PONE-D-20-06267

Effectiveness of Community Health Workers in Smoking Cessation Programme: A Systematic Review

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. zulkiply,

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 Aug 08 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,

Stanton A. Glantz

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

• The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript
• A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)
• A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

5. Please include a copy of Table 4 which you refer to in your text on page 17.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. CHWs and task shifting are relevant to be considered in interventions for smoking cessation.

Three of the main points that I would like to mention about the paper are:

- Results and conclusions: It needs to describe, more in depth, the results and discussion that supports the objective of the paper. Taking into account the main outcomes that you are studying. In terms of outcomes you can include significance of the OR, or more details.

- Results: Figure 2 is not described in the text and also not mentioned in methods. Please include some information about it.

- The paper presents some grammatical errors and some sentences that need to be clarified.

Please find additional questions/comments below:

Material and Methods:

- Was the review registered in PROSPERO?

- Can you provide more specifications about what type of studies were included? e.g. clinical trials, clinical answers, etc

- There is no information about the duplicated data and its exclusion. Was duplicated information founded? If so, the information should also be shown in the PRISMA flow diagram (Results)

Data Extraction, Data Analysis and Risk of Bias assessment:

- In terms of effectiveness, more details of the analysis and results (outcomes) should be described

Conclusions:

- Describe more about the limitations of the review in terms of participants and study designs and also availability of data.

References: In general the consistency and format of references should be revised: pages, p at the ending, links, etc

- Review first reference, pages missing

- Reference 6: review the reference and format

- Line 44-46: Reference missing

- Line 55: Is reference 3 correct?

- Line 66: "forecasted that more than 8 million people will die from diseases related to tobacco use by year 2030 if pattern of smoking continues" is the reference the same?

- Line 72-74: "with the highest prevalence of smokers were among 25 to 44 years old age group (28%), followed by 45 to 64 years old age group (20%) (3)." Are these group ages of specific special interest? Because in the non aggregated data of the original paper there is variation in that age group.

- Line 119-121: Include references

- Line 176: Reference 73 is not available

Please review the following typos, minor grammatical errors, that should be corrected:

Line 2 check punctuation of the title

Line 14: by one-third at the end

Line 18: Has shown “in the prevention”

Line 19: this systematic review is aimed //// evidence (not plural)

Line 28: where only 5

Line 32: Review consistency with the abbreviation CHWs (instead of CHWS)

Line 44: NCD are the

Line 49: Reduce by one third (same as summary)

Line 67: die due to tobacco. There were 933.1

Line 70: the prevalence …was

Line 73: being among the 25 to 44 age group, followed by the 45 to 64 (20%)

Line 76: programs

Line 77: primary care settings

Line 77-79: Interventions: What do you refer in this paragraphs?

Line 79: Since 2004, Malasia has… clinics… that are available at most primary health clinics.

Line 81: Areas

Line 82: Because LSS is an important determinant of smoking, it is…. cessation. (exclude in this area)

Line 97 to 99: keep the first should and the others are redundant (you just need a comma)

Line 111: programs showed that a combinations….

Line 112: CHWs are crucial

Line 113: serve as a critical link124: compared a combination

Line 124 -127: Eligibility criteria: we included is redundant, is mentioned 4 times in 4 lines.

Line 131: sources

Line 134: was instead of were

Line 134: we combined (suggestion to keep we just at the beginning_)

Line 139: what were the defined set of articles, does it mean that was independently for all of them?

Line 149: Include the term of both arms

Line 172: electronic database search

Line 180: Review the characters for subtitles and figures

Line 189: among the community…. in an emergency department setting

Line 190: One study was target on…

Line 192: the number of …

Line 235: 32 people, (exclude with)

Line 239: who were instead of “whom was”

Line 240: range instead of “ranging”

Line 241: training was given

Line 242: content of the training was comprised….

Line 243: Supervisions were given weekly or biweekly [this lines sound incorrect]

Line 262-268: Performance …. Rate(>20%) [this paragraph is not clear, please review it while it contains editing errors]

Line 274: There is considerable evidence supporting the impact…

Line 279: Task shifting interventions were proven to be

Line 284: our review has also found similar findings effective

Line 308: the smoking cessation programme showed that a combination

Line 310: two studies providing

Line 325: The study? One study?

Line 328: had experience

Line 341: on the framework… therefore, it is pivotal that guidelines on the framework are drawn up.

Line 342: studies measure

Line 348: reported a positive outcome or reported positive outcomes … on using a combination

Line 353: We would also like to…

Reviewer #2: Thank you for writing an important paper on CHWs and their potential to impact smoking cessation programs amongst other health promotion activities. The authors put forward a good case in their background however paper lacks methodological rigour and needs additional information in the results. Discussion doesn't reflex the findings. Please re-write and I would consider re-reviewing. I have included detailed comments on the manuscript. I am unable to upload so will send via email. Thank you. Best wishes.

**********

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

[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: PONE-D-20-06267_reviewer (1).pdf

PONE-D-20-06267R1

Effectiveness of Community Health Workers Involvement in Smoking Cessation Programme: A Systematic Review

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zulkiply,

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.

Reviewer 1 has recommended that this paper be rejected, but I am willing to give you another chance to respond with appropriate revisions.  Reviewer 2 also has some suggestions in an attached file.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 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,

Stanton A. Glantz

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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: (No Response)

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: (No Response)

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: No

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: The paper still contains editing mistakes, please have a further review. For example:

Line 49 'with goal the to “ensure”’

Line 57 'to reduce 30% relative reduction’

Line 267 roleplay

The following comments are related to the tables, please review your tables of results and adjust all the necessary information:

Bernstean et all has 168 patients in the control group, but the table 1 reported 167, the values reported in the study for cigarettes/day were median and IQR for the sample of 168, but the ones reported in the table are Mean and SD for 167.

Table S2 reports 26% of incomplete outcome data, was this related with the 26+31 missing information and/or the expired information over the total sample of the randomized data (338)? if so, the estimation is not correct.

Please verify the results of the OR reported data. In table 2, Bonevski et al, 2018, we observe that the OR from the Self-reported continuous verified PPA at 6 months is 0.76, while in the paper the "continuous self-reported PPA at 6 months” is 1.95 and the OR from the "Continuous verified PPA at 6 months" is 0.77.

Please review the results and forest plot

Table 2, reference 29, the Biochemically verified abstinence at 3 months is 8/101 in the intervention group and 3/99 in the control group. The self reported abstinence at 3 months was 24/101 in the intervention and 13/99 in the control group. If you consider to add both, please include the information.

Figure 2. Taking into account that the Jiang et al study presents 25.7% of abstinences rate, should the number of events in the CHW group be 201 instead of 200?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-06267_R1_02102020.pdf

Effectiveness of Community Health Workers Involvement in Smoking Cessation Programme: A Systematic Review

PONE-D-20-06267R2

Dear Dr. Zulkiply,

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,

Stanton A. Glantz

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: