What works best for ensuring treatment adherence. Lessons from a social support program for people treated for tuberculosis in Ukraine

Zulfiya Charyeva; Siân Curtis; Stephanie Mullen; Tatyana Senik; Olga Zaliznyak

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221688

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 31, 2019
5 Jul 2019 Decision Letter - Kahabi Ganka Isangula, Editor PONE-D-19-15537 What works best for ensuring treatment adherence. Lessons from a social support program for people treated for tuberculosis in Ukraine PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Charyeva, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Aug 19 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if <gwmw class="ginger-module-highlighter-mistake-type-3" id="gwmw-15623349972774533662145">applicable you</gwmw> deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols<gwmw class="ginger-module-highlighter-mistake-type-3" id="gwmw-15623349972778159102839">.</gwmw><gwmw class="ginger-module-highlighter-mistake-type-1" id="gwmw-15623349972773470343332">io</gwmw>, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For <gwmw class="ginger-module-highlighter-mistake-type-3" id="gwmw-15623349977300200827305">instructions see</gwmw>: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as <gwmw class="ginger-module-highlighter-mistake-type-3" id="gwmw-15623349995292877521946">separate file</gwmw> and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as <gwmw class="ginger-module-highlighter-mistake-type-3" id="gwmw-15623350010633380790531">separate file</gwmw> and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without <gwmw class="ginger-module-highlighter-mistake-type-3" id="gwmw-15623350017787276922391">tracked</gwmw> changes. This file should be uploaded as <gwmw class="ginger-module-highlighter-mistake-type-3" id="gwmw-15623350024957432010048">separate file</gwmw> and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please <gwmw class="ginger-module-highlighter-mistake-type-3" id="gwmw-15623350035658574173647">note while</gwmw> 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. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Kahabi Ganka Isangula, MD, MPH, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) 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. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: A technically sound and academically well written manuscript. The qualitative data analysis was comprehensively explained. However, mention of inter rater reliability by comparing the coding and thematic analysis with co researchers and participants would have further strengthened the analysis. Nevertheless, the manuscript highlights relevant themes pertaining to adherence to TB treatment. Multiple drug resistant strains are a major public health concern of present times. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is written in tangible and organized way and touched critical area that should be addressed. However, some printing errors need revision. e.g. line 196, line 270 ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. <gdiv></gdiv> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221688.r001
Revision 1
8 Aug 2019 Author Response We provided our response to comments in the file named "Response to reviewers." Our responses are below, followed by comments. Response to editors 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf We followed the instructions in the templates and made revisions in the manuscript to meet PLOC ONE’s style requirements. 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information We added details regarding participant consent (line 137-138 in the manuscript with tracked changes) and stated the following: “We informed participants of the study aims, risks and benefits for participation in the study, and obtained verbal informed consent prior to the interview.” 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) 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. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. We de-identified all transcripts from in-depth interviews with study respondents and made them available online from the University of North Carolina, Odum Dataverse repository. This is the Data Availability Statement: Data from the Ukraine Strengthening Tuberculosis Control Project Impact Evaluation – Phase 2 is available online from the University of North Carolina, Odum Dataverse repository (https://dataverse.unc.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.15139/S3/MUSYTQ) published in MEASURE Evaluation Dataverse (view at https://dataverse.unc.edu/dataverse/MEP3). Anonymized transcripts are made available to researchers at no charge. Response to reviewers 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes No response from the authors is required. ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A No response from the authors is required. ________________________________________ 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 Reviewer #2: Yes No response from the authors is required. ________________________________________ 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes No response from the authors is required. ________________________________________ 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: A technically sound and academically well written manuscript. The qualitative data analysis was comprehensively explained. However, mention of inter rater reliability by comparing the coding and thematic analysis with co researchers and participants would have further strengthened the analysis. Nevertheless, the manuscript highlights relevant themes pertaining to adherence to TB treatment. Multiple drug resistant strains are a major public health concern of present times. Response: Thank you for your comment. We agree that calculation of inter-rater reliability would have further strengthened the analysis, however, we applied different techniques to validate the results of the analysis. Two researchers read all study transcripts to ensure that presented results reflect respondents’ views. The lead data analyst worked on coding and shared the code reports with another researcher for input. Both researchers reviewed the code reports, identified sub-themes in each code, and examined the evidence supporting the themes and sub-themes independently and then formed a consensus. Essential concepts and relationships between the different themes and sub-themes were formed. Both researchers worked on synthesizing data and presenting findings in the report. To address this comment from the reviewer, we provided additional information in the analysis section of the manuscript. This is the original version: We reviewed the code reports, identified sub-themes in each code, and examined the evidence supporting the themes and sub-themes. Essential concepts and relationships between the different themes and sub-themes were formed. Data were synthesized, and findings communicated through the process of writing up and presenting the data, using direct quotes to support the themes. This is the modified version: Two researchers read all study transcripts and reviewed the code reports, identified sub-themes in each code, examined the evidence supporting the themes and sub-themes independently and then formed a consensus. Essential concepts and relationships between the different themes and sub-themes were formed. Data were synthesized, and findings communicated through the process of writing up and presenting the data, using direct quotes to support the themes. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is written in tangible and organized way and touched critical area that should be addressed. However, some printing errors need revision. e.g. line 196, line 270 Response: Thank you for your comment. We reviewed and revised the manuscript. We fixed errors in lines 196 and 270 as well as other errors related to translation of quotes from Ukrainian to English. ________________________________________ 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 Reviewer #2: No No response from the authors is required. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221688.r002
14 Aug 2019 Decision Letter - Kahabi Ganka Isangula, Editor What works best for ensuring treatment adherence. Lessons from a social support program for people treated for tuberculosis in Ukraine PONE-D-19-15537R1 Dear Dr. Charyeva, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log <gwmw class="ginger-module-highlighter-mistake-type-1" id="gwmw-15656801839781339269092">into</gwmw> Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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. With kind regards, Kahabi Ganka Isangula, MD, MPH, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: <gdiv></gdiv> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221688.r003
Formally Accepted
19 Aug 2019 Acceptance Letter - Kahabi Ganka Isangula, Editor PONE-D-19-15537R1 What works best for ensuring treatment adherence. Lessons from a social support program for people treated for tuberculosis in Ukraine Dear Dr. Charyeva: I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Kahabi Ganka Isangula Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221688.r004

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 .