Thank you for encouraging response and please find below our response to your minor editorial changes:
he following small textual adjustments are required during the production process. Editor’s comments in bold. Author’s words in plain text.
P7
A typographical error on p7: Is it NHRM or NRHM?
RESPONSE: Agree it should be NRHM
P9
3.2.3. Other (confounding) Variables
The confounding variable age was selected on the basis of three conditions (LaMorte, 2016)–
1. Age was associated with both stunting and different explanatory factors, including
feeding practices (e.g. Infants and children have predominantly different feeding
practices); risk of infection (children who start to grow, crawl, walk, explore and put
objects in their mouths risk ingesting bacteria from human and animal sources via open
defecation increases).
- verb in wrong place in this parantheses suggest deleting “increases” or placing “increased” before “risk of infection”
RESPONSE: Agree, suggest place 'increased' before 'risk of infection'
P11 middle
Use of similar estimates would allow better synthesis of evidence and would provide evidence comparability.
There is something missing from this sentence or it could be deleted?
RESPONSE: This is what we were trying to say: ' Use of similar methodologies would allow for better analysis of DHS data sets and facilitate comparisons across various DHS data sets.'
If you feel the above is not adding value, then remove our suggested edit for the sentence.
P17
3. DISCUSSION
In this study we found that drinking water source, sanitation facility, and agricultural land
ownership were associated with reduced stunting odds in children across rural Rajasthan, India.
Specifically, reported household use of (i) improved drinking water source was associated with
a 23% reduced odds, (ii) improved sanitation facility was associated with 41% reduced odds,
and (iii) agricultural land ownership was associated with a 30% reduced odds of child stunted
growth. Indoor cooking fuel source was not associated with risk of stunting although did
approach trend level.
Do the authors mean the statistical significance here rather than “trend”. If it is trend that is fine.
RESPONSE: Yes it is trend.
Secondly, the source data did not include information regarding any intervention and any
intervention, which would have introduced either locally or nationally within 5 years period
prior to the onset of study would have disproportional effect on nutritional status of the children.
I would prefer this short paragraph to read (or something similar):
Secondly, the source data did not include information regarding any intervention introduced either nationally or locally within 5 years of the start of the study that might have had an effect on the nutritional status of the children.
RESPONSE: Yes agree with your suggested amendment.