Trachoma prevention practice and associated factors among mothers having children aged under nine years in Andabet district, northwest Ethiopia, 2022: A multi-level analysis

Zufan Alamrie Asmare; Natnael Lakachew Assefa; Dagmawi Abebe; Solomon Gedlu Nigatu; Yezinash Addis Alimaw

doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0011433

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 27, 2022
6 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Joseph M. Vinetz, Editor Dear Miss Asmare, Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Trachoma prevention practice and associated factors among mothers having children aged under nine years in Andabet district, northwest Ethiopia, 2022 :a multi-level analysis" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation. When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following: [1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. [2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file). Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments. Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts. Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Joseph M. Vinetz Section Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Joseph Vinetz Section Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases ********************* Reviewer's Responses to Questions Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance? As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following: Methods -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? -Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? -Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? -Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? -Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? -Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? Reviewer #1: The study is very important for the global trachoma community for decision making at global/international, national, regional, district and community levels by all stakeholders involved as Ethiopia currently has an estimated 50% of the global population requiring interventions for trachoma elimination. Addressing the trachoma problem in Ethiopia is potentially wiping out half the global trachoma problem. There is enough information that shows that the study is important and worthy of publication. However, major revision is needed. The overall presentation is poor. Grammar is poor. I suggest the authors find someone who can proofread and the many grammatic mistakes. Objectives should be revised. See my comments in the attached file. They are not clearly articulated. I believe that the study design is appropriate to address the stated objectives. The population is clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested. The sample size looks sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested. I believe that correct statistical analysis was used to support conclusions although I may not ne strong enough on statistical methods. Selection of participants is generally ethical and meets regulatory requirements. However, some women were excluded with weak justification for the exclusion. Better explanation needed in the limitation section. -------------------- Results -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? -Are the results clearly and completely presented? -Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Reviewer #1: The study is a replication of similar studies conducted in other parts of the country and in other countries. The analysis matches the analysis plan. Results are completely presented. The authors need to improve the presentation in general. -------------------- Conclusions -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? -Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? -Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? -Is public health relevance addressed? Reviewer #1: Conclusions are supported by the data presented but presentation is generally poor. The limitations of analysis are described but more work needed. The authors tried to discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study, but more work is needed to improve the presentation of the study. Authors have poorly addressed the public health relevance of the study. I have made some suggestions in the attached file. -------------------- Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications? Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”. Reviewer #1: I have added my editorial suggestions in the attached file. -------------------- Summary and General Comments Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed. Reviewer #1: The study is a replication of studies conducted in other countries and in other parts of Ethiopia to assess community practices that influence trachoma prevention and elimination. Half the global population requiring intervention for trachoma elimination is in Ethiopia where some regions/districts have up to 37% TF rate (hyperendemicity) after years of A treatment. This study demonstrates the need to consider support for the introduction of other interventions (F and E) for trachoma elimination in Ethiopia and thus elimination of an estimated half the global burden. I believe that the essential information needed (objectives, methodology, result) is available in this draft of the manuscript. However, overall presentation is poor with too many grammatic errors. Authors should take time to improve the presentation including finding someone who can proofread and edit the manuscript for them. I have made some suggestions in the attached file. -------------------- 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 Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org. Data Requirements: Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your 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: PNTD-D-22-01493-Koroma comments.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011433.r001
Revision 1
14 Apr 2023 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response for reviewer comment.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011433.r002
11 May 2023 Decision Letter - Joseph M. Vinetz, Editor Dear Miss Asmare, Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Trachoma prevention practice and associated factors among mothers having children aged under nine years in Andabet district, northwest Ethiopia, 2022: A multi-level analysis" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations. Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following: [1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out [2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file). Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments. Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Joseph M. Vinetz Section Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Joseph Vinetz Section Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases ********************* Reviewer's Responses to Questions Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance? As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following: Methods -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? -Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? -Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? -Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? -Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? -Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? Reviewer #1: Manuscript was revised well needing only minor revisions before publication. -------------------- Results -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? -Are the results clearly and completely presented? -Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Reviewer #1: Manuscript was revised well needing only minor revisions before publication. -------------------- Conclusions -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? -Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? -Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? -Is public health relevance addressed? Reviewer #1: Manuscript was revised well needing only minor revisions before publication. -------------------- Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications? Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”. Reviewer #1: Most of the revision needed is on use of acronym. In line 28 please write "trachoma prevention practices" in full followed by the acronym in bracket (TPP). Afterwards, just put TPP. Use the acronym TPP instead of in full in line 31, 47,49, 86-87, 91,92,93, 94,96,118, 151, 160-161, 200,205,210,211-212, 218, 219-220, 231, 252,253, 264-265, 267, 268-269, 269, 271, 281, 283, 283, 287, 289, 291-292, 294, 301, 303,304, 321-322, 323, 329, 335, 336-337, 359, 362, 369. I might have missed some. Please go through and change accordingly. Abstract: World Health Organization (WHO). I suggest you use 'cleanliness' throughout when referring to the SAFE strategy. Put TPP in bracket after trachoma prevention practices as you have used the acronym later in the abstract. On dates, I believe you say from June 5 to June 10, 2022. Remove 'from' and the date is still good (was conducted June 1-30, 2022. Line 25: World Health Organization (WHO). Line 34: remove 'from' Line 37: small 'v' Line 57: for consistency, please use 'cleanliness'. Line 74: remove the 's' from disease, use singular as it is just trachoma. Line 84-85: please improve on this sentence as it is vague, not clear enough what you are saying. Line 87: small 's'. Line 100 and 107: remove 'from'. Line 119: no brackets please. Line 120: add comma after 'rate'. Line 127: please replace 'of' with 'that'. Line 129: small 'c'. Line 143: please replace highlighted words with 'were' and add a comma after 'visits'. Line 155: comma after status. Line 164: add a full stop after the bracket. Line 167: 'ies' in the bracket, not just 's' as plural of fly is flies. Line 174: small 'd'. Line 189: dived or divided? Line 195: use comma, then small 'w'. Line 235: capital 'M'. Line 246: full stop after bracket. Line 286: Capital 'O'. Line 306: capital 'S'. Line 307: i suggest you use 'as in' or because in'. Line 308: comma after 'besides'. Line 309: I suggest you use 'smaller'. Line 309: better to use 'might be'. Line 310: 'difference' better. Line 315: use comma, not full stop. Line 322: better to use 'receive". Line 328: comma after moreover. Line 331: space, then capital 'I'. Line 337: suggest you use 'because'. Line 338: full stop after minutes. Line 345: 'a neglected tropical disease', not diseases as you are referring to just trachoma. Line 346: full stop please. Line 347: in place of 'to', use 'to address'. Line 348: Full stop after 'community'. Then start next sentence with a capital B. Line 351: full stop instead of comma. Line 352: small 'd'. Line 354-355: sounds negative as written here. I suggest instead "although we do not expect a significant number of such women in the targeted communities". Line 362-363-364: please rewrite. I suggest " Therefore, special attention should be given to these high-risk groups so that this devastating health problem can be decreased". Line 366: cleanliness. Line 367: I suggest 'the WHO-recommended SAFE strategy for elimination of trachoma especially in highly endemic countries like Ethiopia". Line 371: use 'reside far". Line 373-374: I suggest "will negatively affect efforts of the ". Line 374: elimination, not illumination. -------------------- Summary and General Comments Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed. Reviewer #1: I believe that this is a good study conducted in Ethiopia and that this manuscript will again highlight the need for special support for the implementation of the F and E components of the WHO-recommended SAFE strategy in countries like Ethiopia that currently has about 50% of the global trachoma burden if the disease is to be eliminated as a public health problem globally. The authors have significantly improved the presentation. -------------------- 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 Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org. Data Requirements: Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your 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 References 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PNTD-D-22-01493_R1-1-highlights-comments.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011433.r003
Revision 2
18 May 2023 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response for reviewer comment.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011433.r004
2 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Joseph M. Vinetz, Editor Dear Miss Asmare, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Trachoma prevention practice and associated factors among mothers having children aged under nine years in Andabet district, northwest Ethiopia, 2022: A multi-level analysis' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests. 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. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Best regards, Joseph M. Vinetz Section Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Joseph Vinetz Section Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases *********************************************************** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011433.r005
Formally Accepted
16 Jun 2023 Acceptance Letter - Joseph M. Vinetz, Editor Dear Miss Asmare, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Trachoma prevention practice and associated factors among mothers having children aged under nine years in Andabet district, northwest Ethiopia, 2022: A multi-level analysis," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication. The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly. Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers. Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Best regards, Shaden Kamhawi co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Paul Brindley co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011433.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .