Associations between objectively-measured and self-reported neighbourhood walkability on adherence and steps during an internet-delivered pedometer intervention

Anna Consoli; Alberto Nettel-Aguirre; John C. Spence; Tara-Leigh McHugh; Kerry Mummery; Gavin R. McCormack

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242999

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 3, 2020
18 Sep 2020 Decision Letter - Anne Vuillemin, Editor PONE-D-20-20633 Associations between objectively-measured and self-reported neighbourhood walkability on adoption, adherence, and steps during an internet-delivered pedometer intervention PLOS ONE Dear Dr. McCormack, 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 Nov 02 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, Anne Vuillemin 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." At this time, please address the following queries: Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. 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. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ [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: 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: No 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: 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: This study investigated whether the neighbourhood built environment constrains or facilitates adoption, adherence, and steps taken during a 12-week internet-delivered pedometer-based physical activity intervention. The topics covered are interesting and worthy of constructive discussion. However, some revisions are required before accepting the manuscript. Major comments 1. Please add the significance of checking "intervention adoption". Why did you threshold 6 days from the telephone survey? Given the difference in the number of days before participants received the pedometer and the difference in their skill to use the UWALK website, I doubt that this was a suitable target variable. 2. You discussed as if you were comparing perceived and objective walkability by comparing NEWS-A and Walk Score, but the range of built environment characteristics measured by the two index is different. If you want to compare with objective walkability, you should see individual items of NEWS-A instead of composite score. Minor comments L.171 Please specify how many people were contemplators, prepares, and non-eligible. L.245 Previous studies showed that the relationship between temperature and step count was not linear (step count decreased when temperature was too high). Even if you don't need to consider it in your target area and season, you should excuse it with reference to such studies. L. 251 Please explain how you used flights of stairs. L. 334 Please add how you judged whether they "completed" or not. Reviewer #2: This is an interesting, well-conducted and well-written study and I have few comments that need addressing. The early vs late adoption dichotomisation seems meaningless to me. Six days after the survey one is ‘early, after 7 days one is ‘late’…though it’d be hard to tell the difference. I recommend a gap instead: for example, if one gets involved within one week, then they are early, if they still haven’t started after 3 weeks, then they are late…that would be more meaningful too me. Also, I think the idea of early/late adoption refers to the diffusion of innovation theory…however, I’m not sure it applies in this circumstance: early adopters were for example those who were the first to buy a smartphone when they were first introduced to the market, and late adopters are those who only got one after 80% of the population already had one… The sort of adoption you are referring to is something completely different. I think assessing whether there was adoption (yes/no), is more meaningful over when it happened (early/late), so I would recommend to remove this from the paper. It is not surprising to see no difference in objective and subjective walkability based on this variable. As only 24 out of 54 items of the original NEWS-A were included I would say that any reference to the reliability and validity of this measure is meaningless, this should be acknowledged as a limitation. The first sentence of the conclusion is too strongly worded: this study didn’t find evidence of the build environment being a moderator; only perceptions of that neighbourhood had an influence. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242999.r001
Revision 1
19 Oct 2020 Author Response Reply to Reviewers Reviewer #1: 1. This study investigated whether the neighbourhood built environment constrains or facilitates adoption, adherence, and steps taken during a 12-week internet-delivered pedometer-based physical activity intervention. The topics covered are interesting and worthy of constructive discussion. However, some revisions are required before accepting the manuscript. We thank the reviewer for their positive comment regarding our manuscript and we appreciated the feedback provided for improving the manuscript. Major comments 2. Please add the significance of checking "intervention adoption". Why did you threshold 6 days from the telephone survey? Given the difference in the number of days before participants received the pedometer and the difference in their skill to use the UWALK website, I doubt that this was a suitable target variable. The reviewer 1 raises an important point, one that reviewer 2 also mentioned. Reviewer 2, suggested we remove the “adoption” outcome from the manuscript. Given the limitations raised by both reviewers regarding the “adoption” variable, we have decided to remove all reference to this variable from the revised manuscript. 3. You discussed as if you were comparing perceived and objective walkability by comparing NEWS-A and Walk Score, but the range of built environment characteristics measured by the two index is different. If you want to compare with objective walkability, you should see individual items of NEWS-A instead of composite score. We agree with the reviewer. The NEWS-A and Walk Score® are likely capturing some but also different built environment features that may support walking and other physical activity. Notably, Walk Score® is correlated with other more comprehensive measures of objectively-measured walkability (references 66 and 67 cited on page 9 of revised manuscript) suggesting that it may indirectly reflect a wider range of built features in addition to those features included in Walk Score® operational definition. We include in the revised manuscript the estimated correlation between the NEWS-A total walkability score and the Walk Score® (r=0.17) to demonstrate they are indeed weakly related (page 12). Examining the associations between the individual NEWS-A items and the pedometer related outcomes is beyond the scope of the manuscript but we thank the reviewer for making us aware of this potential new avenue of investigation. In response to this comment, we now mention the limitations regarding the associations between of the NEWS-A and Walk Score® including their differences in content validity in the limitations section (pg. 19, lines 355-360 of tracked version). Minor comments 4. [L.171] Please specify how many people were contemplators, prepares, and non-eligible. 600 hundred participants contacted the research coordinator and underwent eligibility screening. We do not have a record with the breakdown of characteristics for those excluded from the study at the screening stage. Note the recruitment material included details related to the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study, thus the volunteers are somewhat bias. Presenting information regarding the breakdown by contemplators, preparers, and others is unlikely to be meaningful or representative. In response to this reviewers comment, we have added information about the total number screened in the revised manuscript (line 178, page 7). 5. [L.245] Previous studies showed that the relationship between temperature and step count was not linear (step count decreased when temperature was too high). Even if you don't need to consider it in your target area and season, you should excuse it with reference to such studies. We now mention and cite two published studies demonstrating non-linear relationships between temperature and steps (lines 401-404, page 21 of tracked version). 6. [L. 251] Please explain how you used flights of stairs. UWALK promotes the use of stairs and flights of stairs climbed were captured (line 249-250, page 10), however, we did not convert flights climbed to steps in our study (i.e., 10 steps/stairs are equivalent to 1 flight). In the revised manuscript, we now include a sentence describing the exclusion of stair-estimated steps from the step count (Line 206-208, page 8). 7. [L. 334] Please add how you judged whether they "completed" or not. In response the reviewer comment, we have modified the following sentences to provide clarity: “Using a dependent sample t-test, we also compared the first week and the last week of average daily steps for UWALK participants who entered steps each week of the 12 week intervention” (lines 266-268, page 11; tracked version) and “The differences between the average daily steps undertaken in the first and last week of the UWALK intervention were not statistically significant for those who entered step data all weeks (8634.47 vs. 8896.69, t = -1.13, p = 0.26, n = 216), and those who did not enter step data all weeks (8290.91 vs. 8268.46, t = 0.11, p = 0.92, n = 250) during the 12 week UWALK intervention.” (lines 324-328, page 17; tracked version). Reviewer #2: This is an interesting, well-conducted and well-written study and I have few comments that need addressing. 1. The early vs late adoption dichotomisation seems meaningless to me. Six days after the survey one is ‘early, after 7 days one is ‘late’…though it’d be hard to tell the difference. I recommend a gap instead: for example, if one gets involved within one week, then they are early, if they still haven’t started after 3 weeks, then they are late…that would be more meaningful too me. Also, I think the idea of early/late adoption refers to the diffusion of innovation theory…however, I’m not sure it applies in this circumstance: early adopters were for example those who were the first to buy a smartphone when they were first introduced to the market, and late adopters are those who only got one after 80% of the population already had one… The sort of adoption you are referring to is something completely different. I think assessing whether there was adoption (yes/no), is more meaningful over when it happened (early/late), so I would recommend to remove this from the paper. It is not surprising to see no difference in objective and subjective walkability based on this variable. Given the limitations regarding the adoption variable raised by both reviewers, as suggested by reviewer 2, we have removed all reference to the “adoption” variable from the revised manuscript. 2. As only 24 out of 54 items of the original NEWS-A were included I would say that any reference to the reliability and validity of this measure is meaningless, this should be acknowledged as a limitation. We now mention the reliability of short versions of the NEWS-A in the methods and note that our 24-items NEWS-A has acceptable internal consistency (lines 233-236; tracked version). We have also added the following sentence to the limitations (lines 417-419, page 21; tracked version): “We used a 24-item version of the NEWS-A that had high internal consistency but which may differ from the original NEW-A in terms of its content and predictive validity.” 3. The first sentence of the conclusion is too strongly worded: this study didn’t find evidence of the build environment being a moderator; only perceptions of that neighbourhood had an influence. We have revised this sentence (lines 428-429, page 22; tracked version): “Our study provides evidence suggesting that the neighbourhood built environment may affect individual-targeted interventions, like UWALK, and influence on physical activity.” Reply to editorial comments 1. At this time, please address the following queries: a. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. We have added information to the cover letter to the editor as requested. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reply to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242999.r002
13 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Anne Vuillemin, Editor Associations between objectively-measured and self-reported neighbourhood walkability on adherence and steps during an internet-delivered pedometer intervention PONE-D-20-20633R1 Dear Dr. McCormack, 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, Anne Vuillemin Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242999.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Nov 2020 Acceptance Letter - Anne Vuillemin, Editor PONE-D-20-20633R1 Associations between objectively-measured and self-reported neighbourhood walkability on adherence and steps during an internet-delivered pedometer intervention Dear Dr. McCormack: 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. Anne Vuillemin Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242999.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 .