Prevalence and associated factors of delayed first antenatal care booking among reproductive age women in Ethiopia; a multilevel analysis of EDHS 2016 data

Achamyeleh Birhanu Teshale; Getayeneh Antehunegn Tesema

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0235538

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 6, 2019
4 Mar 2020 Decision Letter - Joshua Amo-Adjei, Editor PONE-D-19-33776 Prevalence and associated factors of delayed first Antenatal care booking among reproductive age women in Ethiopia; a multilevel analysis of EDHS 2016 data. PLOS ONE Dear Mr. Teshale, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 18 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols 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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Joshua Amo-Adjei, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): As you (authors) would notice, the second reviewer makes very important technical comments that should be properly addressed before the manuscript can be considered publishable. 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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please confirm whether all participant data were fully anonymized before you accessed them. 3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence(s) of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0690-1 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050748 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6845-7 https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/early-anc-worldwide/en/ In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the Methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 4. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript. [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: Partly ******** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well written. The analysis is well done. There are some few observations. Background Line 74 to 76 needs a reference. The sentence starting from line 76 to 79 is not clear and need to be revised Methods Study setting A brief discussion about the health care system in Ethiopia who give the reader insight. Data source and study population Line 117, the authors said the used the kid’s data set of EDHS 2016… my question why did you not use the women’s dataset and chose the kid’s dataset? Results Line 174 to 176 you must be consistent with decimal places Table 1 there were no values for parity Line 177 to 180 needs to be revised. It is not clear Discussion This section was well written and conclusions were drawn from the results The manuscript should be proof read Reviewer #2: Lines 107-109. The author refers to the Ethiopian Census 2007 as the sampling frame of the EDHS 2016. This may not be very correct as DHS surveys only use the Census data to select Enumeration Areas. Then, a listing exercise is conducted in each selected EA to update the list of households. The updated list of hhds is used to select households to interview. The authors could revise the statement according to this methodology. A conceptual framework to help readers understand why these variables were included in the study should have supported the description of the study variables Lines 145-147. Sample weights should be used throughout the analyses, not only for frequencies and for proportions. Could the author clarify whether the multilevel analysis was weighted or not. Were collinearity checks performed on the independent variables before ruining MV analyses? The paragraph on the random effects does not add value to the paper; it rather brings statistical information that the author seems struggling to explain properly. The author uses values (va, π) that are not documented in the paper. Furthermore, I would expect the author to first clarify why a random effect model was needed on these data and then explain what those effects (if any) could be referring to in practice. Presenting the results section by random vs. fixed effects seems to turn the paper to a methodological paper, comparing methods, rather than keeping the focus on describing the factors associated with delayed ANC. In addition, a number of statements in this section are subjective interpretations of statistical models which are not the focus of the paper and not expected in a result section. This section should be entirely rewritten to clearly highly the key results of the analysis that would be discussed later. ****** 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 #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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments - 1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235538.r001
Revision 1
13 Mar 2020 Author Response Dear Editor thank you for your important comments, here below are the authors responses 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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Authors response; we followed the PLOS ONE's style while writing our revised manuscript 2. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please confirm whether all participant data were fully anonymized before you accessed them. Authors response; the author amended the ethical statement accordingly in the revised manuscript 3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence(s) of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0690-1 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050748 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6845-7 https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/early-anc-worldwide/en/ In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the Methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. Authors response; after checking the overlapping texts with given papers, the overlapped texts are re written up or rephrased accordingly in the revised manuscript. 4. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript. Authors response; the ethical statement was in the manuscript, method part, and in the revised manuscript the ethical statement also exists in the methods section of the manuscript Response to reviewer [1] Dear reviewer #1, thank you for your constructive comments for the betterment of our paper 1. Background Line 74 to 76 needs a reference. Authors response; references are added in the revised manuscript The sentence starting from line 76 to 79 is not clear and need to be revised. Authors response; revised and written in readable/in clear way 2. Study setting A brief discussion about the health care system in Ethiopia who give the reader insight. Authors response; some details are included about the health care systems of Ethiopia in the revised manuscript. 3. Data source and study population Line 117, the authors said the used the kid’s data set of EDHS 2016… my question why did you not use the women’s dataset and chose the kid’s dataset? Author Response; For our study the Population base were “Women who have had one or more births in the 5 years preceding the survey” so we can use either KR (kids data set) or IR (women’s data set), the DHS manual/guide also indicates either of this can be used. Whether we use KR or IR data set there is no difference (give the same result). In KR file, the record is for the last birth only if we set Index to birth history (midx) = 1 but in IR dataset there were still unnecessary extra variables (for our study) such as midx_2, _midx_3, _..._6 , even though we can set midx_1=1, which makes us to extract variables somewhat tedious. 4. Results Line 174 to 176 you must be consistent with decimal places. Authors response; Corrected in the revised manuscript Table 1 there were no values for parity. Authors response; Values are added in the revised manuscript Line 177 to 180 needs to be revised. It is not clear. Authors response; we critically see it and amend accordingly in the revised manuscript to read as…... “Considering the characteristics of the community level factors” …... Response to Reviewer [2] Dear reviewer #2, thank you for your constructive comments you provided for the betterment of our paper 1. Lines 107-109. The author refers to the Ethiopian Census 2007 as the sampling frame of the EDHS 2016. This may not be very correct as DHS surveys only use the Census data to select Enumeration Areas. Then, a listing exercise is conducted in each selected EA to update the list of households. The updated list of hhds is used to select households to interview. The authors could revise the statement according to this methodology. Authors response; we amended the sentence …... “The sampling frame used for the survey is the Ethiopia Population and Housing Census (PHC), which was conducted in 2007 by the Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency” …...to …… “To select enumeration areas for EDHS 2016, a total of 8,4915 Enumeration areas from an Ethiopian Population and Housing Census (PHC) conducted in 2007 were used as a sampling frame.” ….in the revised manuscript. 2. A conceptual framework to help readers understand why these variables were included in the study should have supported the description of the study variables Authors response; A conceptual frame work is developed using different factors which are associated with delayed first ANC booking from different literatures by classifying into community and individual level (sociodemographic, pregnancy and maternal health related and behavioral factor) factors. 3. Lines 145-147. Sample weights should be used throughout the analyses, not only for frequencies and for proportions. Could the author clarify whether the multilevel analysis was weighted or not. Authors response; In the descriptive statistics we were used sample weighting to adjust disproportionate sampling, non-response or to restore representativeness. In addition, to get reliable standard error by taking in to account the sample design we calculate the confidence intervals for prevalence using svy set command (weighting for complex survey design) using svyset[pw=weight], psu(v021) strata(v023). Even though we applied a multilevel analysis to identify individual and community level factors by taking into account the clustering effect, the multilevel model cannot restore the representativeness of the data. Therefore, we apply sampling weight to restore the representativeness or non-response in the multilevel analysis also. In the revised manuscript we indicate as we done weighting throughout the analysis 4. Were collinearity checks performed on the independent variables before ruining MV analyses? Authors response; Even though, Stata is the robust software that automatically remove variables if there is multicollinearity, we also did multicollinearity test between independent variables by using pseudo linear regression analysis using the command “estat vif” and we got the mean VIF of 1.89. Therefore, there was no significant multicollinearity b/n predictor variables. 5. The paragraph on the random effects does not add value to the paper; it rather brings statistical information that the author seems struggling to explain properly. The author uses values (va, π) that are not documented in the paper. Furthermore, I would expect the author to first clarify why a random effect model was needed on these data and then explain what those effects (if any) could be referring to in practice. Authors response; we clarify why the random effect model was needed with their explanation by avoiding extra unnecessary descriptions in the revised manuscript. 6. Presenting the results section by random vs. fixed effects seems to turn the paper to a methodological paper, comparing methods, rather than keeping the focus on describing the factors associated with delayed ANC. In addition, a number of statements in this section are subjective interpretations of statistical models which are not the focus of the paper and not expected in a result section. This section should be entirely rewritten to clearly highly the key results of the analysis that would be discussed later. Authors response; Even though we remove the random effects part and put only the fixed effect result in a section/title “Individual and community-level factors associated with delayed first ANC booking” (by avoiding sections of random and fixed effect model), in the revised manuscript we critically modify/amend random effect and model fitness part and incorporate in the result section to convince or tell the reader how we were proceed with the multilevel model in order to identify factors associated with delayed first ANC booking, by considering the random effect and model fitness test. But if it does not make sense for you still, we can remove it and rearrange it accordingly. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235538.r002
9 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Joshua Amo-Adjei, Editor PONE-D-19-33776R1 Prevalence and Associated Factors of Delayed First Antenatal Care Booking among Reproductive Age Women in Ethiopia; A multilevel analysis of EDHS 2016 data PLOS ONE Dear Mr. Teshale, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jul 24 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols 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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Joshua Amo-Adjei, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: We noticed you have not corrected several occurrences of overlapping text with previous publications, which needs to be addressed. In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the Methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. Nancy Beam, PhD Staff Editor PLOS ONE [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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235538.r003
Revision 2
13 Jun 2020 Author Response June 13, 2020 Response to editor/reviewers Title: Prevalence and Associated Factors of Delayed First Antenatal Care Booking among Reproductive Age Women in Ethiopia; A multilevel analysis of EDHS 2016 data Manuscript number: PONE-D-19-33776R1 Editors comment We noticed you have not corrected several occurrences of overlapping text with previous publications, which needs to be addressed. In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the Methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. Authors response: Dear editor thank you for your concern. We have checked our paper/manuscript in advance and we corrected text overlaps. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewrs.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235538.r004
18 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Joshua Amo-Adjei, Editor Prevalence and Associated Factors of Delayed First Antenatal Care Booking among Reproductive Age Women in Ethiopia; A multilevel analysis of EDHS 2016 data PONE-D-19-33776R2 Dear Dr. Teshale, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Joshua Amo-Adjei, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235538.r005
Formally Accepted
23 Jun 2020 Acceptance Letter - Joshua Amo-Adjei, Editor PONE-D-19-33776R2 Prevalence and Associated Factors of Delayed First Antenatal Care Booking among Reproductive Age Women in Ethiopia; A multilevel analysis of EDHS 2016 data Dear Dr. Teshale: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Joshua Amo-Adjei Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235538.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .