Determining behavioral intention and its predictors towards cervical cancer screening among women in Gomma district, Jimma, Ethiopia: Application of the theory of planned behavior

Wadu Wollancho; Demuma Amdissa; Shemsedin Bamboro; Yitbarek Wasihun; Kasahun Girma Tareke; Abraham Tamirat Gizaw

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238472

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 18, 2020
2 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Amir H. Pakpour, Editor PONE-D-20-14038 Determining behavioral intention and its predictors towards cervical cancer screening among women in Gomma district, Jimma, Ethiopia: Application of the theory of planned behavior PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tareke, 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 Sep 16 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, Amir H. Pakpour, 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 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 2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 7 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Dear author(s), I appreciate you due to all the efforts. This manuscript is overall reasonable and admirable, short of a few points recommended below: 1.Please apply MeSH part on pubmed.com and extract the most related keywords. 2.Why was systematic sampling chosen?There is a possibility for bias to emerge in systematic sampling, if the researcher throws the randomness into air and uses his own discretion in selection of items in framing the sample.(write this in limitation of your study) 3. Your background is a bit long. Please transmit a part of them to discussion part.(if applicable) 4.Why were not considered eligible criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria). Some of studies indicated that cervical cancer highly likely depend on marital status and sexual relation and age. Is there any corroboration to exist cervical cancer in women aged 15? 5.why did you consider prevalence(p) criterion in your formula 0.5? is there any evidence for it?please report. 6. In data management tools, please report the criterion to confirm reliability and validity. 7. why did you mention to PCA in Data quality management?explain or omit this part. 8.In abstract part, you mentioned to multiple linear regression model and in statistical analysis gave logistic regression. why? As well, in your Abstract-Results, use either plus-minus or SD in parentheses. 9.Please bring Cronbach's alpha and Ethical approval in method part. they are not related to statistical analysis. 10.How did you calculate Intention to cervical Cancer Screening response variable. please express the type of each variable. (predictors-response) 11.presentation of descriptive analysis for each predictor and its items is dispensable. please reduce some of additional tables. 12.please check the presumptions of using Pearson correlation and report in your manuscript. Although I wrote this points, however, I really appreciate and admire you due to their interpretation of statistical analysis. It was really great. Thank you so much. With best wishes, Maryam Ganji ****** 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:** Maryam Ganji [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238472.r001
Revision 1
8 Aug 2020 Author Response Dear PLOS ONE academic editor and reviewer, We want to express our deepest gratitude for reviewing and providing your constructive comments to us on a manuscript entitled “Determining behavioral intention and its predictors towards cervical cancer screening among women in Gomma district, Jimma, Ethiopia: Application of the theory of planned behavior” submitted to PLOS ONE journal. We have gone through the reviewer comments and made corrections or amendments accordingly. Please find below our responses based on each comments. 1. Please apply MeSH part on pubmed.com and extract the most related keywords. � Amendments were done based on the comment. Abstract, keywords, Page 2. 2. Why was systematic sampling chosen? There is a possibility for bias to emerge in systematic sampling, if the researcher throws the randomness into air and uses his own discretion in selection of items in framing the sample.(write this in limitation of your study) � A systematic sampling technique was used to select the samples because there was no sampling frame containing all eligible reproductive age group women in the study setting. � Amendment was done based on the reviewer comment writing the suggestion under strength and limitation of the study. Page 16 3. Your background is a bit long. Please transmit a part of them to discussion part.(if applicable) � Yes, it is true that the background is long. However, we wrote exhaustively to make it informative enough for the readers, and to show clearly the burden of the disease, suggested interventions, activities on the implementation, the research gaps observed from existing evidences and what was going to be done. Therefore, while all these things were incorporated it becomes a little bit long. But, as per the reviewer suggestion, some amendments were one on paragraph 3 and 4. 4. Why were not considered eligible criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria). Some of studies indicated that cervical cancer highly likely depends on marital status and sexual relation and age. Is there any corroboration to exist cervical cancer in women aged 15? � It is true that existing evidence revealed that cervical cancer is highly likely depends on marital status and sexual relation and age. However, there are also evidenced that indicated premature sex is a risk for cervical cancer, and the WHO recommends all reproductive age group (15-45 years old) to be screened for cervical cancer. On the other hand, in our country, these days, most of school students at this age start sexual relationship, even with multiple partners. Therefore, to draw scientific conclusions, it is a good idea to include, rather than including them. � Second, we have added the eligibility criteria on page 5 along with sampling technique and sample size calculation. 5. Why did you consider prevalence (p) criterion in your formula 0.5? Is there any evidence for it? Please report. � It is true that there were evidences indicating the prevalence of cervical cancer screening. However, the prevalence was low to obtain adequate sample size. On the other hand, SBCC interventions and screening campaigns were conducted at the study setting, as indicated on the background part. Therefore, to obtain optimum sample size and avoid over-reporting that might happen due to these cases, p-value of 0.5 was taken. We have added the explanation on page 5. 6. In data management tools, please report the criterion to confirm reliability and validity. � A reliability test was done and a Cronbach alpha value of greater than or equal to 0.7 was regarded as an acceptable level. Page 6 7. Why did you mention to PCA in Data quality management? Explain or omit this part. � We omitted. 8. In abstract part, you mentioned to multiple linear regression model and in statistical analysis gave logistic regression. Why? As well, in your Abstract-Results, use either plus-minus or SD in parentheses. � It was a typographical error, and correction was done on statistical analysis, and changed into linear regression. Page 6. 9. Please bring Cronbach's alpha and Ethical approval in method part. They are not related to statistical analysis. � We have moved cronbach’s alpha to data quality management. But, the ethical approval part is putted as a method section or part next to the statistical analysis. It is not part of the statistical analysis. Therefore, considering the PLOS ONE manuscript submission format, it is written at the end of the method part. 10. How did you calculate Intention to cervical Cancer Screening response variable? Please express the type of each variable. (predictors-response) � It was measured using four items with five points of Likert scale. The four items were summed up and used for analysis. Again, all the direct constructs (variables) were measured using four items with five points of Likert scale; the four items were summed up and used for the analysis. Therefore, we calculated intension for each response variable by summing up the responses obtained under them. 11. Presentation of descriptive analysis for each predictor and its items is dispensable. Please reduce some of additional tables. � It is true that a lot of tables were presented in the manuscript. We tried to reduce it, but we felt that if one table would be removed, it becomes less informative for the readers, especially for such theory-based researches. Therefore, we kept as it was. 12. Please check the presumptions of using Pearson correlation and report in your manuscript. � A Pearson correlation analysis is done to understand the association between two continuous variables. All of the variables mentioned under theory of planned behavior and reported in this manuscript were considered as continuous variables. Therefore, a Pearson correlation was done to assess the association between constructs of theory of planned behavior used to determine the predictors of intention towards cervical cancer screening. Page 12. Saying this, I hope that the comments provided by the reviewer were addressed and the manuscript would meet the high standards of your journal. Therefore, am looking forward to receive a favorable response from you regarding the acceptance of the manuscript. Sincerely yours Kasahun Girma Tareke (corresponding author) Address: Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Faculty of Public Health, Institute of Health, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia E-mail: kasahungirmadera@gmail.com; girma.tareke@ju,edu.et; Phone: +251 919375374 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238472.r002
18 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Amir H. Pakpour, Editor Determining behavioral intention and its predictors towards cervical cancer screening among women in Gomma district, Jimma, Ethiopia: Application of the theory of planned behavior PONE-D-20-14038R1 Dear Dr. Tareke, 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, Amir H. Pakpour, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238472.r003
Formally Accepted
19 Aug 2020 Acceptance Letter - Amir H. Pakpour, Editor PONE-D-20-14038R1 Determining behavioral intention and its predictors towards cervical cancer screening among women in Gomma district, Jimma, Ethiopia: Application of the theory of planned behavior Dear Dr. Tareke: 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. Amir H. Pakpour Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238472.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 .