Dear Dr. Afolabi,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

The manuscript provides a well-structured analysis of trends and factors associated with teenage pregnancy and motherhood (TPM) in Nigeria over 15 years. In addition to expert reveweers' feedback, below are some comments for the authors to consider:

• Ensure consistency in terminology
• Ensure sentences make complete sense. For example, ‘This has contributed …’ (line 66). What does ‘this’ refer to? Please, extend this correction to all relevant sections of the manuscript.
• ‘Research has revealed that achieve a reduction in the global population growth rate …’ (lines 90 – 91), is not clear.
• Some sentences are lengthy and could be restructured for clarity.
• Avoid the use of emotive words e.g. ‘serious’
• Where appropriate, use ‘childbirth’ instead of ‘delivery’
• How did previous studies underestimate TPM in Nigeria? It would be helpful to briefly highlight why previous cross-sectional studies may have underestimated TPM burden in Nigeria.
• Line 101:  how will the study contribute to attaining SDG 3?
• A brief explanation of why the decomposition method is particularly suited for TPM analysis would strengthen the rationale, especially, in comparison to previous studies.
• The manuscript highlights important intervention points, but it would benefit from more specific policy recommendations.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 2025 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.

• 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,

Emmanuel O Adewuyi, BPharm, MPH, PhD

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 .

[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?

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

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??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The paper provides the valuable insights into the dynamics of teenage pregnancy in Nigeria and also methodologically sound. in order to improve the manuscript further, the authors should address the following points

1. Teenage pregnancy and motherhood(TPM) should be operationally defined

2.Authors should acknowledge the limitations related to self-reported data and cross sectional nature of the study design

Reviewer #2: Add inclusion and exclusion criteria details, why age range is till 49, what about abouve that age.

Also, authours can add acxess to health case dacility or primary health education, role of family planning services in that area, it should be discussed or assesed through data. Highly appreciated the aim of the study to assess the trends and was also conpare to some extend but what is the outcome, what is next, what is the importance of this trend data, will it be compare with governemnt interventions ?, authors can further add the cimparision disscusion between two stat3s where one has highest numbers of TPM and other has reducing trends in terms of elaborating what majors that other srate has raken to reduce the numbers.

Elaborate the aim in the abstract so that readers can get the main important goal of this study.

Reviewer #3: The paper is overall ineresting, however some comments are necessary:

- In the Abstract I would rather speak of “the limited number of studies”

- lines 105-115 all goes to introduction, two lines maximum can be kept to provide the specific context of the study maybe also changing the paragraph title to include the word "context" although it is not mandatory

- lines 120-1212 eliminate this unnecessary phrase

- In general, the English form needs revising, eliminate spelling mistakes like 20013, 247 and other lines, please choose better vocabulary for scientific purposes.

- Please clarify in the methods why the specific focus on women reporting and reported at least one childbirth, pregnancy termination, or 32 stillbirth before attaining age 20 and not just considering all women experiencing pregnancy in that age class, considering you cite in line 143 “irrespective of whether the pregnancy resulted in childbirth or was voluntarily or involuntarily terminated”. This is a major issue

- State clearly in the methods the age class as there seems to be inconsistency between abstract and manuscript methods. Furthermore, detail on age class needs to go the results section

- You mention “The detail of the ethical approval was reported by Measure DHS”. Please state exactly where it was reported and a reference to find this approval

- The Discussion section is too long, please sum up and leave out inessential concepts

- With regards to lines 315-320, a major role is also played by public health policies and programs in place. Please expand on different public health approaches of these countries so as to add complexity to the understanding of observed differences among these countries

Reviewer #4: The study offers valuable insights into the trends and determinants of teenage pregnancy and motherhood in Nigeria. There are some comments to improve your manuscript:

1. What is the meaning of "media exposure"?

2. How was household wealth status measure?

3. The lines 173-176 are not clear. The method used to define community SES needs more detailed explanation.

4. How was the test for asterisk number in table 2 conducted? Please mention the name of the test and explain the difference between the tests with the reported p-values on the last column of Table 2.

5. Some percentage in lines 290-302 do not exactly match the percentage in Table 3. This may be due to rounding. However, it is suggested that the percentage should be equal to those in Table 3. For example, report 134.7% instead of 134.7% or 5.6 % instead of 5.7%.

6. In Table 3, please report the standard error of the coefficient or the 95% confidence intervals.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Zaibunissa

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Farzane Ahmadi

**********

[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.

Trend and decomposition analysis of factors influencing teenage pregnancy and motherhood in Nigeria, 2003 – 2018.

PONE-D-24-38929R1

Dear Dr. Afolabi,

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,

Emmanuel O Adewuyi, BPharm, MPH, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: 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??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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:  Zeleke Dutamo Agde

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Farzane Ahmadi

**********