Response to ReviewersRevised Manuscript with Track ChangesManuscriptJournal Requirements:

1. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All data are in the manuscript files.

 Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

 For example, authors should submit the following data:

 - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

 - The values used to build graphs;

 - The points extracted from images for analysis.

 Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

 If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

 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. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

2. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

3. Please upload a copy of Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 which you refer to in your text on page 9, 10, 12, 14, 15. Or, if the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

4. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

Figures 2 and 4: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. 

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. 

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps: 

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov) 

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl) 

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

Additional Editor Comments:Reviewers' Comments:

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Digital Health’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The paper details the development of a continental COVID-19 vaccination tracking system by Africa CDC and HISP-SA using DHIS2. The system enables real-time monitoring of vaccine distribution, with 300 users accessing role-based dashboards. It provides high-level summaries for leadership and detailed data for programmatic users, supporting informed decision-making. As COVID-19 remains a concern, the system continues to track vaccine uptake and related metrics. Its success offers a model for managing public health data on a large scale.

Need to check on data availability as there was no attachment or link seen.

Some sentences are overly complex and could be revised for clarity. There are minor grammatical issues and typos that should be corrected.The use of technical terms should be consistent and well-defined to ensure clarity for a broad readership.

The research topic is highly relevant and timely and the manuscript is generally well-structured.

Reviewer #2: This paper is timely and a good summary of the seminal efforts that went to into digitizing the support required to power vaccination delivery and results monitoring. Having said that, the manuscript would be better if certain additional details were provided. This will be esp. beneficial for the readers and other stakeholders in LMIC settings who would like to replicate such efforts in their public health delivery programs. Listing them below:

1. Please provide some specific context of the challenges encountered by the stakeholders before the data management system and dashboard were in place. E.g. it took the joint steering committee 1 month to receive upto date information to make key decisions, before digitization and near real time updates.

2. How long did it take for the data management system to go live and become functional? from concept to production?

3. What were the reasons for choosing the DHIS2 platform? E.g. its open source, handles multiple data sources, works in offline settings, can be customized and allows building apps on it.

4. what were the highest level KPIs in tracking the buildout and rollout of this data management system? was it done in phases? if so, how was it done?

5. one of the key takeaways on the paper is the governance structure about the 4 decision making bodies- joint steering committee, program management unit, vaccine taskforce and partnership management. Please provide a schematic diagram for these four bodies, key decisions each makes and the data sources + information needed to execute their work. It will be easier for the readers to grasp it visually.

6. What if any, would be best practice recommendations and practical tips for agencies in other LMIC settings to build similar digital infrastructure for their public health initiatives.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Rutwik Shah

**********

Figure resubmission:Reproducibility:--> -->-->To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols-->?>

Response to ReviewersRevised Manuscript with Track ChangesManuscriptJournal Requirements:Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your resubmission and addressing the initial set of comments. One reviewer notes that they would be interested in any type of performance metric, if there are any available. We recognize that this may not have been part of the implementation process, but if there is evidence of impact, that would strengthen the manuscript. Further, this reviewer notes that some discussion of limitations and challenges would also be helpful. Finally, they noted some typographical issues.

Thank you

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #2:

Reviewers' Comments:

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Comments addressed

Reviewer #2: Updates to the manuscript are satisfactory

Reviewer #3: See the attachment.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Figure resubmission:

Reproducibility:--> -->-->To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols-->?>

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2025_PLOS_Covid.pdf

COVID-19 Vaccination Data Management and Visualization Systems for Improved Decision-Making: Lessons Learnt from Africa CDC Saving Lives and Livelihoods Program

PDIG-D-25-00092R2

Dear Mr Shaweno,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'COVID-19 Vaccination Data Management and Visualization Systems for Improved Decision-Making: Lessons Learnt from Africa CDC Saving Lives and Livelihoods Program' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Digital Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 digitalhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Digital Health.

Best regards,

Hanieh Razzaghi

Section Editor

PLOS Digital Health

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your excellent manuscript. My suggestion to the authors is to edit the abstract to include some of the quantitative output that was integrated with the Results section in the last round of edits, which I think will significantly strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: This revised version shows clear improvement in organization and clarity. The paper provides a valuable and timely account of how Africa CDC leveraged a DHIS2-based data management and visualization platform to support COVID-19 vaccination tracking and decision-making across the continent. The system description is coherent and well contextualized within Africa’s public health infrastructure.

To further strengthen the paper, I suggest a light language edit to improve flow and readability, especially in the “Lessons Learned” section.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #3: No

**********