County-level factors affecting Latino HIV disparities in the United States

Nanette D. Benbow; David A. Aaby; Eli S. Rosenberg; C. Hendricks Brown

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237269

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 14, 2020
3 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Claudia Marotta, Editor PONE-D-20-10766 County-level factors affecting Latino HIV disparities in the United States PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Benbow, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 18 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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. 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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Claudia Marotta 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf [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: Please see attached comments. Reviewer #2: The authors wrote a very interesting paper on the determinants of HIV disparities in a specific HIV population. I suggest to publish it after some minor revisions Only some suggestions to improve the manuscript: 1. reorganizes according to the editorial guidelines of the journal 1. Introduction: well done and clear, improve your introduction with aspect discussed in this article (Grabovac I, Veronese N, Stefanac S, et al. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Diverse Physical Health Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses of Observational Studies. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(9):1809‐1815.) 2. Methods: no comments 3. Results: no suggestions 4. Discussion: - improve your discussion with data on how low socioeconomic levels are risk factors for HIV and other infectious diseases (Di Gennaro F, et al. Prevalence and Predictors of Malaria in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients in Beira, Mozambique. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(9):2032. Published 2018 Sep 17) - and how the sharing of knowledge is the base of task shifting and has a central role to change health in more vulnerable people. (Marotta C, et al. Pathways of care for HIV infected children in Beira, Mozambique: pre-post intervention study to assess the impact of task shifting. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):703. Published 2018 Jun 7.) ****** 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: Francesco Di Gennaro [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.] 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237269.r001
Revision 1
15 Jul 2020 Author Response Editor 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE style requirements, including those for file naming. Based on PLOS ONE style requirements, we have made the following changes: reformatted tables, modified font size to reflect Level 3 headings, deleted “Funding” and “Author Contribution”, reformatted figures, and renamed supporting documents files. We also updated references using PLOS ONE reference guidance described in https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references. Reviewer 1 The manuscript is interesting and could be accepted after revision. Authors should improve the discussion, better explaining the lesson learnt and possible solutions to this problem. Specifically: 1) Reviewer comment: Authors stated: “Increasing the availability, initiation, and retention of PrEP and ART are essential strategies to eliminate HIV.”….It has to be better contextualized and explained. In which way? In fact, in the previous paragraph they stated, “In such settings, language and cultural differences could be significant barriers to HIV testing and treatment that would differentially affect Latinos across both HIV prevention and treatment cascades”…How authors think possible increase PrEP and ART? See ref: DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5646-8 Response: To address this and other comments by both reviewers, we restructured the discussion section completely. We addressed this comment in lines 507-523 (in track-changes version) with changes, additions, and new references that provide context and potential solutions to engagement and retention to HIV care services: 2) Reviewer comment: Authors should better explain also the following: “We conjecture that focusing primarily on changing individual level risk behavior by itself is not likely to overcome all these disparities” how much important it this for authors? Response: In discussing this conjecture, we restructure the discussion to highlight how our findings are aligned with the literature that describes the multiple levels contributing to disparities, following a socioecological framework of health. In lines 507-523, we discuss individual and provider level barriers to access to care that can lead to disparities and identify interventions that can be adapted to address them. In lines 524-544, we present community-level factors and suggest approaches and interventions that may be tailored for Latinos to improve access and use to needed services. In lines 553-572, we discuss individual level factors associated with injection drug use. In lines 577-586, we present socioeconomic, societal level factors strongly associated with HIV and other health disparities among Latinos. 3) Reviewer comment: Authors should create a priorities list of actions to tackle this problem. Response: We agree and this comment guided the way we restructured the Discussion section. These proposed actions and approaches address individual, community, and societal levels as described in item 2 above. 4) Reviewer comment: Social context was mentioned many time but never well discussed, maybe authors could consider these references: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tube.2017.01.002; doi: 10.1177/00333549101250S405 Response: We appreciate this observation and it also informed restructuring of the Discussion section. We use the socioecological framework of health in which social context is a key element. To address this specifically, we added lines 524-544 that address existing research on successful outreach approaches to Latinos and new research that is needed. Reviewer 2 The authors wrote a very interesting paper on the determinants of HIV disparities in a specific HIV population. I suggest to publish it after some minor revisions Only some suggestions to improve the manuscript: 1) Reviewer comment: reorganizes according to the editorial guidelines of the journal Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Changes have been made and are described in item #1 in response to Editor comment. 2) Reviewer comment: Introduction: well done and clear, improve your introduction with aspect discussed in this article (Grabovac I, Veronese N, Stefanac S, et al. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Diverse Physical Health Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses of Observational Studies. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(9):1809‐1815.) Response: We agree with suggestion and appreciate the reference. We provided additional context by describing the role of the HIV continuum of care and reaching viral suppression. In lines 54-60 and 73-76. 4) Discussion: Reviewer comment: improve your discussion with data on how low socioeconomic levels are risk factors for HIV and other infectious diseases (Di Gennaro F, et al. Prevalence and Predictors of Malaria in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients in Beira, Mozambique. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(9):2032. Published 2018 Sep 17) Response: We appreciate the reference and incorporated it into our revision found in lines 577-586 Reviewer comment: and how the sharing of knowledge is the base of task shifting and has a central role to change health in more vulnerable people. (Marotta C, et al. Pathways of care for HIV infected children in Beira, Mozambique: pre-post intervention study to assess the impact of task shifting. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):703. Published 2018 Jun 7.) Response: While task shifting is a potentially effective approach to address the human resource limitations and to scale up the ART coverage and retention in care, we could not find any evidence of the role of task shifting to address specific barriers and facilitators faced by Latinos in the US. However, we did identify evidence of the impact that culturally appropriate HIV care can have on retention in care, and delivering care via telemedicine to reach Latinos in areas where PrEP and HIV care may not be readily available. This is described in lines 507-523. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237269.r002
23 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Claudia Marotta, Editor County-level factors affecting Latino HIV disparities in the United States PONE-D-20-10766R1 Dear Dr. Nanette Benbow, 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, Claudia Marotta Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Authors, I appreciated the good interaction between reviewers and authors that according to me increased the quality of the manuscript that is now ready to be accepted for publication. Best Regards and congratulations 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Yes 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: Yes 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: Authors improved their manuscript and I appreciaet a lot this new version I think that manuscript can be accept in this present form. congratulations ****** 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:** Francesco Di Gennaro https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237269.r003
Formally Accepted
28 Jul 2020 Acceptance Letter - Claudia Marotta, Editor PONE-D-20-10766R1 County-level factors affecting Latino HIV disparities in the United States Dear Dr. Benbow: 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. Claudia Marotta Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237269.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 .