Determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia based on the 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey: A multilevel analysis

Gossa Fetene Abebe; Melsew Setegn Alie; Desalegn Girma; Gosa Mankelkl; Ashenafi Assefa Berchedi; Yilkal Negesse

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0281038

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 11, 2022
8 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Jamie Males, Editor PONE-D-22-13822A multilevel mixed-effect analysis of determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia; Using the recent 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic health surveyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abebe, 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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. The reviewer has identified a need to provide a clearer explanation of the rationale and motivation for your study, and to clarify aspects of your methods and statistical analyses. Please respond carefully to these and the other points raised by the reviewer when preparing your revisions. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 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, Jamie Males Editorial Office 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 note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. [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: General view: I would say the authors have submitted an important piece of work in its field of relevance. However, I have few suggestions for the authors to improve this manuscript. Title The topic is unattractive. I suggest modification to make the title catchier, attractive and simple. The title has some repetitions. It should be only multilevel not multilevel mixed effect The authors said “2019 Ethiopia mini demographic health survey” which is not the right name of survey Suggested Title “Determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia based on the 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey: A multilevel Analysis” Abstract Method: The authors should be more specific and "in order" in describing the methods. Determinants, associated factors, risk factors, please be specific throughout the document. which one do you think is appropriate considering your study design? “A multilevel mixed logistic regression model” needs to rewritten in a correct way Introduction There are a lot of editorial errors in this section needs to be rewritten. The author stated that “However, those previous studies in Ethiopia were conducted in specific areas with small sample sizes, mainly facility-based and were not nationally representative.” Is this really the case? There are many previous studies conducted with sample sizes and nationally representative (Based on EDHS 2016 may be one example). Hence, I suggest the authors to elaborate more as to why this study is important and what will be the novel contribution of this study. The gap to this study should be clear. Thus, authors need to convince readers that this is additional information. Determinant or factors associated please be consistent with this terminology throughout your document. Is it possible to use both terminologies interchangeably? Methods The author stated “2019 intermediate Ethiopian mini demography and health survey” is this the correct name of the survey? Please be consistent throughout the document The way you define your source and study population were seeming incorrect. Please re define your source and study population. The author stated “in the bivariable two-level binary logistic regression were candidates for multivariable multilevel logistic regression analysis.” Two-level or multi-level you wrote as the two were different and needs to be re-written Sample size determination was not clear. On what criteria does the final sample size was considered. Results Add horizontal line in table, because of your data type it is difficult to see which number corresponding to which variable currently There are a lot of editorial errors in your result. For instance, (the age range of 20-29 (55.2%) years old., 2,691 (91.7) were married, etc) please work on that Discussion The authors should discuss something on the existing policy or programme that target ANC services, and how these findings can be useful for improving the existing programme. The authors should explore more on the relationship between variable. The authors should also show the implications of the results in more informative and practical way. The authors should also follow guideline of the journal for in text and list of references The manuscript has several grammatical and typological flaws that hamper its readability. Align with this journal manuscript submission guideline ****** 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: Temam Beshir Raru ******** [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: Comments and Suggestions_ANC_Plos One.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281038.r001
Revision 1
30 Oct 2022 Author Response Author response to reviewers Dear Editor and Reviewers, Thank you very much for your email dated 8th September 2022 incorporating the insight of the editor and reviewer’s comments. We, authors, would like to express our gratitude to you for the insightful and constructive review that has led to the great improvement of our paper entitled “Multilevel analysis of determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia; using the recent 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic health survey”. We declared that all the data underlying the results presented in the study are publicly available from the Measure DHS website: http://www.dhsprogram.com. We have carefully reviewed the comments given by the reviewer and revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner for the reviewers' comments using the Author response to reviewer form. If you have any concerns to be addressed, we are happy to consider. Best regards! Version 1: PONE-D-22-13822 Date: 10/9/2022 Academic editor comments and a respective author response Editor comment 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 Author’s Response: Thanks very much for this comment. The whole part of the manuscript was updated as per the PLOSE ONE style templates. Editor comment 2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide Author’s Response: Thanks very much for this constructive comment. The comment has been accepted and revision has been made to the “Data availability statement” (See on the cover letter above). Editor comment 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information section. Author’s Response: Thanks a lot dear editor for this insightful comment. We apologize dear editor for the inconvenience that happened when editing the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’. The suggestion of the editor has been fully accepted and corrections have been made in the funding and role of the funder as the author(s) received no specific funding for this work. So the role of the funder is “not applicable”. Reviewer #1 comments and an author response Comments General view: I would say the authors have submitted an important piece of work in its field of relevance. However, I have few suggestions for the authors to improve this manuscript. Title Comment 1: The topic is unattractive. I suggest modifications to make the title catchier, attractive and simple. The title has some repetitions. It should be only multilevel not multilevel mixed effect The authors said “2019 Ethiopia mini demographic health survey” which is not the right name of survey. Suggested Title “Determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia based on the 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey: A multilevel Analysis”. Author’s Response: Thanks very much, dear reviewer, for this insightful comment as well as the suggestion. The comment has been accepted and the title has been updated as suggested (See page 1, lines 1-3). Abstract Comment 2: Method: The authors should be more specific and "in order" in describing the methods. Determinants, associated factors, risk factors, please be specific throughout the document. which one do you think is appropriate considering your study design? Author’s Response: Thanks very much for these constructive comments. The comments have been accepted and corrections have been made in the whole document by “Determinants”. Comment 3: “A multilevel mixed logistic regression model” needs to be rewritten in the correct way. Author’s Response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this insightful comment. The comment has been accepted and corrected as “A multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model” (See page 2, line 31). Introduction Comment 4: There are a lot of editorial errors in this section needs to be rewritten. The author stated that “However, those previous studies in Ethiopia were conducted in specific areas with small sample sizes, mainly facility-based and were not nationally representative.” Is this really the case? There are many previous studies conducted with sample sizes and nationally representative (Based on EDHS 2016 may be one example). Hence, I suggest the authors to elaborate more as to why this study is important and what will be the novel contribution of this study. The gap to this study should be clear. Thus, authors need to convince readers that this is additional information. Author’s Response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for these constructive comments. The comments have been accepted and corrections have been made (See page 6, lines 124-132). Comment 5: Determinants or factors associated please be consistent with this terminology throughout your document. Is it possible to use both terminologies interchangeably? Author’s Response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this insightful comment. The comment has been accepted and correction has been made throughout the document by “Determinants”. Methods Comment 6: The author stated, “2019 intermediate Ethiopian mini demography and health survey” is this the correct name of the survey? Please be consistent throughout the document. Author’s Response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this insightful comment. The comment has been accepted and corrected as “2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey” (See page 7, line 144). Comment 7: The way you define your source and study population were seeming incorrect. Please re define your source and study population. Author’s Response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this insightful comment. The comment has been accepted and an amendment has been made (See page 7, lines 159-163). Comment 8: The author stated “in the bivariable two-level binary logistic regression were candidates for multivariable multilevel logistic regression analysis.” Two-level or multi-level you wrote as the two were different and needs to be re-written Author’s response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this comment. The comment has been accepted and correction has been made (See page 12, line 236). Comment 9: Sample size determination was not clear. On what criteria does the final sample size was considered. Author’s response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this question. In our study, the sample size was determined based on the eligibility criteria set by considering the primary intentions of the study as a pillar (i.e. To determine the magnitude of early initiation of the first ANC visit and its determinants). In the 2019 EMDHS, a total of 8,885 reproductive-age women were selected and interviewed. Of those women, only 3,979 women gave birth in the last five years preceding the survey. Of those women who gave birth, 1,044 study participants didn’t fulfill the inclusion criteria and they were excluded. Lastly, only 2,935 reproductive-age women who fulfill the inclusion criteria were enrolled in our study (See Fig 1). Results Comment 10: Add horizontal line in table, because of your data type it is difficult to see which number corresponding to which variable currently. Author’s response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this comment. The comment has been accepted and corrected as suggested (See all tables). Comment 11: There are a lot of editorial errors in your result. For instance, (the age range of 20-29 (55.2%) years old, 2,691 (91.7) were married, etc) please work on that Author’s response: Thanks very much for this insightful comment. We apologize dear reviewer for the error committed during the edition stage. We accept the comment and appropriate correction has been made (See page 13, line 263) Discussion Comment 12: The authors should discuss something on the existing policy or programme that target ANC services, and how these findings can be useful for improving the existing programme. Author’s response: Thanks very much for this comment and suggestion. The comment has been accepted and correction has been made as recommended (See page 19, lines 334-339). Comment 13: The authors should explore more on the relationship between variable. The authors should also show the implications of the results in more informative and practical way. Author’s response: Thanks very much for this comment. The comment has been accepted and revision has been made accordingly (See pages 23-24, lines 428-436). Comment 14: The authors should also follow guideline of the journal for in text and list of references Author’s response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this insightful comment. The comment has been accepted. We used the guideline of the journal for in-text and a list of references and revision has been made accordingly. Comment 15: The manuscript has several grammatical and typological flaws that hamper its readability. Author’s response: Thanks very much for this constructive comment. We accept the comment and revisions have been made to the whole document to make it grammatically and typologically clear. Comment 16: Align with this journal manuscript submission guideline. Author’s response: Thanks very much dear reviewer for this constructive comment. The comment has been accepted and alignment has been made to the journal manuscript guideline. I reserve any further comments until the authors have substantially revised or justified their comments. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281038.r002
27 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Demisu Zenbaba Heyi, Editor PONE-D-22-13822R1A multilevel mixed-effect analysis of determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia; Using the recent 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic health surveyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abebe, 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 ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact. For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by January 12/2023. 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, Demisu Zenbaba Heyi, MPH 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: (No Response) ******** 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: 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: There are a lot of editorial errors in this section needs to be rewritten. for instance, “As far as the researcher search of pieaces of literature concerned, the is no research assessing the determinants of early initiation…” I suggest the authors to elaborate more as to why this study is important and what will be the novel contribution of this study. ****** 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: Yes: Temam Beshir Raru ******** [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.<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281038.r003
Revision 2
2 Jan 2023 Author Response Author response to reviewers Dear Editor and Reviewers, Thank you very much for your email dated 27th December 2022 incorporating the insight of the editor and reviewer’s comments. We, the authors, would like to express our gratitude to you for the insightful and constructive review that has led to the great improvement of our paper entitled “Multilevel analysis of determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia; using the recent 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic health survey”. We have carefully reviewed the comments given by the reviewer and revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner for the reviewers' comments using the Author’s response to the reviewer form. If you have any concerns to be addressed, we are happy to consider them. Best regards! Version 1: PONE-D-22-13822R1 Date: 12/29/2022 Reviewer #1 comments and an author response Comments Reviewers' comment #1: There are a lot of editorial errors in this section that needs to be rewritten. For instance, “As far as the researcher search of pieces of literature concerned, the is no research assessing the determinants of early initiation…” I suggest the authors to elaborate more as to why this study is important and what will be the novel contribution of this study. Author’s Response: Thank you very much dear reviewer for this valuable comment. We, the authors, accepted the comment and the correction has been made accordingly as indicated by the reviewer (See pages 6-7, lines 121 – 138). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281038.r004
17 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Demisu Zenbaba Heyi, Editor Determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia based on 2019 the Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey: A multilevel Analysis PONE-D-22-13822R2 Dear Dr. Abebe, 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, Demisu Zenbaba Heyi, MPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): accept Reviewers' comments: <quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281038.r005
Formally Accepted
24 Feb 2023 Acceptance Letter - Demisu Zenbaba Heyi, Editor PONE-D-22-13822R2 Determinants of early initiation of first antenatal care visit in Ethiopia based on the 2019 Ethiopia mini-demographic and health survey: A multilevel Analysis Dear Dr. Abebe: 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. Demisu Zenbaba Heyi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281038.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 .