Preventive chemotherapy coverage against soil-transmitted helminth infection among school age children: Implications from coverage validation survey in Ethiopia, 2019

Mekuria Asnakew Asfaw; Zerihun Zerdo; Chuchu Churko; Fikre Seife; Manaye Yihune; Yilma Chisha; Abinet Teshome; Birhanu Getachew; Nebiyu Negussu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0235281

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 16, 2020
7 Apr 2020 Decision Letter - Luzia Helena Carvalho, Editor Transfer Alert This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present. PONE-D-20-07545 Preventive chemotherapy coverage against Soil-transmitted helminthiases among school age children in vertical versus integrated treatment approaches: Implications from coverage validation survey in Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr Asfaw, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLoS ONE. After careful consideration, we felt that your manuscript requires revision, following which it can possibly be reconsidered. Although your manuscript was of interest to the reviewer, major concerns were related to study design, data presentation and conclusion. Thus, a significant amount of issues should be clarified including data analysis and criteria of selection. Finally, the MS should be submitted to a copy editing process otherwise the readability of the MS is compromised. For your guidance, a copy of the reviewers' comments was included below We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 6. 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, Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D. 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 name and describe all the variables that you collected data on in the Methods section. 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 license more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information 3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires more inputs in the introduction regarding the current practice in the country that can help in the discussion (vertical vs integrated differences, ALB or MBD used, p.e.). This is a solid work, but fails to give solutions - this is a simple descriptive study that needs to go further to have interest to others. The language should be revised to improve readability and I advise the authors to work with a writing coach or copy-editor to improve the flow and readability of the text (the use of abbreviations in the abstract and keywords, p.e.). In the same way the analysis of data must be improved with more solid information regarding statistic method used (no information presented on the eligibility criteria and only frequencies are presented, p.e.) This study cannot be extrapolated to the national level and this must be stated clearly since the beginning. To be consider I must insist in a further detailed presentation of the policy in place in Ethiopia, a better presentation of the results and a deeper discussion of the differences between vertical and integrated approaches and a analysis of differences between Ethiopia and other countries in the region. To really take advantage of this simple, but solid, work the authors must go further in the implications of their results. ****** 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: João M Pedro [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235281.r001
Revision 1
27 May 2020 Author Response Author Response Journal Requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: The manuscript has been modified to satisfy all the journal requirements. 2. Please name and describe all the variables that you collected data on in the Methods section. Response: All variables that we collected data are now has been named and described in methods section. 3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. Response: Since authors were unable to provide written permission from the original copyright holder to publish Figure 1, we agreed to remove it in the revised manuscript submission. Response to editor’s comments 1. Although your manuscript was of interest to the reviewer, major concerns were related to study design, data presentation and conclusion. Thus, a significant amount of issues should be clarified including data analysis and criteria of selection Response: Authors highly appreciate and acknowledge the importance of editors’ comments. Initially, we analyzed data to present aggregated data of the country, which led to major concerns to be raised by editor and reviewers related to study design, data presentation and conclusion. These now have been revisited, dis-aggregated data presented for each districts, and described. Thus, the manuscript has been amended to meet editor’s comments. 2. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) Response: Agreed, we used the PACE engine to manage figures. Response to Reviewers' comments 1. The manuscript partly describes 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. Response: With consideration given to reviewers’ comments, authors have made amendment on data analysis. We have presented data for each district and now conclusion has been drawn accordingly. 2. I don’t know about the data analysis Response: Authors appreciate the reviewer’s concern and acknowledging the relevance of the comment. Although it had limitation we did aggregated statistical analysis using data obtained from small number of districts to extrapolate evidence at national level. Probably that would be the case regarding the reviewer comment on the data analysis. Of course we agreed with the reviewer concern; and now we have made detail data analysis for each district to meet reviewer’s expectation. 3. The manuscript is not presented in an intelligible fashion and written in Standard English. Response: the manuscript has been proofread with editing made wherever necessary. 4. The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires more inputs in the introduction regarding the current practice in the country that can help in the discussion (vertical versus integrated differences, ALB or MBD used, p.e.). This is a solid work, but fails to give solutions - this is a simple descriptive study that needs to go further to have interest to others. Response: Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. Accordingly, we made revision to address the reviewer’s concern. Based on the available data, amendment has been made on the title, introduction, methods and discussion sections. In addition, we added available and relevant evidences that the support the current practice of Ethiopia regarding implementation of mass drug administration. With the revised version, we believe that the paper can provide substantial evidences to inform decision made in PC program implementation. 5. The language should be revised to improve readability and I advise the authors to work with a writing coach or copy-editor to improve the flow and readability of the text (the use of abbreviations in the abstract and keywords, p.e.). In the same way the analysis of data must be improved with more solid information regarding statistic method used (no information presented on the eligibility criteria and only frequencies are presented, p.e.) Response: the manuscript has been improved and proofread with editing made where necessary. Inappropriate abbreviation used in abstracts and keywords are removed. Data analysis has been revised. The methods section has also been appropriately explained in line with the aim of the study; and issues related to inclusion and exclusion criteria are included. 6. This study cannot be extrapolated to the national level and this must be stated clearly since the beginning. Response: We share reviewer’s concern. Although it was difficult to extrapolate evidence to national level, based on the current improvement made on the data analysis we could draw inference for the ten districts involved in the study, which is ‘this study showed that only five out of ten districts met the target threshold (minimum75%) for effective coverage’. 7. To be consider I must insist in a further detailed presentation of the policy in place in Ethiopia, a better presentation of the results and a deeper discussion of the differences between vertical and integrated approaches and analysis of differences between Ethiopia and other countries in the region. To really take advantage of this simple, but solid, work the authors must go further in the implications of their results. Response: Authors are grateful for the reviewer’s excellent comment. Based on available evidences, evidence on implementation of mass drug administration in Ethiopia has been described in the introduction (p.4 line 87-92 and p.5 line 85-108). In addition, the result sections have been improved and discuss has been made regarding the difference in treatment coverage between Ethiopia and other countries. Moreover, implications of the findings have been also explained (p. 12 and 13 line 260-300). Please note that modified conclusion is not solely focused on comparison of integrated versus vertical treatment approach at national level; rather it extrapolates evidence for the ten districts involved in the study. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235281.r002
12 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Luzia Helena Carvalho, Editor Preventive chemotherapy coverage against soil-transmitted helminth infection among school age children: Implications from coverage validation survey in Ethiopia, 2019 PONE-D-20-07545R1 Dear Dr. Asfaw, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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. Kind regards, Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D. 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 ******** 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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: 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: Congratulations on revising the article, just have a final check of the journal requirements for the tables. Simple and straightforward. Best of luck in next studies. ****** 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: Yes: Joao M Pedro https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235281.r003
Formally Accepted
17 Jun 2020 Acceptance Letter - Luzia Helena Carvalho, Editor PONE-D-20-07545R1 Preventive chemotherapy coverage against soil-transmitted helminth infection among school age children: Implications from coverage validation survey in Ethiopia, 2019 Dear Dr. Asfaw: I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Luzia Helena Carvalho Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235281.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 .