Next Article in Journal
Screening of Heavy Metal-Immobilizing Bacteria and Its Effect on Reducing Cd2+ and Pb2+ Concentrations in Water Spinach (Ipomoea aquatic Forsk.)
Next Article in Special Issue
“They Just Need to Come Down a Little Bit to Your Level”: A Qualitative Study of Parents’ Views and Experiences of Early Life Interventions to Promote Healthy Growth and Associated Behaviours
Previous Article in Journal
Mediating Effects of Specific Types of Coping Styles on the Relationship between Childhood Maltreatment and Depressive Symptoms among Chinese Undergraduates: The Role of Sex
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 9
10.3390/ijerph17093121
Review Report
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Sensitivity of Nutrition Indicators to Measure the Impact of a Multi-Sectoral Intervention: Cross-Sectional, Household, and Individual Level Analysis

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(9), 3121; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093121
by Anastasia Marshak 1,2,*, Helen Young 1,2, Anne Radday 1,2 and Elena N. Naumova 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(9), 3121; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093121
Submission received: 23 February 2020 / Revised: 21 April 2020 / Accepted: 26 April 2020 / Published: 30 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Early Influences on Child Health and Wellbeing)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript investigated the sensitivity of nutrition indicators to multi-sectorial interventions as well as different statistical analysis methods. This study is important is pointing out how statistical approach chosen can influence outcome of the study. The following comments are suggested to improve the quality of the manuscript

  1. Line 89-91: There is no explanation why severe wasting was considered in the analysis, while severe underweight and severe stunting were not used.
  2. Line 108-109: Did the authors obtain ethical clearance from Chad? If so, that should be added.
  3. Line 115-116: Authors should justify why only women in the three bottom wealth groups were used for the impact evaluation.
  4. Line 146: The authors have indicated the difficulty in capturing the true age of children. What is the implications of this on the outcomes of the study. Also this need to be mentioned as a limitation
  5. Table 1: Under options, some variables have been ignored. For example, what were the options for severe wasting?
  6. Line 163: Do the authors mean “adapted” instead of adopted?
  7. Figure 1: Please revise figure title. Also only six of the seven malnutrition indicators are shown in the figure.
  8. Figure 3: Please define sam.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

  1. Why use of GLM and why not multilevel effect.
  2. Second why cant you applied the Diff in diff regression.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This was a focused, clear, and well-written examination of various evaluation models for understanding multi-sectoral interventions in childhood malnutrition based on many years of collaborative work.

I am very curious about why girls fared better in GLM and mixed effects models and would have liked more discussion. 

Perhaps the equations (ln 172-203) could be moved to supplemental in order to have more discussion and future recommendations. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop