Likelihood of infectious diseases due to lack of exclusive breastfeeding among infants in Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: Bangladesh is a South Asian developing country trying to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)-3 and the objective of the Rural Electrification Board (REB) regarding child mortality. Infectious diseases are leading causes of child mortality, and lack of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) among infants aged 0-6 months increases child morbidity and mortality from various infectious diseases in developing countries. However, as per existing literature, no study has been conducted yet to determine the lack of EBF practice effect on child mortality in Bangladesh. With this backdrop, the authors intend to measure the likelihood of infectious diseases due to the lack of EBF of infants aged 0-6 months in Bangladesh.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) data over 1996-97 to 2017-18. The mothers of infants aged 0-6 months who were willingly participated in the BDHSs were considered to include in our analysis. Initially, there were 9,133 cases in the combined dataset. After filtering, there were 5,724 cases in the final dataset. We have considered diarrhea (D), acute respiratory infection (ARI) separately as well as the presence of either D or ARI or both and named as CoDARI as outcome variables. This study used both graphical and statistical techniques (Chi-square test, Wald test, and logistic regression) to analyze the data. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to quantify the likelihood of infectious diseases due to lack of EBF practice and its elasticity, respectively.
RESULTS: The EBF practice got a conspicuous increasing trend, but the prevalence of infectious diseases was declined from 0 to 3 months of age of infants, whereas an inverse scenario is observed between 4-6 months. The significance of that inverse relationship was confirmed by p-value corresponding to the chi-square test and the Wald test of the adjusted regression coefficients after adjusting the associated factor's effect on infectious diseases. The adjusted ORs also concluded that the lack of EBF practice up to six months of age could enhance the risk of D, ARI, and CoDARI by 2.11 [95% CI: 1.56-2.85], 1.43 [95% CI: 1.28-1.60], and 1.48 [95% CI: 1.32-1.66] times higher, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Findings of this study emphasize the importance of EBF up to six months of age of infants against diarrhea and ARI specific morbidity and mortality. Our results also agreed to the recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and National Nutrition Programme of Ethiopia (NNPE) that the EBF practice for the first six months of age could be a best, cost-effective, long-lasting natural preventive way to reduce the child morbidity and mortality due to infectious diseases in developing countries. Therefore, findings would help policymakers ensuring the achievement target of REB and SDG-3 associated with the health sector in Bangladesh.

Introduction

Neonatal, infant, and child mortality are ongoing public health problems throughout the world. These are crucial indicators of a country’s well-being and socio-economic development and are, therefore, used for monitoring and evaluating population and health programs and policies. However, deaths from infectious diseases significantly contribute to neonatal, infant, and child mortality rates. Infectious diseases are responsible for 7 out of 10 childhood deaths globally, where specifically, ARI is the leading cause for 30% of total childhood deaths, and diarrhea is the second leading cause of childhood deaths [1, 2]. Among the total, 95% of pneumonia cases occur in developing countries, and, therefore, newborns are more likely to die from infectious diseases from these countries.

Bangladesh is a South Asian developing country where a majority of people are poor. Over the last 25 years, the neonatal, infant, and child (under-5) mortality rates were declined, and, as per BDHS 2014, the neonatal, infant, and under-5 mortality rates were 30, 38, and 45 per 1000 live birth respectively, in Bangladesh [3]. However, Bangladesh is so far from attaining the objective of the Rural Electrification Board (REB) to lessen infant mortality by 5 per 1000 live birth [4, 5]. Moreover, substantial reduction is required in neonatal mortality to 12 per 1000 live births and under-5 mortality to as low as 25 per 1000 live births by the year 2030 to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal-3 (SDG-3) regarding child mortality [4, 6]. However, to avert the child mortality rate, the WHO, UNICEF, AAP, AAFP, and NNPE recommends timely commencement of breastfeeding within the first hour of birth and followed by breastfeeding exclusively for the first six months of age, and then continued breastfeeding along with other complementary foods up to 24 months of age in order to ensure the optimal growth, health and development [7-14]. There is evidence from many studies that EBF can play a significant role in boosting immunity and reducing the risk of morbidity and mortality of tremendous communicable and non-communicable diseases in the early and an older stage if the duration of EBF is maintained properly [9, 15–17]. Furthermore, EBF up to six months of life of infants can avert the risk of diarrhea and ARI [18-20]. The infants who were not exclusively breastfeed had a higher likelihood of suffering from infectious diseases than those who received breast milk exclusively up to six months of age [21-23].

Due to non-exclusive or inappropriate or lack of EBF, about 1.24 million (96%) child deaths occur during the first six months of age, and the rate is higher in Asia and Africa [24, 25]. About 45% of neonatal infectious deaths, 30% diarrheal deaths, 18% acute respiratory deaths, and 10% disease burden of infants under five years of age are attributed to suboptimal breastfeeding in developing countries [26, 27]. Each year, more than 236,000 infant deaths occur for inadequate breastfeeding in China, India, Nigeria, Mexico, and Indonesia [28]. Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all the countries should meet 90% EBF to reduce child death among under-5 children [29], and according to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) strategy, it is needed to rise 50% by 2025 [30, 31]. Many studies showed that about 1.5 million children’s lives could be saved each year if they practiced by recommended EBF rates [32]. Moreover, some studies reveal that 13% - 15% of infant death among lives aged under-5 years could be reduced by increasing the EBF rate to an optimal level in low- and middle-income countries [29, 33].

Furthermore, Bangladesh is still now far away from the recommended percentage of the EBF. As per existing literature, till now, no study has been conducted yet to determine the effect of the lack of EBF practice on child mortality in Bangladesh. With this backdrop, the study was aimed to measure the likelihood of infectious diseases of infants aged 0–6 months due to lack of EBF practice using the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) data from 1996–97 to 2017–18. The findings of this study would help to make proper decisions against reducing childhood mortality and morbidity from infectious diseases through improving the prevalence of EBF practice.

Materials and methods

Study flow diagram

Initially, the comparative graphical analysis was performed to compare the patterns of EBF and infectious disease (D, ARI and CoDARI) over the survey years and infant’s age to introduce their relationship. Subsequently, the chi-square test was carried out to determine the significance of the pre-determined relationship as well as to determine the significant associated factors other than EBF of infectious disease. Furthermore, this study was performed the simple logistic regression modeling to estimate the strength of the relationship and the likelihood of infectious diseases due to lack of EBF practice. Finally, the multiple logistic regression modeling was carried out to adjust the effect of other significant associated factors of infectious diseases. The study flow diagram is presented in Fig 1.

Fig 1

Study flow diagram.

Study data

The Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey is the longest-running series of nationally representative household surveys in Bangladesh that started in 1993, collecting pooled population, health, and nutrition data. This study used BDHS data over 1996–97 to 2017–18 to complete the objectives.

Case inclusion criteria

The mothers of infants aged 0–6 months who were willingly participated in the BDHSs were considered to include in our study.

Outcome variable

Children are affected by several infectious diseases; however, we have considered diarrhea (D), ARI and the combination of both i.e., having either D or ARI or both as CoDARI (i.e., combination of D or ARI), therefore, infectious diseases indicate the presence of D, ARI, and CoDARI in this study. The interest of the study was to measure the likelihood of infectious diseases of infants aged 0–6 months due to lack of EBF practice; therefore, the prevalence of D, ARI, and CoDARI were considered as the outcome variables. All outcome variables considered in this study with their corresponding value labels are provided in the S1 Table.

Predictor variable

The key predictor variable was the prevalence of EBF-computed using the related variables on feeding breast milk and complementary foods. Identifying the sole effect of EBF on infectious diseases needs to adjust the effect of other covariates, including socio-demographic, vaccination, and other related factors that may impact the risk of infectious diseases. The survey year was also considered as an associated factor to adjust the time effect. In addition, some covariates were re-coded before being used. However, the predictor variable and associated factors with their respective value labels are presented in the S1 Table.

Prevalence of EBF and infectious diseases

The original survey of BDHS collected data on the variables related to current feeding status, complementary foods, diarrhea, and ARI (S1 Table). In order to perform the analysis, a new variable was defined for computing the prevalence of EBF and categorized as positive response identified by ‘1’ if infant currently breastfed and given none of the complementary foods and categorized as negative response identified by ‘0’ if currently breastfed and given at least one complementary food or currently not breastfed. Similarly, the prevalence of diarrhea was defined as a positive (assigned the value ‘1’) or negative (assigned the value ‘0’) response depending on whether the infant had diarrhea or not. Similarly, another new variable was defined for the prevalence of ARI and categorized as a positive response (assigned by ‘1’) if the infant suffered from fever and/or cough; otherwise, negative response (identified by ‘0’). Finally, a new variable was defined for the prevalence of CoDARI in infants, with a positive response denoted by a ‘1’ indicating that the infant had at least one of diarrhea or ARI and a negative response denoted by a ‘0’ indicating that the infant had none of the infectious diseases.

Data processing

Firstly, the data sets were filtered with the inclusion criteria of an infant aged under six months and pre-selected plausible variables (see, S1 Table). After filtering the datasets, there were 9,133 remaining cases. Following that, cases with missing values were discarded, and the variables for the prevalence of EBF, D, ARI, and CoDARI were calculated using their respective definitions. After removing unnecessary variables, the data sets were combined by adding a variable for the survey year. There were 5,724 cases in the final dataset. The summary of the datasets is presented in the S2 Table.

Statistical analysis

The Chi-square test was used to determine the significance of the bivariate association between variables. The simple and multiple modeling were done with the help of logistic regression model (LRM). A detailed history of the logistic regression is described by researchers [34, 35]. The entry method was employed in logistic regression modelling. The significance of the parameters was tested by the p-value of their respective Wald test. The OR and 95% CI were used to quantify the likelihood of infectious diseases due to lack of EBF practice and its elasticity, respectively. The data processing and analyses were done using IBM SPSS v25 and R-software.

Results

Among 5724 infants, 1662 (29%) and 4062 (71%) were from urban and rural areas, respectively, along with the sex distribution as male 51.5% and female 48.5%. The percent distribution of infants by geographical divisions were found as Barisal (641, 11.2%), Chittagong (1207, 21.1%), Dhaka (1097, 19.2%), Khulna (674, 11.8%), Mymensing (132, 2.3%), Rajshahi (836, 14.6%), Rangpur (321, 5.6%), and Sylhet (816, 14.3%). Around one-third of the infant’s parents had a secondary level of education, while around a quarter of the infant’s parents had no formal education. However, more than 10% of the infant’s parents had a higher educational background. The age distribution of the infants were 0–2 months (2427, 42.4%), 3–4 months (1644, 28.8%), and 5–6 months (1653, 28.9%) with mean and standard deviation were 3.07 and 1.93 months, respectively.

The overall breastfeeding trend seemed to be steady with nearly 100% during each survey period; whereas, a significant fluctuation was observed in EBF over the study period. The prevalence of EBF was approximately 40% in 1996–97 and 1999–00, with a slight decline at 2003–04. A sharp increase was observed after 2003–04, reached a peak of approximately 56% in 2011, followed by a declined trend in later years. Interestingly, the prevalence of infectious diseases have fluctuated inversely with EBF up to 2011, but after that, they show the same patterns (Fig 2(A)).

Fig 2

Graphical comparison of the prevalence of D, ARI, and CoDARI with the prevalence of breastfeeding (BF) and EBF.

The figure (a) shows the trend of BF, EBF, D, ARI, and CoDARI over the survey years. The comparison of D, ARI, and CoDARI with EBF are shown in (b), (c), and (d), respectively according to child age in months. In figures (b)-(d), the histogram corresponding to each survey year represents the prevalence for 0 to 6 months of age from left to right.

Comparing insight from each survey year revealed that EBF appeared to be more prevalent during the first three months of an infant’s life, with an inverse scenario after three months of age. The results demonstrated that the prevalence of EBF (PEBF) increased up to three months (for most of the years); however, it decreased after the infant reached two or three months of age. Moreover, the sixth month of age had the lowest PEBF (1.13% to 1.83%) practice across all survey years (Fig 2B–2D). Intriguingly, the prevalence of diarrhea (PD) was the lowest (mean: 0.18%) at the infant’s initial age (0 to 1 month) in each survey year. Additionally, the last three months (4 to 6 months) appeared critical as the PD increased as EBF declined. The last two months (5 to 6) of an infant’s life were associated with the highest prevalence of diarrhea (mean: 1.14%) in each survey year (Fig 2(B)). Likewise, the lowest prevalence of ARI (PARI) (mean: 3.97%) and the prevalence of CoDARI (PCoDARI) (mean: 4.04%) were detected at the earliest ages, while the highest prevalence (PARI, mean: 8.22%; CoDARI, mean: 8.55%) was observed in infants aged 5 to 6 months (Fig 2C and 2D). In every survey year except the first two (1996–97 and 1999–00), the highest prevalence of ARI and prevalence of CoDARI were observed in the last two months (5 and 6) of infants with a low prevalence of EBF (Fig 2C and 2D).

The above-mentioned comparative graphical analysis of patterns of infectious diseases along with EBF provided a clear indication about a premise that there was a strong association between them. Therefore, the chi-square tests were conducted separately for each survey year and combinedly to validate that premise. The 0.1 or 10% significance level was used as the cutoff point for the p-value for statistical significance. Except for ARI in 2007 and diarrhea in 2011, the results of each survey year demonstrated a significant strong association between the practice of EBF and the prevalence of D, ARI, and CoDARI. Besides, considering all survey years combinedly, the results indicated that all of D, ARI, and CoDARI were significantly associated with EBF practice.

Furthermore, at a 10% level of significance the chi-square test confirmed that specific associated factors other than lack of EBF practice could significantly provoke the risk of D, ARI, and CoDARI. Also, the results indicated that BCG vaccination status significantly impacted the likelihood of infectious diseases for most of the survey years. The risks of D, ARI, and CoDARI were significantly associated with the region, the respondent’s education level, the source of drinking water, the type of floor material, the education and occupation of the respondent’s partner, and the sex of child (Table 1). In addition, the type of toilet facility and type of resident significantly affected the likelihood of D and ARI as their corresponding p-values were less than the considered level of significance. Hence, the risk of infectious diseases could also be significantly changed over survey year/time.

Table 1

Significance of the association of infectious diseases with EBF and other associated factors.

Outcomes	Survey Year								Associated factors
	1996–97	1999–00	2003–04	2007	2011	2014	2017–18	Overall
D	9.76 (0.002)	5.74 (0.017)	8.50 (0.004)	3.93 (0.047)	0.56 (0.454)	4.11 (0.043)	5.48 (0.019)	36.65 (<0.001)	EBF (No, Yes)
ARI	6.81 (0.009)	15.87 (<0.001)	13.98 (<0.001)	2.08 (0.150)	6.33 (0.012)	17.16 (<0.001)	19.96 (<0.001)	87.66 (<0.001)
CoDARI	8.67 (0.003)	17.13 (<0.001)	17.96 (<0.001)	3.57 (0.059)	7.05 (0.008)	18.72 (<0.001)	21.41 (<0.001)	101.25 (<0.001)
D	0.99 (0.320)	5.96 (0.015)	0.00 (0.961)	0.45 (0.501)	0.83 (0.362)	0.08 (0.772)	0.00 (0.960)	0.81 (0.368)	Type of Resident (Urban, Rural)
ARI	0.58 (0.448)	0.15 (0.699)	0.50 (0.479)	0.59 (0.443)	0.20 (0.658)	1.28 (0.257)	0.10 (0.755)	1.86 (0.173)
CoDARI	0.16 (0.688)	0.00 (0.964)	0.82 (0.364)	0.26 (0.608)	0.17 (0.684)	1.19 (0.276)	0.07 (0.798)	0.78 (0.377)
D	6.76 (0.239)	4.55 (0.473)	10.78 (0.056)	1.28 (0.937)	7.37 (0.288)	3.70 (0.717)	7.78 (0.352)	5.96 (0.544)	Region (Barisal, Chittagong, Dhaka, Khulna, Mymensingh, Rajshahi, Rangpur, Sylhet)
ARI	14.92 (0.011)	5.31 (0.379)	7.87 (0.163)	5.63 (0.344)	14.37 (0.026)	6.74 (0.346)	8.21 (0.314)	14.78 (0.039)
CoDARI	16.91 (0.005)	5.46 (0.362)	5.73 (0.334)	4.94 (0.423)	14.60 (0.024)	8.30 (0.217)	7.93 (0.339)	15.03 (0.036)
D	3.74 (0.291)	11.97 (0.007)	2.75 (0.432)	6.46 (0.091)	2.32 (0.510)	0.58 (0.901)	1.55 (0.670)	4.23 (0.238)	Respondent’s Education Level (No education, Primary, Secondary, Higher)
ARI	7.02 (0.071)	1.42 (0.701)	3.77 (0.287)	5.32 (0.150)	4.21 (0.239)	3.12 (0.373)	6.85 (0.077)	20.24 (<0.001)
CoDARI	7.65 (0.054)	2.34 (0.505)	3.39 (0.336)	5.86 (0.118)	3.66 (0.301)	2.59 (0.459)	6.17 (0.104)	17.13 (0.001)
D	0.25 (0.884)	0.34 (0.846)	2.69 (0.261)	1.28 (0.527)	0.22 (0.896)	0.10 (0.949)	5.27 (0.072)	2.02 (0.364)	Source of Drinking Water (Piped, Tubewell, River/Pond/Surface/Rain/etc)
ARI	0.60 (0.742)	0.10 (0.949)	2.49 (0.288)	6.58 (0.037)	0.50 (0.781)	1.78 (0.412)	4.89 (0.087)	18.43 (<0.001)
CoDARI	1.14 (0.565)	0.26 (0.877)	2.05 (0.358)	4.72 (0.094)	0.25 (0.881)	1.41 (0.493)	5.94 (0.051)	16.88 (<0.001)
D	0.28 (0.965)	4.54 (0.209)	2.54 (0.468)	0.77 (0.857)	2.15 (0.542)	4.04 (0.258)	3.72 (0.294)	1.22 (0.748)	Type of Toilet Facility (Modern, Pit latrine, Others type latrine, No facility)
ARI	2.03 (0.565)	3.57 (0.312)	3.82 (0.281)	4.77 (0.189)	1.24 (0.745)	1.30 (0.730)	2.60 (0.458)	6.76 (0.080)
CoDARI	1.97 (0.579)	3.61 (0.307)	4.19 (0.242)	3.31 (0.346)	0.59 (0.899)	0.45 (0.930)	3.70 (0.296)	4.09 (0.252)
D	2.81 (0.245)	0.70 (0.402)	0.94 (0.333)	1.13 (0.570)	0.23 (0.891)	0.54 (0.762)	4.96 (0.084)	2.60 (0.273)	Floor Material (Katcha, Pacca, Others)
ARI	0.80 (0.670)	5.18 (0.023)	1.41 (0.236)	6.31 (0.043)	6.07 (0.048)	3.31 (0.191)	3.73 (0.155)	38.61 (<0.001)
CoDARI	0.92 (0.632)	4.00 (0.045)	1.34 (0.246)	5.49 (0.064)	5.13 (0.077)	3.58 (0.167)	5.06 (0.080)	36.71 (<0.001)
D	3.51 (0.319)	9.46 (0.024)	5.92 (0.116)	4.52 (0.211)	1.12 (0.772)	6.87 (0.076)	1.10 (0.776)	4.25 (0.235)	Partner’s Education (No education, Primary, Secondary, Higher)
ARI	4.15 (0.246)	4.90 (0.179)	12.59 (0.006)	4.11 (0.250)	2.04 (0.564)	3.82 (0.282)	4.05 (0.256)	30.75 (<0.001)
CoDARI	4.86 (0.183)	3.71 (0.295)	12.79 (0.005)	5.90 (0.116)	2.64 (0.450)	3.22 (0.360)	4.25 (0.236)	31.07 (<0.001)
D	14.35 (0.045)	29.97 (<0.001)	5.74 (0.570)	10.07 (0.185)	8.14 (0.320)	6.66 (0.465)	8.80 (0.268)	11.06 (0.136)	Partner’s Occupation (Agriculture, Non-agriculture, Unskilled, Skilled, Professional, Big business, Small business, Others)
ARI	9.26 (0.235)	13.71 (0.057)	6.86 (0.443)	5.06 (0.653)	10.46 (0.164)	12.38 (0.089)	7.06 (0.423)	31.72 (<0.001)
CoDARI	10.56 (0.159)	12.49 (0.085)	6.01 (0.539)	3.65 (0.819)	10.19 (0.178)	14.32 (0.046)	7.40 (0.388)	30.92 (<0.001)
D	0.09 (0.771)	1.81 (0.179)	0.47 (0.495)	0.67 (0.412)	3.39 (0.065)	0.30 (0.583)	0.00 (0.952)	0.79 (0.374)	Sex of Child (Male, Female)
ARI	0.32 (0.574)	12.03 (0.001)	1.06 (0.303)	8.05 (0.005)	5.20 (0.023)	7.31 (0.007)	5.84 (0.016)	23.21 (<0.001)
CoDARI	0.30 (0.583)	11.08 (0.001)	1.08 (0.299)	6.91 (0.009)	4.79 (0.029)	5.63 (0.018)	5.10 (0.024)	19.93 (<0.001)
D	7.07 (0.008)	9.76 (0.002)	5.46 (0.019)	7.41 (0.006)	0.41 (0.523)	2.07 (0.150)	4.82 (0.028)	30.85 (<0.001)	Received Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine (Not received BCG, Received BCG)
ARI	22.90 (<0.001)	19.79 (<0.001)	17.94 (<0.001)	5.68 (0.017)	17.97 (<0.001)	18.91 (<0.001)	54.72 (<0.001)	127.88 (<0.001)
CoDARI	26.51 (<0.001)	24.16 (<0.001)	21.43 (<0.001)	6.50 (0.011)	18.96 (<0.001)	19.12 (<0.001)	57.92 (<0.001)	143.54 (<0.001)
D								9.25 (0.160)	Survey Year (1996–97, 1999–00, 2003–04, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2017–18)
ARI								77.82 (<0.001)
CoDARI								79.18 (<0.001)

Therefore, a logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the sole effect of the lack of EBF practice on the risk of D, ARI, and CoDARI. Table 2 summarizes unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression results, where the parameter’s significance was determined at a 10% level of significance. The significance test of the crude regression coefficient of the lack of EBF practice demonstrated that it had a significant effect on D, ARI, and CoDARI, except for ARI in 2007 and diarrhea in 2011 (Table 2). The crude coefficients of the lack of EBF practice on ARI and D in 2007 and 2011 were statistically near to significant. Despite adjusting for significant associated factors mentioned in Table 1, the adjusted coefficients of the lack of EBF practice were also highly significant in predicting the risk of D, ARI, and CoDARI, except for a few survey years (Table 2).

Table 2

Results of logistic regression models (crude and adjusted) of infectious diseases on EBF.

Outcome Variables		Crude Estimated β of EBF	SE	p-value	Adjusted Estimated β of EBF	SE	p-value	Survey Year
Prevalence (%)	D	1.546	0.542	0.004	1.367	0.551	0.013	1996–97
	ARI	0.414	0.159	0.009	0.265	0.169	0.119
	CoDARI	0.466	0.159	0.003	0.311	0.170	0.067
	D	0.993	0.430	0.021	0.774	0.450	0.086	1999–00
	ARI	0.569	0.143	<0.001	0.509	0.151	0.001
	CoDARI	0.592	0.144	<0.001	0.519	0.152	0.001
	D	1.436	0.533	0.007	1.332	0.544	0.014	2003–04
	ARI	0.578	0.155	<0.001	0.490	0.163	0.003
	CoDARI	0.657	0.156	<0.001	0.561	0.163	0.001
	D	0.788	0.407	0.053	0.511	0.419	0.222	2007
	ARI	0.239	0.166	0.150	0.121	0.177	0.494
	CoDARI	0.313	0.166	0.059	0.201	0.176	0.254
	D	0.261	0.350	0.455	0.239	0.350	0.495	2011
	ARI	0.334	0.133	0.012	0.198	0.142	0.164
	CoDARI	0.352	0.133	0.008	0.216	0.142	0.128
	D	0.743	0.374	0.047	0.724	0.376	0.054	2014
	ARI	0.611	0.148	<0.001	0.474	0.157	0.003
	CoDARI	0.635	0.147	<0.001	0.499	0.156	0.001
	D	0.886	0.390	0.023	0.677	0.400	0.091	2017–18
	ARI	0.560	0.126	<0.001	0.370	0.133	0.005
	CoDARI	0.578	0.126	<0.001	0.383	0.132	0.004
	D	0.887	0.151	<0.001	0.747	0.154	<0.001	Overall
	ARI	0.504	0.054	<0.001	0.357	0.058	<0.001
	CoDARI	0.541	0.054	<0.001	0.390	0.058	<0.001

Note: D: diarrhea, ARI: acute respiratory infections, CoDARI: Either D or ARI or both, SE: standard error, EBF: exclusive breastfeeding, 10% level of significance was considered.

Finally, the ORs were calculated along with a 95% confidence interval to measure the effect of the lack of EBF practice on the likelihood of D, ARI, and CoDARI. The crude ORs for the lack of EBF practice on diarrhea ranged from 1.30 to 4.69, and the combined OR was 2.43. This means that infants who did not receive EBF until the age of six months had a 1.30 to 4.69 times greater risk of suffering from diarrhea than those who received it (Fig 3). Similarly, if infants were not exclusively breastfed for six months, they would have a 1.27 to 1.84 times greater likelihood of developing ARI and a 1.37 to 1.93 times greater chance of contracting an CoDARI (Fig 3). On the other hand, after adjusting for the effects of other significant associated factors, the adjusted ORs were not significantly different from the crude ORs. So, the adjusted ORs indicated that not practicing EBF until six months of age could significantly increased the risk of developing diarrheal diseases (about 1.27 to 3.92 times greater), ARI (about 1.13 to 1.66 times greater), and CoDARI (about 1.22 to 1.75 times greater) (Fig 3).

Fig 3

Forest plot of crude and adjusted odds ratios and their respective 95% confidence intervals where PD, PARI, PCoDARI, and PEBF stands for prevalence of diarrhea, prevalence of ARI, prevalence of CoDARI, and prevalence of EBF, respectively.

Discussion

Lack of EBF practice during the first six months of life of infants enhances their risk of morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases. Therefore, the study was aimed to assess the protective capacity of EBF practice up to the age of six months against infectious diseases in Bangladesh. However, up to the first three months of the infant’s life, the graphical comparisons revealed an increased prevalence of EBF, however, a decreased prevalence of D, ARI, and CoDARI, whereas an inverse scenario was observed for the later three months- the Chi-square and Wald tests justified the validity of their inverse relationship. A study examined the prevalence of EBF and infectious diseases in infants under three months of age using the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS)-2003 data and showed that both diseases were significantly associated with the dearth of EBF practice [36]. Additionally, their study found that infants under three months who were exclusively breastfed had a lower risk of developing diarrhea and/or ARI. At 3–6 months of age, a longitudinal study discovered an inverse relationship between EBF and ARI with fever and gastrointestinal infection, concluding that EBF is protective against various ARI and gastrointestinal infections [37]. Several studies also found similar findings [38, 39]. Breast milk is the sole natural and primary source of optimum sustenance for newborn babies’ physical and neurological growth and cognitive development [40]; it also boosts the child’s immune system at an early age [41-43]. However, it may be challenging for women to stick to EBF for six months, especially in low and lower-middle income countries like Bangladesh, where maternal malnutrition is frequent, leading to reduce breast milk production [44-48]. In addition, a lack of information about the benefits of EBF practice, insufficient workplace supports for mothers, and insufficient healthcare system support all contribute to mothers discontinuing the EBF practice before the recommended six-month period [49]. Previous studies pointed out that EBF practice for up to 6 months could have prevented the occurrences of diarrhea and ARI [49, 50]. The reason for working behind may be that the body gradually builds prevention ability with the help of EBF and natural immunity [49]. Also, without EBF, children are given foods and fluids that are potentially contaminated and/or difficult to digest [21, 51].

As this study was intended to find the sole effect of EBF on infectious diseases, the researcher was concerned to adjust the influences of other co-factors on infectious diseases. The existing literature suggested that several socio-demographic, geospatial, environmental factors, and vaccination status are controlling factors of infectious diseases. The findings revealed that the selected co-factors have a significant contribution to the prevalence of infectious diseases of infants, which is consistent with previous study results [46, 49, 51–54]. The severity of most infectious diseases in males can be explained by the impact of sex hormones on the T-helper 1/T-helper 2 cytokines, therefore, the female counterparts have higher morbidity and mortality because of greater immunopathology and/or autoimmunity [55]. Vaccination with BCG can develop cross-protective immunity by inducing an improved innate immune response for trained immunity against different microorganisms other than Mycobacterium tuberculosis [56] and consumption of vitamin A and different vaccination reduce childhood illness [57, 58], however, the life-saving vaccination coverage has been disrupted by COVID-19 in low-and middle-income countries [59]. Children from families who have no access to safe drinking water, modern sanitation facilities, and living room materials have a greater likelihood of suffering from the infectious disease since their mother acts as a bearer of different microorganisms that may be imported into their body [60-62]. The parent’s knowledge, attitudes and practice (KAP) in baby care and EBF are linked with their education level [63]. The reason behind the significance of the survey year may be that different promotional activities have been taken over time, such as the World Breastfeeding Week celebration and extensive mass media programmes, helped to expand EBF practice significantly as well as enhanced knowledge and attitudes towards EBF among Bangladeshi women over time [44, 64].

The crude ORs exhibited that the infants who did not receive EBF up to six months of age had a higher risk of suffering from D, ARI, and CoDARI, respectively, than those infants who received EBF up to six months of age. The adjusted ORs also showed that infants who did not receive EBF until six months of age had 2.11 [95% CI: 1.56–2.85], 1.43 [95% CI: 1.28–1.60], and 1.48 [95% CI: 1.32–1.66] times greater likelihood of suffering from D, ARI, and CoDARI, respectively than infants who received EBF until six months of age. The findings corroborate those of several previous studies [21-25]. In comparison to EBF in the earliest age of infants, partial or no breastfeeding was associated with the increment in the risk of infant deaths from all causes, ARI, and diarrhea, respectively, in Dhaka slums [21]. Another research showed that non-breastfed infants were associated with an increase in diarrhea incidence and mortality of 165% and 952% in infants aged 0–5 months, respectively, compared to EBF practice [22, 23]. Infants who were breastfed for the first year of life had a 30% lower risk of diarrhea, while infants primarily fed formula food had an 80% elevated risk of diarrhea [18, 19]. Infants who were breastfed exclusively for at least four months had a 72% lower risk of respiratory infection and a 74% lower risk of syncytial virus bronchiolitis [20]. The infants who exclusively breastfed for at least three months and six months had 50% and 63% lower risk of acute otitis media, respectively, and the risk of asthma, dermatitis, and eczema was reduced by approximately one-third of the infants exclusively breastfed for at least three months [20].

Conclusion

In Bangladesh, approximately half of all children were breastfed exclusively for the first six months of their lives. Before 2011, the prevalence of D, ARI, and CoDARI were inversely connected with EBF, but after 2011, they were changed in the same direction. The findings of this study ensured the protective ability of EBF for the first six months of age of infants against diarrhea and ARI-specific morbidity and mortality. Therefore, according to the outcomes of this study, the EBF practice up to the age of six months for newborns could be the best, cost-effective, and long-lasting natural child survival intervention in Bangladesh. This study was also estimated the risk of D, ARI, and CoDARI for infants aged 0–6 months due to lack of EBF practice up to their first six months of life in Bangladesh. The authors strictly recommend that the prevalence of EBF practice should be increased for attaining SDG-3. Therefore, to increase the prevalence of EBF practice, the authors advocate creating a favorable working environment for mothers. In addition, adopting appropriate labor laws relating to maternity care in public and private sectors in Bangladesh may significantly increase EBF practice. Finally, to broaden understanding, many EBF practice awareness activities at the individual and community levels are necessary to increase EBF practice. The authors believe that the findings of this paper will assist policymakers in accelerating the achievement of the SDG-3 and the REB’s health sector objectives in Bangladesh.

List of variables with their respective definition and value labels.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Summary of the datasets.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

12 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-16489

Likelihood of Infectious Diseases (Diarrhea/ARI) Due to Lack of Exclusive Breastfeeding of Infants (0-6 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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by September 9, 2021. 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,

John M. Humphrey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

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 more 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 sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) 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. 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.

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr. Rahman,

Please find below the reviewers' comments for your manuscript. I believe that these comments can be addressed and, in so doing, will improve the quality of the manuscript. Although the comments are extensive in both number and scope, in sum I believe that they still qualify as 'minor revision'. I look forward to reviewing a revised version of your manuscript with point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.

Regards,

John Humphrey, MD, MS

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Summary: Authors have a seemingly well-conducted data analysis of the BDHS. The article is an appropriate one to discuss the role of EBF in the prevention of infectious diseases. The objective is focused and clearly mentioned.

The whole manuscript needs to be much more concise throughout. In the overall manuscript, it seems very confusing as Diarrhea, and ARI are not infectious diseases but Infectious diseases (ARI/Diarrhea) are different from the earlier two.

There are however some critical methodological and presentation considerations that might improve the manuscript greatly:

The title might be more precise like, “Likelihood of infectious diseases due to lack of exclusive breastfeeding among infants in Bangladesh”.

Abstract:

1. The meaning of the 1st line of the Background section is not clear.

2. Line 27: define SDG acronym at first use

3. Line 29: EBF, ARI define acronym at first use

4. In the result section: only adjusted ORs can be mentioned, authors may omit the crude values. It makes the result section clumsy.

5. Conclusion: Line 54 can be like, “Findings of this study emphasize the importance of EBF up to six months of age to prevent diarrhea and ARI………… “ and this complex line should be broken down into two simple sentences for better understanding of the reader.

6. Define the acronyms: WHO, UNICEF, AAP, AAFP, and NNPE.

Introduction:

1. Line 80: REB should be elaborated.

2. Line 96: can be like “The infants were not exclusively breastfed had a higher likelihood……….

3. “Moreover” – the term is used several times like, in line 109, 114…

4. Line 119-129: No idea why these pieces of information are in the Introduction section? Repetitive of the abstract.

Materials and Method:

1. Conceptual framework: can be replaced by a study flow diagram and “A conceptual framework illustrates the whole sequential procedure of a study.” This line can be removed.

2. Line 170, 171: currently fed breast-milk….. should be “currently breastfed…..”.

3. Statistical analysis: Recommend detailing the specific analyses

a. Line 199- 209: Logistic Regression Model section is not required here, either author may add a reference.

b. during modelling what method was followed in logistic regression analysis (entry, stepwise, etc), not clear?

4. It seems like when authors use infectious disease (Diarrhea/ ARI), but only “diarrhea” and only “ARI” are not infectious diseases!! The author needs to rename the variable “infectious disease (Diarrhea/ ARI)”.

Result: Overall the result section is not written in a standard manner, which is not up to the mark for a prestigious journal like PLOS One.

1. Figure title should be revised. What does it mean by “D, ID, (D/ARI)” should be mentioned.

2. Line 232, 235, 236: better to mention exact figure for prevalence like lowest prevalence (), highest prevalence ()…., it is difficult for the author to find out the prevalence from the table/ figure.

3. Line 242- 253: why a different p-value was considered, is not clearly mentioned.

4. Table 1 only presents p values which is a bit misleading

5. Table 1. Need to mention the comparison group (categories) among the independent variables. Like: type of residence- urban/ rural etc. Better to replace independent variables with “associated factors” and dependent variables with “outcomes”

6. Table 1: format should be changed, as it is difficult to understand the p values from 2 rows.

7. Line 305: what are the other significant factors which were adjusted?

8. Table 2:

a. needs to mention what is D, ID, ARI, coefficient beta, SE below the table.

b. instead of mentioning p value=0.000, better to use like <0.001.

c. better to mention the significance level.

9. Line: 325: omit “diseases”

Discussion: Use the discussion to detail how their findings add to the literature. The author just mentioned the similarities of their findings with other literature, but the reason behind those could be highlighted.

1. Need to elaborate MICS-2003.

2. There is no paragraph found for table 1 in the discussion section. Then why authors look for the significance values of the associated factors is unclear.

3. Line: 365-366, 369- 370: better to remove the ORs and 95% CIs from the discussion section.

4. Line 375: “not breastfeeding” should be replaced by “non-breastfed infants” are associated…..

5. Line 376- 377: omit the RR values.

6. It should not be recommended to use too many values in the discussion section.

Conclusion:

1. There is a repetition of some lines from the abstract and Introduction.

2. Need to add some lines as a recommendation.

References:

Ref 28: needs to be edited

Others:

English and grammar in the manuscript are relatively poor which obscures the readers' understanding throughout much of the work.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is well written but authors have to work on the following

1. Avoid Abbreviation in the title

2. Any abbreviation has to be written in long form in the first time used

3. The abstract is unnecessarily long, some findings like the chi-square and crude odds ration can be reported in the results section in the main document.

4. In the material and method section a brief description of the conceptual framework is needed before authors refer the reader to the figure.

5. Table 1 needs to be presented in a more simplified way.

6. In table two present the odds ratio and confidence intervals

7. The discussion has a lot of repetition of the results, interpretation and discussion of results needs to be strengthen

Reviewer #3: Likelihood of Infectious Diseases (Diarrhea/ARI) Due to Lack of Exclusive Breastfeeding of Infants (0-6 months) in Bangladesh

This manuscript reports the findings from the quantitative analytical cross-sectional designed study which aimed to measure the likelihood of infectious diseases (diarrhea/ARI) due to lack of Exclusive Breast Feeding (EBF) of infants aged 0-6 months in Bangladesh. The need of this study is demonstrated by the slow reduction of neonatal mortality rate to achieve the SDG-3 and the evidence that most neonatal and infants infectious disease burden are attributed to suboptimal breastfeeding in developing countries.

This topic is of public health concern in developing countries. There are limited empirical studies in the region so this study has the potential to fill that gap. The strength of this study is the use of large data and the clear description of the method used which may allow the replication of the study.

**********

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: Fabiola Vincent Moshi

Reviewer #3: Yes: Saada Ali Seif

[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: plos one review.docx

Click here for additional data file.

7 Sep 2021

Please refer to "Response to Reviewers.docx" file submitted with the revised version.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

31 Jan 2022

Likelihood of Infectious Diseases Due to Lack of Exclusive Breastfeeding among Infants in Bangladesh

PONE-D-21-16489R1

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,

Ricardo Q. Gurgel, PhD

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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: No

**********

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: After revision, the manuscript is written in well manner. Accept after major revision, there is no further comments.

Reviewer #3: I congratulate the authors for addressing all the comments raised. though need to work a little bit on Language issues. E.g. in line 37 and 119 and many other places used present tense instead of past tense

**********

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 #3: Yes: Saada Ali Seif

7 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-16489R1

Likelihood of Infectious Diseases Due to Lack of Exclusive Breastfeeding among Infants 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

Professor Ricardo Q. Gurgel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE