Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 6, 2019
Decision Letter - Tanya Doherty, Editor

PONE-D-19-25121

Occupational exposure to HIV among nurses at a major tertiary hospital: Reporting and utilization of post exposure prophylaxis; A cross-sectional study in the Western Cape, South Africa

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms Kabotho,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: The reviews have recommended revisions to your manuscript. Please consider these comments especially regarding further details of the methodology and improvements to the presentation of the results.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 11 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,

Tanya Doherty, 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 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, please state when participants were recruited for this study.

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 what type of consent you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

4. Please remove ‘I would like to thank the Lord, my heavenly Father for the grace, wisdom, strength and courage He has afforded me to complete this thesis’ from the Acknowledgements section of this manuscript.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[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: I Don't Know

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: No

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: Background. Line 86-87 “To our knowledge, there are no recent studies published on nurses’exposure to HIV at the workplace in South Africa.” Perhaps include the following study done in Limpopo: Makhado, L., Davhana- Maselesele, M. Knowledge and uptake of occupational post-exposure prophylaxis amongst nurses caring for people living with HIV. Curationis. 2016, 39(1), a1593. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ curationis.v39i1.1593

Sampling and analysis: Was clustering considered in the analysis strategy (regression model)?

Questionnaire validity reliability: Describe the questionnaire validity and reliability, for example, was content validity of the questionnaire checked by experts in the field? Was a Cronbach alpha calculated for the attitudes scale?

Data collection: How reliable is the knowledge score if participants did not complete this under supervision? Indicate the date of data collection (months and year).

Results: Education of nurses – did the authors distinguish between the different levels of nurses, for example assistant nurses (auxiliaries), enrolled nurses and professional nurses?

Results: In lines 236 & 250, question numbers are mentioned, but is not clear to which questions they refer. Perhaps the authors could indicate the question numbers in Tables 2 and 4 or perhaps just refer to the table to prevent repetition.

General: The tables should be formatted consistently, for example, the font type. Figures are not very clear on the manuscript draft.

Acknowledgements: Consult the journal guidelines for what is required in the acknowledgements section.

References: Formatting should be attended to. Some references do not appear to be correct, e.g. line 384. Journal names, volumes, issue, pages, date, doi, etc. to be added consistently.

Reviewer #2: In general a well written manuscript. One concern is the validity and reliability of the questionnaire used - suggest that this is added to the manuscript. Additional comments have been made on the attached document for consideration.

**********

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: Talitha Crowley

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-25121_reviewer.pdf
Revision 1

1.Background. Line 86-87 “To our knowledge, there are no recent studies published on nurses’ exposure to HIV at the workplace in South Africa.” Perhaps include the following study done in Limpopo: Makhado, L., Davhana- Maselesele, M. Knowledge and uptake of occupational post-exposure prophylaxis amongst nurses caring for people living with HIV. Curationis. 2016, 39(1), a1593. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ curationis.v39i1.1593

Thank you for your feedback. We have cited this study in the Background.

Background line 88-92

2.Sampling and analysis: Was clustering considered in the analysis strategy (regression model)?

Thank you for your feedback. Clustering was not included in the analysis as the study was mainly exploratory. We have included this limitation in the Discussion section

Discussion section line 371 - 372

3.Data collection: How reliable is the knowledge score if participants did not complete this under supervision? Indicate the date of data collection (months and year).

Thank you for your feedback. We have added under the discussion, the limitations due to the fact that some participants were given the questionnaire to complete at home and not under supervision.

The data were collected over a period of two weeks from the 4th to the 16th February 2019. This has been added to the methods

Methods section line 160-161

Discusion section line 372-374

4.Questionnaire validity reliability: Describe the questionnaire validity and reliability, for example, was content validity of the questionnaire checked by experts in the field? Was a Cronbach alpha calculated for the attitudes scale?

Thank you for your feedback. The questionnaire was adopted from existing studies, however some questions that were added and some removed, and a pilot study was done. We did not calculate a Cronbach alpha for the attitudes scale.

After the comment from the reviewer, we calculated the Cronbach alpha, which was 0.54. This has been added to the methods and as a limitation to the discussion.

Methods section line 136-139

Method section line 139

Discussion section, lines 374-377

5.Results: Education of nurses – did the authors distinguish between the different levels of nurses, for example assistant nurses (auxiliaries), enrolled nurses and professional nurses?

Thank you for your feedback. There was no distinguishing between levels of nurses in the study. We have added this as a limitation under the Discussion section.

Discussion section line 371-372

6.Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type of consent you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

Thank you for your feedback. We obtained written consent from the participants. This has been added in the methods section and on the online submission system.

Methods section line 153-154

7.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, please state when participants were recruited for this study.

Thank you for your feedback, we have included the questionnaire as part of additional information. It is in English. We have also stated when participants were recruited into the study.

Methods section lines 109-110

8. Please remove ‘I would like to thank the Lord, my heavenly Father for the grace, wisdom, strength and courage He has afforded me to complete this thesis’ from the Acknowledgements section of this manuscript

Thank you for the feedback, this statement has been removed from the acknowledgements section

Acknowledgements section line 386-389

9. Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Thank you for your feedback. The data set is available and uploaded as a supplementary comma delimited data set

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PLOSONE_Response_to_reviewers 30 Jan.pdf
Decision Letter - Tanya Doherty, Editor

Occupational exposure to HIV among nurses at a major tertiary hospital: Reporting and utilization of post exposure prophylaxis; A cross-sectional study in the Western Cape, South Africa

PONE-D-19-25121R1

Dear Dr. Kabotho,

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,

Tanya Doherty, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Tanya Doherty, Editor

PONE-D-19-25121R1

Occupational exposure to HIV among nurses at a major tertiary hospital: Reporting and utilization of post-exposure prophylaxis; A cross-sectional study in the Western Cape, South Africa

Dear Dr. Kabotho:

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 Tanya Doherty

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 .