Dietary patterns and associated factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria: Evidence from Ibadan pregnancy cohort study

Ikeola A. Adeoye; Akinkunmi P. Okekunle

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273796

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 5, 2022
24 May 2022 Decision Letter - Linglin Xie, Editor PONE-D-22-06619Dietary patterns and associated factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria: Evidence from Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Adeoye, 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 7/23/2022. 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, Linglin Xie 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. 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 [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ******** 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: As you have described, prenatal nutrition impacts birth outcomes and is also an important factor that can potentially be modified. Your research will be beneficial in informing public health education, interventions, and policy. Overall, the paper is well written and succinctly describes your study methods and results. However minor editing of the paper is needed, as in some places words are missing or there are minor grammatical errors (including in lines 91, 103, 127 (unknown what the * references), 130, 158, 163, 211, 360, 372, 374, 40-408, 414, 416, 420, 427, 450). Specific recommendations: • Lines 167-168: Please provide another sentence or two describing how the dietary information was transformed and harmonized • Lines 218-224: To provide clarity for the reader, these results need to have consistency in the format of reporting, particularly related to use of the ( ) and [ ] and mentioning daily and weekly, for example use a format like this in reporting all the results in this paragraph: o [294 (45.5% daily, 898 (51.4% weekly] • Page 18, table 5: Please define “Exotic Diet with alcohol” the term “Exotic Diet” is not described in the manuscript • Lines 389-390: The study did not document that lower education and lower income caused higher alcohol consumption due to low health literacy regarding the adverse effects of alcohol, please redraft the sentence • Line 441: another potential bias is response bias, as the respondents may not have been entirely truthful or may have only wanted to report “good” eating habits in responding to the interviewers’ questions • Line 459-462: identify specific research/manuscript contributions of each individual author ******** 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 [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.0273796.r001
Revision 1
24 Jun 2022 Author Response POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS COMMENTS 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: As you have described, prenatal nutrition impacts birth outcomes and is also an important factor that can potentially be modified. Your research will be beneficial in informing public health education, interventions, and policy. � Thank you Sir Overall, the paper is well written and succinctly describes your study methods and results. � We thank the reviewer for the kind comment. However minor editing of the paper is needed, as in some places words are missing or there are minor grammatical errors (including in lines 91, 103, 127 (unknown what the * references), 130, 158, 163, 211, 360, 372, 374, 40-408, 414, 416, 420, 427, 450). � We are grateful to the reviewer for succinctly pointing our attention to these grammatical errors. The entire manuscript has been revised to ensure clarity in expression and avoid grammatical errors Specific recommendations: • Lines 167-168: Please provide another sentence or two describing how the dietary information was transformed and harmonized We have included the following statements in lines 207 - 237 of the revised manuscript to described how dietary information was harmonized in the revised manuscript. Please the statement below “Details of the food and drink items in the FFQ and how they are classified into food groups are presented in Table 1. For each food or drink, participants reported the frequency of food consumption as follows: once daily, more than once daily (i.e. 2 -3 times daily): once weekly, more than once weekly (i.e. 2 -3 times weekly),): once monthly, more than once monthly (i.e. 2 -3 times monthly). The consumption frequency was harmonised into daily, weekly, monthly and rarely and transformed into the frequency of daily consumption. ” • Lines 218-224: To provide clarity for the reader, these results need to have consistency in the format of reporting, particularly related to use of the ( ) and [ ] and mentioning daily and weekly, for example use a format like this in reporting all the results in this paragraph: o [294 (45.5% daily, 898 (51.4% weekly] � Edited • Page 18, table 5: Please define “Exotic Diet with alcohol” the term “Exotic Diet” is not described in the manuscript � The correct description here is “Typical diet with alcohol”. � We have changed “Exotic Diet with alcohol” to “Typical diet with alcohol” in Table 5 of the revised manuscrip. • Lines 389-390: The study did not document that lower education and lower income caused higher alcohol consumption due to low health literacy regarding the adverse effects of alcohol, please redraft the sentence � We have revised the sentence in lines 571 - 582 of the revised manuscript rephrases the discussion between alcohol intake and literacy. � Additionally, socioeconomic status had a negative association with this dietary pattern, i.e., women with low education and income had a higher consumption of this alcohol-based diet perhaps due to a lack of awareness of the adverse effects of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. A study in Uganda also reported that the availability of cheap alcoholic drinks and its free distribution during celebrations make alcoholic intake common among low income earning women (40) • Line 441: another potential bias is response bias, as the respondents may not have been entirely truthful or may have only wanted to report “good” eating habits in responding to the interviewers’ questions � We have included the following sentence in line 704 -706 the revised manuscript to itemize this unique bias suggested by the reviewer. Thank you. • Line 459-462: identify specific research/manuscript contributions of each individual author � We are grateful to the reviewer for this suggestion. We have included the following statements in lines 710 -713 of the revised manuscript to itemize the contribution of each individual author. Please see the statement below; � Author’s contributions � IAA designed and conducted the study and analyzed the data. IAA and APO interpreted the data and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. IAA and APO reviewed and critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS_plos_dietary.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273796.r002
28 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Linglin Xie, Editor PONE-D-22-06619R1Dietary patterns and associated factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria: Evidence from Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Adeoye, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 11 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, Linglin Xie 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for the revised manuscript and addressing the suggested comments. A number of edits were made, however because of the revisions the manuscript will again benefit from minor English editing. I didn't complete a detailed language review of the entire manuscript, but here are some initial edits I identified in the revised manuscript and there may be others: Line #93, believe the correct word is "other" vs. "over" Line #103, the verb should be "were" vs. "was" Line #106, delete "that Lines #138-139 and #141-143 seem to repeat the same information ****** 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 ******** [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.0273796.r003
Revision 2
29 Jul 2022 Author Response POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS COMMENTS 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for the revised manuscript and addressing the suggested comments. A number of edits were made, however because of the revisions the manuscript will again benefit from minor English editing. I didn't complete a detailed language review of the entire manuscript, but here are some initial edits I identified in the revised manuscript and there may be others: Line #93, believe the correct word is "other" vs. "over" • Replaced with other (line 92 page 4) Line #103, the verb should be "were" vs. "was" • Replaced with were (line 101 page 4) Line #106, delete "that (line 104 page 4) • deleted Lines #138-139 and #141-143 seem to repeat Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS_R2 dietary.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273796.r004
16 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Linglin Xie, Editor Dietary patterns and associated factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria: Evidence from Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort Study PONE-D-22-06619R2 Dear Dr. Adeoye, 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, Linglin Xie Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273796.r005
Formally Accepted
5 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Linglin Xie, Editor PONE-D-22-06619R2 Dietary patterns and associated factors among pregnant women in Ibadan, Nigeria: Evidence from Ibadan Pregnancy Cohort Study Dear Dr. Adeoye: 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. Linglin Xie Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273796.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 .