http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9338-0334
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionDecember 13, 2019 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-19-33641 Youth friendly health service utilization among high and preparatory school students in Debre Tabor Town, Northwest Ethiopia. PLOS ONE Dear Mr. Minuye, 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 May 03 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:
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, Julie Maslowsky, PhD 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.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. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible. 3. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section. 4. 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. 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. Additional Editor Comments: I and four reviewers agree that although your study shows some promise for publication, substantial revisions are needed. Please respond thoroughly to the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. [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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ********** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ********** 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 Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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: Summary of the article The manuscript "Youth friendly health service utilization among high and preparatory school students in Debre Tabor Town, Northwest Ethiopia" tries to assess utilization and factors affecting utilization among youths. The study may have minimal contribution to the context of the study area if the following major and minor comments are addressed by the: 1. General comment • First of all, the issue is overlooked in various parts of the country. Some of these includes Jimma (South West Ethiopia), Harar (East ethiopia) , Anchar district (East ethiopia ) , Ethiopia (Meta analysis ), Badwacho (Southern Ethiopia), Wolaita ( Southern Ethiopia), Hossana ( Southern Ethiopia), Asela ( South East Ethiopia), Bahir Dar ( North Ethioia ), Tigray ( North Ethiopia), Debre Birhan ( North Ethiopia), Nekemte ( West Ethiopia), Awabel district ( North west Ethiopia), Metekel Zone ( North West Ethiopia), Goba town ( South East Ethiopia), Dejene district ( North Ethiopia), Debre Markos (North Ethiopia), Woreta Town ( North West Ethiopia), Kachabira District ( Southern Ethiopia), Meachkal Distric ( North Wets Ethiopia), and Mecha district ( North west Ethiopia). If we commutate all findings, the utilization of “youth friendly sexual and reproductive health service” is very low. So what ? Does this study come with a new perspective ? Yes, we know the contexts particularly for these subgroup populations are different in different areas due to individual level factors, structural factors, sociodemographic factors, and so on. Majority of the studies including the current study are done in towns and all are from youth/adolescent perspectives of the services. • The justification “the status of these segments of population in using sexual and reproductive health services is not clearly known in the country” in the abstract section is not palatable and therefore, need another peculiar justification. • There are issues related to the journal’s guideline like reference writing consistency 2. Abstract • See the track change comments 3. Methods section • See the track change comments 4. Results Section • See the track change comments 5. Reference and other issues • See the track change comments Reviewer #2: Comments This is important topic which highlighted issues among youth. I would like to provide my comments to improve this paper further. Background 1. Generally you have mentioned the important point regarding issue in this study, however literature seems very brief. I would suggest to add on more 2. Paragraph 3… ‘They lack RH information, knowledge and access………service for RH’ is not clear. Maybe you could restructure the sentences 3. The acronym used in highlighting the issues not consistent as you used for SRH, RH and ARH. My suggestion is used consistency term and acronym that best applied to this study. Using full terminology rather than acronym is much better. 4. In Paragraph 6, acronym for YFS means what? Methodology 1. How many population in this town and may also include how big is the town. 2. Please elaborate detail on sample size calculation; how you get 696 students participated in this study. How you did simple random sampling? How many school involved? 3. Study instrument is not clear and need further elaboration, eg what questionnaire you used, how many questions, how it is developed and does it is validated 4. In writing the variables I suggest to use proper sentences. Also maybe it is very nice to put point or numbers in writing the operational definition or maybe just highlighted the variable /operational definition related to your result and discussion rather put it all as listed 5. In ethical consideration, since your sample /participants are between age 15 to 24 years old, the ethical address should properly highlighted. Maybe you should mention at what age respondent can give consent and for those under children age (less than 18 years) how consent form was taken and should also mention others ethical issues as this topic or question that you asked give impact to subject. Result & Discussion 1. Is well presented however should report detail on response rate in this study? Maybe report the reason why they rejected to participate? 2. In the discussion , paragraph 2 …(M:F, 50.9:49.1)….what does it means? Is it references? However, maybe this study only represented youth who are in the education system since your population is not cover among those who did not enter school. This should be discuss in the limitation and maybe suggestion to improve in research. Conclusion & Limitation - Should explain detail Reviewer #3: Overall, this is a clear, concise and well-written manuscript. The topic is timely and relevant. Below are my comments: Background Page 1, line 1: Grammar error - "Reproductive health is 'a'..." Page 1, line 1-2: Definition of ‘reproductive health’ – this is a direct quote. Please include quotation marks. Page 1, line 4: "Every year an estimated 1.7 million youths lose their lives prematurely". Were you referring SRH problems? Please specify. Page 1, para 2: "Individuals in the age group of 15-24 years are characterized by significant physiological, psychological and social changes and making up about 20% of the world’s population, 85% lived in developing countries" - This sentence is too long and confusing. Suggest to rephrase the sentence. Page 1, para 3: adolescent reproductive health (RH) - please be consistent with the abbreviation used. ARH or RH? Methods Page 2, Study period, Setting, and Population, para 1 - The study duration is not the same as stated in the abstract. Why Debre Tabor town was chosen as the study setting? Please justify. Page 3, para 1 – “There are five privately owned kindergartens, 12 government and private primary schools, four government senior secondary schools (9-10), two preparatory schools, one Teachers vocational educational training, two public and one private college, and one University”- Are all these schools and colleges located in Debre Tabor town? Please be clear. Page 3, para 1: "In the town, there were 4152 (2242 female and 1910 male) high schools and 2955 (1459 male and 1496 female) preparatory students" - Are high schools the same as secondary schools? This needs to be clarified from the start. Page 3, para 2 - "Night and extension students were excluded" - why were they excluded? Page 3, para 2 - "A total of 696 students were participated..." - Grammar error Page 3, para 2 - "Samples were drown..." - drawn How did the author do simple random sampling? Was random table or computer used to generate the samples? Why are there two subtitles? - Data Collection Methods & Data Collection Procedure. Suggest 'Data Collection'. Page 3, last paragraph - "Data were collected by using structured close ended self-administered questionnaire. Data were collected by six nurses during working hours’ and supervised by three public..." - 'data were collected' used in two consecutive sentences. Page 3, last paragraph: "Data were collected by six nurses during working hours..." - is it necessary to state the 'working hours'? Page 3, last paragraph: The questioner was prepared in English and translated in “Amharic” for data collection and retranslated into “English” - spelling error questionnaire and you may want to use the term 'forward and backward translation' when describing the translation process. Page 4: Dependent variable - Youth friendly health service utilization - there is no description of YFHSU. How was it measured? Family characteristics - how was it measured? Is the term definition for 'Reproductive health service utilization' the same as 'Youth friendly health service utilization'? Please be consistent. Page 4: Were the variables defined under 'Operational Definitions' adopted from a validated questionnaire or did the author developed their own questionnaire? This needs to be clearly stated in the manuscript. Page 4: Youth-communication/discussion: “Youth report having talked to anyone else about one or more SRH services were categorized as having a communication/discussion about the services” - please specify the people whom they had conversations with e.g. family, teachers etc. Page 5, Youth preferences: 'Preference of youth in relation to health care workers' and 'time focusing SRH services' - were these two sub-variables separated in the questionnaire? How was sample size calculated? This needs to be described. Ethical considerations - was parental consent obtained? In some countries e.g. Malaysia, those less than 18 years old are considered minors and parental consent is required. Ethical considerations - The purpose of the study was explained to the study participants, informed written consent and assent were secured and confidentiality of the information was censured - why confidentiality was ‘censured’? Did you mean to say assured? Results Page 6, 'sources of information' - please specify. Was it sources of info on SRH? Page 7, RHSU: A total of 690 school youths were participated. – grammar error and avoid repetition. Discussion Page 8: “The possible explanations for the difference of the study in Harar could be justified as a higher proportion of married respondents (16.3%) in Harar may result in a higher proportion of service utilization”. - To include in-text citation. Page 8-9: “This might be due to differences in the availability and accessibility of youth friendly health facilities, youth centers, educational status, socioeconomic status, type of residence, transportation and culture”. - To include in-text citation. Page 9: This might be due to cultural influences in the study area in which females have been still not allowed to go to health facilities for reproductive health services. It might also be due to the fact that the proportion of male and female participants in our study was different from Badewacho woreda’s (M: F, 50.9:49.1) - Provide evidence for these two points. Page 9-10: This might be due to the fact that many of reproductive health service components (contraception) might be used when youths have perceived reproductive health risks related to sexual intercourse. - Is this your assumption? Provide evidence. Page 10: This might probably be due to the reason that students spent their time at school during the regular health institutions’ working hours and the institution may not be possibly functional in the weekend at which the students are relatively free. Besides, since the society declares the students as they are too young to go to the health institution due to some cultural influences and visiting health institutions for particular SRH services might be thought as shameful. - Provide evidence Page 10: Besides, the students may also perceive that long queue may let them for unnecessary exposure to the peoples who might be around the health institution and this exposure might leave frustration related to their privacy and confidentiality. Hence, the situation might be exacerbated if they think that the location of the health institution is inconvenient for them. - Provide evidence. Page 11: Limitations - authors should discuss both the strengths and limitations in the discussion section. Page 11: Difficult to determine the direction of causality. Factors from the service providers’ perspective, structural barriers as well as the supply was missed. - These limitations should have been discussed using proper sentences and elaborated further. Authors should also include actions to overcome those challenges. Page 11: Factors from the service providers’ perspective, structural barriers as well as the supply was missed. - Why was it missed? This should not have happened if a comprehensive literature review was done. Table 1: Why there were more adolescents from age group 15-19 years old? Figure: Should be labelled as Figure 1. Reviewer #4: General comment: The manuscript needs some minor English language corrections should it go for publication. Moreover, the research has not shown any novelty from its inception to methods of undertaking. Abstract and background Background of the abstract and background section of the manuscript: Authors need to justify further the rationale to the study based on existing evidences. What they put as a gap for the study is not the real gap which exists in the Ethiopian context. A number of evidences have been documented with regard to reproductive health service utilization among youths either directly or indirectly. Had it been a study referring to the challenges or quality, it would have been quite informative and having had any policy implications. However, the paper can be improved if authors are able to point out any aspects of their work (methodological or variables) which can be considered as a novel contribution to the existing evidences. Methods: The methods section is not written in detailed manner. Since plose one considers manuscripts with rigorously worked and detailed methodology, authors need to revise the methods section so that it can explicitly depict how the samples were estimated, what procedures were followed to select the samples, how the statistical analysis was made-whether appropriate considerations were made in checking for the assumptions of various analysis made to bring about the findings. Moreover, the tool used for data collection should be discussed in terms of its sources, validity and reliability. Authors need to discuss on the variables they have considered in the analysis. The list of variables, their categorization and which have been dropped during the bivariable analysis and why should be discussed here in the methods section. Results: Not well structured. The very critical issue is that authors stated that they have considered health system and health care provider related factors ad their “independent factors” and failed to address these factors in the results section. Therefore, something has fallen apart here. It would be better if authors support their “operational definitions” with either a published article or book or any other original standard material. Discussion: The discussion is to shallow in terms of the implications of the findings for policy or programme improvements. What is the novel contribution of this research and how it is interpreted matters a lot while authors discuss their findings? In short authors need to consider a further substantiation of their “discussion “so that it can imply some thing beyond comparing and justifying for differences among findings from previous studies. For example, a number of studies reported a low utilization SRH services in the Amhara region of Ethiopia. What makes this study unique and additive to the scientific literature? Conclusion: I would suggest authors to incorporate the recommendations written with the conclusion and the limitations to the ‘discussion” section. Last-Authors did not follow the plose manuscript formatting style while drafting the manuscript. ********** 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: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-19-33641R1 Youth friendly health service utilization among high and preparatory school students in Debre Tabor Town, Northwest Ethiopia. PLOS ONE Dear Mr. Minuye, 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 Jun 08 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:
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, Julie Maslowsky, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear authors, Before I make a decision on your revised manuscript, I would like to request that you please reformat and resubmit the "response to reviewers". For each reviewer comment, please include a detailed account of how and where you responded to the comment. For example, in Reviewer 1's first comment, there are a number of suggestions and questions to the author. The author's response indicates only "accepted and corrected". I would ask that the authors please include a detailed explanation of the changes they made to the manuscript in response to this comment, including the section of the manuscript and page number. Please also include the original reviewer comment as well as your response. For example, Reviewer 1's comment about the methods section has been deleted. It is difficult for reviewers and the editor to evaluate your responses to the reviewers without having the reviewers' comments included with the response. Please resubmit the manuscript with the revised "response to reviewers". Thank you. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-19-33641R2 Youth friendly health service utilization among high and preparatory school students in Debre Tabor Town, Northwest Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study design PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Minuye, 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 Oct 19 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:
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, Julie Maslowsky, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you for your revised manuscript. The reviewers have asked for some additional edits to this paper. Please respond to all reviewer comments. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #3: 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: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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: No Reviewer #3: 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: The following important points may improve the manuscript 1. revise abstract section according to comments provided in track change file 2. extensive language editing may benefit the article 3. Proper leveling of headings and subheadings of section of the manuscript may be important 4. Sampling techniques need some revision as per comments provided in track change file Reviewer #3: Title: Youth friendly health service utilization among high and preparatory school students in Debre Tabor Town, Northwest Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study design Reviewer: The term ' sexual and reproductive' should be added to the title to reflect the content of the manuscript. I suggest 'Youth friendly sexual and reproductive health service utilization among high and preparatory school students in Debre Tabor Town, Northwest Ethiopia. A cross sectional study. Sample size calculation. Reviewer: This should be written in one paragraph. The formula is not necessary. Operational definitions. Reviewer: The variables could be defined under the variables section. Ethical clearance was obtained from Gondar University, College of Medical and Health Sciences, Institutional Health Research Ethics Review Committee (IHRERC). Reviewer: Please provide the ethics approval/ registration number. Ethics: The purpose of the study was explained to the study participants, informed written consent and assent were secured for children less than 18 years and confidentiality of the information was ensured. Ethics section. Reviewer: Was parental consent taken for those below 18 years old? If yes, this needs to be written in the manuscript. 294 (42.6%) of students responded that the health care facility found in their respective residences was not suitable to use the services due to the mistreating health care providers, long-distance, and unfavorable service hours. Reviewer: Avoid begin a sentence with a number. However, 90 (13.0%) of the respondents reported that the health care providers were mistreated. Reviewer: Shouldn't this be the other way round? The youths were mistreated instead of the healthcare providers. Discussion: This might be due to differences in “the availability and accessibility of youth-friendly health facilities, youth centers, educational status, socioeconomic status, type of residence, transportation and culture.” Reviewer: Is this an assumption or evidence-based? This might be due to cultural influences in the study area in which females have been still not allowed to go to health facilities for reproductive health services. Reviewer: Grammar error. Provide evidence for this statement. Conclusion section. Reviewer: Authors should add on future direction of the research based on study limitations. ********** 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 #3: 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.] 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.
|
| Revision 3 |
|
Youth friendly sexual and reproductive health service utilization among high and preparatory school students in Debre Tabor Town, Northwest Ethiopia: a cross sectional study PONE-D-19-33641R3 Dear Dr. Minuye, 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, Julie Maslowsky, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-19-33641R3 Youth friendly sexual and reproductive health service utilization among high and preparatory school students in Debre Tabor Town, Northwest Ethiopia: a cross sectional study Dear Dr. Minuye: 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. Julie Maslowsky 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 .