Determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum among pregnant women attending health care service in public hospitals of Southern Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Hyperemesis gravidarum is severe nausea and excessive vomiting, starting between 4 and 6 gestational weeks, peak at between 8 and 12 weeks and usually improve and subside by 20 weeks of pregnancy. Identifying the determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum has a particular importance for early detection and intervention to reduce the health, psychosocial and economic impact. In Ethiopia there is low information on determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum.
METHODS: Institution based unmatched case-control study design was conducted from April 12- June 12, 2021. A structured face-to-face interviewer administered questionnaire and checklist for document review were used to collect the data from 360 study participants (120 cases and 240 controls). The data were collected by KoBocollect 1.3, and then exported to statistical package for social science version 25 for further analysis. Both bi-variable and multivariable logistic regression analysis were done to identify the determinants and a p-value < 0.05 with a 95% confidence level was used to declare statistical significance. RESULT: Being an urban dweller (AOR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.01, 4.34), having polygamous husband (AOR = 2.92, 95% CI: 1.27, 6.68), having history asthma/ other respiratory tract infections (AOR = 3.56, 95% CI: 1.43, 8.82), saturated fat intake (AOR = 4.06 95% CI: 1.98, 8.3), no intake of ginger (AOR = 3.04 95% CI: 1.14, 8.09), and inadequate intake of vitamin B rich foods (2.2, 95% CI: 1.14-4.2) were the determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum.
CONCLUSION: This study revealed that, urban residence, having polygamous husband, history of asthma/other respiratory tract infections, intake of saturated fat, no intake of ginger, inadequate intake of vitamin B reach foods were found to be independent determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum. It is better if healthcare providers and government authorities exert continual effort to give health education and counselling service concerning to dietary practice and asthma attacks. It is advisable if pregnant women adhere to healthy diets and limit intake of saturated fats and also husband and nearby relatives give care and support for pregnant women.

Introduction

Pregnancy is an important period in which physiological, psychological, and social changes are experienced, and this requires adaptation to these changes. The process of adaptation to the role of pregnancy and motherhood varies depending on the individual’s memories, psychosocial economic, environmental conditions, wishes and physiological symptoms, complications resulting from pregnancy [1].

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) are very common in early pregnancy and it is considered as a part of normal physiology [2]. Up to 80% of all pregnant women experience some form of nausea and vomiting during their pregnancy [3].

According to The International Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, hyperemesis gravidarum (HEG) is defined as ‘persistent and excessive vomiting starting before the end of the 22nd week of gestation [4]. It is characterized by persistent vomiting and nausea at least three times per day, weight loss of more than 5% of pre-pregnancy body weight, ketonuria, electrolyte abnormalities and, dehydration, resulting in a poor quality of life and increased health care cost [5]. Hyperemesis gravidarum is the most common cause of hospitalization during the first half of pregnancy [6].

A cohort study conducted in Nova Scotia, Canada revealed that hyperthyroidism disorders, psychiatric illness, history of molar pregnancy, pre-existing diabetes mellitus, gastrointestinal disorder and, asthma were associated with increased risk of hyperemesis gravidarum [7].

A cross -sectional study conducted in Egypt showed gastrointestinal diseases, urinary tract infection and multiple pregnancies were the most common risk factors of hyperemesis gravidarum [8]. Un-unmatched case-control study conducted in Bale zone hospitals, indicates that being urban residence, being employed, being in the first trimester and second trimester period and having perceived stress illness were associated factors of HEG [9].

In Norway about 25% of women with HEG want to terminate the pregnancy and 75% of them prefer to stop getting pregnant again [10]. In Botswana, 2.4% pregnant women died because of hyperemesis gravidarum [11]. In different parts of Ethiopia, the magnitude of hyperemesis gravidarum 4.4% in Addis Ababa [12], 4.8% in Jima [13], and 8.2% in Arba Minch [14] were diagnosed.

HEG adversely affects physical activities and work performance [15], family and social relationships [15,16], psychological status [16,17], nutrition [18], and health of women, decreases their quality of life and makes adoption to pregnancy is difficult [19,20].

Further, it causes serious complications like pre-eclampsia placental abruption, coagulopathy, neuromuscular complications organ damage, and even death [21,22]. Women will become dehydrated and no longer be able to provide the fetus with essential nutrients for growth which results in intrauterine pregnancy loss, growth restriction, intrauterine fetal death, preterm delivery, low birth weight, low 5-minute Apgar score, and increase risks of neural tube defects [23,24].

Identifying the determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum have a particular importance for early detection and intervention to reduce the health, psychosocial and, economic impact on the women and families. Despite having many studies done elsewhere, in Ethiopia little is known about the predictors of hyperemesis gravidarum. Therefore, this study aimed to identify determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum among pregnant women attending health care service in public hospitals of Gamo, Gofa, and South Omo Zones.

Methods and materials

Study setting and design

An institution-based case-control study design was conducted in public hospitals of southern Ethiopia, from April 12 to June 12, 2021. In the southern region, there are 15 zones, the study was conducted in three zones of 9 public hospitals of Gamo, Gofa, and south Omo. Arba Minch town is the administrative city of Gamo Zone, which is 505 km far from Addis Ababa. Sawla town is the administrative city of Gofa Zone, which is 464 km far from Addis Ababa, and Jinka town, which is the administrative city of South Omo Zone and 755 km far from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. Currently, in Gamo zone there are five Hospitals (Arba Minch General Hospital, Chencha Hospital, Selamber hospital, Kemba and Gerese hospital). In Gofa zone there are two hospitals (Saula general hospital and Laha primary hospital). And South Omo zone has two public hospitals (Jinka general hospital and Gazer primary hospital).

Source population

All pregnant women who attended health care services in public hospitals of Gamo, Gofa, and south Omo zones were the source population.

Study population

Cases. Pregnant women in the antenatal period admitted with HEG in public hospitals of Gamo, Gofa, and south Omo zones during the study period were the cases.

Controls. Pregnant women attending antenatal care visit, and not diagnosed with HEG in public hospitals of Gamo, Gofa, and south Omo zones during the study period were the controls.

Exclusion criteria

Cases. Pregnant women who are severely ill and unable to respond for the interview were excluded from the study.

Controls. Pregnant women, whoever treated for HEG in the current pregnancy were excluded from the study.

Sample size determination and sampling techniques

The sample size was calculated by using EpiInfo version 7 menu StatCalc programs for four potential determinants which were significant in recent studies with the consideration of the following assumptions: confidence level 95%, power 80, and exposed to an unexposed ratio of 1:2. Which is taken from the previous study done in Bale zone, Ethiopia [9] on risk factors of hyperemesis gravidarum (by taking the factor being in the 2nd trimester when severe NVP or HEG starts) and the largest sample size was 327, and 10% of the total sample size was added to compensate non-response rate and the final sample size was 360 (120 cases and 240 controls).

To get the required number of cases and controls, proportional allocation was done to each hospital based on the number of women admitted for HEG. Cases were selected every other mother (k = 2) until the sample size reached, for each case, two controls (k different for each hospital) were selected from pregnant women attending antenatal care visit by using systematic random sampling.

Operational definition

Hyperemesis gravidarum. Hyperemesis gravidarum refers to intractable nausea vomiting during pregnancy that leads to weight loss and volume depletion, resulting in ketonuria [25].

History of hyperemesis gravidarum: when pregnant women claimed or documented as she was ever diagnosed or treated for HEG at least once in the previous pregnancy.

Cases. Defined as women in antenatal period clinically diagnosed by the physician as being hyperemesis gravidarum.

Controls. Defined as the women in the antenatal period that had not been diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum.

Data collection tool and quality control

Data were collected from pregnant women attending health care service by using a structured face-to-face interviewer administered questionnaire and checklist for document review were used to collect the data from the study participants. Initially, it was prepared in English language then translated to the Amharic language and back to English to ensure consistency. The questionnaire contains socio-demographic characteristics, reproductive questions, medical factors, psychological factors and dietary factors. A 10 -item multiple-choice self-report psychological instrument was used for measuring the perception of stress. Each answer is scored 0 to 4, 0 –never, 1—almost never, 2 –sometimes, 3—fairly often, and 4—very often. Revers scoring was used for positive statement questions (4, 5, 6, and 7). It is scored by summing across all scale items. Scores ranging from 0–13 would be considered low stress, scores ranging from 14–26 would be considered moderate stress, and scores ranging from 27–40 would be considered high perceived stress [26].

Patient health questionnaire was used to assess depression; which comprises nine items that can be scored from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). Scores ranging from 0–4 would be considered minimal depression, 5–9 mild depression, and 10–14 moderate depression, 15–19 moderately severe depression and 20–27 Severe depression [27]. Modified dietary history tool was used to assess dietary practice of pregnant women [28].

Two days training was given for nine data collectors and three supervisors. Then, pre-test was conducted on 5% [18] of the sample size. Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated by using SPSS software version 25 to test internal consistency (reliability) of the item, and Cronbach’s Alpha greater than 0.7 was considered as reliable and 0.949 for perceived stress illness and 0.839 for depression were obtained.

Data processing and analysis

The data were collected by KoBocollect version 1.3 then exported to statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 25 for analysis. Frequency distribution table was used to for presentation of data. Bivariable analysis, crude odds ratio with 95% CI, was used to see the association between each independent variable and the outcome variable. Independent variables with p-value of ≤ 0.25, biologically plausible and consistent in the previous study were included in the multivariable analysis to control confounding factors. Multicollinearity test was done before model fitness was assessed and VIF was less than 10. Hosmer and Lemeshow’s goodness-of-fit test was checked, and it was found to be insignificant (p value = 0.821) which indicate the model was fitted. Finally, multivariable logistic regression analysis was done to assess the determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum. Level of statistical significance was declared at p value < 0.05 with, 95% Confidence Interval.

Ethical consideration

The study obtained ethical approval from Arba Minch University, College of Medicine and Health and Sciences, Institutional Research Ethics Review Board (IRB/1078/21). Based on the approval, an official letter was written by Arba Minch University Public Health Department to each Zonal Health Department. Explanation on the objective of the research was provided to public hospitals administrators. Similarly, the administrators of each public hospital wrote letter to the concerned unit. Then the respondents were informed about the purpose and procedure of the study, the importance of their participation, the benefits, and risks associated with the study, the right to withdraw at any time if they feel discomfort. After explaining the purpose of the study, written consent was obtained. To maintain the confidentiality of information gathered from the study participant, code numbers were used throughout the study. During each contact with study participants COVID19 transmission prevention measures were taken. For each data collector single reusable mask was provided.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

A total of 360 study participants (120 cases and 240 controls) were interviewed in the study. The mean age was 27.19 (SD±5.19) for cases and 26.53 (SD±5.33) for controls respectively. Nearly two third of women with hyperemesis gravidarum 89 (74.2%) and more than half of controls 147 (61.3%) were from urban areas. Ninety one percent of cases 109 (90.8%) and almost all controls 229 (95.4%) were married. Less than ten percent of cases 11 (9.2%) and thirteen percent of controls 30 (12.5%) have no formal education. More than two third of 81 (67.5%) cases and sixty three percent of controls 150 (62.5%) have no leisure time physical activity ().

Obstetrics characteristics of respondents

Almost all cases 115 (95.8%) and nearly three percent 6(2.5) of controls were in the first trimester period. The mean gestational age was 8.18(SD±2.86) and 25.52(SD±6.27) for cases and controls respectively. More than half of the cases 64(53.3%) and more than one-third of controls 99(41.3%) hadn’t the previous experience of pregnancy. The Majority of cases 103(85.8%) and controls 213 (88.8%) reported that their inter pregnancy interval was two years and above and the mean inter-pregnancy interval was 25.96(SD±5.67) months for cases and 28.34(SD±5.93) months for controls. Nearly one-third of cases 18(32.1%) and sixteen percent of controls 22(15.6%) had history of hyperemesis gravidarum. Regarding to the current pregnancy about two-third of cases 81(67.5%) and more than three-fourth of controls 211(87.9%) reported that their pregnancy was planned. While large proportion of cases 112(93.3%) and controls 231 (96.3%) reported that their pregnancy was wanted.

About forty-five percent of women with hyperemesis gravidarum 25(44.6%) and about quarter 35(24.8%) of women without hyperemesis gravidarum had bad obstetric history ().

Medical histories of respondents

Sixteen percent of women with hyper emesis gravidarum 19(15.8%) and four percent 9(3.8%) of pregnant women without hyperemesis gravidarum had previous history of diabetes mellitus. About quarter of cases 30(25%) and five percent of controls 12(5.0%) had history of asthma or other respiratory tract infections. Ninety four percent of cases 112(93.3), and almost all controls 238(99.2%) had no history of hyperthyroid disorder ().

Dietary characteristics of respondents

Nearly half of the cases 62 (51.7%) and three fourth of controls 174(72.5%) had a habit of eating snacks. More than-two third of cases 86(71.7%) and about half of the controls 125(52.1%) had a habit of eating spiced foods. More than three-fourth of cases 103(85.8%) and two third of controls 172(71.7%) had inadequate water intake. More than half of the cases 67(55.8%) and fifteen percent of controls 37(15.4%) weren’t iodized salt users during their pregnancy. Nearly half of the cases 57 (47.5%) and fifteen percent of controls 35(14.6%) hadn’t ginger intake during their pregnancy. More than three-fourth of women with HEG 99(82.5%) and nearly half of controls 113(47.15%) had a history of saturated fat intake. Nearly three-fourth of cases 87(72.5%) and half of the controls 121(50.4%) hadn’t adequate intake of vitamin B reach foods during their pregnancy.

Determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum

Bivariate logistic regression was done between independent variables and HEG to identify candidate variables for multivariable logistic regression. residence, educational status, marital status, occupation, having polygamous husband, gravidity, history of Asthma/other respiratory tract infection, planned pregnancy, supported pregnancy, saturated fat intake, intake of vitamin B reached foods, ginger intake, water intake and eating seasoned foods had association on bivariate analysis. Those variables with a P value of ≤ 0.25 in the bivariate analysis was entered to multivariable logistic regression model.

The result showed that, the odds of developing hyperemesis gravidarum was 2.1 (AOR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.01, 4.34) times higher among urban dwellers as compared to rural dwellers. Mothers having polygamous husband were 2.92(AOR = 2.92, 95% CI: 1.27, 6.68) times at higher odds of developing HEG as compared to their counter parts. The odds of developing HEG was 3.56 (AOR = 3.56, 95% CI: 1.43, 8.82) times higher among Mothers having history asthma as compared to having no history of asthma or other RTI. The odds of developing hyperemesis gravidarum among pregnant women who had history of saturated fat intake was 4.06 (AOR = 4.06 95% CI: 1.98, 8.3) times higher as compared to had no history saturated fat intake. Pregnant women who had no intake of ginger were 3.04 (AOR = 3.04 95% CI: 1.14, 8.09) times at higher odds of developing HEG as compared to their counter parts. The odds of developing hyperemesis gravidarum among was 2.2(2.2, 95% CI: 1.14–4.2) times higher among pregnant women who had no adequate intake of vitamin B reach foods as compared to those who had adequate intake of vitamin B reach foods ().

Discussion

The finding of this study revealed that urban residence, having polygamous husband, having history of asthma/other RTI, Intake of saturated fat, no intake of ginger, and inadequate intake of vitamin B reach food were the determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum.

The result indicates that, the odds of developing hyperemesis gravidarum were two times higher among urban dwellers as compared to rural dwellers. This result supported by previous studies conducted in bale Zone hospitals [9], on the other hand, this finding is in contrast with the findings of studies conducted in Turkey [29], which concludes that there are no statistically significant differences between cases and controls concerning the residence. The possible explanation might be due to the difference housing conditions, environmental sanitation, sewerage system, and ventilation between turkey and Ethiopia [30].

Mothers having polygamous husband were three times at higher odds of developing HEG as compared to their counter parts. But this result is, on the contrary, to the study conducted in the Batman State Hospital, which showed that, there are no statistical differences between cases and controls in terms of having a polygamous husband [31]. This might be due to a difference in moral acceptability of polygamous marriage by the community and also care and support given to the women by the polygamous husband. Polygamous marriage can reduce self-esteem, marital satisfaction, and leads to marital conflict, somatization, depression, and anxiety; in turn those psychological problems can induce nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.

The odds of developing HEG were four times higher among Mothers having history asthma as compared to having no history of asthma or other respiratory tract infection. This result is in agreement with the study conducted in Nova Scotia, Canada [7], which concludes that pregnant women with past medical history of asthma and other respiratory disorders were found to be more liable to hospitalization due to HEG. The possible reason for this might be those women who had asthma can have a severe cough, during uncontrollable cough, repeated chest muscle contraction and relaxation puts pressure and disturb the stomach and finally it can trigger nausea and vomiting [32].

The odds of developing hyperemesis gravidarum among pregnant women who had a history of saturated fat intake were four times higher as compared to had no a history saturated fat intake. This study is in line with the study conducted in Boston, which found that Mothers having a history saturated fat intake were three times at higher odds of developing HEG compared to having no a history of saturated fat intake [33]. The possible explanation for this finding goes to the effect of saturated fat intake on circulating estrogen level. Saturated fat has been shown to increase circulating levels of estrogen. If the liver is clogged with too much saturated fat, it will have a hard time to breaking down estrogen in the body and estrogen will recirculate leading to the estrogen excess [34]. Estrogen contributes to HEG by stimulating the production of nitric oxide via nitrogen oxidase synthase, which in turn relaxes smooth muscle, slowing gastric intestinal transit time and gastric emptying [35]. A diet high in saturated fat also triggers inflammatory bowel diseases, consequently women more likely to experiencing nausea and vomiting [36].

Pregnant women who had no intake of ginger were three times at higher odds of developing HEG compared to have intake of ginger always. This result supports the report of a meta- analysis and literature review [37,38]. Which concludes ginger is an effective preventive and non-pharmacological option for the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. This may be related to the blocking effect of ginger on receptor cells. Ginger can antagonize activation of m3 muscarinic receptor and serotonin(5-HT3) receptors, thereby inhibiting afferent inputs to the central nervous system that are stimulated by specific neurotransmitters, released from the gastrointestinal tract [39,40]. Ginger also important for the digestion process, it works increasing Agni or ’digestive fire’, which further helps to better break down and assimilation of food. Apart from this, ginger is also known to stimulate saliva, bile and gastric enzymes that aid digestion and help speed the movement of food from the stomach to the small intestine [41].

The odds of developing hyperemesis gravidarum was two times higher among pregnant women who had no adequate intake of vitamin B reach foods as compared to those who had adequate intakes of vitamin B rich foods. This result supports the findings of the research conducted in Sweden [42] which indicates that 28 percent of pregnant women who had intake of vitamins in early pregnancy were at low risk of developing HEG. This finding also in line with the study conducted in Norway [43] which showed that adherence to a vitamin b rich diet associated with a lower risk of developing hyperemesis. Vitamin B helps to prevent nausea and vomiting by prevent infections, promote healthy brain function and regulate and promote good appetite, and facilitates/ease the digestion process by breakdown carbohydrate, fats and alcohol [44].

Conclusion

This study found that urban residence, having polygamous husband, history of asthma/other respiratory tract infection, intake of saturated fat, no intake of ginger, and inadequate intake of vitamin b rich foods were important determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum. Healthcare providers should exert continual effort to give health education and counselling service concerning to dietary practice and asthma attacks. It is better if pregnant women adhere to healthy diets and limit intake of saturated fats and it is crucial to create awareness about the health hazards of saturated fat intake on health of pregnant women through multiple communication channels.

Data collection tool.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

The dataset used for this study.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Dec 2021

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wubet Alebachew Bayih, M.Sc.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Find the attached document. Regarding on the manuscript, I attached all the review findings in a document way, as per the author will try to react with feedbacks. All the comments should be taken as critical to be amended

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Comments-1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Jan 2022

We would like to say thank you very much for both the reviewer and academic editor for your critical review and constructive comments to result in scientifically sounded research finding.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer(s).docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Feb 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wubet Alebachew Bayih, M.Sc.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Partly

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: 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: Thank you very much for reviewing this paper.

I am pleased to recommend publication.

It needs proofreading before publication

Reviewer #2: Title of the research: Determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum among pregnant women attending health care service in public hospitals of Gamo, Gofa, and South Omo zones, Southern Ethiopia

Comments to authors

Hyperemesis gravidarum is a pregnancy problem with more of physiological origin and it has been well studied area. But, still, it can be a research agenda of today with strong arguments. I see that the authors’ arguments in this regard need further attention. The manuscript is not well crafted and it has several editorial problems that demand authors attention to push forward for publication.

Abstract

1. The background section of the abstract requires reconsideration. For instance, how studying the determinants of HEG could enhance early detection of HEG? In fact, it may be beneficial for early intervention to prevent occurrence of HEG, and further health and other damages once it happens.

2. What is the implication of having polygamous husband and HEG? How could you justify this relationship?

3. Line 24… delete coma: “psychosocial and, economic impact.”

4. Line 28…add spacing: “to collect the data from360 study participants”

5. Line 29…check spelling: “Kobcollect 1.3”. Even in this document I see spelling inconsistency for the same software stated here in the abstract and in the method sections… “Kobkollect”. The correct may be “KoBoCollect…”

6. Line 35…unnecessary capitalization: “Saturated fat intake”

7. The authors should rephrase the recommendation. The role that the government authorities have to play and even the word itself is vaguely stated. Do they really have to involve or expected to involve in health education and counselling?

Introduction

8. The introduction is not well synthesized and lacks coherence. For example, the first paragraph is long and taken from a single reference. Another example, 4th and 5th paragraphs are about risk factors of HEG while 6th and 7th paragraphs are about consequences of HEG. In the 8th paragraphs the authors come again to discuss about risk factors of HEG.

9. The authors didn’t show the magnitude of HEG in Ethiopia in general and in study area in particular. Despite knowing the consequential outcomes of HEG, understand the magnitude of HEG is very helpful for readers to have clear image in study area context.

10. Line 64 through 72 are about risk factors of HEG. But the evidences are not synthesized. The authors presented the contents of each sources cited to make up an independent sentence.

11. The arguments given in the last paragraph are not convincing. Even the factors are presented very grossly…sociodemographic factors, medical factors, obstetric factors, etc. Please try to address them in detail and in narrower scope. The sample size issue is also not clear. Was that not scientifically sound? How that happen? The authors also raise the argument that study areas were not included in the previous study…what is special for the study area? Anything that interests you to study in the stated sites/area?

12. Line 88… vague description: “A similar study also concludes that demographic and obstetric…” The authors say similar study but with different citation, in this case, what is the linking word similar is referring to? In terms of what? Was that in terms of study design or …?

13. Line 90…grammatical concern: “On the contrary, other studies on the contrary conclude that demographic…”

14. The issue of early detection must be reconsidered here also.

Methods

15. Too many subheadings, the authors can use relevant subheading to organize the contents under fewer subheadings.

16. The control definition and exclusion criteria. Did the selection of the controls and cases are done regardless of the gestational age or trimester?

17. The author should give citation for the article used to calculate the sample size and also include a description about where the referred study was done. Factors for NVP Vs HEG: were the factors you considered in sample size calculation are for NVP or HEG? If you used factors for NVP, how much they are relevant to the outcome of interest?

18. Line 104…coma misplaced. It is corrected as “Arba Minch Town, which is the Capital of the Gamo Zone, is 505…”. Similar correction is needed in line 107: “Sawla Town, which is the Capital of Gofa Zone, is 464”. Check line 110 for the same problem.

19. Sampling Techniques: Regarding case and control selection, the authors already stated that they used a systematic sampling after proportional allocation. But the K used at each health facility was unique, how this happened is not clear? Proportional allocation Vs Different K?

20. The author should provide very clear detail about each variable measurement especially those variables having psychometric properties such as stress, depression, etc; variable requiring clinical skill and dietary intake related assessments. The data collection methods used are also required to be clear. Nothing was stated about the data collection methods used in the method section except the crude insight given in the abstract section.

21. The authors should give attention for the Cronbach’s alpha value given in the data quality management section. What is the implication of a Cronbach’s alpha value above 0.90? The reliability given for perceived stress is 0.949.

22. The author shall provide detail information about data analysis. For example, candidate selection variable strategies for multivariable logistic regression were not explained. The issue of multicollinearity checks before fitting multivariable logistic regression model need to be addressed.

23. There are editorial problems…unnecessary bolding, inconsistent font size, grammatical issues, check how hyphen used, etc.

Results

24. The authors didn’t show how they come up with these determinants. They should clearly indicate the candidate variables for the multivariable logistic model. Then, they can go for result interpretations as they did now. Overall, how the multivariable logistic model was fitted is overlooked both in the method and in the results sections.

25. In Table 4, the authors presented p-values, for what these p-values stands for is my question? Is that for COR or AOR? What is the relevance of having p-value in the presence of confidence intervals for odds ratios? The table design is not even attractive for reader.

26. Line 222…error: “A total of 360 study participants (120 cases and 2240 controls)”

27. Line 224…spacing: 89(74.2 %)

28. There are many editorial problems… inconsistent font size, grammatical issues, etc.

Discussion

29. The discussion requires a major revision. It is better if you begin with brief summary of the main findings in the first paragraph. The results are brought here in the discussion without significant paraphrasing. Besides, the possible justifications or the implications of results given for the observed association are not convincing or non-relevant in some cases. Even some of the comparisons are vague to understand. For example, the comparison given for the positive association between urban residence and HEG are studies which conclude about the association between HEG and demographic factors…which demographic factors? Was that about residence? At the same time the justifications given are also not relevant. Make things very clear as much as possible.

Conclusion

30. The authors should revise the recommendation.

**********

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: Yes: Dabere Nigatu

[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.

1 Mar 2022

Thank you very much for your critical and constructive comments. you appreciated every things from minor to major error, and it is important to make the article scientific and readable. finally we are happy if you consider the paper for publication.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Mar 2022

Determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum among pregnant women attending health care service in public hospitals of Southern Ethiopia.

PONE-D-21-31620R2

Dear Dr. Beyene,

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,

Wubet Alebachew Bayih, M.Sc.

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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #2: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes: Dabere Nigatu

31 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-31620R2

Determinants of hyperemesis gravidarum among pregnant women attending health care service in public hospitals of Southern Ethiopia.

Dear Dr. Beyene:

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. Wubet Alebachew Bayih

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

The socio-economic characteristics of pregnant women attending health care service in public hospitals, southern Ethiopia, 2021.

Variables		Cases(n = 120)	Controls(n = 240)
		N%	N%
Age	≤ 20	13(10.8)	33(13.8)
	21–25	34(28.3)	82(34.2)
	26–30	44(36.7)	68(28.3)
	31–35	22(18.3)	43(17.9)
	36 and above	7(5.8)	14(5.8)
Residence	Urban	89(74.2)	147(61.3)
	Rural	31(25.8)	93(38.8)
Ethnicity	Gamo	62(51.7)	132(55.0)
	Gofa	27(22.5)	52(21.7)
	Wolayita	4(3.3)	11(4.6)
	Konso	4(3.3)	5(2.1)
	Othersa	23(19.2)	40(16.7)
Religion	Orthodox	32(26.70	109(45.4)
	Protestant	66(55.0)	104(43.3)
	Muslim	8(6.7)	22(9.2)
	Othersb	14(11.7)	5(2.1)
Marital status	Married	109(90.8)	229(95.4)
	Not living in marital unionc	11(9.2)	11(4.6)
Having polygamous husband	Yes	29(24.2)	31(12.9)
	No	91(75.8)	209(87.1)
Educational status	No formal education	11(9.2)	30(12.5)
	Primary school	43(35.8)	56(23.3)
	Secondary school	25(20.8)	93(38.8)
	College and above	41(34.2)	61(25.4)
Occupation	Employee	34(28.3)	45(18.8)
	Merchant	18(15.0)	28(11.7)
	Farmer	15(12.5)	24(10.0)
	House wife	42(35.0)	113(47.1)
	Othersd	11(9.2)	30(12.5)
leisure time physical activity	Three and more per week	17(14.2)	28(11.7)
	1–2 per week	12(10.0)	21(8.8)
	1–3 per month	10(8.3)	41(17.1)
	Never	81(67.5)	150(62.5)

Othersa: Aari, Male, Daasanach, Hamer, Banna, Amhara, and Tsamai Othersb: Catholic and traditional religions, Not living in marital unionc: Single, separated, divorced, widowed Othersd: Students, and daily laborers, jobless.

Table 2

Obstetric characteristics of pregnant women attending health care service in public hospitals, southern Ethiopia, 2021.

Variables		Cases	Controls
		N (%)	N (%)
Gestational age in month	First trimester	115(95.8)	6(2.5)
	Second trimester	5(4.2)	146(60.8)
	Third trimester	0(0.0)	88(36.7)
Gravidity	Primigravida	64(53.3)	99(41.3)
	Multigravida	56(46.7)	141(58.8)
Parity	Nulliparous	2(3.6)	16(11.3)
	Primiparous	18(32.1)	44(31.2)
	Multiparous	36(64.3)	81(57.4
Number of alive children	Have no alive child	3(5.4)	4(2.8)
	1–2	38(67.8)	88(62.4)
	3 and above	15(26.8)	49(34.8)
Planed pregnancy	Yes	81(67.5)	211(87.9)
	No	39(32.5)	29(12.1)
Wanted pregnancy	Yes	112(93.3)	231(96.3)
	No	8(6.7)	9(3.8)
Supported pregnancy	Yes	104(86.7)	229(95.4)
	No	16(13.3)	11(4.6)
bad obstetric history	Yes	25(44.6)	35(24.8)
	No	31(55.4)	106(75.2)
Inter-pregnancy interval in a month	Less than 24	17(14.2)	27(11.3)
	24 and above	103(85.8)	213(88.8)
History Multiple pregnancies	Yes	9(16.1)	12(8.5)
	No	47(83.9)	129(91.5)
History of molar pregnancy	Yes	4(7.1)	2(1.4)
	No	52(92.9)	139(98.6)
History of HEG	Yes	18(32.1)	22(15.6)
	No	38(67.9)	119(84.4)
History gestational hypertension	Yes	17(30.4)	15(10.6)
	No	39(69.6)	126(89.4)

Table 3

Psychological characteristics of pregnant women attending health care service in public hospitals, southern Ethiopia, 2021.

Variables		Cases(n = 120)	Controls(n = 240)
		N%	N%
Fear of reoccurrence of bad obstetric history	Yes	19(76.0)	20(57.1)
	No	6(24.0)	15(42.9)
Perceived stress	Low stress	15(12.5)	51(21.3)
	Moderate stress	62(51.7)	130(54.2)
	Sever stress	43(35.8)	59(24.6)
Depression	Mild depression	15(12.5)	76(31.7)
	Moderate depression	45(37.5)	131(54.6)
	Moderately severe depression	53(44.2)	26(10.8)
	Severe depression	7(5.8)	7(2.9)

Table 4

Multivariable logistics regressions results for determinants of HEG among pregnant women attending health care service in public hospitals, southern Ethiopia, 2021.

Variables	Case N (%)	Control N (%)	COR (95%CI)	AOR (95%CI)
Residence
Urban	89(74.2)	147(61.3)	1.82(1.12–2.95)	2.1(1.01–4.37)
Rural	31(25.8)	93(38.8)	1	1
Having polygamous husband
Yes	29(24.2)	31(12.9)	2.15(1.22–3.77)	2.92(1.27–1.68)
No	91(75.8)	209(87.1)	1	1
History of Asthma/other RTI
Yes	30(25.0)	12(5.0)	6.33(3.1–12.92)	3.56(1.43–8.82)
No	90(75.0)	228(95.0)	1	1
Educational status of the women
No formal education	11(9.2)	30(12.5)	0.55(0.25–1.20)	1.33(0.45–3.94)
Primary education	43(35.8)	56(23.3)	1.14(0.65–2.00)	0.46(0.13–1.61)
Secondary education	25(20.8)	93(38.8)	0.40(0.221-.724)	0.92(0.23–3.71)
College and above	41(34.2)	61(25.4)	1	1
Occupation of the women
Employed	34(28.3)	45(18.8)	1	1
Merchant	18(15.0)	28(11.7)	0.85(0.41–1.79)	1.52(0.44–5.24)
Farmer	15(12.5)	24(10.0)	0.83 (0.38–1.81)	0.87(0.21–3.6)
House wife	42(35.0)	113(47.1)	0.49(0.28-.87)	0.76(0.27–2.13)
Others®	11(9.2)	30(12.5)	0.49 (0.21–1.10)	0.94(0.28–3.2)
Marital status of the women
Married	109(90.8)	229(95.4)	1	1
Not living in marital union	11(9.2)	11(4.6)	2.10 (0.88–5.00)	1.79(0.56–5.78)
Gravidity
Primigravida	64(53.3)	99(41.3)	1.63 (1.05–2.53)	1.55(0.86–2.79)
Multigravida	56(46.7)	141(58.8)	1	1
Planed pregnancy
Yes	81(67.5)	211(87.9)	1	1
No	39(32.5)	29(12.1)	3.50(2.03–6.04)	1.75(0.8–3.83)
Supported pregnancy
Yes	104(86.7)	229(95.4)	1	1
No	16(13.3)	11(4.6)	3.2(1.44–7.14)	1.26(.37–4.22)
Eating seasoned foods
Yes	62(51.7)	174(72.5)	2.33(1.45–3.73)	0.82(0.41–1.65)
No	58(48.3)	66(27.5)	1	1
Saturated fat intake
Yes	99(82.5)	113(47.1)	5.3(3.10–9.05)	4.1(1.98–8.3)
No	21(17.5)	127(52.9)	1	1
Intake of ginger
Not use	57(47.5)	35(14.6)	6.51(3.11–13.64)	3.04(1.14–8.1)
Sometimes	50(41.7)	153(63.7)	1.31(.66–2.6)	0.95(0.38–2.41)
Always	13(10.8)	52(21.7)	1	1
Water intake per day
Adequate	17(14.2	68(28.3)	1	1
Inadequate	103(85.8)	172(71.7)	2.35(1.31–4.21)	1.26(0.62–2.58)
Vitamin B reached food intake
Adequate	33(27.5)	119(49.6)	1	1
Inadequate	87(72.5)	121(50.4)	2.59(1.61–4.17)	2.19(1.14–4.19)