Four in every ten infants in Northwest Ethiopia exposed to sub-optimal breastfeeding practice

Workineh Shume Hailu; Mulat Tirfie Bayih; Netsanet Fentahun Babble

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238576

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 30, 2020
7 May 2020 Decision Letter - Sara Fuentes Perez, Editor PONE-D-20-02694 FOUR IN EVERY TEN INFANTS HAD EXPOSED TO INAPPROPRIATE BREASTFEEDING PRACTICE Northwest Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Mr Bayih, 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. The manuscript has been assessed by two reviewers, their comments are appended below. The reviewers have raised major concerns about the study, particularly regarding the language, the reporting and methodology used. They feel that the manuscript requires copyediting for English usage and grammar. In addition, they have asked for further clarification regarding the cofounders considered and the questionnaire used. Please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 20 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, Sara Fuentes Perez, PhD Staff Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) 3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: http://ijp.mums.ac.ir/pdf_6433_a4be58a59b5f56dc402986c36872b2b9.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4662817/ The text that needs to be addressed involves the Introduction. 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. Please address the following: - Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. - Please ensure you have thoroughly discussed any potential limitations of this study within the Discussion section. 5. Please modify the title to ensure that it is meeting PLOS’ guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title). In particular, the title should be "specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field" and in this case it is not informative and specific about your study's scope and methodology. 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 Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Need major improvement in English, suggest to be reviewed by a native medical writer. The scoring or index of BFPI need to be elaborated further, specifically on the different measurement or parameter used, compare to the original source. The adaptation process of BFPI also need to be explain exhaustively. Has the questionnaire been validated? Need to indicate if yes or not and explain the reason/argumentation. If yes what is the Cronbach score? Important to briefly describe 'what is principal component analysis (PCA) is?' and the rational of using it is still also missing. It is extremely obvious that most of the subject were not able to read and write, however the authors failed discussed this in depth. This is a major lack of the manuscript. The occupational factors and other work related determinants should also be explained in detail, to draw a line with the breastfeeding performance index, even though the percentage of the subject who are worker are only around 20%. Reviewer #2: Overall a very interesting paper looking at predictors of higher levels of breastfeeding practices in Ethiopia. This study is important since no study has been published in this specific geographic region. However, I think this paper would greatly benefit to some restructuring of the introduction and discussion. I also think the public health significance of this study needs to be further stated. Perhaps with additional analyses where they look at the impact of the breastfeeding index on infant outcomes. Abstract 1. Please add more detail into what is meant by associated factors. Do you mean things that are associated with the index? Introduction 1. “Breastfeeding creates an inimitable psychosocial bond between the mother and baby enhances modest cognitive development and it is the underpinning of the infant’s wellbeing in the first year of life even into the second year of life with appropriate complementary foods from 6 months[1-4].” Very long sentence and it seems like you are trying to say two important things. The benefits of breastfeeding and current recommendations. I would suggest putting these into two separate sentences. 2. You have very good and interesting information in the introduction. However, I think the introduction would benefit from some restructuring. Right now, it seems like the benefits and outcomes of breastfeeding are randomly dispersed throughoug. Instead, make sure to have all benefits in one paragraph, all recommendations in one paragraph, and do this with all major themes. That will help the transition between ideas. Methods 1. To help readers, please state what Kebles are. 2. I am so glad you included how you determined your effect size. I would suggest using the more common terms of power. And then include what you set the main estimators to. 3. For the sampling procedure, it would be good to know if the Kebles were similar in terms of sociodemographic characteristics 4. Important to know how old the children/infants were when the interviews took place. If they were still breastfeeding at the interview, how did you deal with those participants 5. I would suggest making a figure to show exactly how the index was created. Right now, I find it a little confusing and hard to follow. So if you don’t want to make the figure I would suggest making the text a bit more clear. I think this is very important since the index is very interesting and is the major strength of your study 6. Please keep in mind that just because questionnaires were used in previous studies doesn’t mean they provide high data quality. I would add more details into how you considered if these questionnaires provided good data 7. Please also include a list of all confounders you considered 8. Did you get institutional review board approval? Results 1. Is are any outcomes you can look at? To see if the breastfeeding index affects some of the outcomes you discussed in the introduction. This would really strengthen your paper. Discussion 1. The discussion seems a bit long. I would like to see the first paragraph be a general overall and take home messages from your study. 2-3 discussion points for your take home messages. Strengths and limitations section. And finally conclusion with why this matters, and how you can change it.. Tables 1. Please create a table showing differences in characteristics between different levels of the breastfeeding index Other 1. I would suggest a different title. 2. I would suggest additional editing to check for general typos ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Ray Wagiu Basrowi 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: Wallenborn_Review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238576.r001
Revision 1
29 Jul 2020 Author Response Rebuttal letter Title: FOUR IN EVERY TEN INFANTS HAD EXPOSED TO INAPPROPRIATE BREASTFEEDING PRACTICE IN NORTHWEST ETHIOPIA Ms. Ref. No.: PONE-D-20-02694 We like to thank the reviewers for the positive and constructive comments with regard to the submission for publication of our manuscript in PLOS ONE. We have tried to address all comments and suggestions of the reviewers’ point by point by writing question number and answer for each and revised our manuscript accordingly. Revisions to the text were highlighted in the manuscript. Reviewer #1 1. Need major improvement in English, suggest to be reviewed by a native medical writer. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. 2. Scoring or index of BFPI needs to be elaborated further, specifically on the different measurement or parameter used, compare to the original source. The adaptation processes of BFPI also need to be explaining exhaustively. Has the questionnaire been validated? Need to indicate if yes or not and explain the reason/argumentation. If yes what is the Cronbach score? Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. The questionnaire has been using to measure breast feeding practices in Ethiopia. The pervious study was validated the breast feeding performance index questionnaire in Ethiopia. For this study, we used the already validated tools. 3. Important to briefly describe 'what is principal component analysis (PCA) is?' and the rational of using it is still also missing. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. 4. The occupational factors and other work related determinants should also be explained in detail, to draw a line with the breastfeeding performance index, even though the percentages of the subject who are worker are only around 20%. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. Reviewer #2: Comment: Overall a very interesting paper looking at predictors of higher levels of breastfeeding practices in Ethiopia. This study is important since no study has been published in this specific geographic region. However, I think this paper would greatly benefit to some restructuring of the introduction and discussion. I also think the public health significance of this study needs to be further stated. Perhaps with additional analyses where they look at the impact of the breastfeeding index on infant outcomes. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. Abstract 1. Please add more detail into what is meant by associated factors. Do you mean things that are associated with the index? Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. Introduction 1. “Breastfeeding creates an inimitable psychosocial bond between the mother and baby enhances modest cognitive development and it is the underpinning of the infant’s wellbeing in the first year of life even into the second year of life with appropriate complementary foods from 6 months[1-4].” Very long sentence and it seems like you are trying to say two important things. The benefits of breastfeeding and current recommendations. I would suggest putting these into two separate sentences. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. 2. You have very good and interesting information in the introduction. However, I think the introduction would benefit from some restructuring. Right now, it seems like the benefits and outcomes of breastfeeding are randomly dispersed throughoug. Instead, make sure to have all benefits in one paragraph, all recommendations in one paragraph, and do this with all major themes. That will help the transition between ideas. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. Methods 1. To help readers, please state what Kebeles are. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. 2. I am so glad you included how you determined your effect size. I would suggest using the more common terms of power. And then include what you set the main estimators to. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. For this study we use prevalence to estimate the sample size. The study was single proportion, not comparison study. We tried to calculate the sample size by considering important factors, but, the calculated sample size was lower than the sample size estimated using prevalence. Finally, we decision to use the large sample size to increase the power of analysis and representative 3. For the sampling procedure, it would be good to know if the Kebeles were similar in terms of socio-demographic characteristics Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. 4. Important to know how old the children/infants were when the interviews took place. If they were still breastfeeding at the interview, how did you deal with those participants Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. 5. I would suggest making a figure to show exactly how the index was created. Right now, I find it a little confusing and hard to follow. So if you don’t want to make the figure I would suggest making the text a bit more clear. I think this is very important since the index is very interesting and is the major strength of your study Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. 6. Please keep in mind that just because questionnaires were used in previous studies doesn’t mean they provide high data quality. I would add more details into how you considered if these questionnaires provided good data Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. 7. Please also include a list of all confounders you considered Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. 8. Did you get institutional review board approval? Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. The institutional review board approval protocol placed under declaration at end Results 1. Is/ are any outcomes you can look at? To see if the breastfeeding index affects some of the outcomes you discussed in the introduction. This would really strengthen your paper. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. But, we did not included variables which helps to measure the effect of breastfeeding index affects Discussion 1. The discussion seems a bit long. I would like to see the first paragraph be a general overall and take home messages from your study. 2-3 discussion points for your take home messages. Strengths and limitations section. And finally conclusion with why this matters, and how you can change it. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. Tables 1. Please create a table showing differences in characteristics between different levels of the breastfeeding index Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. Other 1. I would suggest additional editing to check for general typos Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and made correction. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter_BFPI.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238576.r002
12 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Jordyn Tinka Wallenborn, Editor PONE-D-20-02694R1 FOUR IN EVERY TEN INFANTS IN NORTHWEST ETHIOPIA EXPOSED TO SUB-OPTIMAL BREASTFEEDING PRACTICE. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bayih, 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 restructure the discussion so that you compare your findings with previous literature in one paragraph; followed by two paragraphs providing an explanation into your results. Right now, you have the majority of information you need, there just needs to be some restructuring of paragraphs 2-7 of the discussion. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Further, in order to uphold the integrity of the scientific process, I think it is important for me to disclose that I participated as a reviewer for the initial evaluation of your manuscript. Kind regards, Jordyn Tinka Wallenborn, PhD., MPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Please restructure the discussion so that you compare your findings with previous literature in one paragraph; followed by two paragraphs providing an explanation into your results. Right now, you have the majority of information you need, there just needs to be some restructuring of paragraphs 2-7 of the discussion. [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238576.r003
Revision 2
17 Aug 2020 Author Response Rebuttal letter Title: FOUR IN EVERY TEN INFANTS HAD EXPOSED TO INAPPROPRIATE BREASTFEEDING PRACTICE IN NORTHWEST ETHIOPIA Ms. Ref. No.: PONE-D-20-02694 We have tried to address all comments and suggestions of the ACADEMIC EDITOR/ Editor Comments point by point by revised our manuscript accordingly. Revisions to the text were highlighted in the manuscript. ACADEMIC EDITOR/ Editor Comments: Please restructure the discussion so that you compare your findings with previous literature in one paragraph; followed by two paragraphs providing an explanation into your results. Right now, you have the majority of information you need, there just needs to be some restructuring of paragraphs 2-7 of the discussion. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have addressed your concerns and restructure the discussion part. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter_BFPI final 12.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238576.r004
20 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Jordyn Tinka Wallenborn, Editor FOUR IN EVERY TEN INFANTS IN NORTHWEST ETHIOPIA EXPOSED TO SUB-OPTIMAL BREASTFEEDING PRACTICE. PONE-D-20-02694R2 Dear Dr. Bayih, 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, Jordyn Tinka Wallenborn, PhD., MPH Guest Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238576.r005
Formally Accepted
3 Sep 2020 Acceptance Letter - Jordyn Tinka Wallenborn, Editor PONE-D-20-02694R2 FOUR IN EVERY TEN INFANTS IN NORTHWEST ETHIOPIA EXPOSED TO SUB-OPTIMAL BREASTFEEDING PRACTICE. Dear Dr. Bayih: 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. Jordyn Tinka Wallenborn Guest Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238576.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 .