodevelopment) Study. J Hum Lact. 2014;30(1):102–9. doi: 10.1177/0890334413504244 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cindy-Lee Dennis KM. The Relationship Between Infant-Feeding Outcomes and Postpartum Depression: A Qualitative. Pediatrics. 2009;123:e736–e751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Brien MO, Buikstra E, Hegney D. The influence of psychological factors on breastfeeding duration. J Adv Nurs. 2008;63(4):397–408. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04722.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mariam D, Dessalegn B, Tadesse Z, Siyoum D. Assessment of prevalence and associated factors of postpartum depression among postpartum mothers in eastern zone of Tigray. Eur J Pharm Med Res. 2016;3(10):54–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hagos FG, Kruseman G, Maize I, Linderhof V, Stoecker BJ. Factors Contributing to Child Malnutrition in Tigray,Northern Ethiopia. East Afr Med J. 2010;87(6):248–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tashakori Ashraf, irani Azadeh Zamani Behbahani RD. Comparison of postpartum depression symptoms between breastfeeding mothers and non breastfeeding mothers. Iran J Psychiatry. 2012;7:61–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lung MS, Huffman SL, Labbok MH, Sommerfelt E, Baker J. Tool Kit for Monitoring and Evaluating Breastfeeding Practices and Programs. 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.World Health Organization. Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices. 2010.
  • 19.Hanlon C, Medhin G, Alem A, Araya M, Wondimagegn D, Patel V, et al. Detecting perinatal common mental disorders in Ethiopia: Validation of the self-reporting questionnaire and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. J Affect Disord. 2008;108:251–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2007.10.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Westhuizen Claire van der, Wyatt Gail, John K,Williams DJS and KS. Validation of the Self Reporting Questionnaire 20-Item (SRQ-20) for Use in a Low- and Middle-Income Country Emergency Centre Setting. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2017;14(1):37–48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Shagaro SS, Mulugeta BT, Kale TD. Complementary feeding practices and associated factors among mothers of children aged 6–23 months in Ethiopia: Secondary data analysis of Ethiopian mini demographic and health survey 2019. Arch Public Heal. 2021;79(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s13690-021-00725-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Demilew YM, Tafere TE, Abitew DB. Infant and young child feeding practice among mothers with 0–24 months old children in Slum areas of Bahir Dar City,Ethiopia. Int Breastfeed J. 2017;12:26:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kassa T, Meshesha B, Haji Y, Ebrahim J. Appropriate complementary feeding practices and associated factors among mothers of children age 6–23 months in. BMC Pediatr. 2016;16(131):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fanta M, Cherie HA. Magnitude and determinants of appropriate complementary feeding practice among mothers of children age 6–23 months in Western Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 2020;15(12):e0244277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yonas F, Asnakew M, Wondafrash M, Abdulahi M. Infant and Young Child Feeding Practice Status and Associated Factors among Mothers of under 24-Month-Old Children in Shashemene Woreda, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Open Access Libr J. 2015;2,1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mekonnen M, Kinati T, Bekele K, Tesfa B, Hailu D, Jemal K. Infant and young child feeding practice among mothers of children age 6 to 23 months in Debrelibanos district, North Showa zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9):e0257758. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hassen SL, Temesgen MM, Marefiaw TA, Ayalew BS, Abebe DD, Desalegn SA. Infant and Young Child Feeding Practice Status and Its Determinants in Kalu District, Northeast Ethiopia: Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Nutr Diet Suppl. 2021;13:67–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Parsons CE, Young KS, Rochat TJ, Kringelbach ML, Stein A. Postnatal depression and its effects on child development: A review of evidence from low- and middle-income countries. Br Med Bull. 2012;101(1):57–79. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldr047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hasselmann MH, Valéria C. Symptoms of postpartum depression and early interruption of exclusive breastfeeding in the fi rst two months of life. Cad Saude Publica. 2008;24 suppl 2:341–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Madeghe BA, Kimani VN, Stoep A Vander, Nicodimos S, Kumar M. Postpartum depression and infant feeding practices in a low income urban settlement in Nairobi-Kenya. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9(506):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wemakor A, Iddrisu H. Maternal depression does not affect complementary feeding indicators or stunting status of young children (6–23 months) in Northern Ghana. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(408):1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jama A, Gebreyesus H, Wubayehu T, Gebregyorgis T, Teweldemedhin M, Berhe T, et al. Exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and its associated factors among children age 6–24 months in Burao district, Somaliland. Int Breastfeed J. 2020;15(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s13006-020-0252-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Areja A, Yohannes D, Yohannis M. Determinants of appropriate complementary feeding practice among mothers having children 6–23 months of age in rural Damot sore district, Southern Ethiopia. BMC Nutr. 2017;3(82):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Claudia Marotta

18 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-02467

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND APPROPRIATE INFANT FEEDING PRACTICE IN EASTERN ZONE OF TIGRAY, ETHIOPIA: COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Weldu,

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

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudia Marotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

dear Authors follow reviewer suggestions to improve your paper.

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 tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should be uploaded as separate "supporting information" files.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified whether consent was written or verbal/oral. If consent was verbal/oral, please specify: 1) whether the ethics committee approved the verbal/oral consent procedure, 2) why written consent could not be obtained, and 3) how verbal/oral consent was recorded. If your study included minors, please state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians in these cases. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

4.  Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript"

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

8. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 1-3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Tables.

[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: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing an important topic. It is great to highlight the impact of PPD on infant feeding practices and such articles should also highlight the need to reduce the stigma associated with mental health. It would be good to add a few sentences on some background on the extent of Postpartum depression globally and the extent of underreporting. In addition, would be good to highlight the impact on women themselves.

In the abstract, within the conclusion the authors write -"this study showed low prevalence and postpartum depression"- it is not clear what has low prevalence. Please state where PPD is linked with poor feeding practices. What about other children in the family- do they have a similar fate?

Please break your sentences and add the appropriate source according for the sentence. In lines 56-61, it is unclear which source is relevant for what statistics you are quoting.

The description of the mothers in lines 195-205 could focus on bringing out the differences between the mothers who had PPD and those who did not. The description is hard to go through. Maybe better to summarize the similarities and focus more on the differences.

Is there a linkage between any history of depression in previous pregnancies and PPD in future? Is that important and was that asked?

Check line 211. Incomplete sentence?

The discussion on birth order is not clearly stated. Please revise lines 287-295 to more clearly articulate your findings first.

The authors can strengthen the policy and program recommendations for PPD and its impact. Early recognition, raising awareness of symptoms associated with PD, eliminating stigma, involving the extended household and community to support women going through PPD so infant feeding practices are not impacted are some considerations.

A strong edit of the entire article is needed.

Reviewer #2: I found this article very interesting, but some changes should be made. There are some typo errors, specially missing spaces in text. I find the terms "exposed and unexposed" confusing and would advise to change them.

Abstract:

-rewrite the first sentence of the conclusion for clarity "this study showed low prevalence and postpartum depression as an important contributor to the appropriate infant feeding practice".

Introduction:

- line 76: there is a typo, with a point before the word "studies" that should be corrected: "Ethiopia [9,10] .Studies"

Statistics:

-Control variables must be specified

Results:

-line 189 typo error, capital letter that should not be there in "retrieved Complete data".

- the sociodemographic variables results should be compared between groups through statistic tests (chi squared, T test...) to assess if statistically significant differences arise. This information should be included in the final tables, and it should be decided which data to include in the text and which in the table, so the text would be more easily read.

- it would be very important to describe, if possible, why the feeding was not appropriate, e.g. use of other foods before 6 months, interruption of breastfeeding, lack of variety in the diet, etc. This could help to have a better understanding of the reasons why an appropriate feeding practice do not happen (and what measures could be implemented to improve this practice).

Discussion:

-line 255: clarify this sentence

- line 269: rewrite this sentence

- line 292: correct typo ".this"

- have the authors considered that the most frequent depressive symptoms described (headache, being tired) could be related to the difficulties inherently tied to breastfeeding? Could it be therefore a confusion between the consequences of breastfeeding and depression?

- again, to know exactly what was the reason for inappropriate feeding of the infants would be of the utmost importance to provide an interpretation of the difficulties mothers and particularly the ones suffering from PPD face.

Tables: all abbreviations used in the table should be clarified above.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Monica Sanchez-Autet

[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 25;18(1):e0280141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280141.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 May 2021

Dear Editors,

We greatly appreciate the time and effort put forth by reviewers and editors to improve our paper, ‘‘The relationship between postpartum depression and appropriate infant feeding practice in Eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia: A comparative cross-sectional study” which we have addressed below. If any responses are unclear or you wish additional changes, please let us know.

Editor comments

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

Author Response: The manuscript has been revised intensively in line with the journal’s requirements. Therefore, the title has changed to sentence case (Page 1) and asterixis symbol used in corresponding author (line 15 of page 1) and added a city after the institution in the affiliation part (line 10 of page 1).

Comment 2: Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should be uploaded as separate "supporting information" files.

Author Response: We have also modified the figure cite right next to the paragraph represented and removed from main manuscript (line 253-254 of page 15) and uploaded as separate file.

Comment 3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified whether consent was written or verbal/oral. If consent was verbal/oral, please specify:

1) whether the ethics committee approved the verbal/oral consent procedure,

2) why written consent could not be obtained, and

3) how verbal/oral consent was recorded. If your study included minors, please state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians in these cases. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information

Author Response: We have agreed and incorporated additional details about participants consent.

1) Informed verbal consent was obtained after approval by the research ethical committee number (REC/0018/2019).

2) Since national and regional statistics show the nation’s (Ethiopia) rural and semi urban areas which account the large proportion of geographical area of the country have high rate of illiteracy that makes difficult to obtain written consent from participants. In addition, our study neither involve with sensitive issue nor uses any procedure to adversely affect participants welfare.

3) After reading the whole information about the purpose, risk, beneficence and non-maleficence, participants were asked whether they are willing to participate in the study with a statement

“Do you give your permission for me to interview you?”

A) Yes, I give you my permission

B) No, I am not willing to participate

If he/she agrees to participate we tick on the box.

informed verbal consent was recorded However, we believe that the minors (infants in our case) are not directly involved in the study only the mothers provide the information by remembering the past feeding practice.

Comment 4: Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript" At this time, please address the following queries:

A) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

Author response: The funding source of this was Addis Ababa University. Amount received 25,000 Ethiopian Birr.

B) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Author response: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.”

C) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Comment 5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Author response: Thank you for the suggestion. I will make the necessary data available as per your request.

Comment 6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager.

Author response: I do have ORCID iD and I already validated in PLOS editorial manager.

Comment 7: Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Author response: I have corrected the figure 1 cite to Fig 1 and put it in separate file (line 253 of page 15)

Comment 8. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 1-3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Tables

Author response: Thank you for the comment. we have corrected it accordingly.

[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: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing an important topic. It is great to highlight the impact of PPD on infant feeding practices and such articles should also highlight the need to reduce the stigma associated with mental health. It would be good to add a few sentences on some background on the extent of Postpartum depression globally and the extent of underreporting. In addition, would be good to highlight the impact on women themselves.

Author response: we greatly appreciate for the compliment and constructive comments. We have included global burden of Postpartum depression and the effect of Postpartum depression on mothers and infants on background.

In the abstract, within the conclusion the authors write -"this study showed low prevalence and postpartum depression"- it is not clear what has low prevalence. Please state where PPD is linked with poor feeding practices. What about other children in the family- do they have a similar fate?

Author response: thank you for your view, it has been revised and stated in conclusion part as “This study showed low prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practice”. PPD is statistically linked with reduction of appropriate feeding practice.

Yes, we believe children in the same family will have similar fate because the unrecognized and untreated PPD results in reduced functioning of mother emotionally and physically which in turn have a negative influence of mother-infant interaction. Moreover, the persistent effect of untreated PPD will account for inability to take care of children in the family.

Please break your sentences and add the appropriate source according for the sentence. In lines 56-61, it is unclear which source is relevant for what statistics you are quoting.

Author response: Thank you for the view, we break the sentences and cited appropriately it is revised as follows “…….young child feeding practice is attributed to 45% of all child deaths in which two thirds of those deaths occurred in the first year of life [2]”

The description of the mothers in lines 195-205 could focus on bringing out the differences between the mothers who had PPD and those who did not. The description is hard to go through. Maybe better to summarize the similarities and focus more on the differences.

Author response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have tried to focus on variables which shows significant difference using Chi square and factors that are believed to provide image about study participants to the reader were summarized.

Is there a linkage between any history of depression in previous pregnancies and PPD in future?

Author response: Yes, there is an association between any history of depression in previous pregnancies and PPD but sometimes can occur independently.

Is that important and was that asked?

Author response: Thank you for your great question, Not asked because most literatures has been suggested that many of the postpartum mood disorders may actually begin during pregnancy or that antepartum depression increases the risk of developing PPD. It’s inevitable for a woman with antenatal depression/anxiety to have PPD and vice versa, mothers with PPD had experience antenatal depression/ anxiety. The other issue for not asking is we made decision not to introduce bias (recall bias while asking previous history of depression)

Check line 211. Incomplete sentence?

Author response: revised.

The discussion on birth order is not clearly stated. Please revise lines 287-295 to more clearly articulate your findings first.

The authors can strengthen the policy and program recommendations for PPD and its impact. Early recognition, raising awareness of symptoms associated with PD, eliminating stigma, involving the extended household and community to support women going through PPD so infant feeding practices are not impacted are some considerations.

A strong edit of the entire article is needed.

Reviewer #2: I found this article very interesting, but some changes should be made. There are some typo errors, specially missing spaces in text. I find the terms "exposed and unexposed" confusing and would advise to change them.

Author response: we have revised it intensively and correct all suggested typo error in the manuscript and changed exposed into mothers with PPD and unexposed changed mothers without PPD throughout the paper.

Abstract:

-rewrite the first sentence of the conclusion for clarity "this study showed low prevalence and postpartum depression as an important contributor to the appropriate infant feeding practice".

Author response: Thank you for the view, we have revised and stated in conclusion as follows “……This study showed low prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practice…”

Introduction:

- line 76: there is a typo, with a point before the word "studies" that should be corrected: "Ethiopia [9,10] .Studies"

Author response: revised and corrected.

Statistics:

-Control variables must be specified

Author response: The control variable are mothers without PPD.

Results:

-line 189 typo error, capital letter that should not be there in "retrieved Complete data".

Author response: revised and corrected.

- the sociodemographic variables results should be compared between groups through statistic tests (chi squared, T test...) to assess if statistically significant differences arise. This information should be included in the final tables, and it should be decided which data to include in the text and which in the table, so the text would be more easily read.

Author response: Revised and corrected

- it would be very important to describe, if possible, why the feeding was not appropriate, e.g. use of other foods before 6 months, interruption of breastfeeding, lack of variety in the diet, etc. This could help to have a better understanding of the reasons why an appropriate feeding practice do not happen (and what measures could be implemented to improve this practice).

Author response: Thank you for your suggestion. The appropriateness of feeding practice depends on age category of infant, mothers/caregiver with PPD give plain water frequently to infants less than 6 months of age and it was statistically significant(P-value-0.021) this was the main reason for inappropriateness of feeding practice among < 6 month of age, and the second important reason was receiving other liquids such as soup and broth before the age of six month. For infants 6-11 months of age, the main reason for inappropriate feeding was difficulty to receive minimum acceptable diet which was statistically significant (P-value = 0.04) different between mothers with PPD and mothers without PPD.

Discussion:

-line 255: clarify this sentence

Author response: Sentence clarified

- line 269: rewrite this sentence

Author response: Corrected

- line 292: correct typo ".this"

Author response: Corrected

- have the authors considered that the most frequent depressive symptoms described (headache, being tired) could be related to the difficulties inherently tied to breastfeeding? Could it be therefore a confusion between the consequences of breastfeeding and depression?

Author response: We have tried to put this temporality issue as a limitation of the study and must be cautiously interpreted as it would not enough to determine the causal association.in a specific way, whether PPD causes feeding difficulties or having feeding difficulty causes the mother to have depressive symptoms is mere possible to attain with such studies. Hence, we recommend further studies to be well designed prospective study to see the association between PPD and feeding difficulties or vice versa.

- again, to know exactly what was the reason for inappropriate feeding of the infants would be of the utmost importance to provide an interpretation of the difficulties mothers and particularly the ones suffering from PPD face.

Author response: Thank you for your great view, mothers/caregiver with PPD give plain water frequently to infants less than 6 months of age and it was statistically significant (P-value-0.021) this was the main reason for inappropriateness of feeding practice among < 6 month of age, and the second important reason was receiving other liquids such as soup and broth before the age of six month. For infants 6-11 months of age, the main reason for inappropriate feeding was difficulty to receive minimum acceptable diet which was statistically significant (P-value = 0.04) different between mothers with PPD and mothers without PPD.

Tables: all abbreviations used in the table should be clarified above.

Author response: revised and corrected. we have word abbreviated as Gov’t in to government in the table

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Melissa F Young

19 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-02467R1THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND APPROPRIATE INFANT FEEDING PRACTICE IN EASTERN ZONE OF TIGRAY, ETHIOPIA: A COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDYPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Weldu,

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 carefully review abstract and write up of conclusions so ensure clarity and alignment with results from study. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 05 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,

Melissa F. Young, Ph.D.

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing the reviewer feedback. Please revise the language in your conclusion from the abstract. There seems to be some confusion

This study showed low prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practice and significantly higher proportion of mother without postpartum depression practice appropriate infant feeding than their counterpart.

please add some language at the end about the low (overall) prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practices. While it is significantly lower in mothers with PPD, 42% is also very low in mothers without PPD. Please include that in your policy recommendations

Reviewer #2: I consider the revision adequate and the results interesting to be published. The subject is simple but relevant to mother and child health, therefore my advice would be to publish it.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 25;18(1):e0280141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280141.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Feb 2022

response to Editor’s comment

Comment 1: Please carefully review abstract and write up of conclusions so ensure clarity and alignment with results from study.

Author response: Thank you for your interesting insight and suggestion. We have thoroughly reviewed our results, discussion and conclusion and the following statements were corrected.

On conclusion part of abstract, we rephrased the statement with more sensible and aligned sentences with the write up. Now the statements read as follows “The overall prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practice in the study area was low. The prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practice was significantly different between mothers without postpartum depression and mothers with postpartum depression”.

journal requirement responses

Author response: Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. We took some time and checked the reference list and made some adjustments to make sure the bibliography is full and current to meet the journal requirements. None of the papers cited in the manuscript has retracted but only references number 8 has erratum and cited as per Plose One referencing style for original article with erratum.

response Reviewer 1 comments:

Author response: Thank you for your interesting insight, we have carefully revised and correct the statement as follows. This statement was rephrased “The overall prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practice in the study area was low. The prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practice was significantly different between mother without postpartum depression and mother with postpartum depression”.

instead of

This study showed low prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practice and significantly higher proportion of mother without postpartum depression practice appropriate infant feeding than their counterpart.

Author response: We have included the word “overall” the overall prevalence of appropriate infant feeding practices was low.

Authors response: Thanks for your deep insight and we have made some recommendation for strengthening nutritional education to all mothers as appropriate infant feeding is still low in women without PPD. We added this recommendation to policy makers and it was very helpful. “Therefore, the modified statement reads as “strengthening the provisions of nutritional education, providing economic support to mothers with low income, health educating for multiparous and integrating maternal mental health with maternal health care services”. in addition, we recommend the policy makers to consider women with low income and birth order above three as it mentioned in the above phrase.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Melissa F Young

5 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-02467R2THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND APPROPRIATE INFANT FEEDING PRACTICE IN EASTERN ZONE OF TIGRAY, ETHIOPIA: A COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDYPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Weldu,

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. Few minor corrections required. In abstract, please clearly define appropriate infant feeding practices in methods.  Include results for income in abstract results.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 20 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,

Melissa F. Young, Ph.D.

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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 25;18(1):e0280141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280141.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


10 Apr 2022

editors comment: Few minor corrections required. In abstract, please clearly define appropriate infant feeding practices in methods. Include results for income in abstract results.

Author response: Thank you for your insightful comments.

In the methods part of the abstract, we have changed infant feeding practice into appropriate infant feeding practice and restated as “Appropriate infant feeding practice was assessed using structured questionnaire obtained from Monitoring and Evaluating Breastfeeding Practices toolkit.

In the result section of the abstract, we have added household monthly income as follows “Households with monthly income 1000-1999 ETB (AOR= 2.26; 95% CI: 1.01-5.08), 2000-2999 ETB (AOR= 1.96; 95% CI: 1.21-4.73) and 3000-3999 ETB (AOR= 5.13; 95% CI: 1.97-13.4) were more likely to practice appropriate infant feeding”.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Md Abdur Rafi

10 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-02467R3THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND APPROPRIATE INFANT FEEDING PRACTICE IN EASTERN ZONE OF TIGRAY, ETHIOPIA: A COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDYPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Weldu,

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 Sep 24 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,

Md. Abdur Rafi

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.

Please adjust the reviewers' comments.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: 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 25;18(1):e0280141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280141.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


24 Sep 2022

Dear Editors,

We greatly appreciate the time and effort put forth by reviewers and editors to improve our paper, ‘‘The relationship between postpartum depression and appropriate infant feeding practice in Eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia: A comparative cross-sectional study”. We have revised and incorporated the changes in the manuscript to address all the insightful suggestions raised by the editors and the reviewers.

PONE-D-21-02467R3

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND APPROPRIATE INFANT FEEDING PRACTICE IN EASTERN ZONE OF TIGRAY, ETHIOPIA: A COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Weldu,

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 Sep 24 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,

Melissa F. Young, Ph.D.

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.

Please adjust the reviewers' comments.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Editor’s comment

Comment 1: Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Author response: Thank you, our paper has largely improved after providing another revision. We added more references to provide proper context about proper infant feeding practices and removed unnecessary details from the discussion part. The main purpose of including the references is to explain the magnitude of appropriate infant feeding in the study area to the reader and to provide a glimpse into feeding practice in Ethiopia. These are references that have been added to help explain the outcome variables.

21. Shagaro SS, Mulugeta BT, Kale TD. Complementary feeding practices and associated factors among mothers of children aged 6-23 months in Ethiopia: Secondary data analysis of Ethiopian mini demographic and health survey 2019. Arch Public Heal. 2021;79(1):1–12.

22. Demilew YM, Tafere TE, Abitew DB. Infant and young child feeding practice among mothers with 0 – 24 months old children in Slum areas of Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia. Int Breastfeed J. 2017;12:26:1–9.

23. Kassa T, Meshesha B, Haji Y, Ebrahim J. Appropriate complementary feeding practices and associated factors among mothers of children age 6-23 months in. BMC Pediatr. 2016;16(131):1-10.

24. Fanta M, Cherie HA. Magnitude and determinants of appropriate complementary feeding practice among mothers of children age 6–23 months in Western Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 2020;15(12):e0244277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244277

25. Yonas F, Asnakew M, Wondafrash M, Abdulahi M. Infant and Young Child Feeding Practice Status and Associated Factors among Mothers of under 24-Month-Old Children in Shashemene Woreda, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Open Access Libr J. 2015;2,1-15.

26. Mekonnen M, Kinati T, Bekele K, Tesfa B, Hailu D, Jemal K. Infant and young child feeding practice among mothers of children age 6 to 23 months in Debrelibanos district, North Showa zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9):e0257758.

27. Hassen SL, Temesgen MM, Marefiaw TA, Ayalew BS, Abebe DD, Desalegn SA. Infant and Young Child Feeding Practice Status and Its Determinants in Kalu District, Northeast Ethiopia: Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Nutr Diet Suppl. 2021;13:67–81.

Response to the comments

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Author response: Thank you for your suggestion. To ensure reliable information was collected the principal investigator provides proper training for data collectors, and then supervisors check the data accuracy and completeness. In addition, the tools used to measure the outcome were based on WHO core indicators for appropriate infant feeding practice. We have Clearly defined all outcomes (appropriate infant feeding practice) and exposures (postpartum depression). The measurement for infant feeding practice and postpartum depression was contextualized and checked for reliability (internal consistency). Moreover, we have ensured the data comparability between postpartum depression and non-depressed mothers by at least taking participants of control from the same area and checking whether there is a significant difference in sociodemographic factors between postpartum depressed and non-depressed mothers. Thus, the information helped us to achieve the purpose of the study, which is to assess the magnitude of appropriate infant feeding practice and to determine the effect of postpartum depression on infant feeding practice. So, our conclusion is in line with the objective of the study.

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Author response: Thank you for your concern. During analysis, we tried to control potential confounders using multivariable regression. multicollinearity was checked for all the independent variables that are included in the model that had VIF (variance inflation factor) of less than 1.8 and tolerance greater than 0.52. The data also checked for outliers in continuous variables, none of them were significant after being diagnosed by COOKs distance, and the assumptions of binary logistic regression were checked. In addition, interaction among independent variables was assessed during binary logistic regression, and Hosmer and Lemeshow test was also carried out to check model fitness which was not significant (p-value = 0.95). Then, variables with p<=0.25 in the bivariate analysis were included in the final model to consider public health and clinically important variables. Finally, backward logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of appropriate infant feeding. The sample size was adequate with a high response rate (97%).

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Author response: all the necessary data has been uploaded as a supporting information file.

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

Author response: Thank you, we have made a significant correction after carefully reviewing the manuscript's entire text for typographical and grammatical errors using Grammarly software. In addition, the font size of the table text has been changed to standard.

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Author response: none of the findings of the manuscript has been attempted to publish in other journals.

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 4

Tanya Doherty

19 Oct 2022

PONE-D-21-02467R4THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND APPROPRIATE INFANT FEEDING PRACTICE IN EASTERN ZONE OF TIGRAY, ETHIOPIA: A COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDYPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Weldu,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:Please include infant age in weeks as a variable in table 1.for your analysis of appropriate infant feeding practices please separate the sample into <6 months and 6 -12 months since the definition of appropriate feeding is different for these age groupsplease add infant age in weeks as a variable in table 3.for S1 Figure please separate out by age <6 months and 6-12 months Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 03 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,

Tanya Doherty, 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.

[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 25;18(1):e0280141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280141.r010

Author response to Decision Letter 4


14 Dec 2022

Response to Academic editor:

Editor’s comment: Please include infant age in weeks as a variable in table 1

Authors response: Thank you for the comment, we have included infant age in months. In the descriptive statistics, (line 209) we have converted the mean age of the infants from days to months and added infant age in table 1. Converting infant age from days to weeks brings some information to be missed while categorizing as less than six months (0-26 weeks) and six and above months (26.1-52.14 weeks), so to overcome this, we used infant age in months as the main objective of this research is not to understand which age specifically associated with appropriate infant feeding.

Moreover, we used infant age in months, to ensure comparability of this study with others as almost all previously conducted similar researches have categorized infant age in months.

Editor’s comment: for your analysis of appropriate infant feeding practices please separate the sample into <6 months and 6 -12 months since the definition of appropriate feeding is different for these age groups.

Authors response: we have done the analysis separately for the two age groups, below 6 month and 6- 11 months. Consequently, two new tables have been added.

Editors comment: please add infant age in weeks as a variable in table 3.

Authors response: Thank you for the comment, we have added infant age to Table 5 (previously labeled as Table 3). This brings some changes to the values and interpretation of the findings, including the AOR of the variables of the final step of backward LR. For instance, the odds of appropriate infant feeding practice were 1.71 times higher among mothers without postpartum depression compared to their counterparts (AOR = 1.71; 95% CI: 1.08-2.69). This statement from the result part was changed to " The odds of appropriate infant feeding practice were 2 times higher among mothers without postpartum depression compared to their counterparts (AOR = 2.03; 95% CI: 1.29-3.18)." due to the addition of infant age as a variable in Table 5.

In addition, the effect of birth order was also changed from “The odds of appropriate infant feeding practices among infants with a birth order above three was 48% (AOR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28-0.97) less than those infants with a birth order of three and below” to “The odds of appropriate infant feeding practices among infants with a birth order above three was 58% (AOR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.26-0.97) less than those infants with a birth order of three and below”.

Corresponding to these changes, in the abstract section, similar changes was made.

Editors comment: for S1 Figure please separate out by age <6 months and 6-12 months

Authors response: Thank you for the comment, we have separately represented appropriate infant feeding among the age groups, 6 months and 6-11 months, using a bar graph.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 5

Tanya Doherty

21 Dec 2022

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND APPROPRIATE INFANT FEEDING PRACTICE IN EASTERN ZONE OF TIGRAY, ETHIOPIA: A COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

PONE-D-21-02467R5

Dear Dr. Weldu,

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,

Tanya Doherty, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Tanya Doherty

2 Jan 2023

PONE-D-21-02467R5

The relationship between postpartum depression and appropriate infant feeding practice in Eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia: A comparative cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Weldu:

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

Professor Tanya Doherty

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 Fig. The proportion of exclusive breastfeeding among exposed and unexposed mothers, Ethiopia.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. The proportion of complementary feeding among exposed and unexposed mothers in Ethiopia.

    (TIF)

    S1 File

    (SAV)

    S1 Questionnaire

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES