Can women’s 3E index impede short birth interval? evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2017–18

Fatima Tuz-Zahura; Kanchan Kumar Sen; Shahnaz Nilima; Wasimul Bari

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263003

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 11, 2021
29 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor PONE-D-21-15599 Can Women’s 3E Index Impede Short Birth Interval? Evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2017-18 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zahura, 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 paper has been reviewed by three independent reviewers. The reviewers identified some important issues those need to be fixed before taking final decision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 13 2021 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. 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, Enamul Kabir 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. 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 note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 3. 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 [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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #3: 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: At a glance, the manuscript is technically sound and written in a knowledgeable manner. Introduction, results, discussion are presented wisely. Though required some minor modifications and corrections. At first, with regard to the participants of the study, (line number 138, 139) and in outcome measure (line 156, 157) please co-relate the lines. In the outcome measure it is mentioned that, duration of current pregnancy has been taken into account instead of initiation of pregnancy or date of conception which was mentioned earlier in participants. As two of this are two different things, please check and correct the points. There are dissimilarities within the lines. Secondly, Please specify the outcome measures more accurately, particularly which secondary outcome measures are specified for this study besides the primary outcome, not the variables. Thirdly, which variables are used to determine wealth score index please mention specifically. Fourthly, In conclusion, Currently, Bangladesh government has working extensively with family planning even at grass root level along with distribution of family planning instruments to people. Thereby, its solely a work of family planning health professionals, not all health care providers are responsible for this. Please rephrase your conclusion in this viewpoint with more preference on other strategies. Reviewer #2: Comment #1: Abstract: Background: in the Abstract part well written and structured but in your paper abstract background part express a number of studies found the significant association of women’s 3E in maternal health outcomes, but no studies, to the best of knowledge, have been found to justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval. As several studies have revealed that the short birth interval increases the risk of adverse maternal, perinatal and infant outcomes and it is also responsible for increasing the country’s population size, more research is needed on the birth interval. The above two paragraph is controversial and in your manuscript page four starting from paragraph four and the first paragraph of page five talks is several study including Bangladesh justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval so, why you say there is no studies, to the best of knowledge, have been found to justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval? Comment #2: Abstract: Conclusion: In Conclusion part you recommended Policy-making interventions are needed to raise awareness among uneducated, under- empowered and economically poor reproductive women through family planning and fertility control programs so that the country can achieve the desired fertility rate, so say Conclusion and recommendation. Comment #2: Method and Materials: Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 2017-18 data in Study design can you add reference of BDHS? Comment #3: Method and Materials: table 1. Definition and measurements of the variables used in the study based on the 2017-18 BDHS: In the study, the education is converted into two categories: uneducated (no and primary), can we say primary education conclude as uneducated? Comment #4: Method and Materials: what are your study participant’s inclusion and exclusion criteria? Comment #5: Method and Materials: Statistical Analysis: what software uses to enter data and what software used to analysis data? Can you check goodness of fit tests? If you yes by what? You say Covariates having p-value less than 0.2 in the bivariate analysis were considered in the regression models. When you say statistically significant association independent and outcome variable? Please write detail in statistical analysis parts? Comment #6: Method and Materials: Statistical Analysis: Explain how you went from OR to AOR, that is, what did you adjust for? Comment #7: The English must be improved. There are numerous errors. Some words start with a capital letter for no reason. Spelling errors can be corrected using Word spell check. Comment #9: Update references with the most recent Reviewer #3: Thanks for give an opportunity to plos one chief editors to reviewing this article. This research is crucial and appreciated to Empowerment, Education, Economic Status of Women in resource limited in general and Bangladesh in particular. Hence, the study has shown that the 3E in women can contribute in prolonging the duration of subsequent births in Bangladesh. Policy-making interventions are needed to raise awareness among uneducated, under-empowered and economically poor reproductive women through family planning and fertility control programs so that the country can achieve the desired fertility rate. Comments: Minor 1. General English: The review recommends the article be copyedited to improve language and grammar used 2. Better to add in introduction section about what has been done in Can Women’s 3E Index Impede Short Birth Interval? What are the identified gaps? 3. Conclusion so wide, just it should be based on your result only? ****** 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:** Dejen Getaneh Feleke 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer comments PLOS ONE Final.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-15599_reviewer final.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263003.r001
Revision 1
16 Jul 2021 Author Response Journal requirements According to journal requirements, data should be available without restrictions for further justification. The data used in our current study are fully available in the archives of DHS (Demographic and Health Survey) program. The DHS program handles all DHS data. We have downloaded the data after taking permission from DHS program. According to the instructions of the DHS program, data that we downloaded can only be analyzed for our requested research topic, and we are not allowed to share the downloaded data with others. However, anyone can download the dataset from DHS program after completing a simple registration process in the website www.dhsprogram.com. Ethics approval and consent to participate The collection of demographic and health survey data for 2017-18 BDHS was approved by the Institutional Review Board of ICF International, Rockville, MD, USA and Bangladesh Medical Research Council, Dhaka, Bangladesh. The 2017-18 BDHS was implemented under the authority of the National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT) of the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh with financial support from USAID/Bangladesh. Informed consent was obtained from all respondents to the survey prior to questioning. The survey excluded those respondents who did not consent. Response to reviewer 1 Comment 1: “At first, with regard to the participants of the study, (line number 138, 139) and in outcome measure (line 156, 157) please co-relate the lines. In the outcome measure it is mentioned that, duration of current pregnancy has been taken into account instead of initiation of pregnancy or date of conception which was mentioned earlier in participants. As two of this are two different things, please check and correct the points. There are dissimilarities within the lines.” Response: Has been taken into account on Page 8 and 9. Comment 2: “Please specify the outcome measures more accurately, particularly which secondary outcome measures are specified for this study besides the primary outcome, not the variables.” Response: Have been specified on Page 8. Comment 3: “which variables are used to determine wealth score index please mention specifically.” Response: As we are using secondary data extracted from BDHS, 2017-18 data where the variable wealth index score had already been generated, we have added the reference in the manuscript to get detailed information about the variable on Page 10 and in Table 1. Comment 4: “In conclusion, Currently, Bangladesh government has working extensively with family planning even at grass root level along with distribution of family planning instruments to people. Thereby, its solely a work of family planning health professionals, not all health care providers are responsible for this. Please rephrase your conclusion in this viewpoint with more preference on other strategies.” Response: Has been taken care of on Page 29 in Line 470. Response to reviewer 2 Comment 1: “Abstract: Background: in the Abstract part well written and structured but in your paper abstract background part express a number of studies found the significant association of women’s 3E in maternal health outcomes, but no studies, to the best of knowledge, have been found to justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval. As several studies have revealed that the short birth interval increases the risk of adverse maternal, perinatal and infant outcomes and it is also responsible for increasing the country’s population size, more research is needed on the birth interval. The above two paragraph is controversial and in your manuscript page four starting from paragraph four and the first paragraph of page five talks is several study including Bangladesh justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval so, why you say there is no studies, to the best of knowledge, have been found to justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval?” Response: Has been taken care of accordingly. Note that in literature, the variables women’s empowerment, education and economic status were used as covariates separately, whereas in this manuscript the joint effect of these three covariates was considered. Comment 2: “Abstract: Conclusion: In Conclusion part you recommended Policy-making interventions are needed to raise awareness among uneducated, under- empowered and economically poor reproductive women through family planning and fertility control programs so that the country can achieve the desired fertility rate, so say Conclusion and recommendation. ” Response: Has been adjusted accordingly. Comment 2: “Method and Materials: Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 2017-18 data in Study design can you add reference of BDHS?” Response: Reference was added. Comment 3: “Method and Materials: table 1. Definition and measurements of the variables used in the study based on the 2017-18 BDHS: In the study, the education is converted into two categories: uneducated (no and primary), can we say primary education conclude as uneducated? Response: Topics related to maternal and child health care is not included in the curriculum of primary level of education in Bangladesh. Therefore, we considered primary education level in the uneducated group. Comment 4: “Method and Materials: what are your study participant’s inclusion and exclusion criteria?” Response: Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been provided in Figure 1. Comment 5: “Method and Materials: Statistical Analysis: what software uses to enter data and what software used to analysis data? Can you check goodness of fit tests? If you yes by what? You say Covariates having p-value less than 0.2 in the bivariate analysis were considered in the regression models. When you say statistically significant association independent and outcome variable? Please write detail in statistical analysis parts?” Response: The name of the Software has been added on Page 13. The goodness of fit test has also been performed (provided on Page 19) and result is included in Table 4. The reference has been included on Page 13 why p-value less than 0.2 was used. The p-value below 0.10 was used to define statistically significant association which was mentioned on Page 19. Comment 6: “Method and Materials: Statistical Analysis: Explain how you went from OR to AOR, that is, what did you adjust for?” Response: Note that in our manuscript, the term AOR was not used. The raised query in Comment 6 was addressed on Page 13 in Lines 216-217. Comment 7: “The English must be improved. There are numerous errors. Some words start with a capital letter for no reason. Spelling errors can be corrected using Word spell check.” Response: Has been taken care of. Microsoft word office 10 was used to prepare the draft. Comment 9: “Update references with the most recent.” Response: Has been updated. Response to reviewer 3 Comment 1: “The review recommends the article be copyedited to improve language and grammar used.” Response: Has been taken care of. We have used Microsoft Word 2010 version to write this manuscript. Comment 2: “Better to add in introduction section about what has been done in Can Women’s 3E Index Impede Short Birth Interval? What are the identified gaps?” Response: We have slightly modified the Introduction section to adjust this point. Comment 3: “Conclusion so wide, just it should be based on your result only?” Response: Since recommendations have been provided in conclusion section, the conclusion section was so wide. In revised version, we renamed this section as Conclusion and Recommendation. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_Rev2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263003.r002
20 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor PONE-D-21-15599R1Can Women’s 3E Index Impede Short Birth Interval? Evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2017-18PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zahura, 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. One of the reviewers identified some minor concerns those need to be fixed before arriving final decision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 2021 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, Enamul Kabir 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: All comments have been addressed 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: No ****** 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: 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: All comments are addressed. Queries regarding methodology and conclusion has been corrected accordingly. Can procced for publication if other reviewers comments are addressed. Reviewer #2: Comment #1: Abstract: Background: in the Abstract part well written and structured but in your paper abstract background part express a number of studies found the significant association of women’s 3E in maternal health outcomes, but no studies, to the best of knowledge, have been found to justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval. As several studies have revealed that the short birth interval increases the risk of adverse maternal, perinatal and infant outcomes and it is also responsible for increasing the country’s population size, more research is needed on the birth interval. The above two paragraph is controversial and in your manuscript page four starting from paragraph four and the first paragraph of page five talks is several study including Bangladesh justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval so, why you say there is no studies, to the best of knowledge, have been found to justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval? Comment #2: Abstract: Conclusion: In Conclusion part you recommended Policy-making interventions are needed to raise awareness among uneducated, under- empowered and economically poor reproductive women through family planning and fertility control programs so that the country can achieve the desired fertility rate, so say Conclusion and recommendation. Comment #2: Method and Materials: Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 2017-18 data in Study design can you add reference of BDHS? Comment #3: Method and Materials: table 1. Definition and measurements of the variables used in the study based on the 2017-18 BDHS: In the study, the education is converted into two categories: uneducated (no and primary), can we say primary education conclude as uneducated? Comment #4: Method and Materials: what are your study participant’s inclusion and exclusion criteria? Comment #5: Method and Materials: Statistical Analysis: what software uses to enter data and what software used to analysis data? Can you check goodness of fit tests? If you yes by what? You say Covariates having p-value less than 0.2 in the bivariate analysis were considered in the regression models. When you say statistically significant association independent and outcome variable? Please write detail in statistical analysis parts? Comment #6: Method and Materials: Statistical Analysis: Explain how you went from OR to AOR, that is, what did you adjust for? Comment #7: The English must be improved. There are numerous errors. Some words start with a capital letter for no reason. Spelling errors can be corrected using Word spell check. Comment #9: Update references with the most recent ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer comments PLOS ONE Final.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-15599_reviewer final.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263003.r003
Revision 2
26 Sep 2021 Author Response Response to reviewer 2 Comment 1: “Abstract: Background: in the Abstract part well written and structured but in your paper abstract background part express a number of studies found the significant association of women’s 3E in maternal health outcomes, but no studies, to the best of knowledge, have been found to justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval. As several studies have revealed that the short birth interval increases the risk of adverse maternal, perinatal and infant outcomes and it is also responsible for increasing the country’s population size, more research is needed on the birth interval. The above two paragraph is controversial and in your manuscript page four starting from paragraph four and the first paragraph of page five talks is several study including Bangladesh justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval so, why you say there is no studies, to the best of knowledge, have been found to justify the joint influence of women’s 3E on the birth interval?” Response: Has been taken care of accordingly. Note that in literature, the variables women’s empowerment, education and economic status were used as covariates separately, whereas in this manuscript the joint effect of these three covariates was considered. Comment 2: “Abstract: Conclusion: In Conclusion part you recommended Policy-making interventions are needed to raise awareness among uneducated, under- empowered and economically poor reproductive women through family planning and fertility control programs so that the country can achieve the desired fertility rate, so say Conclusion and recommendation. ” Response: Has been adjusted accordingly. Comment 2: “Method and Materials: Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 2017-18 data in Study design can you add reference of BDHS?” Response: Reference was added. Comment 3: “Method and Materials: table 1. Definition and measurements of the variables used in the study based on the 2017-18 BDHS: In the study, the education is converted into two categories: uneducated (no and primary), can we say primary education conclude as uneducated? Response: Topics related to maternal and child health care is not included in the curriculum of primary level of education in Bangladesh. Therefore, we considered primary education level in the uneducated group. Comment 4: “Method and Materials: what are your study participant’s inclusion and exclusion criteria?” Response: Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been provided in Figure 1. Comment 5: “Method and Materials: Statistical Analysis: what software uses to enter data and what software used to analysis data? Can you check goodness of fit tests? If you yes by what? You say Covariates having p-value less than 0.2 in the bivariate analysis were considered in the regression models. When you say statistically significant association independent and outcome variable? Please write detail in statistical analysis parts?” Response: The name of the Software has been added on Page 13. The goodness of fit test has also been performed (provided on Page 19) and result is included in Table 4. The reference has been included on Page 13 why p-value less than 0.2 was used. The p-value below 0.10 was used to define statistically significant association which was mentioned on Page 19. Comment 6: “Method and Materials: Statistical Analysis: Explain how you went from OR to AOR, that is, what did you adjust for?” Response: Note that in our manuscript, the term AOR was not used. The raised query in Comment 6 was addressed on Page 13 in Lines 223-224. Comment 7: “The English must be improved. There are numerous errors. Some words start with a capital letter for no reason. Spelling errors can be corrected using Word spell check.” Response: Has been taken care of. Microsoft word office 10 was used to prepare the draft. Comment 9: “Update references with the most recent.” Response: Has been updated. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_Rev2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263003.r004
11 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor Can Women’s 3E Index Impede Short Birth Interval? Evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2017-18 PONE-D-21-15599R2 Dear Dr. Zahura, 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, Enamul Kabir Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed 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: All comments are addressed. Authors has corrected all the things according to the comment. Manuscript is written in suitable English Reviewer #2: Thank you response for each point in the previous comments, now I see the manuscript detail, so this is a well-intentioned manuscript. Thanks with regards. ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263003.r005
Formally Accepted
17 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor PONE-D-21-15599R2 Can Women’s 3E Index Impede Short Birth Interval? Evidence from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey, 2017-18 Dear Dr. Zahura: 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. Enamul Kabir Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263003.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 .