Impact of parental education on number of under five children death per mother in Bangladesh

Farzana Afroz; Md. Muddasir Hossain Akib; Bikash Pal; Abida Sultana Asha

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318787

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 31, 2024
31 May 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318787.r001
22 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Mohamed R. Abonazel, Editor PONE-D-24-22195Impact of parental education on number of under five children death per mother in BangladeshPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pal, 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 Dec 06 2024 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, Mohamed R. Abonazel, Ph.D. 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 Additional Editor Comments: One reviewer suggested adding some references; please check these references and then add only those references related to the topic of the manuscript or the statistical analysis used in the applied study. 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: The manuscript presents the potential influence of the parental education and some sociodemographic parameters on child mortality in Bangladesh using the BDHS survey 2017-18. The manuscript could add value to the literature and inform the potential health interventions to accelerate the child mortality reduction in Bangladesh. The methods section needs improvement. The results section can be further improved. The specific comments are mentioned in the attached document. Reviewer #2: 1. The "Conclusion" section needs improvement. 2. The paper contains a few grammatical errors. The authors need to review the full text carefully. 3. Recently published papers are relevant to this manuscript, so one or all of them should be cited, such as doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2024.2313594 doi: 10.1017/S0954579424000725 4. In some equations, some symbols are not defined. Please correct this. 5. Add more statistical details about the Zero-Inflated Poisson and Zero-Inflated negative binomial models. See https://scik.org/index.php/cmbn/article/view/5658. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****** 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: MANOJA KUMAR DAS 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: PONE-D-24-22195_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318787.r002
Revision 1
6 Dec 2024 Author Response Authors’ responses to the points raised by the Academic Editor and reviewers First of all, we would like to thank the Academic Editor and the reviewers for reviewing our joint work entitled “Impact of Parental Education on Number of Under Five Children Death Per Mother in Bangladesh” and providing their valuable suggestions about our manuscript. All the suggestions raised by the Academic Editor and reviewers have been addressed in the revised version which are categorically pointed out in the followings. Responses to Reviewer 1: 1. We appreciate the constructive comment regarding the further improvement of the ‘Methods’ and ‘Results’ sections. In response, we have made several improvements to both sections, which are marked in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.’ 2. We are thankful for the comment suggesting that we should specify in the abstract whether our study utilizes a primary or secondary dataset. In response, we have incorporated this information into the abstract that our study utilizes a secondary dataset, specifically extracted from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 2017-18. 3. Based on the suggestion provided, we have added a line (line number 90) at the end of the ‘Introduction’ section to clarify that our study utilizes national survey data from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 2017-18. 4. Regarding the comment on the involvement of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of ICF International, Rockville, Maryland, USA, in the ‘Ethics approval and consent to participate’ section, we would like to clarify that the IRB of ICF International was responsible for reviewing and approving the ethical aspects of the data collection process for the 2017–18 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS). This approval ensured that the survey adhered to ethical guidelines concerning participant consent, confidentiality, and data handling. While ICF International played a key role in overseeing the ethical approval of the entire DHS Program, including the 2017–18 Bangladesh DHS, it was not directly involved in the day-to-day data collection in Bangladesh. The data collected through BDHS was then made available for secondary analysis, which is the dataset we have utilized in our study. 5. We appreciate the comment on the ‘Statistical analysis’ subsection to present the overall approach for the analysis in terms of population distribution, divisions, and others. We would like to clarify that the primary focus of this study is to evaluate the impact of parental education on under-five child mortality across the entire population of Bangladesh, rather than analyzing variations across population distributions or subgroups. To maintain this focus, we prioritized regression modeling as the core analytical approach, specifically utilizing Poisson, zero-inflated Poisson, and zero-inflated negative binomial models. These models allowed us to assess the effects of parental education while controlling for other covariates such as administrative division, place of residence, wealth index, and birth status. 6. We thank the reviewer for the observation regarding the need to specify the types of residence considered in the ‘Results’ section. In response, we have clarified this in the revised text by explicitly stating that urban or rural residency was analyzed and found to be insignificant. 7. Regarding the comment on Socioeconomic Status (SES), it is typically characterized in the DHS dataset and divided based on a wealth index which was originally created through principal component analysis (PCA) using household asset data. This index is based on household asset ownership, type of housing, access to electricity, sanitation, and other living standard indicators. In BDHS 2017-18 dataset, the wealth index was initially categorized into five groups: poorest, poorer, middle, richer, and richest. In this study, we further combined these categories into three groups: poor (poorest and poorer), middle, and rich (richer and richest). 8. In response to the reviewer’s comment regarding the variable ‘Birth status’ in the ‘Results’ section, we would like to clarify that the variable is categorized as follows: mothers who have given birth to more than two children are categorized as ‘Multiple’, while those who have given birth to one or two children are categorized as ‘Single/Double’. This classification is explained at the last line in the ‘Data and Variables’ section of the manuscript. 9. Based on the comment on Table 2 heading, we would like to clarify that the input variables for the regression models are described in detail in the ‘Data and Variables’ subsection of the ‘Methods’ section. In this subsection, we have clearly outlined the response variable (number of under-five children deaths per mother) as well as the explanatory variables such as maternal and paternal education, wealth index, birth status, administrative division, place of residence, exposure to media, and mother's working status. We believe this section adequately addresses the variables used in the models, and we hope this clears up any confusion. 10. Regarding the ‘Region’ variable, we chose Dhaka as the comparator category because it is the capital of Bangladesh and is generally more economically and socially enriched compared to other divisions. By selecting Dhaka as the baseline, we aimed to compare the other divisions/regions against a more developed and resource-rich area. Responses to Reviewer 2: 1. We appreciate the constructive comment regarding the improvement of the ‘Conclusion’ section. In response, several revisions have been made to this section, which are highlighted in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.’ 2. The comment regarding grammatical errors is acknowledged. The full text has been carefully reviewed, and necessary corrections have been made. 3. We appreciate the suggestion to cite recently published papers. However, after reviewing the two papers mentioned, the authors find that they do not align closely with the focus of our study. These papers primarily address effective parenting, whereas our study specifically explores the relationship between parental education and under-five mortality. Since parenting and parental education are distinct concepts, we have chosen not to cite these papers in our work. 4. The issue regarding undefined symbols in some equations has been addressed. All symbols have been appropriately defined, and the corrections are marked in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.’ 5. Additional statistical details about the Zero-Inflated Poisson and Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial models have been included as suggested. The revisions are clearly marked in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.’ Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318787.r003
22 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Mohamed R. Abonazel, Editor Impact of parental education on number of under five children death per mother in Bangladesh PONE-D-24-22195R1 Dear Dr. Pal, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Mohamed R. Abonazel, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: The authors have adequately addressed the comments, and I feel this manuscript is now acceptable for publication. ****** 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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318787.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mohamed Abonazel, Editor PONE-D-24-22195R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pal, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Mohamed R. Abonazel Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318787.r005

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 .