Parent reports of children's emotional and behavioral problems in a low- and middle- income country (LMIC): An epidemiological study of Nepali schoolchildren.

BACKGROUND: As epidemiological data on child mental health in low- and middle-income countries are limited, a large-scale survey was undertaken to estimate the prevalence and amount of child emotional and behavioral problems (EBP) in Nepal as reported by the parents.
METHODS: 3820 schoolchildren aged 6-18 years were selected from 16 districts of the three geographical regions of Nepal, including rural, semi-urban and urban areas. We used the Nepali version of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)/6-18 years as screening instrument. Comparisons of child problems between genders and between the seven largest castes and ethnic groups were carried out by analysis of variance. Prevalence was computed based on American norms.
RESULTS: Adjusted prevalence of Total Problems was 18.3% (boys: 19.1%; girls:17.6%). The prevalence of internalizing problems was higher than externalizing problems. The mean scores of Total, Externalizing, and Internalizing problems were 29.7 (SD 25.6), 7.7 (SD 8.0), and 9.1 (SD 8.1), respectively. The Khas Kaami (Dalit) group scored the highest, and the indigenous Tharu group scored the lowest on all scales. In the Mountains and Middle Hills regions, problem scores were higher in the rural areas, whereas in the Tarai region, they were higher in the urban areas.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence and magnitude of emotional and behavioral problems in Nepali children were found to be high compared to findings in meta-analyses worldwide. Problem scores varied according to gender, castes /ethnic groups, and living areas. Our findings highlight the need for a stronger focus on child mental problems in a low-and middle-income country like Nepal.

Introduction

One third of the world’s population are children, with the vast majority living in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) [1]. Many mental disorders start during childhood and adolescence [2, 3]. Early psychiatric disorders may have a huge effect on children’s lives and on the functioning of their families [4]. Several studies have pointed to early identification and treatment of these disorders as key factors for improved prognosis [5]. However, in many LMICs, mental health conditions and disabilities in children have largely gone unrecognized, and early interventions and appropriate service designs for child mental health problems are lacking. [3, 6, 7]. Epidemiological studies may enable the assessment of service needs in LMICs as well as the identification of high-risk groups needing special attention.

A recent review on the global coverage of prevalence data for mental disorders in children aged 5–17 years reported that most of the LMICs had no data on any kind of mental disorders. It further reported that many LMICs were poorly represented in the available data; for example, no region in sub-Saharan Africa had more than 2% coverage for any disorder [8]. Although sparse, previous research in LMICs suggests that child and adolescent mental health problems are common. A systematic review in non-referred samples from LMICs showed a prevalence of about 10–20% in most of the 16 surveys, which is consistent with findings from high income countries (HIC) [3].

A former meta-analysis of 51 Asian countries reported a general prevalence of 10–20% [9]. In the South Asian countries, studies on child mental health are sparse and their quality varies. In India, a review study involving both school-based and community-based studies, reported a prevalence of 23.3% in the school-based studies and 6.5% in the community-based studies. The discrepancy was probably due to several methodological and sample factors in the latter studies [10]. In a systematic review from Bangladesh, the prevalence of mental disorders was found to range from 13.4% to 22.9% among children aged 2–16 [11]. In Pakistan, a study among school children aged 6–16 reported a prevalence of 15.9% of behavior problems and 22.5% of emotional problems [12]. In another LMIC country, Iran, a community-based study of children aged 6–17 reported a prevalence rate of 16.7% of total difficulties [13]. In China, a recent, large-scale epidemiological study in the Sichuan Province reported an overall prevalence of 19.1% of child mental disorders [14].

For Nepal, we do not know the prevalence or magnitude of emotional and behavioral problems (EBP) in the child population as no larger studies have been published internationally. However, an unpublished Nepali PhD dissertation from 2007 on teacher-reported problems of children aged 6–18, using the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ) as screening instrument, suggested a prevalence rate of 24.5% [15]. Recently, a pilot study of a national mental health survey for Nepal was carried out which included adults and adolescents aged 13–17 years [16]. Using a diagnostic instrument (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview- MINI), the prevalence of mental disorders in this age group was found to be 11.2%. However, broader and more robust survey studies of EBP in Nepali child population comprising several age groups are warranted in order to fill the knowledge gap [17]. The present study is the first large-scale survey of child EBP in a broader age group (6–18 years) that is published internationally.

Although epidemiological studies have consistently identified different types of emotional and behavioral problems for boys and girls [18] there has been little research examining gender differences in child EBP in LMICs, including Nepal [19]. Most of the studies done in Nepal suggest higher rates of behavior problems in boys than in girls with boys having more externalizing problems and girls having more internalizing problems [15, 20, 21]. However, a broader, nationwide sample comprising children of all age groups is needed to confirm these findings.

It should be noted that in many LMICs, the population is multi-ethnic. Internationally, cross-cultural studies have shown that different cultural contexts might play a role in the prevalence and types of child mental problems as culture both defines and creates specific sources of distress [3, 22]. In cross-cultural studies, parents’ interpretation and rating of child problems have been shown to differ across cultures, resulting in differences in the prevalence of child mental health problems [23, 24]. A large, cross-cultural study from 45 societies nested within 10 culture clusters reported that society plus culture cluster accounted for about 10% of the variance in parents’ ratings of children’s problems [25]. Although other factors than culture may play a more important role in ratings of child EBP than society and culture, culture’s influence on parents’ ratings of child problems are still important to investigate, particularly for the planning of child psychiatric services and for clinical interventions, especially so in the less investigated LMICs. In the present study, we therefore decided to explore possible within-country cultural differences by comparing EBP between the seven largest castes and ethnic groups.

As Nepal is a highly heterogeneous country not only culturally but also when it comes to geography/ ecology and types of living areas, we decided to compare the magnitude of EBP between the main geographic/ecological regions of the country and between the different types of settlements / living areas (rural, semi-urban and urban). By including within-country diversity in our study, we were able to capture a more nuanced picture of the distribution of EBP in the general Nepali child population. Living conditions in the geographic regions of Nepal differ, being harsher in the Mountains region [26], which might influence child mental health. Hence, assessing and comparing the magnitude child EBP between the three main regions of Nepal might be of interest to the authorities in their planning of mental health services. Internationally, several studies have demonstrated that types of living areas might have an impact on child mental health problems [20, 27, 28], but till date, no nationwide study in Nepal has examined and compared child EBP between different types of living areas.

The specific aims of the present study were to assess the prevalence and magnitude (mean scores) of parent reported EBP in Nepali school children aged 6–18. To examine within-country diversity, we compared child problems between a) castes/ethnic groups, b) geographic regions, and c) types of living area. Finally, we looked for gender differences in EBP.

Materials and methods

Study site and population

Nepal has a population of 29.6 million people (2021) and is topographically divided into three regions: The Himalaya (Mountain Region) to the North, the Middle Hills region, and the Tarai (the Southern flatland). There are 16 districts in the Mountain Region, 39 districts in the Middle Hills and 20 districts in the Tarai region. According to the Nepali demographic-social census [26], children below 18 years of age represent 44.4% of the total population: 22.5% boys and 21.9% girls. There are 126 different castes and ethnic groups. The term “caste” basically refers to a group of people who follows Hinduism. Traditionally, Hindu castes are ranked hierarchically in the following order of social status: (1) Brahmins (highest class), (2) Chhetri, (3) Vaishya, and (4) Sudra, also called Dalit (lowest class). The other ethnic groups in Nepal are indigenous nationalities and tribes, known collectively as the Janajati / Adivasi group. They have their own traditional cultures and specific languages, and do not necessarily adhere to, or fall under the Hindu caste system. According to the census [26], the seven largest castes and ethnic groups are: Chhetri 16.6%, followed by Brahmin-Hill 12.2%, Magar 7.1%, Tharu 6.6%, Tamang 5.8%, Newar 5%, and Khas Kaami (the largest group of Dalits) 4.8% [26]. The Magar, Tharu, Tamang, and Newar all belong to the Janajati/Adivasi indigenous group.

Study design

The present study is a cross-sectional, cross-cultural epidemiological study in the general child population of Nepal.

Subjects and procedure

Sampling method

Based on the population distribution of the three main ecological/geographic regions of Nepal (i.e. 8% of the total population in the Mountain region, 45% in the Middle Hills region, and 48% in the Tarai region), we purposively selected three districts from the Mountain region, and six districts each from the Middle Hills and the Tarai regions. As our study includes an examination of child problems in different castes and ethnic groups, we wanted to ensure a high number of participants in each of these groups. Hence, Kathmandu district was added to the sample because of its multi-cultural population. In all, 16 districts were purposively selected from all over the country. Next, we purposively selected four schools in each district (two government schools and two private schools) based on accessibility and feasibility–i.e. a total of 64 schools in the 16 districts. Our study is a large, countrywide study and required an extensive amount of time and money to accomplish. The purposive sampling technique was chosen for cost effectiveness and for ease of data collection and travels. Students from grades 1 to 10 with six students in each grade (three boys and three girls), were then randomly selected using random number tables. Thus, in each district, 240 children were selected, which gave a total of 3840 children.

Procedure

All schoolchildren aged 6–18 were eligible for this general population study, irrespective of their caste and ethnic background. In Nepal, children from all castes, religions and ethnic groups are admitted to the regular schools. Hence, recruiting parents through the regular school system would provide a reasonable cross-section of the child population. Only regular schools were included (i.e. both governmental and private schools), whereas the very few special education schools for children with severe disabilities and faith-based schools representing minor, more segregated groups were excluded. Children’s caste and ethnic belongings were classified according to their parents’ own definition.

Twenty research assistants (RA) with a bachelor’s degree in education / psychology collected the data, and seven supervisors with a master’s degree in education or in psychology and experience in data collection work supervised them. Before commencing their work, they all followed an intensive three days’ training program administered and led by the researcher (first author) which included orientation about the research project and the instruments, their own role and responsibilities in the project, and a thorough training in how to inform parents and teachers, how to answer queries that might arise, and how to assist in filling in the forms of illiterate parents. Data collection work was monitored by the researcher (first author) by means of frequent telephone check-ups, SKYPE meetings, and by direct visits to the different districts. A meeting with the school management was conducted at each school and a written consent was obtained. An invitation letter was then sent to the parents, and both oral and written information was provided. Informed consent was obtained from all participating parents. Only mothers were used as informants. Fathers were not included due to capacity problems. For illiterate parents, the research assistants verbally posed the questions to them and helped fill in the forms. Data were collected during September 2017 –January 2018. Plotting of data was done manually during the first half of 2018 by three research assistants, supervised and monitored by the researcher. The overall participation rate was 99.5%. The proportion of missing items was not more than 0.1% for any of the CBCL items.

Measures

Based on separate focus group conversations among teachers, parents and professionals about which screening tool would be the most appropriate for Nepal: the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) / Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)/6-18 [29] or the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ 4–17) [30], we concluded that the ASEBA instruments would be the better instruments to use (i.e. for detecting problems, for clear and simple questions, and for higher cultural sensitivity).

1. Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/6-18). The CBCL has been translated to more than 100 languages and has established good psychometric properties across the world, including good criterion-related validity, good test-retest reliability, and good internal consistency as measured by Cronbach’s alpha [29]. It consists of 20 competence items and 113 problem items. The problem items are scored on eight syndrome scales, two broad-band subscales: Internalizing and Externalizing, and a Total Problems scale. The syndrome scales: Withdrawn/Depressed, Somatic Complaints and Anxious/Depressed together form the “Internalizing” scale and the scales: Rule-breaking Behavior and Aggressive Behavior together form the “Externalizing” scale. The Social Problems, Attention Problems and Thought Problems scales do not belong to either subscales but are included in the Total Problems scale, which is derived by summing up the individual item scores. The response format of questions on behaviors is: 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = very true or often true.

We used the Nepali version of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)/6-18 that had been translated into Nepali in connection with a former Nepali study [15]. The teacher version (TRF) and the youth version (YSR) of the ASEBA instruments had both been validated and found acceptable for use in Nepal as reported in other studies [15, 20], whereas the parent version (CBCL) had not been validated in Nepali studies before. In our study, we found an acceptable internal consistency for the parent version (CBCL) as indicated by Cronbach’s alphas for the eight syndrome scales: Withdrawn / Depressed: 0.71; Somatic Complaints: 0.79; Anxious / Depressed: 0.76; Rule-breaking Behavior: 0.76; Aggressive Behavior: 0.88; Social Problems: 0.73; Attention Problems: 0.80; Thought Problems: 0.75.

2. Background information questionnaire. The parents were asked to fill in a questionnaire asking about various background information data. In the present paper, we present the following selected variables: child gender, caste / ethnicity of the child, ecological / geographic region, types of living area, types of school, parents’ occupation, and parents’ educational level.

Statistical analyses

The ASEBA data management and SPSS statistics version 22.0 for Windows were used for all analyses. When computing the overall prevalence for Nepal, sampling weights were used to account for the oversampling for some regions and age-groups (i.e. according to the Nepal Census, 2011) [26]. We used Pearson’s chi square test for comparisons between groups on categorical variables. To assess group differences for continuous variables, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done. For group comparisons involving more than three groups, post hoc comparisons were made using the Scheffé method. To indicate effect size, Hedges’ g was computed when comparing two groups. Partial eta squared was the selected effect size when more than two groups were compared. The significance level used in all tests was 0.005.

Ethical considerations and confidentiality of data

Before commencing the study, ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Review Board of Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC) (ref. no. 1875; reg, no: 71/2017). Both collection and storage of data were done according to their rules. The records from the study were kept strictly confidential and locked down so that no persons other than the researcher had access to them. All electronic information was coded and secured using a password protected file, and all personally identifiable information was removed from the data set in order to protect the participants’ individual privacy. No information will be shared or published that would make it possible to identify any participant.

Results

Background data

In Table 1, selected demographic background data are presented for the seven largest castes and ethnic groups (N = 3148), omitting the “Others” group (N = 672). As can be seen from the table, boys and girls were almost equally distributed between the different groups. Most participants, irrespective of caste or ethnic belonging, lived in semi-urban areas. Parents from the Tharu and Khas Kaami (Dalit) groups were the most illiterate, whereas the Newar group had the highest educational level. A substantial number of parents were migrant workers.

Table 1

Distribution of selected demographic variables for the seven largest castes and ethnic groups.

Castes and ethnic groups	Chhetri	Hill Brahmin	Magar	Tharu	Tamang	Newar	Khas Kaami (Hill Dalit)
N (%)	866 (22.7)	905 (23.7)	187 (4.9)	246 (6.4)	335 (8.8)	162 (4.2)	447 (11.7)
Background variables
Gender
Boys	427 (49.3)	457 (50.5)	93 (49.7)	124 (50.4)	180 (53.7)	68 (42.0)	235 (52.6)
Girls	439 (50.7)	448 (49.5)	94 (50.3)	122 (49.6)	155 (46.3)	94 (58.0)	212 (47.4)
Geographic Location
Mountain	125 (14.4)	158 (17.5)	11 (5.9)	1 (0.4)	121 (36.1)	6 (3.7)	49 (11.0)
Hill	431 (49.8)	457 (50.5)	128 (68.4)	27 (11.0)	116 (34.6)	111 (68.5)	265 (59.3)
Tarai	310 (35.8)	290 (32.0)	48 (25.7)	218 (88.6)	98 (29.3)	45 (27.8)	133 (29.8)
Rural/Semi-urban/Urban1
Rural	227 (26.2)	242 (26.7)	28 (15.0)	19 (7.7)	111 (33.1)	19 (11.7)	124 (27.7)
Semi-urban	423 (48.8)	489 (54.0)	117 (62.6)	200 (81.3)	181 (54.0)	74 (45.7)	259 (57.9)
Urban	216 (24.9)	174 (19.2)	42 (22.5)	27 (11.0)	43 (12.8)	69 (42.6)	64 (14.3)
Types of School
Governmental	359 (41.5)	321 (35.5)	91 (48.7)	171 (69.5)	195 (58.2)	68 (42.0)	348 (77.9)
Private	507 (58.5)	584 (64.5)	96 (51.3)	75 (30.5)	140 (41.8)	94 (58.0)	99 (22.1)
Mother’s Occupation
Housewife	596 (68.8)	606 (67.0)	134 (71.7)	192 (78.0)	237 (70.7)	100 (61.7)	319 (71.4)
Public Service	53 (6.1)	59 (6.5)	6 (3.2)	5 (2.0)	14 (4.2)	4 (2.5)	10 (2.2)
Private Business	69 (8.0)	102 (11.3)	20 (10.7)	13 (5.3)	24 (7.2)	29 (17.9)	36 (8.1)
Farmer	116 (13.4)	91 (10.1)	16 (8.6)	26 (10.6)	39 (11.6)	17 (10.5)	58 (13.0)
Migrant Worker	7 (0.8)	13 (1.4)	2 (1.1)	3 (1.2)	9 (2.7)	2 (1.2)	11 (2.5)
Others	25 (2.9)	34 (3.8)	9 (4.8)	7 (2.8)	12 (3.6)	10 (6.2)	13 (2.9)
Father’s Occupation
Private business	192 (22.2)	266 (29.4)	26 (13.9)	54 (22.0)	58 (17.3)	68 (42.0)	76 (17.0)
Farmer	264 (30.5)	251 (27.7)	46 (24.6)	88 (35.8)	118 (35.2)	31 (19.1)	163 (36.5)
Migrant worker	150 (17.3)	131 (14.5)	45 (24.1)	28 (11.4)	65 (19.4)	20 (12.3)	88 (19.7)
Others	126 (14.5)	120 (13.3)	25 (13.4)	65 (26.4)	71 (21.2)	28 (17.3)	94 (21.0)
Family Education2
Illiterate	83 (9.6)	44 (4.9)	10 (5.3)	57 (23.2)	47 (14.0)	8 (4.9)	76 (17.0)
Primary Level3	154 (17.8)	147 (16.2)	51 (27.3)	71 (28.9)	137 (40.9)	26 (16.0)	175 (39.1)
Secondary Level4	528 (61.0)	544 (60.1)	117 (62.6)	110 (44.7)	141 (42.1)	83 (51.2)	182 (40.7)
University Level5	101 (11.7)	170 (18.8)	9 (4.8)	8 (3.3)	10 (3.0)	45 (27.8)	14 (3.1)

1The place of residence (rural, semi-urban, urban) was defined according to the official classifications made by the Ministry of Federal Affairs & General Administration (MOFAGA) and further verified by parent’s own reports.

2In the households with two parents, the higher education level was used.

3 Primary level of education consists of grade 1 to 8.

4 Secondary level of education consists of grade 9 to 12.

5 University level includes Bachelor, Masters or PhD degree.

Prevalence of EBP for boys and girls–Total sample

In Table 2, we have presented prevalence as to the Achenbach classification of “normal”, “borderline” and “clinical” status according to American norms, both for the Total Problems scale and for the Externalizing and the Internalizing scales. Approximately, one fifth of all children had problems in the clinical range. The prevalence of internalizing problems was higher than externalizing problems.

Table 2

Prevalence of EBP for boys and girls–Total sample.

	Gender		Total (N = 3820)
	Male	Female
	(N = 1914)	(N = 1906)
Total Problems T score
Normal (<60)	68.7%	71.5%	70.1%
Borderline (60–63)	11.2%	10.4%	10.8%
Clinical (>63)	20.1%	18.1%	19.1%
Internalizing problems T score **
Normal (<60)	61.9%	66.9%	64.4%
Borderline (60–63)	12.7%	10.3%	11.5%
Clinical (>63)	25.4%	22.8%	24.1%
Externalizing problems T score *
Normal (<60)	76.5%	80.3%	78.4%
Borderline (60–63)	7.9%	6.8%	7.4%
Clinical (>63)	15.6%	12.9%	14.2%

*P<0.05;

**P<0.005;

***P<0.0005. For gender comparisons, the Pearson’s chi square test was used.

Adjusted prevalence for Nepal

Since the Mountain region was somewhat over-sampled and the Middle Hills and Tarai regions under-sampled for 6-18-years-olds in our study, we computed sampling weights that took population numbers in the child population among the three geographic regions into consideration as well as the age distribution, both based on the Nepali 2011 census [26]. As a result, the prevalence of CBCL Total Problems in Nepali 6-18-year-olds who scored in the clinical range was estimated to 18.3%; boys: 19.1% and girls: 17.6%.

Prevalence of EBP between the different castes and ethnic groups

The prevalence of child EBP varied among the different castes and ethnic groups (Table 3). It was highest for the Khas Kaami (Dalit) group and lowest for the indigenous Tharu group.

Table 3

Prevalence of EBP for the seven largest castes and ethnic groups.

	Chhetri	Brahmin- Hill	Magar	Tharu	Tamang	Newar	Khas Kaami	Total
Total Problems Tscore ***
Normal (<60)	65.6%	71.8%	73.3%	78.9%	72.5%	70.4%	63.3%	69.5%
Borderline (60–63)	12.1%	9.5%	8.6%	8.1%	13.1%	13.6%	9.6%	10.7%
Clinical (>63)	22.3%	18.7%	18.2%	13.0%	14.3%	16.0%	27.1%	19.8%
Internalizing Problems Tscore ***
Normal (<60)	60.5%	64.5%	67.4%	73.6%	67.5%	66.7%	58.4%	63.8%
Borderline (60–63)	12.0%	11.6%	12.3%	8.5%	12.5%	10.5%	8.7%	11.2%
Clinical (>63)	27.5%	23.9%	20.3%	17.9%	20.0%	22.8%	32.9%	25.0%
Externalizing Problems Tscore ***
Normal (<60)	76.2%	77.3%	81.3%	88.2%	82.4%	78.4%	72.0%	77.9%
Borderline (60–63)	6.6%	8.4%	7.0%	4.9%	7.2%	8.0%	6.9%	7.2%
Clinical (>63)	17.2%	14.3%	11.8%	6.9%	10.4%	13.6%	21.0%	14.9%

*P<0.05;

**P<0.005;

***P<0.0005. For group comparisons, the Pearson’s chi square test was used.

The magnitude of EBP for boys and girls–Total sample

Table 4 shows mean scores for the whole sample by gender. Boys scored significantly higher than girls on Total Problems, Externalizing Problems, as well as on the three subscales: Social Problems, Thought Problems and Attention Problems. However, there were no gender differences in mean scores for the Internalizing scale. The effect sizes for the gender comparisons can be considered as small according to Cohen (1988) [31], with Hedges’ g ranging from 0.02 to 0.20.

Table 4

The magnitude of EBP for boys and girls–Total sample.

	Boys (N = 1914) Mean (SD)	Girls (N = 1906) Mean (SD)	Total (N = 3820) Mean (SD)	Gender effect F	Effect size g a
Total Problems	31.19 (26.67)	28.14 (24.47)	29.67 (25.64)	13.54 ***	0.11
Externalizing Problems	8.44 (8.52)	6.86 (7.35)	7.65 (7.99)	37.35 ***	0.19
Internalizing Problems	9.01 (8.09)	9.21 (7.96)	9.11 (8.03)	0.57	-0.02
Social Problems	3.50 (3.25)	3.18 (3.02)	3.34 (3.14)	9.92 **	0.10
Thought Problems	2.44 (3.07)	2.11 (2.79)	2.27 (2.94)	12.17 ***	0.11
Attention Problems	4.24 (3.75)	3.52 (3.36)	3.88 (3.58)	38.62 ***	0.20

*P<0.05;

**P<0.005;

***P<0.0005;

aHedges’ g.

The magnitude of EBP in the different castes and ethnic groups

Table 5 presents the comparison of mean scores on the different problem scales between the seven largest castes and ethnic groups using one-way ANOVA. The Khas Kaami (Dalit) group scored the highest and the Tharu group scored the lowest on all scales. In the post hoc multiple comparisons, the Tharu group differed from the Chhetri, the Brahmin Hill and the Khas Kaami groups on Total Problems, Externalizing Problems, Social Problems, Thought Problems and Attention Problems. For Internalizing Problems, the Tharu group differed only from the Chhetri and Khas Kaami, whereas the Tamang group differed from the Khas Kaami and Chhetri groups. However, the effect sizes were small, with partial eta squared ranging between 0.010 to 0.015.

Table 5

The magnitude of EBP in the different castes and ethnic groups.

	Chhetri N = 866 Mean (SD)	Brahmin-Hill N = 905 Mean (SD)	Magar N = 187 Mean (SD)	Tharu N = 246 Mean (SD)	Tamang N = 335 Mean (SD)	Newar N = 162 Mean (SD)	Khas Kaami N = 447 Mean (SD)	Group effect F	Partial Eta squared
Total problems	32.67 (27.55)	29.95 (25.23)	27.16 (25.65)	22.53 (23.59)	26.76 (22.21)	28.82 (22.38)	34.15 (28.70)	8.15***	0.015
Externalizing Problems	8.24 (8.55)	7.78 (7.91)	6.48 (7.08)	5.69 (7.07)	6.69 (7.36)	7.82 (7.39)	8.89 (8.77)	6.04***	0.011
Internalizing Problems	10.18 (8.87)	9.15 (7.78)	8.48 (7.98)	7.19 (7.50)	8.04 (6.67)	8.77 (7.25)	10.40 (9.08)	7.59***	0.014
Social Problems	3.71 (3.32)	3.38 (3.06)	3.14 (3.35)	2.50 (2.77)	3.02 (2.99)	3.10 (2.71)	3.77 (3.53)	6.95***	0.013
Thought Problems	2.54 (3.09)	2.24 (2.92)	2.20 (3.04)	1.58 (2.60)	1.97 (2.44)	2.12 (2.36)	2.80 (3.47)	6.38***	0.012
Attention Problems	4.22 (3.75)	3.92 (3.62)	3.77 (3.70)	3.01 (3.18)	3.66 (3.55)	3.74 (3.32)	4.38 (3.73)	5.11***	0.010

*P<0.05;

**P<0.005;

***P<0.000.

Associations between EBP and geographic region and types of area

There were no differences in the magnitude of problems between the three geographic regions, except for higher Internalizing Problems in the Mountain region. However, there were significant interactions between geographic regions and types of living area on Total Problems, as well as on the two broadband scales (Table 6). In the Mountain and Middle Hills regions, the problem scale scores were higher in the rural areas than in the semi-urban or urban areas. In contrast, children living in rural areas in the Tarai region scored lower than those living in semi-urban and urban areas. The sizes of the interaction effects were small, with partial eta squares less than 0.01.

Table 6

CBCL scores by geographic regions and types of living area- Total sample.

	Total Problems	Internalizing Problems	Externalizing Problems
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Mountain
Rural Area (N = 352)	37.08(30.20)	12.03(9.92)	9.17(8.94)
Semi-Urban Area (N = 134)	22.82(21.30)	7.60(6.91)	5.19(6.23)
Urban Area (N = 0)	-	-	-
Total (N = 486)	33.15(28.73)	10.81(9.39)	8.07(8.46)
Hills
Rural Area (N = 460)	32.92(28.12)	9.87(8.68)	8.61(8.99)
Semi-Urban Area (N = 902)	29.46(23.73)	9.14(7.62)	7.62(7.34)
Urban Area (N = 556)	28.60(23.19)	8.68(7.41)	7.31(7.28)
Total (N = 1918)	30.04(24.75)	9.18(7.84)	7.77(7.76)
Tarai
Rural Area (N = 58)	20.05(20.99)	5.69(6.62)	5.55(6.22)
Semi-Urban Area (N = 1117)	26.93(25.83)	8.27(7.72)	7.08(8.10)
Urban Area (N = 241)	34.69(25.83)	9.90(7.57)	9.12(8.54)
Total(N = 1416)	27.97(25.59)	8.44(7.69)	7.36(8.15)
Main effect size of Geographic Region	F = 2.86	F = 6.81**	F = 1.12
	η2 = 0.002	η2 = 0.004	η2 = 0.001
Main effect size of Rural, Semi-Urban and Urban Areas	F = 14.54***	F = 8.64***	F = 10.63***
	η2 = 0.008	η2 = 0.005	η2 = 0.006
Effect of Interaction between Geographic Regions and Rural, Semi-Urban and Urban Areas	F = 13.85***	F = 12.94***	F = 10.014***
	η2 = 0.011	η2 = 0.010	η2 = 0.008

*P<0.05;

**P<0.005;

***P<0.0005; η2partial eta square.

Discussion

This study assessed the prevalence and amount of EBP among schoolchildren in Nepal and compared the prevalence and magnitude of problems among different groups based on gender, caste / ethnicity, and types of area (urban, semi-urban and rural).

Multicultural norms of the CBCL

Based on data from 31 societies, Achenbach and Rescorla constructed different norm groups (high, medium, and low) for the CBCL, based on the omni-cultural mean of 22.5 (SD 5.6) that was found by averaging the Total Problem scores of the 31 cultures [32]. Nepal has not yet been included in the ranking of countries due to the lack of internationally published scientific studies. However, the present study, showing a Total Problems mean score of 29.7 (SD 25.6), suggests that Nepal should be placed under the high scoring countries.

Comparison of results with other studies

We found that the percentage of Nepali children who scored in the clinical range, i.e. above the American cut-off, was 19.1% for Total Problems, with an adjusted prevalence of 18.3%. Compared to the overall prevalence of mental health problems for schoolchildren in Asian countries as reported in an earlier review [9], the prevalence for Nepal seems high. However, the prevalence is consistent with findings from school studies in neighboring countries, e.g. China: 19.1% [14] and India: 23.3% [10].

The relatively high prevalence of child problems in these and other LMICs might be due to a higher level of environmental risk factors such as natural disasters [33, 34] and adverse social circumstances like poverty and child abuse and neglect [35, 36]. Social disadvantages and family fragmentation (e.g. caused by migrant working parents) are known to elevate level of stress affecting the mental health of parents as well as children [37, 38]. A possible explanation for the higher problem scores in Nepal could be the exposure to the devastating earthquake that hit the country in 2015 and the traumatic events that followed in its wake. The mental health effect of exposure to disasters like earthquakes, especially on children, is still largely unknown, and various resilience and posttraumatic growth (PTG) factors may be involved [39]. However, the present study was not designed to address a possible link between child EBP and disaster exposure, and this hypothesis should be considered with caution. Other studies comparing areas hit by the earthquake with areas not affected are needed to confirm it. Further, the higher prevalence of EBP may be due to the poor and stressful living conditions experienced by many families in a LMIC country like Nepal. Yet another reason might be that Nepali parents might have a different threshold for reporting child EBP due to cultural norms. Cultural differences affecting parents’ ratings and interpretation of child behavior have been explored to a rather small extent internationally, and to our knowledge, no such studies have been performed in Nepal. Finally, it should be noted that the higher prevalence might be due to methodological reasons. In our study, we used a screening instrument (CBCL) and studies using screening instruments may yield higher prevalence rates than studies using diagnostic tools [9].

We found a higher level of Total Problems and Externalizing Problems in boys than in girls. This finding converges with findings from other international studies [18]. It also converges with the earlier Nepali dissertation study by Mahat mentioned in the introduction [15], suggesting the same gender pattern for Nepal. However, we did not find more Internalizing Problems in girls than in boys, contrasting to the findings from international meta-studies [18, 40]. Our finding may be due to cultural or methodological factors and needs replication for verification. More studies on gender patterns in child EBP are warranted across cultures, especially from the less investigated LMICs.

An interesting finding in our study was the higher prevalence of internalizing problems (24.1%) compared to externalizing problems (14.2%). The finding converges with a recent epidemiological study from Kenya [41]. Like in the Kenyan study, a possible explanation for the elevated Internalizing Problems score could be the higher awareness and subsequent higher scorings of somatic symptoms by the parents. In Nepal, where there is very little awareness of mental problems in general, and particularly in children, parents tend to pay more attention to their child’s physical symptoms than their conduct and may define problems accordingly. Besides, Nepali children, like children from other South Asian countries, are socialized to control their frustrations and negative emotions, i.e. to internalize their problems, rather than acting them out [42]. Internationally, cross-cultural studies have shown significant variations in the relative dominance of internalizing versus externalizing problems [40, 43]. Due to different cultural norms and different socio-religious contexts, the types of problems that children express will differ. In countries where the culture discourages child aggression and other uncontrolled behaviors, internalizing problems like shyness, anxiety, and depression are noted more often, whereas in cultures that accept acting-out of emotions, externalizing behaviors are noted more often [40].

Within-country differences in EBP

Cross-cultural comparisons showed that the Khas Kaami (Dalit) group had the highest prevalence of EBP. In Nepal, experiences of caste-based discrimination are found to be prevalent among the Dalit [44] and may be one of the main reasons for the higher problem level. In contrast, the Tharu, who mostly live in small villages in the Tarai region, showed the lowest amount of EBP. One possible explanation for the lower scores in this tribal, indigenous group may be that it has some strong protective factors, both at the individual, family, and social level. However, a more detailed investigation among the Tharu people exploring family and social factors that may influence child EBP is warranted. Further, parent ratings may differ across ethnic groups depending upon differences in cultural norms and attitudes of reporting problems. Internationally, studies have shown that parents of ethnic minorities may be less likely to perceive problem behavior in their children when compared to ethnic majority parents [45, 46]. A third explanation may be that the linguistic problems as well as the high level of illiteracy among the Tharu parents might have interfered with their ratings in such a way that reporting problems became more difficult. The Tharu people have their own mother language which differ from the majority Nepali language. Lack of language skills might have hampered the communication between the parents and the research assistants as well as making the perception of questions more demanding.

We observed only small differences in the amount of child problems between geographic regions. However, some interesting interactions emerged for regions with types of living area. In the Mountain and Hills regions, children who lived in the rural areas had the highest problem scores, whereas in the Tarai region, children in the urban areas scored the highest. The higher problem scores in the rural areas in the Mountain region may be due to poverty and the tougher living conditions that exist in those areas [26]. The higher amount of problems found in the urban areas of the Tarai region may be due to the migration of families from the countryside to the cities in search of better working opportunities. Urbanization might lead to adjustment problems, more stress exposure, and increased vulnerability due to factors like overcrowding, low social support, inadequate security, and increased violence [47, 48]. The disparities in our findings converge with findings from the international literature. Some studies have found more child problems in rural areas [27], whereas others have found more problems in urban areas [47]. As countries differ in their economic development and cultural orientations, rural—urban differences in one country may not be generalized to other countries [28]. Based on the present study, we argue that this may be the case within a specific country as well–especially in countries as diverse as Nepal.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This epidemiological study is the first internationally published study on the prevalence and amount of EBP in Nepali schoolchildren as reported by their parents. We have used one of the most wide-spread and internationally validated instruments to assess child problems: the CBCL/6-18. The Cronbach’s alpha in our study was above 0.7 for all eight syndrome scales. We used sound methodology and thorough procedures in data collection, including helping illiterate parents with the filling in of forms and reaching out to parents who could not manage to visit the school. This probably increased parents’ trust and willingness to participate in the study and resulted in a very high participation rate: 99.5%.

There are some methodological limitations of the study. First, our prevalence estimation was done by using the American norms of the CBCL as Nepali norms do not yet exist. Hopefully, future studies may provide separate norms for Nepal. Although we collected our data in all the main geographic regions of Nepal and in 16 districts in different parts of the country, we cannot claim that the results are representative for the whole country. Further, the number of participants in some of the castes and ethnic groups were small, which might have affected the results and made them less reliable. Hence, future studies with larger samples are recommended for those groups to confirm the findings.

Another limitation is that fathers’ reports were not assessed. Generally, fathers who are substantively involved in their children’s lives, may provide valuable information about their children’s problems [49].

The present paper focuses on the magnitude of child problems and how problems may vary across gender, different cultural groups, and types of living area. It does not include an examination of family- and social correlates of EBP. Such associations will be the focus in a subsequent paper currently in progress, and with the same sample of Nepali children.

Conclusion

The study provides new knowledge about the prevalence of child EBP in a LMIC. It amply demonstrates that in a country like Nepal, many children may suffer from various types of mental problems which may need attention. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of taking into account possible gender- and cultural differences in the magnitude and types of child problems, as well as pointing to rural–urban differences. The findings may be useful to the health authorities in developing child- and adolescent mental health services. Finally, the study provides important background information for both clinicians and teachers in dealing with child mental health problems.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

27 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-07867

Parent reports of child behavior problems in a low- and middle- income country (LMIC): An epidemiological study of Nepali school children

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ma,

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 Jun 11 2021 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. 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,

Pranil Man Singh Pradhan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

1.Title: The title mentions the outcome as child behavior problems. The aims of the study mentions the outcome of the study as EBP. It is advised to maintain consistency in the terminology used specially in the title and objectives.

2. Abstract line 32: Replace means with mean score

3. Line 70: Please expand the acronym EBP upon first use.

4. Introduction: As it stands the introduction mentions mostly about the prevalence of child mental disorders worldwide. It would be better to also mention about the significance of child mental disorders in terms of clinical as well as public health impact.

Line 94: Aims of the study - Separate heading is not required. It can be merged with the last paragraph of introduction.

Line 137: Please justify in the manuscript why children with special needs/faith based schools were excluded.

Line 99: Materials and methods: It will be better to include a separate section for ethical considerations. Also mention how the privacy and confidentiality of the participants was maintained.

Line 169-170: Please clarify whether the CBCL tool was administered to the parent or the child. Were both teacher and youth versions used in this study? Also were both parents interviewed or a single parent?

Line 191: Please confirm whether the significance level was set at 0.05 or 0.005.

Line 238: Better term for amount would be magnitude.

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 indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

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

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

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: 1.Why did authors decided on taking caste and ethnicity based differences in behavioural problems in children? A literature support may be needed at the introduction part.

2. The term "lowest Hindu case" may be ethically wrong to use. It may be used suggesting it to be the prevalent in Nepal but the authors may refrain from using term "lowest or highest" caste in the results and discussion part.

3. Is there any support of ecology and mental health as authors have tried to see that in three ecological zones of Nepal?

4. As purposive sampling technique was used what purpose of the sample collection was taken into account (ease of data collection, ease of travel, ease of …)

5. What does "referral from school" mean in the methodology? Please clarify

6. Why were faith based schools excluded? Also what happened to the Christian, Muslim or Buddhist children? Were they excluded? And the Muslims, Christians or Buddhists may not follow the caste based classification, hence limiting the horizons of this research.

7. How was training of research assistant done? At one point authors mentioned "Plotting ……

, supervised and controlled by the researcher". What does controlled here mean?

8. Table 2 and 3 mention about the "p value" in the footnote of tables but what statistical test was done and what was compared? Please clarify.

9. The classification of "urban, semi urban and rural" how was this done. Please provide reference to this classification.

10. Regarding the discussion authors point out that earthquake could be a reason for high behavioural problems. This should be mentioned with caution as not whole nation had its impacts. It should also be seen what sample areas taken in this study were hit by earthquake?

11. Was the ascent taken from the children in study?

12. Suggestions:

a. Please see if the journal allows discussion with separate head in each finding. If yes I am ok

b. Please cite the following landmark studies in the introduction from Nepal as we have data on prevalence

• Jha, A. K., Ojha, S. P., Dahal, S., Sharma, P., Pant, S. B., Labh, S., Marahatta, K., Shakya, S., Adhikari, R. P., Joshi, D., Luitel, N. P., & Dhimal, M. (2019). Prevalence of Mental Disorders in Nepal: Findings from the Pilot Study. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council, 17(2), 141-147. https://doi.org/10.33314/jnhrc.v0i0.1960

• http://nhrc.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Factsheet-Adolescents.pdf

Reviewer #2: Congratulations for such a wonderful study from LMIC like Nepal covering all geographical areas.

The study seems to have been well conducted.

There are some minor grammatical errors that need correction which have been mentioned in the attached word file itself.

Here are few major questions that need to be addressed:

1. The Khas Kaami (Hill Dalit) has been disproportionately represented in this study, in comparison to their population size, and the same participants have been found to have more problems. So, the reason for this disproportionate representation needs further clarification.

2. The total number of participants and that of boys and girls is different in different tables which have been mentioned in the attached comments as well. This needs correction/clarification.

3. The literacy status of the parents of the participants of Tharu ethnic group seems to be much low as compared to that of others and their reporting of child EBP is also the lowest. Some discussion into this aspect might be worthy.

4. The composition of family structure- nuclear vs joint/extended greatly affect the child rearing and thus could affect the EBP of the children as well. It would be worthy to discuss if the authors have collected data regarding this part.

5. In line 375 "Another limitation is that fathers’ reports were not assessed." has been mentioned. No such thing has been mentioned anywhere in the methods section. Does it mean that data were collected from "mothers" only. If so, it needs to be mentioned explicitly in the methods section as well.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes: Madhur Basnet, MD(Psychiatry), Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, B. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal

[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.

Submitted filename: Manuscript 1, PLOS ONE_R1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Jun 2021

Response to reviewers

Thank you all for your valuable suggestions as to revision of the manuscript. Below is our response. We have tried to give you our answers to the questions posed one by one and in doing so, we have referred to the particular lines in our revised manuscript with track changes where we have put the revisions (see Revised manuscript with track changes).

As for grammatical errors and language improvements / clarifications, we have noted that they should be addressed at revision as the journal does not copyedit accepted manuscripts. Hence, we have made some minor corrections and clarifications in the text: line 1; line 25; line 43; line 77; line 80; line 141; line 156-157; line 162; 173; line 200; line 223 – 225; line 237; line 260; line 330; line 439; line 443.

Editorial Manager:

1. In the revised manuscript attached to the editorial manager mail sent 12.04.21, you asked us to use terms consistently, and to use the term “Nepali”, not “Nepalese”. This has now been done (line 19 and 40).

2. Further, you asked us to use the full form while using abbreviation for the first time, such as EBP (emotional and behavior problems). This has now been corrected (line 77–78).

3. Thank you for pointing to an error made in the section about sampling method. We have now corrected it by changing the wording: “the capital city of Kathmandu” to “Kathmandu district” (line 160).

4. Table 1 had an error (missing number) in one of the rubrics (0 instead of 10). Thank you for noticing. This has now been corrected (line 264).

5. You commented that there were no ** and *** in the Table 2. Unfortunately, one star was missing for the Internalizing problems T score. It should have been two stars, not one as the gender difference was significant at the 0.005 level. We have now corrected it in the revised manuscript (line 278). In the footnote below the table, we explained the meaning of the different stars: *P<0.05; **P<0.005; ***P<0.0005. Although we used all of them in the tables to indicate different levels of significance, in the text itself we have only commented on results that had a significant level **P<0.005 or lower (i.e. not *P<0.05) as we defined the significance level for this study as 0.005 (as stated in the “Statistical analyses” section).

6. You asked why the problem scores in the clinical range in Table 3 and Table 2 differed. The reason for this is that the numbers of informants were not the same. In Table 2, we estimated the prevalence for the total sample (N=3820), whereas in Table 3, we estimated the prevalence for the seven largest castes and ethnic groups (N=3148) while omitting the “Others” group (N=672). We have tried to make this clearer and more precise in the revised manuscript by adding the number (N) for the total sample in Table 2 (line 278), and we have changed the heading of Table 1 and 3 from “…. the different castes and ethnic groups” to “… the seven largest castes and ethnic groups”, thus implying that this did not include the whole sample (line 264 and 292). The numbers (N) for the different castes and ethnic groups are already presented in Table 1. However, we made the preceding text to the Table 1 clearer by adding information about the total number for all seven groups (N=3148), and also added that we had omitted the “Others” group (N=672) - i.e. informants who belonged to other cultural groups (line 257 – 258).

7. You asked why there was a difference in the number of boys and girls and total sample between Table 1 and Table 4 as the total sample in Table 1 was 3148 while in Table 4 it was 3820. The answer is the same: Table 1 included the seven largest groups only (N=3148), whereas Table 4 included the total sample (N=3820).

Additional Editor:

Comment 1: Title: The title mentions the outcome as child behavior problems. The aims of the study mention the outcome of the study as EBP. It is advised to maintain consistency in the terminology used specially in the title and objectives.

Our reply: Thank you for noticing. We have now revised the title of the paper so that it includes both emotional and behavioral problems. EBP is maintained consistently throughout the whole manuscript.

Comment 2: Abstract line 32: Replace means with mean score

Our reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have now replaced the word “mean” with “mean score” (line 33) and whereever applicable.

Comment 3: Line 70: Please expand the acronym EBP upon first use.

Our reply: Thank you for rightly pointing it out. We have now done so (line 77-78).

Comment 4: Introduction: As it stands, the introduction mentions mostly about the prevalence of child mental disorders worldwide. It would be better to also mention about the significance of child mental disorders in terms of clinical as well as public health impact.

Line 94: Aims of the study - Separate heading is not required. It can be merged with the last paragraph of introduction.

Our reply: We have revised the introduction accordingly by writing more about the impact of child mental disorders, the importance of early identification for improved prognosis, and the need for early interventions and appropriate service designs in LMICs, linking it to the importance of conducting epidemiological studies (line 46 – 56).

We have now removed the separate heading for Aims of the study and have put this paragraph as the last paragraph of the introduction (line 128).

Comment 5: Line 137: Please justify in the manuscript why children with special needs/faith based schools were excluded.

Our reply: Our study is a study of EBP in the general child population of Nepal. We therefore recruited parents through the regular schools (i.e. both governmental and private schools). In Nepal, children from all faiths, castes, and ethnic groups, including Muslims, Christians and Buddhists, are admitted to the regular schools. Hence, we believed that regular schools would provide a reasonable cross-section of the Nepali child population. In our own sample, both Muslim, Christian and Buddhist children were represented. Based on this argument, and also because we wanted to compare child EBP between the seven largest castes and ethnic groups as defined by the Nepali census and not between the different religions, we excluded special faith-based schools. Besides, to include faith-based schools might have led to overrepresentation of certain groups. Further, we excluded special education schools for children with severe disabilities because such severe conditions along with the special environment that these schools represent, might grossly influence EBP. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the nature of our study (i.e. a study in the general child population) and explained that regular schools in Nepal admit children of all faiths, castes and ethnicities so that recruiting parents through the regular school system would provide a reasonable cross-section of the child population. We also added that special schools in Nepal are very few compared with regular schools (line 173-179).

Comment 6: Line 99: Materials and methods: It will be better to include a separate section for ethical considerations. Also mention how the privacy and confidentiality of the participants was maintained.

Our reply: We have now included a separate section for ethical considerations as the last paragraph of “Materials and methods”. Here, we have described how the privacy and confidentiality of the participants were maintained (line 246 – 254).

Comment 7: Line 169-170: Please clarify whether the CBCL tool was administered to the parent or the child. Were both teacher and youth versions used in this study? Also were both parents interviewed or a single parent?

Our reply: The CBCL is the parent version of the ASEBA instruments and was administered to the parents. The Teacher report form (TRF), i.e. the teacher version of the ASEBA, and the Youth self-report (YSR), i.e. the youth version of the ASEBA, were not used in the present study. In this study, only mothers filled in the forms, not the fathers. In the revised manuscript, we have informed that only mothers were used as informants and that fathers were not included due to capacity problems (line 194-195).

Comment 8: Line 191: Please confirm whether the significance level was set at 0.05 or 0.005.

Our reply: The significance level was set at 0.005 as described in the Statistical Analyses section: “The significance level used in all tests was 0.005” (line 244-245). See also our reply to the Editor Manager, point 5, about the use of stars in the tables to mark different significance levels.

Comment 9: Line 238: Better term for amount would be magnitude.

Our reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript and changed the term “amount of problems” to “magnitude of problems” (line 295) and wherever it occurred.

Reviewer #1:

Comment 1: Why did authors decided on taking caste and ethnicity based differences in behavioural problems in children? A literature support may be needed at the introduction part.

Our reply: We have revised the Introduction part so that it now includes a literature support for cross-cultural comparisons of child EBP (line 97-112). We have referred to international studies that have demonstrated cross-cultural differences in child problems across countries and ethnic groups, suggesting that such differences might exist between castes and ethnic groups in Nepal as well.

Comment 2: The term "lowest Hindu case" may be ethically wrong to use. It may be used suggesting it to be the prevalent in Nepal but the authors may refrain from using term "lowest or highest" caste in the results and discussion part.

Our reply: Thank you for your suggestion. In our study, we found the highest prevalence of EBP in the Khas Kaami group which is the largest Dalit group and the term “lowest caste” was used to indicate that this group is an under-privileged group that may experience caste-based discrimination. According to your advice, we have now deleted the term. Instead, we have used “Dalit” in parenthesis (line 35; 261; 290; 307; 393) which we believe is better known than “Khas Kaami” among international readers. However, we have kept the information about the Hindu hierarchical caste system in the “Study site and population” part.

Comment 3: Is there any support of ecology and mental health as authors have tried to see that in three ecological zones of Nepal?

Our reply: We did not have any theoretically based reason for looking at possible differences in child EBP in the three main geographical / ecological regions of Nepal. Our intent was to explore the magnitude of child problems in the different regions of the country in order to capture a more nuanced picture of the distribution of EBP in Nepal. We thought that perhaps there might be more child EBP in the Mountain region compared to the other two regions due to the harsher living conditions. We believed that more knowledge about possible differences in the geographic distribution of problems might be of interest to the Nepali health authorities and useful in future child mental health programs. We have now explained more thoroughly why we decided to explore possible geographical differences in the Introduction (line 113 – 127).

Comment 4: As purposive sampling technique was used what purpose of the sample collection was taken into account (ease of data collection, ease of travel, ease of …)

Our reply: Purposive sampling technique was used for the selection of districts and schools and was based on accessibility and feasibility. However, the selection of the students was based on a random sampling technique. Our study is a large, countrywide study and required an extensive amount of time and money to accomplish. A purposive sampling technique was chosen for cost effectiveness and for ease of data collection and travels. The explanation is now given in the revised manuscript (line 162 – 167).

Comment 5: What does "referral from school" mean in the methodology? Please clarify

Our reply: We agree that this wording is confusing. The sentence is now corrected in the revised manuscript, and the word “feasibility” is used instead (line 163). The whole sentence now reads as follows: “Next, we purposively selected four schools in each district (two government schools and two private schools) based on accessibility and feasibility - i.e. a total of 64 schools in the 16 districts».

Comment 6: Why were faith based schools excluded? Also what happened to the Christian, Muslim or Buddhist children? Were they excluded? And the Muslims, Christians or Buddhists may not follow the caste based classification, hence limiting the horizons of this research.

Our reply: Our study is a survey in the general child population of Nepal. As children from all faiths, castes, and ethnic groups, including Muslims, Christians and Buddhists, are admitted to the regular schools, we chose to recruit parents through the regular school system. We believed that regular schools would provide a reasonable cross-section of the Nepali child population. In our own sample, both Muslim, Christian, and Buddhist children were represented. There are few faith-based schools in the country, representing only a small percentage of the total number of schools. By including them, some religious groups might have been overrepresented in our sample. Further, this study intended to compare children from the seven largest castes and ethnic groups in Nepal, as defined by the Nepali census, and these children are all attending regular schools. Hence, we decided to exclude faith-based schools. We have now explained about this in the revised paper (line 173-179).

Comment 7: How was training of research assistant done? At one point authors mentioned "Plotting ……, supervised and controlled by the researcher". What does controlled here mean?

Our reply: In the revised manuscript, we have now described in more detail how the training of the research assistants was done (page 182 – 190).

We agree that the word “controlled” is not a correct word. We have now changed it into “monitored” which is the correct word to use (line 199).

Comment 8: Table 2 and 3 mention about the "p value" in the footnote of tables but what statistical test was done and what was compared? Please clarify.

Our reply: As mentioned in the Statistical Analysis paragraph, we used Pearson’s chi square test for comparisons between groups on categorical variables. In the revised manuscript, we have now added what statistical test we used in Table 2 and 3 and for what comparisons. This is put as footnotes below the tables (line 279-280 and line 293-294).

Comment 9: The classification of "urban, semi urban and rural" how was this done. Please provide reference to this classification.

Our reply: The place of residence / municipality (i.e. rural, semi-urban, and urban) was defined according to the official classifications made by the Ministry of Local Development (GoN) and further verified by parents’ own reports. This has now been informed in the revised manuscript as a footnote below Table 1 (line 265-266).

Comment 10: Regarding the discussion authors point out that earthquake could be a reason for high behavioural problems. This should be mentioned with caution as not whole nation had its impacts. It should also be seen what sample areas taken in this study were hit by earthquake?

Our reply: Thank you for your suggestion. As described in the manuscript, the aim of our study was not to demonstrate the impact of the 2015 earthquake, and we did not design the study so that it could demonstrate any connection between the earlier disaster and the magnitude of child EBP. We just mentioned the earthquake to suggest that we might possibly find a higher prevalence of child mental problems due to this disaster’s possible prolonged effect on mental health. We also mentioned that there might be many other factors, such as poverty and other social / family problems, that might have an impact on the level of child mental problems in Nepal. According to your advice, we have now added in the revised manuscript that this hypothesis should be considered with caution and that other studies comparing areas hit by the earthquake with areas not affected, are needed in order to confirm it (line 357 – 359).

Comment 11: Was the ascent taken from the children in study?

Our reply: The consent was taken from the parents only. This was approved by the ethical approval board of NHRC (approval granted in 2017).

Comment 12: Suggestions:

a. Please see if the journal allows discussion with separate head in each finding. If yes I am ok

Our reply: We have now deleted the following subheadings in the Discussion part: Prevalence (line 341); Gender differences (line 368); Types of problems (line 376); Castes and ethnic groups (line 393); Regions and types of living areas (line 411).

b. Please cite the following landmark studies in the introduction from Nepal as we have data on prevalence

• Jha, A. K., Ojha, S. P., Dahal, S., Sharma, P., Pant, S. B., Labh, S., Marahatta, K., Shakya, S., Adhikari, R. P., Joshi, D., Luitel, N. P., & Dhimal, M. (2019). Prevalence of Mental Disorders in Nepal: Findings from the Pilot Study. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council, 17(2), 141-147. https://doi.org/10.33314/jnhrc.v0i0.1960

• http://nhrc.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Factsheet-Adolescents.pdf

Our reply: Thank you for the suggestion. We have now cited the above-mentioned article from Nepal by Jha et al (2019) in the introduction and presented the prevalence of mental disorders that was found for the age group 13-17 (line 81-84).

Reviewer #2:

Congratulations for such a wonderful study from LMIC like Nepal covering all geographical areas. The study seems to have been well conducted. There are some minor grammatical errors that need correction which have been mentioned in the attached word file itself.

Here are few major questions that need to be addressed:

Comment 1: The Khas Kaami (Hill Dalit) has been disproportionately represented in this study, in comparison to their population size, and the same participants have been found to have more problems. So, the reason for this disproportionate representation needs further clarification.

Our reply: The Khas Kaami group represents the seventh of the largest castes and ethnic groups in Nepal according to the Nepali census of 2011, i.e. 4.8% of the total population. In our study, they constitute 11.7% of the total sample. The reason for this disproportionate representation may be the selection of districts or / and schools. Some of the districts / schools included in the study may have had a larger Khas Kaami child population which then explain the higher number of Khas Kaami children. Also, the randomly selection of students from each school might by chance have provided a higher number of Khas Kaami children. However, this incongruity is not decisive as to the comparisons of mean scores of EBP between groups as the statistical tests used in this study are able to handle differences in group sizes.

Comment 2: The total number of participants and that of boys and girls is different in different tables which have been mentioned in the attached comments as well. This needs correction/clarification.

Our reply: We have explained about this in our reply to the Editor Manager. Please, see our answer to point 6 in his list of comments. The point is that the numbers of informants were not the same in Table 2 and 3. In Table 2, we estimated the prevalence for the total sample (N=3820), whereas in Table 3, we estimated the prevalence for the seven largest castes and ethnic groups (N=3148) while omitting the “Others” group (N=672). We have clarified this in the manuscript (see line numbers in our reply to the Editor Manager).

Comment 3: The literacy status of the parents of the participants of Tharu ethnic group seems to be much low as compared to that of others and their reporting of child EBP is also the lowest. Some discussion into this aspect might be worthy.

Our reply: Thank you for your suggestion. The lower literacy status of the Tharu parents found in our study (illiteracy 23.2%) is in line with the data obtained by the national census of Nepal (2011) stating that the educational status of the Tharus was poor and that the percentage of illiteracy in the Tharu population was 36.1%. In the Discussion section of the revised manuscript, we have now discussed whether illiteracy and language problems might have interfered with the Tharu parents’ rating of problems (line 404 – 410).

Comment 4: The composition of family structure- nuclear vs joint/extended greatly affect the child rearing and thus could affect the EBP of the children as well. It would be worthy to discuss if the authors have collected data regarding this part.

Our reply: The aims of the present paper were to examine the prevalence and magnitude of child EBP in the different regions and living areas of Nepal, and to compare possible gender and ethnic differences. However, social and family correlates of child problems, such as family structure, was not part of the present study. As mentioned in the manuscript, exploring such correlations will be the focus of our next paper, now in progress (line 447 – 450).

Comment 5: In line 375 "Another limitation is that fathers’ reports were not assessed." has been mentioned. No such thing has been mentioned anywhere in the methods section. Does it mean that data were collected from "mothers" only. If so, it needs to be mentioned explicitly in the methods section as well.

Our reply: Thank you for this reminder. We have now added that mothers only were used as informants and that fathers were not included due to capacity problems. We have put this information in the Methods part (line 194 – 196).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Jul 2021

Parent reports of children’s emotional and behavioral problems in a low- and middle- income country (LMIC): An epidemiological study of Nepali schoolchildren

PONE-D-21-07867R1

Dear Dr. Ma,

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,

Pranil Man Singh Pradhan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing all the comments well. The manuscript is now much refined, clearer and better.

**********

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: Dr. Pawan Sharma

Reviewer #2: No

26 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-07867R1

Parent reports of children’s emotional and behavioral problems in a low- and middle- income country (LMIC): An epidemiological study of Nepali schoolchildren

Dear Dr. Ma:

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. Pranil Man Singh Pradhan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE