Factors influencing weight management behavior among college students: An application of the Health Belief Model

Maryam Saghafi-Asl; Soghra Aliasgharzadeh; Mohammad Asghari-Jafarabadi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228058

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 5, 2019
10 Oct 2019 Decision Letter - Berta Schnettler, Editor PONE-D-19-22092 Factors influencing weight management behavior among College Students: An application of the Health Belief Model PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aliasghazadeh 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. In this regard, you should review each suggestion made by the reviewers, especially those associated with the limitations of the study and update the references. In addition, you should establish each hypothesis in the introduction and contrast them in the results section (Figures 1 and 2), including the mediation relationships found. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by November 26. 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 applicable 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. For instructions see: 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 separate file 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 separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Berta Schnettler Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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 1. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Additionally, clarification of the sampling method and reason for chosen sample size would be beneficial. 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) [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: Yes ****** 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: No 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: Thank you for asking me to review this intersting study on factors influencing weight management in university students. Here my cooments for the authors: 1. At the end of the abstract, the authors used the word "prosperity", maybe they would state health or wellbeing 2. About the methods, can the authors explain why a sample of 336 female subjects was considered representative? I personally appreciate if the author would consider to report the questionnaire with all items to help other researchers to replicate the study 3. Table 1: I suggest to better explain the meaning of letter a-b- c 4. Table 2 is quite difficult to read. I suggest to improve the readability separating it in different sections 5.In Results section: Baseline characteristics in table students experiencin weight loss behaviour are 146/336 (43%) in the text they are more than half 6. Analysing table 3, the authors mentioned in the text bahavioural intention of weight management, not present in table 3 7. In Discussion section, the authors mentioned higher ratings on the severity belief scale may be due to factors like lack of time, insufficient knowledge and skill in food preparations. These factors are maybe due to the fact all the subjects involved in the study are living in a campus. Several studies pointed out worsening behaviours in eating habits of university students leaving family and difference between students living alone or with family (see for instance and comment PMID 17368642 and 26156187) 8. In the limitations of the study, I suggest to include also that all subjects were females, that are, as everyone knows, more prone to control eating habits and weight, in addition data were collected by personal interviews and that could affect the response 9. There are some typing errors (i.e. wit it instead of with it in introduction section). I recommend a revision of the text Reviewer #2: The study seems relevant and provides scientific evidence based on theoretical framework. However, It is important to point out that the results of this study only pertain to the population that was studied and cannot be extrapolated to other populations. In addition, more socio-demographic data of the participants is needed. Please review the comments included in the attached file. ****** 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: Yes: Luis Horacio Aguiar Palacios [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-22092_reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228058.r001
Revision 1
16 Dec 2019 Author Response Dear Dr. Berta Schnettler, Respected editor, "PLOS ONE", Thank you so much for your email dated 2019. The reviewers’ comments were extremely helpful, and we believe that the revisions have enhanced the quality of the manuscript substantially. We have addressed all the comments of the reviewers. Please kindly notice that one-by-one responses to the reviewers’ comments is provided in a “Response to Reviewers” and all the new changes and inclusions in the main body of manuscript in a “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” Word file. If you have further question please let us know as soon as possible. We sincerely hope that the revised manuscript has been efficiently improved and reached to the level of acceptance in the PLOS ONE. Best respects, Soghra Aliasgharzadeh Our response to each comment is as below: Editor’ comments: 1. Regarding the editor comments “you should establish each hypothesis in the introduction and contrast them in the results section (Figures 1 and 2), including the mediation relationships found.” RESPONSE: Each hypothesis in the introduction section related to effects of HBM constructs on behavioral intention of weight management (figure 1) and the corresponding results in the related section was described; however, since it would be so dense the related results was only shown in one paragraph. 2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Additionally, clarification of the sampling method and reason for chosen sample size would be beneficial. RESPONSE: Your comment is perfectly reasonable. Additional information regarding the sample size estimation and sampling method were added in the method section. A copy of questionnaire in both the original language and English were attached as supporting information. 3. Regarding the English editing of the manuscript: RESPONSE: The manuscript was edited for language and grammars by professional scientific editing service and the EDITORIALCERTIFICATELETTER has been attached. Reviewer 1: Thank you so much for comments: 1. At the end of the abstract, the authors used the word "prosperity", maybe they would state health or wellbeing RESPONSE: The word “prosperity” was replaced by “well-being” in the abstract. 2. About the methods, can the authors explain why a sample of 336 female subjects was considered representative? I personally appreciate if the author would consider to report the questionnaire with all items to help other researchers to replicate the study RESPONSE: With regard to this comment, additional information about sample size estimation was added in the method section. The questionnaire used in the study were attached as supporting information. 3. Table 1: I suggest to better explain the meaning of letter a-b- c RESPONSE: Better explanation about the a, b, c letters was added to tables caption. 4. Table 2 is quite difficult to read. I suggest to improve the readability separating it in different sections RESPONSE: We tried to improve the readability of the table 2 by changing the color of heading each section. 5. In Results section: Baseline characteristics in table students experience in weight loss behaviour are 146/336 (43%) in the text they are more than half RESPONSE: The phrase “more than half” were corrected in to “Nearly half” in the mentioned sentence. 6. Analysing table 3, the authors mentioned in the text bahavioural intention of weight management, not present in table 3 RESPONSE: Behavioral intention of weight management is a dependent variable and caused and influenced by listed variables. 7. In Discussion section, the authors mentioned higher ratings on the severity belief scale may be due to factors like lack of time, insufficient knowledge and skill in food preparations. These factors are maybe due to the fact all the subjects involved in the study are living in a campus. Several studies pointed out worsening behaviours in eating habits of university students leaving family and difference between students living alone or with family (see for instance and comment PMID 17368642 and 26156187) RESPONSE: The mentioned references were added to the discussion section where the higher ratings on the barriers scale may be due to factors like lack … 8. In the limitations of the study, I suggest to include also that all subjects were females, that are, as everyone knows, more prone to control eating habits and weight, in addition data were collected by personal interviews and that could affect the response RESPONSE: Suggestions about limitations were applied. 9. There are some typing errors (i.e. wit it instead of with it in introduction section). I recommend a revision of the text RESPONSE: The typing errors were corrected. Reviewer 2: Thank you so much for comments: 1. The study seems relevant and provides scientific evidence based on theoretical framework. However, it is important to point out that the results of this study only pertain to the population that was studied and cannot be extrapolated to other populations. RESPONSE: Explanation about the generalizability of the results considering the studied population was added and highlighted. 2. There is a lack of information about participants socio-demographic characteristics, like age or nationality. RESPONSE: With regard to this comment, information about nationality of participants added to methods section. As far as we could, we presented all the socio-demographic data of the participants; however, unfortunately we do not have access to the same population now to inquire more information. 3. Please rename this table. Mean and Cronbach Alpha must be specified at the end of the table. RESPONSE: Table 2 was renamed according to the reviewer’s comment. 4. In discussion section, a statement is part of theoretical framework. RESPONSE: That sentence was deleted 5. Only 32% of the references are at least five years old, 23% are about 10 years old which is ok but 45% are too old. It is convenient to have more references from recent years. RESPONSE: Some references were replaced with recent literature (references from recent years), as much as possible. However, some could not be replaced with new ones, as they were only done in old years. Since such references are usually related to hypotheses which have been established several years ago and therefore, they could not be substituted with recent ones. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228058.r002
7 Jan 2020 Decision Letter - Berta Schnettler, Editor Factors influencing weight management behavior among College Students: An application of the Health Belief Model PONE-D-19-22092R1 Dear Dr. Aliasgharzadeh 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 into 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, Berta Schnettler Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The latest version was considered approved. We do have to point out that this does not mean a definitive approval from the magazine. The criteria of the other reviewers should be taken into consideration. After a careful and exhausting revision it has been decided to approve the article titled “Factors influencing weight management behavior among College Students: An application of the Health Belief Model” in the hope that the criteria mentioned would help the author improve on his future work and thus the magazine keep publishing articles with the highest of quality. Best regards. ****** 7. 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: Yes: Luis Horacio Aguiar Palacios https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228058.r003
Formally Accepted
31 Jan 2020 Acceptance Letter - Berta Schnettler, Editor PONE-D-19-22092R1 Factors influencing weight management behavior among College Students: An application of the Health Belief Model Dear Dr. Aliasgharzadeh: 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. Berta Schnettler Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228058.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 .