PONE-D-21-29699Determinants of Neonatal Near Miss among Neonates Admitted To Public Hospitals of Southern Ethiopia, 2021: A Case-Control StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Habte,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 12 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Devendra Raj Singh, MSc Health Promotion & Public Health, MA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. 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.

[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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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: 1. Sample size calculation…..

• Why did you take the percentage of cases exposed to old maternal age …….? What is the linkage between your variables

2. Ethical consideration and consent to participate….

• Do you think issuing unique ID numbers ensures confidentiality?

3. SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC…(TABLE 1)

• Age of the mother ….calculate x2

4. Characteristics of the newborns

• Line 4 ……….The majority of cases (80.2%) and controls (314.5%) had a vertex presentation during…. Needs correction.

5. Maternal health service-related characteristic

• How do you measure birth preparedness and complication readiness (BPCR)? To classify the variable as good and poor?

6. Table5. Determinants of NNM among Mothers of neonates admitted in public hospitals in southern Ethiopia, Southern Ethiopia, 2020.

• Why you did not analyzed AOR variables maternal age, family size, sex of the newborn and Having hypertension during the last pregnancy

Reviewer #2: This an interesting paper which clearly indicates the major public health importance Neonatal near miss in the low income country particularly Ethiopia. The paper is worth for publication after correcting the minor comments.

1- There are several grammatical problems throughout the document, which requires extensive English language editing. Professional English editing is needed

2- In the abstract part the authors used introduction, I believe better replace the word introduction by background

3- In the abstract part the authors describe conclusion and recommendation as Stakeholders at the zonal and regional levels need to step up their efforts to address the barriers that prevent health facilities from providing adequate and appropriate care. Furthermore, to prevent major neonatal problems, women who have not had an ANC and who deliver by Cesarean section require closer attention from their family and health care providers. This is general unclear for the reader. Better to make the a bit specific the conclusion and recommendation inline with your findings.

4. In the method part your sampling procedures is very short. would you describe the sampling procedure?

5. I was wondering that if you more explain The pragmatic and management criteria?

6- In the method section, data collection tools, could you more describe more about your measurement instrument validity.

7- In the method part Sampling procedures for the selection of cases you have used consecutive sampling and for the selection of controls systematic sampling is used. what do you think about the generalization?

8- in the data analysis technique you have deal with The Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit test was used to assess the model's fitness. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to check for multicollinearity among independent variables. You should have to put the value obtained from the data analysis output with the respective interpretation.

Reviewer #3: Dear authors thank you very much for writing this very interesting topic. Neonatal mortality in Ethiopia is unacceptably high. These identifying determinant factors of neonatal near miss will be helpful for policy makers and stakeholders. Saying this I have listed my comments below.

Abstract

1. In the Introduction section you define Neonatal near-miss (NNM) between the ages of 0 and 27 days. What about 28 days, in which group of age we called neonates?

2. Rather than saying southern Ethiopia, it is better to write the specific area

3. Why you select unmatched case control study, why not matched case control study?

4. What is third maternal delay, be specific which delay?

5. How do you measure poor birth preparedness and complication readiness?

6. You finding and your conclusion is very far apart. For instance have studied barriers of health facilities? Are studied health care workers at community level, you have listed all in the recommendation. I think it needs rewritten.

Background

1. It needs synthesis, chronologic order

2. Several studies were conducted regarding neonatal near miss, however you were not addressed their limitation and the need of your study.

Sample size determination

1. Very critical why select a study conducted in Brazil to calculate your sample size; there were many of study in Ethiopia?

2. Who select the cases?

Discussion

Well written

Reviewer #4: The manuscript has been written in a detail form. As well, it’s great public health importance. However, correct major problems such as coherence and paragraph structuring, and improve grammar flow. Overall, incorporate the specific comments forwarded in the word document.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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: NNM comments.docx

Determinants of Neonatal Near Miss among Neonates Admitted to Public Hospitals of Southern Ethiopia, 2021: A Case-Control Study

PONE-D-21-29699R1

Dear Dr. Habte,

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,

Devendra Raj Singh, MSc Health Promotion & Public Health, MA

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Dear Author, thank you for submitting the revised version of the manuscript. All of my comments have been addressed.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No