Evaluation of COVID-19 related knowledge and preparedness in health professionals at selected health facilities in a resource-limited setting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Zelalem Desalegn; Negussie Deyessa; Brhanu Teka; Welelta Shiferaw; Meron Yohannes; Damen Hailemariam; Adamu Addissie; Abdulnasir Abagero; Mirgissa Kaba; Workeabeba Abebe; Alem Abrha; Berhanu Nega; Wondimu Ayele; Tewodros Haile; Yirgu Gebrehiwot; Wondwossen Amogne; Eva Johanna Kantelhardt; Tamrat Abebe

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244050

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 26, 2020
22 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Khin Thet Wai, Editor PONE-D-20-19732 Evaluation of COVID-19 Related Health Professionals Knowledge and Preparedness in Selected Health Facilities in resource limited setting Addis Ababa, Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Desalegn, 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 04 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, Khin Thet Wai, MBBS, MPH, MA (Population & Family Planning Resear Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: 1. Authors need to disclose the information on the first manuscript submitted to the journal which is related to COVID-19 infection in the same local context. 2. Grammatical errors throughout the manuscript and lack of clarity in most of the paragraphs require extensive language editing. 3. The main claims of the paper are focused on knowledge of healthcare workers and their reported preparedness of health care facilities to manage COVID-19 infection. Authors need to add more description on how significant are those claims for the improvement of service delivery and program operations at health facilities in the Introduction by citing appropriate literature. 4. Importantly, authors need to follow Strobe Guidelines for Observational Studies in the writeup of methods section and discussion. Limitations of the study are missing. 5. It is critical to note that the conclusion section is weak and requires a revision. 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. 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. 3. 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 4. Please include a copy of Table 4 which you refer to in your text on page 19. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: A timely manuscript evaluating the knowledge and preparedness of HCWs in Addis. some minor comments 1- Recent work on KAPs of HCWs in Africa and beyond has been published. Authors should search for these papers and cite them as appropriate. 2. Method. Remove the number of participants from the study design (keep it only in the results section) 3. Use recent data to describe the global and local burden of COVID-19 Reviewer #2: The corrections are done in the manuscript. The author should check the manuscript and effect all the noted corrections. The author should effects the Minor revisions and return the manuscript for final evaluation and publication. It is important the author consult the work done by Ogolodom et al as recommended. It will help them seriously. ****** 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: Felix Bongomin, MD,MSc Reviewer #2: Yes:** MICHAEL PROMISE OGOLODOM [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-20-19732_reviewer 2.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244050.r001
Revision 1
25 Sep 2020 Author Response Response to Editor and reviewers comments 1. Editor comments 1. Authors need to disclose the information on the first manuscript submitted to the journal which is related to COVID-19 infection in the same local context. Well taken. Based on the comment, we have considered research based information from the local context considered in the manuscript. This has happened in the introduction part and while discussing our findings. We appreciate your comment. 2. Grammatical errors throughout the manuscript and lack of clarity in most of the paragraphs require extensive language editing. Well taken. The grammatical errors and lack of clarity addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. Additionally, the revised version has been sent out for language proof-reading service and corrections were accommodated in the revised version of the manuscript. However, if there are any unaddressed, the authors are highly interested and ready to correct them as per the requirements and the scientific standard. 3. The main claims of the paper are focused on knowledge of healthcare workers and their reported preparedness of health care facilities to manage COVID-19 infection. Authors need to add more description on how significant are those claims for the improvement of service delivery and program operations at health facilities in the Introduction by citing appropriate literature. Well taken. Accordingly, we have provided data demonstrating the relevance of doing research related with the current topic in the improvement of service delivery and program operations at health facilities. 4. Importantly, authors need to follow Strobe Guidelines for Observational Studies in the write up of methods section and discussion. Limitations of the study are missing. Well taken. STROBE guidelines for any cross-sectional study considered in the method section 5. It is critical to note that the conclusion section is weak and requires a revision. Well taken. The conclusion section re-considered and written based the finding of the research finding. The change has been shown in the revised manuscript with track changes. 6. Please include a copy of Table 4 which you refer to in your text on page 19. We appreciate your comments. We have included the copy of Table 4 in the text. Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additionalrequirements. 7. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Well taken. The authors believe that our manuscript meets the PLOS ONE's style requirements. However, the authors are eager to address them with your directions if there are any unnoticed points in the revised version. 8. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicatethe 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. Well taken. We have included the data collection instrument. 9. 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. Well taken. The submitting author has created the iD and validated in the Editorial manager 2. Reviewer Comments to the Author Dear Reviewers, The authors appreciate the very positive feed backs of the reviewers forwarded to the very relevant research questions. Our heartfelt thanks goes to the reviewers for their additional inputs and specific comments raised at different section of the manuscript. Reviewer #1: A timely manuscript evaluating the knowledge and preparedness ofHCWs in Addis. some minor comments 1- Recent work on KAPs of HCWs in Africa and beyond has been published. Authors should search for these papers and cite them as appropriate. Well taken. Research works which have been conducted in African context and beyond searched for the purpose to revealing the real picture and strengthening the manuscript further. A very recent research findings were considered in the introduction section for outlining what has been known so far in the area of the research problem. Additionally, we have used plenty of research findings while comparing our finding in the discussion section. 2. Method. Remove the number of participants from the study design (keep it only in the results section) Well taken. The number of participants removed from the study design section. 3. Use recent data to describe the global and local burden of COVID-19 We appreciate the comment. Well taken. Since an ample of researches based evidences are coming out and figures are changing from time to time, we accept of considering very latest data to describe COVID 19 in the local and global context and accommodated accordingly.. Reviewer #2:The corrections are done in the manuscript. The author should check the manuscript and effect all the noted corrections. 1-The author should effects the Minor revisions and return the manuscript for finalevaluation and publication. Well taken. Every given comments checked in the manuscript and considered in the revised version of the manuscript 2-It is important the author consult the work done by Ogolodom et al as recommended. Itwill help them seriously. Well taken. On top of considering additional research data released at the local and global level, we were able to use the recommended research work done by Ogolodom et al. As you have mentioned, we found the paper very helpful for our purpose and used in the introduction section and discussion part of the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244050.r002
7 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Khin Thet Wai, Editor PONE-D-20-19732R1 Evaluation of COVID-19 related knowledge and preparedness in health professionals at selected health facilities in a resource-limited setting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Desalegn, 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. Specifically, we notice some errors in English language usage and typos in your manuscript. As PLOS ONE does not provide copy editing or proofs of accepted manuscript, we therefore recommend that you carefully review your manuscript and correct any errors at this time. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 20 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, Khin Thet Wai, MBBS, MPH, MA (Population & Family Planning Resear Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please carefully review your manuscript and correct any language errors at this time. [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 #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have address all the comments of the reviewers and the manuscript can now be considered for publication by the Academic Editor 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: Yes: Felix Bongomin, MD Reviewer #2: Yes:** Michael Promise Ogolodom [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.0244050.r003
Revision 2
3 Nov 2020 Author Response Comment: The manuscript requires correction of grammatical and spelling error. We have thoroughly gone through the manuscript to assure English spelling, grammar, numbering and spacing. Additionally, as per the forwarded comment, the revised version was send out for proof reading service. Accordingly, the necessary correction was made. Evidence: The proof reading service certificate was uploaded along with the other files. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: R2R.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244050.r004
13 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Khin Thet Wai, Editor PONE-D-20-19732R2 Evaluation of COVID-19 related knowledge and preparedness in health professionals at selected health facilities in a resource-limited setting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Desalegn, 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 Dec 28 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, Khin Thet Wai, MBBS, MPH, MA (Population & Family Planning Resear Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): 1. Authors have adequately addressed the comments of reviewers. 2. Authors need to follow the journal guidelines in preparing the Reference section. 3. Still, there is a need to correct some grammatical errors to improve readability and to meet the journal standard. Abstract- LINE 69: "The current study revealed that" (to replace shows) Text LINE 122: "Despite the extensive efforts made so far, accumulated evidence indicates that" (to remove shows) LINE 160: "considering a KAP survey as a suitable format' LINE 157: " A total of six government hospitals and four private hospitals were included in the study" LINE 162: "A written informed consent" LINE 168: "health professionals had knowledge and preparedness" LINE 169: "considering for a design effect of" LINE 218: "The study included 1,334 health professionals" LINE 229: "The finding showed that" LINE 253: "represented doctors" LINE 302: please correct as follows- "that there were reported deaths of over 3,300 (20%) HCWs [22]." LINE 304: "HCWs were worried" LINES 308-309: Please correct as follows- "At this time of crisis" rather than "At a time like this". LINE 319: "Our findings demonstrated that" LINE 417: "which were somehow" LINE 426: "there should be a regulation" LINE 432: "participants are recruited to the study" LINE 433: "where people had plenty of access" LINE 434: "consequently, the findings only reflected a sneak peak" LINE 438: "This study concluded that" [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 #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 authors have sufficiently addressed all comments by the reviewer. The manuscript is now acceptable in its current form. Well done ! Reviewer #2: I am okay with all the corrections done by the author. ****** 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: Yes:** Felix Bongomin, MD, MSc (Gulu University, Uganda) 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.0244050.r005
Revision 3
2 Dec 2020 Author Response Response to reviewers Manuscript number: PONE-D-20-19732 Manuscript title: Evaluation of COVID-19 related knowledge and preparedness in health professionals at selected health facilities in a resource-limited setting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Dear editor and the reviewer, We are very grateful for the valuable comments and scientific guidance forwarded from the editor, Plos One journal team member and the respective reviewers. We have learnt a lot in the process of the revision process which would have great impact in the personal and professional development. Dear academic editor and reviewers, your inputs were highly critical in enriching the scientific paper to utmost standard. Dear reviewers, we appreciate your commitment taken of reviewing the manuscript aimed exploring the response of health professionals toward COVID-19. Your comments were well taken and incorporated accordingly in the revised version of the manuscript. We have gone through the document and the respective additions, modification, elaboration and correction made whenever the need arise as per the comments concern. If there are anything to which the editor and the reviewers are not satisfied/ and or clear with, the authors are highly eager and open-minded to entertain the missed points at any time point. In the online submission, we uploaded documents including [1. Manuscript without track changes [2. Manuscript with track changes [3. Reviewer response [4. Proof reading service With kind regards, Zelalem Desalegn Woldesonbet Submitting author, Reviewers and editor comments Reviewer #1: The authors have sufficiently addressed all comments by the reviewer. The manuscript is now acceptable in its current form. Well done ! Reviewer #2: I am okay with all the corrections done by the author. Editor Comments (if provided): 1. Authors have adequately addressed the comments of reviewers. We are grateful for the scientific inputs given by the academic editor and reviewers as well. 2. Authors need to follow the journal guidelines in preparing the Reference section. Well taken and we used a Vancouver style as outlined in the ICMJE sample references ( National Library of Medicine) and considering previously published articles in Plos One journal to meet the journal requirements(Please refer line number 449 to 539). 3. Still, there is a need to correct some grammatical errors to improve readability and to meet the journal standard. Well taken. In addition to the professional proof reading service, the authors have thoroughly gone through the revised manuscript to improve the readability and meeting the journal standard. Abstract: 1. LINE 69: "The current study revealed that" (to replace shows) Well taken. The stated phrase incorporated directly into the revised manuscript(Please refer line number 68). Text LINE 122: "Despite the extensive efforts made so far, accumulated evidence indicates that" (to remove shows) We appreciate the comment. As per the comment" shows: replaced with the word " indicates ( please refer line number 121). LINE 160: "considering a KAP survey as a suitable format' Well taken. In the main document " is" replaced with " as" (please refer line number 150) LINE 157: " A total of six government hospitals and four private hospitals were included in the study The comment incorporated into the revised version (Please refer line number 156 to 158) " LINE 162: "A written informed consent" Well taken and incorporated in the revised version ( Please refer line number 163). LINE 168: "health professionals had knowledge and preparedness Thank you. The comment incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript ( Please refer line number 169). " LINE 169: "considering for a design effect of" We appreciate. The comment considered in the document (Please refer line number 170 to 1710). LINE 218: "The study included 1,334 health professionals" Thank you. We have considered the comment in the manuscript ( Please refer line number 171 to 172) LINE 229: "The finding showed that" Well taken. We have made the change ( Please refer line number 229). LINE 253: "represented doctors Well taken (Please refer line number 253). " LINE 302: please correct as follows- "that there were reported deaths of over 3,300 (20%) HCWs [22]." Yes, we accept the way you have constructed the description (Please refer line number 298 to 299). LINE 304: "HCWs were worried" We accepted the comment. Kindly edited in the revised version of the manuscript (Please refer line number 300) LINES 308-309: Please correct as follows- "At this time of crisis" rather than "At a time like this". Well taken and incorporated into the document (Please refer line number 306). LINE 319: "Our findings demonstrated that" Well taken. The comment incorporated into the revised version (Please refer line number 316). LINE 417: "which were somehow" We are grateful. The change considered in the revised manuscript (Please refer line number 414). LINE 426: "there should be a regulation" Well taken ( Please refer line number 423 to 424). LINE 432: "participants are recruited to the study" Well taken with the respective change in the document (Please refer line number 429). LINE 433: "where people had plenty of access" We appreciate the comment and considered in the document (Please refer line number 430) LINE 434: "consequently, the findings only reflected a sneak peak" Well taken and indicated in the manuscript (Please refer line number 431 to 432) LINE 438: "This study concluded that" Well taken and indicated in the manuscript ( Please refer line number 435). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244050.r006
3 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Khin Thet Wai, Editor Evaluation of COVID-19 related knowledge and preparedness in health professionals at selected health facilities in a resource-limited setting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia PONE-D-20-19732R3 Dear Dr. Desalegn, 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, Khin Thet Wai, MBBS, MPH, MA (Population & Family Planning Resear Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244050.r007
Formally Accepted
10 Dec 2020 Acceptance Letter - Khin Thet Wai, Editor PONE-D-20-19732R3 Evaluation of COVID-19 related knowledge and preparedness in health professionals at selected health facilities in a resource-limited setting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Dear Dr. Desalegn: 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. Khin Thet Wai Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244050.r008

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 .