Determinants of chronic energy deficiency among non-pregnant and non-lactating women of reproductive age in rural Kebeles of Dera District, North West Ethiopia, 2019: Unmatched case control study.

BACKGROUND: In Ethiopia about 25% of rural women are chronically malnourished. Non-pregnant and non-lactating women present an opportunity to implement strategies to correct maternal and child health status and to potentiate improved pregnancy outcomes in developing countries like Ethiopia. The determinant factors of chronic energy deficiency vary across settings and contexts; hence, it is important to identify local determinant factors in order to implement effective and efficient intervention strategies.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the determinants of chronic energy deficiency of non-pregnant, non-lactating rural women within the reproductive age group (15-49 years), in rural kebeles of Dera district, North West Ethiopia, 2019.
METHODS: A community based unmatched case control study was conducted. A total of 552 participants were involved and a multi-stage sampling technique was used to select the samples. Data was collected from January 15 to February 30, 2019 using face-to-face interviews and anthropometric assessments. EPI-info version 7 and SPSS™ version 23 were used for data entry and analysis, respectively. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyze the association between dependent and independent variables. Association was considered statistically significant at 95% CI with p-value < 0.05 in multivariable logistic regression. RESULT: A total of 548 non-pregnant, non-lactating women with 137 cases and 411 controls were included in the study with a response rate of 99.3%. High family size (AOR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.085, 3.275), low educational status (AOR = 3.389, 95% CI: 1.075, 10.683), inadequate meal frequency (AOR = 5.345, 95% CI: 2.266, 12.608), absence of home garden (AOR = 5.612, 95% CI: 3.177, 9.915) and absence of latrine facility (AOR = 6.365, 95% CI: 3.534, 11.462) were found positively associated with chronic energy deficiency. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Inadequate meal frequency, absence of home gardening, absence of latrine facility, high family size and educational status of illiterate were the determinants of chronic energy deficiency, thus indicating the imperative for a multi-sectoral approach with health, agriculture and education entities developing and delivering interventions.

Background

Chronic energy deficiency (CED) is a condition of a body characterized by low body weight and low energy stores, possibly limited physical capacity due to deprivation of food over a long period of time with body mass index (BMI) less than 18.5 kg/m2 for adults [1-3]. Chronic energy deficiency is higher among rural women of reproductive age and caused by eating too little or having an unbalanced diet that lacks adequate nutrients.

CED before pregnancy causes major perinatal risks like stillbirths, preterm births, and small for gestational age and low birth weight babies [4-7]. It leads to low productivity among adults and is related to heightened morbidity and mortality [6, 8, 9]. Children of undernourished women are more likely to be undernourished, which can lead to poor cognitive development, shorter stature, and higher risk of morbidity and mortality [9-12].

Under nutrition among non-pregnant women and non-lactating (NPNL) mother is one of the serious public health problems in developing world [1, 13, 14]. Maternal and child under nutrition is the underlying cause of at least 3.5 million deaths each year and constitutes 11% of the total global disease burden [15].

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that nearly one in eight people were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010–2012 with most occurring in developing countries. About 75% of the world’s poor reside in rural areas [16], with Ethiopia, as one of the most populous countries in Africa, having 84% rural population [17].

CED among NPNL women is a major public health problem in Ethiopia, particularly higher in rural parts. The problem is more prevalent in Ethiopia compared with other African countries like Botswana and Tanzania [18, 19].

The past consecutive Ethiopian Demographic Health Surveys (EDHS) showed that a marginal decline in the magnitude of CED among NPNL women (aged 15–49 years) at 30.5%, 26.9%, 27% and 21.4% in 2000, 2005, 2011, and 2016 EDHS, respectively [13].

To address such problems Ethiopia has adopted the national nutrition program (NNP) to empower women, and development partners are committed to improving the nutritional impacts of women in the country [20].

Different studies showed that the determinant factors of CED varied [18, 21]. Factors, such as age, occupation, meal frequency, health status, marital status, educational status, residence, number of parity and food insecurity, are some of the causes of CED in non-pregnant women [18, 21–23].

This study focused on the Amhara Region of Ethiopia, which according to EDHS 2016, had a reported prevalence of CED of 23% [24]. Among the regions, women in Amhara, were the fifth most affected by chronic energy deficiency [13, 20, 24–27]. So the aim of conducting this study in Dera District was to determine specific local determinants of CED among NPNL women of a rural area. Knowing these determinant factors may inform effective and efficient intervention strategies. So conducting this research was important to plan and develop prevention strategies of chronic energy deficiency among NPNL women that are specific and responsive to women in the Amhara Region.

Methods and materials

Study area and period

This study was conducted in rural kebeles of Dera District, South Gondar Zone between January15 to February 28/2019. Dera District is one of the 15 districts in South Gondar Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Dera Districts is located at 608 km northwest of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia and 42 km from Bahir Dar capital city of Amhara region. The District has a total population of 293,071 of a 2011 Ethiopian physical year projection (male 147,122 and female 145,949) in 68,140 households. Among the total population 67,832 were non-pregnant women in the reproductive age group. It is subdivided into 11 clusters /37 Kebeles/ with a specified number of Kebeles /local administrative units/ and health posts for each cluster. There are 11 public health centers and 38 health posts with at least 2 health extension workers in each community health post to provide basic primary health care services [28]. Agricultural products like maize, millet, wheat, teff, sorghum and fruits like mango, banana and orange are cultivated in most parts of the District.

Study design

A community based unmatched case control study design was employed.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

All NPNL women in the reproductive age group (15–49 years) who have lived within the Amhara Region for more than 6 months were included in the sample. Women with mental problems and/or were unable to communicate during data collection were excluded from the study.

Sample size determination

The sample size was calculated using Epi Info version 7.2.1.1 by considering the following assumptions: The proportion of individuals’ who spent greater than 30 minute to fetch drink water was 38.2% among controls exposed and 59.4% among cases exposed [29], 95% Confidence level, 80% power, case to control ratio of 1:3, 10% for non-response rate & design effect of 2. The total sample size was 552 (138 cases and 414 controls).

Sampling procedure

A multistage sampling technique was used to conduct this study. In the first stage, from a total of 37 kebeles in the district, seven kebeles were selected using lottery method. Then, the total sample size was allocated proportionally to each kebele. Preliminary survey was conducted and anthropometric data was obtained from 6506 NPNL women in the selected Kebles. After cases and controls were identified, NPNL women had got identification number registered sequentially. Finally, both cases and controls were selected by simple random sampling from the preliminary censuses data by computer generating system.

Data collection tools and procedures

The data was collected using interview administered structured and pre-tested questionnaire which includes socio-demographic, hygiene and sanitation, maternal and diet related factors adapted from previous studies [13, 18, 21, 29] by well trained and experienced ten diploma nurse data collectors and three BSc nurse supervisors.

The Dietary Diversity Score (DDS) was calculated from a single 24 hour recall prior to data collection. All foods consumed in a day before study was grouped in- to nine categories and consuming a food item from any of the groups was assigned a score of 1 and if no food was taken a score of 0 was given. Accordingly, a DDS of up to 9 points was computed by adding the scores which were classified as low (≤3), medium (4–6) and high (7–9) [30].

Nutritional status of non- lactating and non-pregnant women was screened by measuring height and Weight and calculating BMI. Height of women aged 15–49 years and who are NPNL was measured using height scale. The women standing upright with bare foot and the women’s heads, shoulders, buttocks, knees and heels were made to touch the height scale. The reading was recorded to the nearest 0.1cm. Weight of study participants were measured with minimum/light/clothing and no shoes with the reading recorded to the nearest 0.1 kg [31]. Women with a BMI of less than 18.5kg/m2 were considered as exhibiting chronic energy deficiency [1, 32].

Data quality control

The questionnaire was translated to local language (Amharic) and back to English for consistency (See S1 File). Pre-testing was done within 28 individuals at a place where the actual data collection was not conducted. Data collectors and supervisors were trained for 2 days. Calibration of instruments was conducted before every women measurement of weight by weighing standard weight and by using standard measuring instrument. On spot checking and correction was made for incomplete questionnaires by the supervisor. The overall data collection process was controlled by the principal investigator.

Data analysis

The data was coded, cleaned and entered into Epi Info Version 7 and exported to SPSS™ version 23 for analysis. Outcome variable was dichotomized into 1 = cases and 0 = controls. Descriptive statistics were computed and the result was reported using tables, figures and charts. Bi-variable logistic regression was executed and variables with p < 0.25 were fitted to the final multivariable logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders to identify the determinants of chronic energy deficiency among none pregnant and none lactating women. In the final model, variables with P-value < 0.05 were considered as statistically significant and AOR of 95% CI was used to see the strength of association. Multicollinearity between the independent variables was also assessed using multiple linear regressions. No evidence of multicollinearity was found as the variance inflation factor (VIF) for all variables was less than 10. Model fitness was checked by Hosmer& Lemshow test and it was non-significant with p-value of 0.4, which show that the model was fit.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical clearance was obtained from the institutional review board of Wollo University. A permission letter was obtained from Dera District Health Office and from kebele leaders. Further, study participants were briefed about the main objective of the study. Participants were informed that they have the full right to refuse to participate in the study or can interrupt/withdraw if they want. Confidentiality of the information was assured and the privacy of the study participants was respected and kept as well. Written informed consent was obtained from each study participant and/or from parents/guardians of <18 years old study participants. At the last nutritional counseling were given to women who were chronic energy deficient and over weighted.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

A total of 548 NPNL women with 137 cases and 411 controls were included in the study with a response rate of 99.3%. The mean age of the study participants was 29.4 ± SD 6.73 years of age. About 485(88.5%) of the respondents were married. About two thirds, 354 (64.6%) of respondents cannot read and write (Table 1).

Table 1

Socio demographic and economic characteristics of non-pregnant non lactating women of reproductive age in rural Dera District population, Northwest Ethiopia, 2019.

Variables	Cases	Controls	Total N (%)
	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)
Age of respondents
15–24	25(18.2)	102(24.9)	127(23.2)
25–34	63(46.0)	199(48.4)	262(47.8)
35–49	49(35.8)	110(26.7)	159(29.0)
Marital status
Married (living with partner)	123(89.8)	362(88.1)	485(88.5)
Living with no partner*	14(10.2)	49(11.9)	63(11.5)
Educational status of women
Cannot write and read	99(72.3)	258(62.8)	357(65.2)
Can write and read	32(23.4)	70(17.0)	102(18.6)
Primary education above	6(4.4)	83(20.2)	89(16.2
Head of house hold
Husband	126(92.0)	376(91.5)	502(91.6)
Women	11(8.0)	35(8.5)	46(8.4)
Educational status of house hold head
Cannot write and read	103(75.2)	251(61.1)	354(64.6)
Can write and read	29(21.2)	121(29.4)	150(27.4)
Primary education and above	5(3.6)	39(9.5)	44(8.0)
Monthly income of the house hold
<1000 ETB	86(62.8)	170(41.4)	256(46.7)
1000–2500 ETB	46(35.6)	218(53.0)	264(48.2)
>2500 ETB	5(3.6)	23(5.6)	28(5.1)
Family size
<5	69(50.4)	284(69.1)	353(64.4)
≥5	68(49.6)	127(30.9)	195(36.6)

Hygiene and sanitation characteristics of characteristics

Among the respondents, 274(50%) used open defecation. Only 23 (16%) of the cases and 251(61%) of the controls used latrine. Only 184(33.6%) of the respondents used water from a safe source (protected well and tap water) with a mean fetch time to collect water in minute of 14.56 ± 10.8 (SD) (Table 2).

Table 2

Hygiene and sanitation characteristics of NPNL women in the reproductive age group in Dera population, Northwest, Ethiopia, February 2019.

Variables	cases	Controls	Total N (%)
	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)
Latrine facility
Yes	23(16.8)	251(61.1)	274(50.0)
No	114(83.2)	160(38.9)	274(50.0)
Latrine utilization
Yes	23(16.8)	249(60.6)	272(49.6)
No	114(83.2)	162(39.4)	276(50.40
Hand washing after latrine
Yes	20(14.6)	163(39.7)	183(33.4)
No	117(85.4)	248(60.3)	365(66.6)
Drinking water source
Protected	41(29.9)	143(34.8)	184(33.5)
Un protected	96(70.1)	268(65.2)	364(66.4)
Time to fetch drink water
≤30minute	131(95.6)	389(94.6)	520(94.9)
>30 minute	6(4.4)	22(5.4)	28(5.1)
Treatment of water
Yes	5(3.6)	40(9.0)	45(8.2)
No	132(96.4)	371(91.0)	503(91.8)

Women reproductive history and respondent characteristics on illness

Among 548 women, about 319 (60.4%) respondents were married before the age of 18 years and 20 of the respondents were single in marital status. About 449 (81.9%) used family planning and the coverage were 81.8% among cases and 82% from controls (Table 3).

Table 3

Illness and reproductive history of NPNL women in the reproductive age group in rural Dera population, Northwest, Ethiopia, February 2019.

Variables	Cases	Controls	Total N (%)
	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)
Age at first marriage
≥ 18yrs	45(33.6)	164(41.6)	209(39.6)
<18yrs	89(66.4)	230(58.4)	319(60.4)
Family planning use
Yes	112(81.8)	337(82.0)	449(81.9)
No	25(18.2)	74(18.0)	99(18.1)
Gravidity
1–2	38(30.6)	149(41.0)	187(38.4)
3–4	41(33.1)	105(28.9)	146(30.0)
≥5	45(36.3)	109(30.0)	154(31.6)
Parity
1–2	41(33.1)	155(43.1)	196(40.5)
3–4	44(35.4)	108(30.0)	152(31.4)
≥5	39(31.5)	97(26.9)	136(28.1)
History of ANC follow up
Yes	101(73.7)	326(89.8)	427(87.7)
No	23(16.8)	37(10.2)	60(12.3)
History of illness in the past 1month
Yes	5(3.6)	15(3.6)	20(3.6)
No	132(96.4)	396(96.4)	528(96.4)

Dietary habit of respondents

About 503(91.8%) of respondents reported eating three or more meals per day regularly which was 78.8% among cases and 96.1% among controls. About 207 (58.5%) of respondents had no home gardening (Table 4).

Table 4

Dietary habits of NPNL women in the reproductive age group in Rural Dera population, Northwest, Ethiopia, February 2019.

Variables	Cases	Controls	Total N %)
	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)
Meal frequency per day
≥ 3 meals per day	108(78.8)	395(96.1)	503(91.8)
< 3 meals per day	29(21.2)	16(3.9)	45(8.2)
Presence of home gardening
Yes	30(21.9)	251(61.1)	281(51.3)
No	107(78.1)	160(38.9)	267(48.7)

Diet diversity score of respondents

Two thirds of the respondents 346(63.1%) had medium DDS from the 9 food groups in the past 24 hours, while 178(32.5%) of the women had low DDS (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Diet diversity score of non-pregnant non-lactating women in rural kebeles of Dera District, February 2019.

Determinants of CED among non-pregnant women & non-lactating mother

The result of bi-variable analysis showed a significant association between CED and age at first marriage, family size, women diet diversity, presence of home garden, women meal frequency, latrine facility, history of ANC follow up, educational status of the women and the house hold head at a p-value of 0.25.

However, in multivariable logistic regression analysis only family size, absence of home garden, low educational status of women, absence of latrine facility, and inadequate meal frequency was significantly associated with CED.

NPNL women, who cannot read and write, were 3.4 times more likely to be chronic energy deficiency than women who completed primary education (AOR = 3.39; 95%CI: 1.08, 10.68). NPNL women who had no home garden were 5.6 times more likely to be chronically energy deficient than women who had home gardens (AOR = 5.61; 95%CI: 3.18, 9.92). NPNL women with meal frequency <3 meals per day were more than 5 times more likely to be chronic energy deficient than women with meal frequency ≥3 meals per day (AOR = 5.35; 95%CI: 2.27, 12.61). NPNL women without latrine facilities had 6.4 times higher odds of CED than women who had latrine facility (AOR = 6.37; 95%CI: 3.53, 11.46). According to this study, NPNL women with family size ≥5 were 1.89 times more likely to be chronically energy deficient than those with family size less than five (AOR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.09, 3.28) (Table 5).

Table 5

Logistic regression of nutritional status (BMI) and predictors among women of reproductive age in rural Dera District population, Northwest, Ethiopia, 2019.

Explanatory Variables	Nutritional status		Odds ratio (95% CI)
	Cases	Control	COR	AOR
Age at first marriage
≥18	45(33.6%)	164(41.6%)	1	1
<18	89(66.4%)	230(58.4%)	1.41(1.14, 2.13)	1.14(0.65, 1.99)
Family size
<5 family	69(50.4%)	284(69.1%)	1	1
≥5 family	68(49.6%)	127(30.9%)	2.20(1.49, 3.27)	1.89(1.09, 3.28)
DDS
Low	79(57.6%)	97(23.6%)	4.18(1.37, 12.71)	3.25(0.79, 13.42)
Medium	52(38.0%)	294(71.6%)	0.88(0.29, 2.69)	0.67(0.16, 2.74)
High	6(4.4%)	20(4.8%)	1	1
Home garden
Yes	30(21.9%)	251(61.1%)	1	1
No	107(78.1%)	160(38.9%)	5.59(3.57, 8.78)	5.61(3.18, 9.92)
Number of meal per day
≥3 meals	108(78.8%)	395(96.1%)	1	1
<3 meals	29(21.2%)	16(3.9%)	6.63(3.47, 12.65)	5.35(2.27, 12.61)
Latrine facility
Yes	23(16.8%)	251(61.1%)	1	1
No	114(83.2%)	160(38.9%)	7.78(4.76, 12.69)	6.37(3.53, 11.46)
Educational status
Cannot write read	99(77.3%)	258(62.8%)	5.31(2.25, 12.55)	3.39(1.08, 10.68)
Can write & read	32(23.4%)	70(17.0%)	6.32(2.50, 15.99)	4.12(1.19, 14.16)
Primary & above	6(4.3%)	83(20.2%)	1	1
History of ANC
Yes	101(81.4%)	326(89.3%)	1	1
No	23(18.6%)	39(10.7%)	1.90(1.09, 3.34)*	0.86(0.40, 1.85)

Discussion

Under nutrition is a critical condition, and it is evident that the condition is higher among rural women of reproductive age, which is the single largest contributor to the burden of disease in low and middle income countries impacting social and economic development. CED among women is also a major risk factor for adverse birth outcomes. Although reducing under nutrition with a purview to addressing the determinants of chronic energy deficiency, progress in reducing under nutrition remains slow in Ethiopia [14, 29, 33]. According to this study, statistically significant predictor variables were high family size, educational status of women, meal frequency, absence of home gardens, and absence of latrine facilities.

NPNL women with meal frequency <3 meals per day were more than 5 times affected by chronic energy deficiency than that of women with meal frequency≥3 meals per day. This positively associated result was consistent with studies conducted in Kunama (Tigray), Debretabor (Amhara) & Asayita (Afar) respectively [21, 22, 29]. However, meal frequency did not show statistical significant association with under nutrition in a study done among Bangladesh women of reproductive age [34]. This variation may be due the residence and feeding habit differences.

Another important determinant of CED was women’s educational status. NPNL women who cannot read &write, were 3.4 times more likely to be chronic energy deficient than women who complete primary education and above. This trend may reflect how women without formal education may not have awareness about health & nutrition related issues which undermine their wellbeing and nutritional status. Worldwide studies also showed that being educated is negatively associated with underweight and positively associated to be overweight [18, 35–38].

In India and Bangladesh rural women without formal education were more affected by chronic energy deficiency than women with primary education and above [14, 38]. Similarly studies in African countries like Tanzania, Botswana and Arssi, Ethiopia [18, 19, 23]. However, studies conducted in Tigray Region, Kunama Districts showed that education was not statistically -associated with underweight [29], which might reflect variance in population which included both urban and rural women.

NPNL women without access to latrine facilities had 6.4 times higher odds of CED than women who had latrine facility access. This finding may be due to women lacking latrines being exposed to fecal-oral infections which, in turn, lead to under nutrition. Similar findings were reported from studies conducted in Addis Ababa and Arssi, Ethiopia [20, 23].

Another statistically significant environmental determinant was availability of home gardens. NPNL women who had no home gardens were 5.6 times more likely to be CED than women who had home gardens. This might be due to women who had home gardening would have chance of eating diversified food regularly and may contribute to appropriate weight. This finding was consistent with prior studies in Cambodia, Nepal, and Philippines [39, 40].

According to this study, Non pregnant and non-lactating women with family size ≥5 were 1.88 times more likely to be chronically energy deficient than those with family size less than five. High family size in rural communities may increase women’s work load. In Ethiopian, rural women have role as mothers and housewives, with a range of responsibilities like food preparation, agricultural activities, fetching water, and wood for cooking. This intense workload might increase the energy consumption of the body leading to exhaustion. This study is consistent with previous research conducted in China and Oromia Region of Ethiopia [41, 42]. The present study has some limitation. First, portion size of the meal was not assessed which may have added a measure of the actual amount of food consumed by NPNL women take. Second, this study used WHO BMI cut off points which may lead it to misclassification.

Conclusion

High family size, inadequate women meal frequency, low women educational status, absence of home garden & absence of latrine facility were determinant factors that increase chronic energy deficiency of NPNL women in rural Kebeles of Dera District. Thus multi- sectorial approach intervention with agriculture and education offices should be considered to tackle CED. We also recommend other researchers to consider sustained research agenda which included other researchers, better to address socio- cultural issues related to nutrition.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

17 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-26032

Determinants of chronic energy deficiency among non-pregnant and non-lactating women of reproductive age in rural Kebeles of Dera district, North West Ethiopia, 2019: Unmatched case control study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dagne,

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.

An expert in the field handled your manuscript, and we are very thankful for their time and efforts. Although interest was found in your study, some comments arose that require your attention. Please address ALL of the reviewer's comments in your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 01 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. In the Methods, please discuss whether and how the questionnaire was validated. If this did not occur, please provide the rationale for not doing so.

4. Please discuss the following publication in your manuscript: https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-015-0005-y

5. 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.

6. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

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: I Don't Know

**********

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: 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: Line 120-121: what is the basis for considering women with a BMI of less than 18.5 km/m2 as chronic energy deficiency. Are there any references?

Table 4, Does presence of home gardening affect dietary habits?

Did the author collect other dietary habits such as hand washing before eating, with regular quantitative meal daily or not?

**********

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.

5 Oct 2020

Response to Reviewers

Academic editor:

1. Please discuss whether and how the questionnaire was validated. If this did not occur, please provide the rationale for not doing so.

- The questionnaire was adapted after reviewing previous literatures done on similar title. We have cited the references in line -109. Anthropometric measurements (height and weight) were done based on WHO standards (line 121). DDS of the study participants was collected based on Food and agriculture organization (FAO) guide line to measurement minimum dietary diversity for women(line 111- 115).

2. Discuss the following publication: https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-015-0005-y.

The above publication is used and discussed in the manuscript. Check line 226. In this study, meal frequency was one determinant factor for CED among study participants.

3. Regarding participant consent (<18 years), Participants were informed that they have the full right to refuse to participate in the study or can interrupt/withdraw if they want. Confidentiality of the information was assured and the privacy of the study participants was respected and kept as well. Written informed consent was obtained from each study participant and/or from parents/guardians of <18 years old study participants (line 148-152).

Reviewer #1:

1. Line 120-121: what is the basis for considering women with a BMI of less than 18.5 kg/m2 as chronic energy deficiency? Are there any references?

- According to the report of a working party of the International Dietary Energy Consultative Group, BMI of less than 18.5 kg/m2 among adults is considered as chronic energy deficiency. I have cited the reference in line 122-123.

2. Tables 4, Does presence of home gardening affect dietary habits? Did the author collect other dietary habits such as hand washing before eating, with regular quantitative meal daily or not?

- We have check multicollinearity between all independent variables. Variance inflation factor was (VIF) below 10. Therefore, presences of home gardening do not affect dietary habits (line 140-142).

- We did not collect information on hand washing before eating and portion size of meal. We have mentioned these as a limitation (line 258-260). We rather collect information on access to safe drinking water and latrine facility including hand washing after toilet. We indirectly try to assess the hand washing habit of the study participants (S3- questionnaire).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Oct 2020

Determinants of chronic energy deficiency among non-pregnant and non-lactating women of reproductive age in rural Kebeles of Dera district, North West Ethiopia, 2019: Unmatched case control study

PONE-D-20-26032R1

Dear Dr. Dagne,

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,

Frank T. Spradley

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 #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: I Don't Know

**********

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: the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and I have no further comments.

**********

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

19 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-26032R1

Determinants of chronic energy deficiency among non-pregnant and non-lactating women of reproductive age in rural Kebeles of Dera district, North West Ethiopia, 2019:  Unmatched case control study

Dear Dr. Dagne:

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. Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE