Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 1, 2019
Decision Letter - Kannan Navaneetham, Editor

PONE-D-19-27516

The role of maternal health care services as predictors of time to modern contraceptive use after childbirth in North West Ethiopia: Application of the shared frailty survival analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Emiru,

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 Feb 16 2020 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 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,

Kannan Navaneetham

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. 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.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

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. Also, you referred to pre-testing of this questionnaire but did not provide details of the nature or number of participants.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified how oral consent was documented and witnessed. 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.

[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: 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: on line 193, the index for frailty term is not correct, basing on equation specification j index represent for individual and i for cluster. For this case frailty is taking into consideration clusters heterogeneity not individuals.

For tables, they should add percentage to other column as they did for total column.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is related to the role of maternal health care services as predictors of time to modern contraceptive use after childbirth in North West Ethiopia using Gamma distribution for shared frailty survival analysis with different distributions. The manuscript is generally well written and clearly presented. However, some minor corrections should be done.

1- In Table 1 for each variable percentages of contraceptive users and nonusers are needed.

2- For table 3, for Log-likelihood and AIC values, decimals are not needed.

3- In Table 4, the number of decimal places must be the same.

4- Information of Fig1 with Table2 are the same. One of them should be deleted.

5- Please check baseline hazard function of Weibull distribution in Line192. What is the scale parameter of the Weibull distribution?

6- The interpretations of Multivariable Survival Analysis results should be modified. For example, what do you mean “The likelihood of initiating contraceptive use for women who had four or more antenatal visits was 59 percent (aHR =1.59; 95% CI: 1.22–2.06) higher than for women who had less number of visits.”

7- There is no for some sentences reference. For e.g. “Consequently, modeling time to contraceptive use ignoring the frailty terms may lead to biased estimates of parameters and their respective standard errors.”. Please check the whole manuscript again.

**********

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: Yes: Semakula Muhammed

Reviewer #2: Yes: Prof. Hossein Mahjub

[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-19-27516_reviewer.pdf
Attachment
Submitted filename: comments 3.docx
Revision 1

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editor,

We are very grateful for your letter and the opportunity to improve and resubmit our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. The comments and suggestions provided have been immensely helpful. We have revised the manuscript based on the comments and suggestions.

Kindly find below our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. Unless otherwise stated, all line numbers and pages are in reference to the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Amanu Aragaw Emiru

(On the behalf of Co-Authors)

Comments from Reviewer 1

Comment #1: on line 193, the index for frailty term is not correct, basing on equation specification j index represent for individual and i for cluster. For this case, frailty is taking into consideration clusters heterogeneity not individuals.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out; please consider this as a typo. This has now been corrected (page 9, line 193)

Comment #2: For tables, they should add percentage to other column as they did for total column.

Response: Agree. We have incorporated percentages both for contraceptive user and for nonuser columns (page 11-12, line 223).

Comments from Reviewer 2

Comment #1: In Table 1, for each variable percentages of contraceptive users and nonusers are needed.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added percentages for both contraceptive user and nonuser columns

Comment #2: For table 3, for Log-likelihood and AIC values, decimals are not needed.

Response: Decimals are removed as per your suggestion, thank you.

Comment #3: In Table 4, the number of decimal places must be the same.

Response: Done.

Comment #4: Information of Fig1 with Table2 are the same. One of them should be deleted.

Response: We agree, we have removed table 2 from the manuscript

Comment #5: Please check baseline hazard function of Weibull distribution in Line192. What is the scale parameter of the Weibull distribution?

Response: We agree that the symbols was not clear as it stands. We have slightly modified the hazard function to ease readers understand the model. In the revised version, Zi exp (β’xij) denotes the scale parameter and ρ the shape parameter.

Comment #6: The interpretations of Multivariable Survival Analysis results should be modified. For example, what do you mean “The likelihood of initiating contraceptive use for women who had four or more antenatal visits was 59 percent (aHR =1.59; 95% CI: 1.22–2.06) higher than for women who had less number of visits.”

Response: We are grateful for this comment. We tried to revise this section as per your comment. The revised section is highlighted on line 288-299 (page 15)

Comment #7: There is no for some sentences reference. For e.g. “Consequently, modeling time to contraceptive use ignoring the frailty terms may lead to biased estimates of parameters and their respective standard errors.” Please check the whole manuscript again.

Response: Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We have carefully read the manuscript and have added references as advised. The references considered are highlighted in the revised version.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Kannan Navaneetham, Editor

The role of maternal health care services as predictors of time to modern contraceptive use after childbirth in North West Ethiopia: Application of the shared frailty survival analysis

PONE-D-19-27516R1

Dear Dr. Emiru,

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,

Kannan Navaneetham

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kannan Navaneetham, Editor

PONE-D-19-27516R1

The role of maternal health care services as predictors of time to modern contraceptive use after childbirth in Northwest Ethiopia: Application of the shared frailty survival analysis

Dear Dr. Emiru:

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

Professor Kannan Navaneetham

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .