Caregiver perceived barriers to the use of micronutrient powder for children aged 6-59 months in Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of micronutrient powder (MNP) on the health outcome of children is yet to be proved. Although studies identified the barriers to the use of MNP the underlying factors related to the barriers to the use of MNP are still unexplored. We examined the underlying factors associated with the barriers reported by the caregivers of the children aged 6-59 months in Bangladesh.
METHODS: We analyzed pooled data of 3, 634 caregiver-child dyads extracted from eight cross-sectional surveys. The surveys were conducted as part of an evaluation of the Maternal, Infant and Young Children Nutrition programme (phase 2) in Bangladesh. We performed univariate analysis to find the barriers reported by the caregivers of the children. We identified the underlying factors related to the reported barriers by performing multiple logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: The mostly reported barrier was perceived lack of need for MNP among the caregivers of the children (39.9%), followed by lack of awareness of the product (21.7%) and cost of the product (18.1%). Caregivers of older children (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.69; 95% CI: 1.43, 2.00) and caregivers who maintained good infant and young child feeding practices (aOR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.57) perceived more lack of need for MNP. Caregivers of the female children (aOR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.98) were less likely to report that their children disliked MNP compared to the caregivers of the male children.
CONCLUSION: Programmes intended to effectively promote MNP among the caregivers of children aged 6-59 months should carefully consider the factors that could underlie the barriers to the use of MNP.

Introduction

Globally, more than one and half billion people are anaemic and most of them are pre-school aged children and pregnant women [1]. Pre-school aged children are at risk of anaemia due to their rapid growth and low consumption of iron and micronutrient dense foods [2]. Children need adequate vitamin and mineral for their development at least up to two years of age [3]. Due to suboptimal practices of infant and young child feeding (IYCF) and less diversity in dietary practices, it fails to meet the recommended nutrient intakes that may lead to immediate and long-term consequences [4]. Moreover, plant-sources food cannot provide sufficient micronutrients, particularly iron. On the other hand, the inclusion of animal-source foods in dietary practice, to reduce micronutrient deficiency, may not be affordable for the lower income groups [5, 6]. Thus, it necessitates introducing multiple micronutrient powder (MNP) for improving nutritional status and reducing anaemia.

Although the efficacy of MNP in reducing childhood anaemia has already been established, however, the effectiveness of MNP usage at the community level is yet to be proven [7]. Programmes promoting MNP confronts barriers from the perspective of both supply and demand side, and their effectiveness rely upon the delivery channels or programme models they use [8-10]. One of the potential delivery channels is a market-based approach to promoting MNP through volunteer community health workers [8] and this approach has been found to be cost-effective [11]. However, the study indicates that whatever the delivery channel is, uninterrupted supplies and programmatic inputs and training of the providers are in central to make the MNP promotional programme effective [8]. Lack of programmatic inputs and insufficient training of the provider- particularly of community health worker (CHW) can result in low uptake of MNP at the community level [12]. The study also has shown that individual, community and organizational level factors may pose barriers for the CHWs to perform in promoting MNP including a lack of self-efficacy, family support, and the provision of capacity building for income generation [13]. These aforementioned supply side barriers to coverage of MNP are evident in low- and middle-income countries [10]. However, none of the studies did focus on how these factors may lead to creating barriers for the caregivers of the children who are the ultimate beneficiaries of MNP.

Apart from these supply side barriers, studies revealed barriers to coverage of MNP and other nutrient supplement from the perspective of demand side [14, 15]. These demand side barriers are related to the perception of the caregivers of the children and their socio-cultural factors. Although several studies have been done to identify the barriers to use of MNP, to our knowledge, however, no study has been conducted so far to identify the underlying factors relating to the barriers to the use of MNP among the caregivers of the children aged 6–59 months. It is imperative to identify the factors contributing to the barriers to the use of MNP so that interventions could be devised for overcoming the barriers and thus MNP promotional programme could be made more effective. In this article, we present the barriers to the use of MNP reported by the caregivers of the children under a community-based Maternal Infant and Young Child Nutrition (MIYCN) Phase-2 Programme in Bangladesh and the underlying factors related to those barriers.

Bangladesh MIYCN programme was a collaborative endeavor of GAIN (Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition) and BRAC-a non-governmental organization based in Bangladesh. The programme components included enabling policy environment for home fortification with Pushtikona-5 (a brand name of MNP), improving the delivery channels to ensure effective coverage of Pushtikona-5 through CHW of BRAC and demand creation to scale up home fortification practices and demand for Pushtikona-5 [16]. Key interventions for improving the delivery channel for MIYCN in order to ensure effective coverage of Pushtikona-5 through community health workers (CHWs) of BRAC included training (a basic training workshop and monthly refresher training) to CHWs to promote home-fortification of diets with Pushtikona-5 at the household level, counseling to the caregivers of children aged 6–59 months, on home-fortification with Pushtikona-5, monitoring home-fortification activities at the community level by CHW and stimulation CHWs with the provision of incentives to promote Pushtikona-5 [16]. Under the MIYCN programme, BRAC sells Pushtikona-5 to a CHW at US$ 0.02 per sachet and asks the CHW to sell it to the caregivers at US$ 0.03 per sachet. The programme aimed to reduce the prevalence of anaemia among under-5 children by 10% by the end of the programme.

icddr,b was the evaluation partner in the programme. Results presented in this paper are part of a large evaluation of the MIYCN programme, undertaken by icddr,b. The comprehensive account of the large evaluation of the MIYCN programme has been published elsewhere [17]. We anticipate that the findings described in this paper will provide directives for the implementers to design an effective MNP promotion programme.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

Eight cross-sectional surveys were carried out from 2014 to 2018 as part of an evaluation of Bangladesh MIYCN programme. Surveys were conducted at the household level among the caregivers of the children of 6–59 months in 26 administrative districts of Bangladesh where BRAC’s MIYCN programme was implemented.

Study population

Caregivers of the children of 6–23 months were the study population in this study. A caregiver was defined as the child’s biological mother or the person who took care or looked after and gave the child most meals on most days. The inclusion criteria of selecting the household were the households having at least a child of 6–59 months. If a household had more than one child of 6–59 months a child was selected in a random selection process by lottery. The survey excluded the households if the caregiver or child belonged to the households was physically or mentally challenged, or the child had any disease during the day of the survey.

Data collection and extraction

A two-stage sampling procedure was applied to select a total of 16, 936 caregiver-child dyads and data were collected using Open Data Kit. The details of the sampling and data collection process are mentioned in elsewhere [18]. For this article, we analyzed data of 3, 634 samples who responded that they had seen or heard of Pushtikona-5, but did not feed to their children. Data extraction process is presented in “Fig 1”.

Fig 1

Extraction of samples for analysis.

Variables measured

Household level information such as the number of the household member and the assets in the household was obtained during the survey. Households were categorized into poor, middle and rich based on the wealth index. We calculated the wealth index based on the household’s ownership of selected assets, household structure (materials used for floor, roof, and wall of the house), type of latrine used and sources of drinking water by using principal component analysis [19].

Child’s age was calculated from his or her date of birth mentioned in the health card or reported by the caregiver when the health card was unavailable. Caregivers’ age and age of the child’s father were calculated from the date of birth mentioned in their national identity cards. Child age was categorized as 6–23 months and 24–59 months. Caregivers’ age was categorized as <25 years and ≥ 25 years. Child’s father age was categorized as <30 years and ≥30 years. Father’s and caregiver’s age were categorized based on the median value.

Caregivers were asked if they had ever seen or heard of MNP (any brand including Pushtokona-5) and if they ever fed MNP to their children prior to the day of survey. Respondents, who had seen or heard of MNP but never fed to their children, were asked why they did not feed. The reasons they mentioned for not feeding MNP to their children were considered as their barriers to the use of MNP. Multiple barriers were reported by the caregivers. A 24-hour dietary recall questionnaire was used to assess Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF) practices. IYCF practices were scored based on the Infant and Child Feeding Index (ICFI) [20]. If the ICFI score was maximum (ICFI score = 6) the IYCF practices were considered as optimal “S1 Table”. We also asked the caregivers if their households were visited by a CHW in the last 12 months prior to the day of the interview.

Data analysis

We performed univariate analysis and tabulated the frequency and proportion of different variables. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to find the factors associated with different barriers to the use of MNP reported by the caregivers and odd ratios along with 95% confidence interval were tabulated. The potential variables that were found significant at p-value < 0.20 in the simple logistic regression model were kept in the multivariable logistic regression model. Data were analyzed using STATA version 13.0 (Stata Corp, 4905 Lakeway Drive, College Station, Texas 77845, USA).

Ethics statement

Study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of icddr,b which is comprises of Research Review Committee and Ethical Review Committee. Well-informed written consents were obtained from the caregivers of the children before starting the survey. The Ethical Review Committee approved the consent form prior to the survey.

Results

A total of 3634 (21.5%) caregivers mentioned that they had ever seen or heard of MNP but did not feed MNP to their children. Their socio-demographic characteristics are presented in “Table 1”. Of their households, 58.9% had ≥ 5 members. Among the children of 6–59 months, 51.7% were male. Two or more children of 6–59 months were found in 17.5% of households. The remaining 82.5% of households had one child of 6–59 months. Caregivers and fathers of the children who completed ≥5 years of schooling were 78.7% and 64.4% respectively.

Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants (n = 3634).

Variables	Frequency	Percentage
Household size
≥ 5 members	2141	58.9
No. of children (6–59 months) in the households
Two or more	637	17.5
Sex of the children
Male	1860	51.7
Child’s age
24–59 months	1888	52.8
Caregiver’s religion
Muslim	3292	90.3
Caregiver’s education
≥ 5 years	2834	78.7
Caregiver’s age
≥ 25 years	2189	59.4
Father’s age
≥ 30 years	2621	71.7
Father’s education
≥ 5 years	2315	64.4
Wealth index
Poor	1236	33.2
Middle	1170	32.2
Rich	1228	34.6

“Fig 2” shows the barriers to the use of MNP reported by the caregivers. Barriers reported by most of the caregivers were perceived lack of need (39.9%) followed by lack of awareness of the product (21.7%), cost of the product or not affordable (18.1%), irregular or insufficient supply of MNP (13.1%) and disliking the product by the children (12.7%). However, discouraged by the neighbors or family members (4.3%) also came up as a barrier reported by the caregivers.

Fig 2

Percentage of perceived barriers to the use of micronutrient powder reported by the caregivers of the children aged 6–59 months.

“Table 2” presents the factors associated with the barriers to the use of MNP among the caregivers. Caregivers of the older children (aOR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.43, 2.00), caregivers of Muslim families (aOR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.95) and caregivers of the middle (aOR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.77) and the rich (aOR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.46, 2.23) households were more likely to perceive lack of need for MNP for their children. Caregivers who maintained optimal IYCF practices were 32% more likely to perceive lack of need for MNP for their children compared to the caregivers who did not maintain optimal IYCF practices. Results showed, although unexpectedly, that caregivers who completed ≥ 5 years of schooling (aOR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.76) and caregivers of the children whose father completed ≥ 5 years of schooling (aOR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.67) were more likely to perceive lack of need for MNP for their children. However, caregivers of the households that had two or more children of 6–59 months were 20% less likely to perceive lack of need for MNP for their children compared to caregivers of the households that had one child.

Table 2

Factors associated with the barriers to the use of micronutrient powder among the caregivers of the children aged 6–59 months.

Variables	Perceived lack of need	Cost of the product or not affordable	Discouraged by neighbor or family members	Disliking the product by children	Lack of awareness of the product	Irregular or insufficient supply
	aOR (95% CI)	aOR (95% CI)	aOR (95% CI)	aOR (95% CI)	aOR (95% CI)	aOR (95% CI)
Household size
< 5 members	1	1	1	1	1	1
≥ 5 members				0.68** (0.54, 0.86)	1.08 (0.88, 1.33)
No. of children (6–59 months) in the households
One	1	1	1	1	1	1
Two or more	0.80* (0.64, 0.99)	1.51** (1.16, 1.96)	1.41 (0.99, 2.00)		1.22 (0.95, 1.58)
Sex of the children
Male	1	1	1	1	1	1
Female	1.17 (1.00, 1.38)			0.79* (0.63, 0.98)
Child’s age
6–23 months	1	1	1	1	1	1
24–59 months	1.69*** (1.43, 2.00)	1.12 (0.90, 1.39)		1.43** (1.11, 1.83)	0.23*** (0.19, 0.29)	1.28* (1.02, 1.61)
Caregiver’s religion
Hindu/Others	1	1	1	1	1	1
Muslim	1.43* (1.05, 1.95)	1.61* (1.02, 2.52)			0.79 (0.60, 1.05)
Caregiver’s education
< 5 years	1	1	1	1	1	1
≥ 5 years	1.41** (1.13, 1.76)	0.50*** (0.40, 0.63)
Caregiver’s age
< 25 years	1	1	1	1	1	1
≥ 25 years		1.35** (1.08, 1.69)
Father’s age
< 30 years	1	1	1	1	1	1
≥ 30 years	1.18 (0.99, 1.40)			0.77* (0.60, 0.98)	0.81* (0.67, 0.99)
Father’s education
< 5 years	1	1	1	1	1	1
≥ 5 years	1.38** (1.14, 1.67)	0.55*** (0.44, 0.69)	1.34 (0.87, 2.06)		1.12 (0.92, 1.37)
Wealth index
Poor	1	1	1	1	1	1
Middle	1.45*** (1.19, 1.77)	0.59*** (0.47, 0.76)	0.91 (0.56, 1.47)	1.36* (1.05, 1.77)
Rich	1.81*** (1.46, 2.23)	0.26*** (0.19, 0.35)	1.20 (0.76, 1.89)	1.40* (1.05, 1.87)
CHW’s visit within last 12 months
No	1	1	1	1	1	1
Yes	0.86 (0.73, 1.01)	1.24 1.00, 1.55)	1.51* (1.06, 2.14)	1.66*** (1.31, 2.10)	1.19 (0.98, 1.45)	0.54*** (0.42, 0.68)
Optimal IYCF practices
No	1	1	1	1	1	1
Yes	1.32** (1.12, 1.57)	0.68** (0.53, 0.88)		0.75* (0.58, 0.97)	1.04 (0.85, 1.29)

*p value <0.05,

**p value <0.01,

***p value <0.001;

aOR = Adjusted Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval.

Caregivers who perceived that cost of the product was a barrier to the use MNP, their such a perception was associated with the number of children of their household, their religious and educational status, their age, educational status of child’s father, household wealth status and caregivers’ IYCF practices. Caregivers of the households with two or more children aged 6–59 months (aOR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.96), caregivers of the Muslim households (aOR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.52) and caregivers of ≥ 25 years old (aOR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.69) were more likely to report that cost of MNP was a barrier to use. However, caregivers who completed ≥ 5 years of schooling (aOR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.40, 0.63), caregivers from the middle (aOR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.76) and the rich (aOR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.35) households compared to poor households based on wealth status and caregivers who maintained optimal IYCF practices (aOR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53,0.88) were less likely to report the cost of the product as a barrier. Caregivers who received CHW’s visit in the last 12 months were more likely (aOR 1.51, 95% CI: 1.06, 2.14) to report that they were discouraged by their neighbor or family members to the use MNP, compared to the caregivers who did not receive CHW’s visit in the last 12 months.

Disliking the product by the children reported by the caregivers as a barrier was associated with child’s age and sex, child’s father age, CHW’s visit in their households, their households’ wealth status and their IYCF practices. Caregivers of the older children (aOR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.83), caregivers from the rich (aOR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.05,1.77) and the middle (aOR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.05,1.87) households in terms of wealth status and caregivers who received the visit of CHW in the last 12 months (aOR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.31, 2.10) were more likely to report that their children did not like MNP, compared to their respective counterparts. On the other hand, the caregivers who were from the households of ≥ 5 members (aOR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.54–0.86) and who maintained optimal IYCF practices (aOR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.97) were less likely to report that their children disliked MNP compared to the caregivers from the households with <5 members and the caregivers who did not maintain optimal IYCF practices, respectively. Caregivers of the female children were 21% less likely (aOR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.98) to report that their children disliked MNP compared to the caregivers of the male children.

Lack of awareness of MNP among the caregivers was found to be associated with child age and child’s father age. Caregivers of the older children were 77% less likely to report a lack of awareness as a barrier than the caregivers of younger children. The caregiver of the child, whose father’s age was ≥ 30 years, was 19% less likely to report lack of awareness as a barrier compared to the caregiver of the child whose father’s age was < 30 years.

Caregivers’ perception of irregular or insufficient supply of MNP as a barrier was associated with child age and CHW’s visit in their households. Caregivers of the older children were 28% more likely to report irregular or insufficient supply of MNP as a barrier compared to the caregivers of younger children. However, the caregivers who received the visit of CHW in the last 12 months were 46% less likely to report irregular or insufficient supply of MNP as a barrier compared to the caregivers who did not receive the visit of CHW in the last 12 months.

Discussion

Evidence of the effectiveness of MNP programme targeting the younger children is limited. Several studies have identified a range of supply- and demand-side barriers to the use of MNP including lack of awareness of the products, lack of affordability and discouragement from the neighbors or other family members that corresponds with the findings of this study [10, 12, 14]. However, this paper further investigated underlying factors associated with the barriers to the use of MNP among the caregivers of the children and found several factors from supply-side and demand-side, associated with the barriers reported by the caregivers.

Caregivers’ perceptions regarding the necessity of MNP for their children could rely on their previous experiences as the results indicate that perceived lack of need for MNP is less among the caregivers of more than one child. Study shows that number of children of the mothers does not influence their decision making in healthcare of the children [21], but it is very likely that previous experience of child rearing could create positive perception towards MNP if the previous child suffers from undernutrition. However, from our study findings we cannot assert that their previous experiences of child rearing make their perception positive towards MNP since we do not have data on nutritional status of the previous children.

Although unexpectedly we found that educated parents perceived more lack of need for MNP, it implies that formal education may not be sufficient to impart nutrition knowledge. A study indicates that educated mothers are very likely to be busy with their other prioritized works and that could result in their less concern about their children’s nutrition [22]. Study also illustrates that perception about health and nutrition can be improved through non-formal education whereas formal education can increase general knowledge [22]. So, our results underpin the necessity of social and behavior change communication to promote MNP among the caregivers of the children. It is evident that exposure to social and behavior change communication has substantial impact on complementary feeding practices of the children [23]. However, a study indicates that despite having recommended dietary diversity and meal frequency a child may not get adequate nutrients particularly iron, zinc and vitamin B6 because of bioavailability constraints of these problem nutrients in the foods [24]. Our findings show that caregivers who maintain optimal IYCF practices for their children perceive lack of need of MNP for their children. From caregivers’ perspective, such a perception among them is usual as they may feel that they provide sufficient food to their children. It is also unexpected that they will understand that their children might lack of nutrients even if they feed recommended diets to their children, until they are communicated and informed.

CHW is one of the potential channels to communicate with the caregivers of the children at the community level [8], however, our findings show that the caregivers who received the visit of CHW are more likely to report that their children do not like MNP. It does not imply that the visit of the CHW is itself a barrier; rather due to the visit of the CHW more caregivers are receiving MNP from her but their children may dislike the product. Although results show that the caregiver who received the visit of the CHW are confronting discourage by the neighbor to use MNP, it is because the neighbor may not receive the visit from the CHW and thus they may be skeptical to the use of MNP received by the caregiver and de-motivate them. A study has illustrated those caregivers of the households that receive the visit from the CHW are likely to be informed about MNP and also to feed MNP to their children at least once, although there is a lack of evidence that such a visit can ensure compliance or effective use of MNP [18]. Therefore, the development of strategies such as counseling for the family members and community are important to address this barrier as suggested by the studies [14, 25]. However, different strategies should be taken into consideration at the initial stage of the programme implementation and it is recommended that implementing an MNP intervention in real-world contexts needs a comprehensive implementation research approach that would help implementers to address caregivers-level barriers from the very beginning of the implementation [26].

The CHW can play a vital role in counseling the family members and neighbors but in our study, CHW’s visit has been found to have the potential to ensure the supply of MNP at the household level and it has a limited impact on motivating the family members and community to feed MNP to the children. So, during the visit of the CHWs to the households they should give more emphasis on describing the benefits of MNP and demonstration on how to feed MNP so that the caregivers can troubleshoot the problem related to the home fortification of diets with MNP. Although child’s dislike of MNP is a crucial predictor of MNP intake [27], our study further shows that they are male children or older children who dislike MNP more as the caregivers reported, therefore visit of the CHW needs to be target-oriented, particularly at the households of the children who are reluctant to consume MNP.

The CHWs may intend to visit the households of the children who consume MNP because they target those households to increase the sale of MNP that could bring marginal profit for them. Thus, it could create a vicious cycle where the caregivers of the children who dislike MNP may claim that they do not feed their children because of the unavailability of MNP and the CHWs may pretext that they do not visit those households because the children of the households dislike MNP.

Based on the findings, the study suggests interventions that should consider the barriers from the perspectives of both the supply-side and demand-side. The interventions should include a regular supply of MNP at an incentivized price, since insufficient supply and cost of the product have been found to be barriers to the use of MNP. On the other hand, dissemination of MNP promotional messages at the household and community level is warranted to build awareness of the need for MNP among the caregivers of the children.

Strengths and limitations

This is the first study that has investigated perceived barriers to the use of MNP from the caregivers of the children of 6–59 months. This study not only identified the perceived barriers to the use of MNP but also explored the underlying factors. However, the study has some limitations. The study was conducted in some areas of Bangladesh and so the findings may not be generalizable for the entire country. We analyzed the sub-sample from the total estimated sample size which may reduce estimated power.

Conclusion

This study indicates that rather than identifying the barriers to MNP use, researchers should investigate the root causes of those barriers. The programme intended to promoting MNP should carefully consider both the supply-side and demand-side factors that could underlie the barriers to the use of MNP.

Variables and scores used in constructing the infant and child feeding index.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

22 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-19517

Caregiver perceived barriers to the use of micronutrient powder for children aged 6-59 months in Bangladesh

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rahman,

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.

The paper has been reviewed by two independent reviewers. They have raised some concerns those need to be fixed before taking final decision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 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,

Enamul Kabir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

and

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

2. Please ensure you have discussed the limitations of this study within the Discussion section, including any potential bias introduced during sampling and/or data collection.

3.  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.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors report an ineresting survey of the underlying factors related to the barriers to use of MNP. The survey contains a large sample. I think the results are pretty sond and the data analysis is proper.

Reviewer #2: There is no denying that,MNP suppling is the major method for improving nutritional status and reducing anemia. In practice, however, PROTES barriers from the perspective of both supply and demand side.

Based on the demand side, this study analyzed the perception of the caregivers of the childrendemand side and socio-cultural factors.It can provide a basis for improvement in the follow-up health promotion programs.

It is suggested to further summarize and clarify that intervention plans on eliminating the obstacle factors.

**********

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: 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.

19 Aug 2021

We appreciate the very thoughtful reviews of the previous version of the manuscript. We have updated the text in response to the reviewers’ queries and feedback. A point-by-point response to each of the reviewers’ comments is included below. We believe these changes have substantially improved the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised manuscript appropriate for publication in PLOS ONE. Many thanks for your consideration.

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have checked the reference list and made corrections as per the formatting guidelines. There was an error in referencing ‘ Myatt M. IYCF assessment with small sample surveys: A proposal for a simplified and structured approach’ (#20 in reference list). Details on Infant and Child Feeding Index (ICFI) have been mentioned in ‘Guevarra E, Siling K, Chiwile F, Mutunga M, Senesie J, Beckley W, et al. IYCF assessment with small-sample surveys-A proposal for a simplified and structured approach. Field Exchange 47. 2014 Jul 19:60.’ Therefore, we have replaced the previous reference with this one in the revised manuscript.

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

Response: Thanks. We have checked with the file formatting sample of PLOS ONE and made corrections in the title page. We have also made corrections in file naming as per PLOS ONE style templates.

2. Please ensure you have discussed the limitations of this study within the Discussion section, including any potential bias introduced during sampling and/or data collection.

Response: Thank you for your observation. According to your suggestion, we have added a section on ‘Strengths and limitations’ within the Discussion section (Page 17, lines 355-361) in the revised manuscript. Two-stage random sampling technique was applied to select the caregivers of children from households and data collection was done by the trained data collectors, so we assume that no potential bias was introduced during sampling or data collection.

3. 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.

Response: Thanks. We have checked the organization policy and revised the ‘Data Availability statement’ as per your suggestion as follows:

“Data generated from icddr,b’s research can be provided to interested researchers (Recipients) for secondary data analyses upon approval of a Data Licensing Application & Agreement by the icddr,b Data Centre Committee. Interested personnel is recommended to consult this with icddr,b IRB Coordinator Mr. M A Salam Khan (salamk@icddrb.org)”.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response: Thank you for your observation. We have included caption for our Supporting Information file at the end of the manuscript and update the in-text citation accordingly.

Reviewers' comments:

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors report an ineresting survey of the underlying factors related to the barriers to use of MNP. The survey contains a large sample. I think the results are pretty sond and the data analysis is proper.

Response: Thank you very much for your complements.

Reviewer #2: There is no denying that,MNP suppling is the major method for improving nutritional status and reducing anemia. In practice, however, PROTES barriers from the perspective of both supply and demand side.

Based on the demand side, this study analyzed the perception of the caregivers of the childrendemand side and socio-cultural factors.It can provide a basis for improvement in the follow-up health promotion programs.

It is suggested to further summarize and clarify that intervention plans on eliminating the obstacle factors.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your suggestions we have added some suggestive intervention plans based on our findings to eliminate the obstacle factors in discussion section (Pages 17, lines 348-353) of the revised manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file.

17 Nov 2021

Caregiver perceived barriers to the use of micronutrient powder for children aged 6-59 months in Bangladesh

PONE-D-21-19517R1

Dear Dr. Rahman,

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,

Enamul Kabir

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: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: The influencing factors of MNP mentioned in this paper exist in some underdeveloped countries, and the research contents, problems found and suggested countermeasures proposed by the author will contribute to the improvement of children's nutrition.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

22 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-19517R1

Caregiver perceived barriers to the use of micronutrient powder for children aged 6-59 months in Bangladesh

Dear Dr. Rahman:

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. Enamul Kabir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE