PONE-D-20-22842

HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE VIETNAMESE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

PLOS ONE

Dear Quynh Mai Vu,

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 on or before 13 November 2020. 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,

Olanrewaju Oladimeji, Ph.D., MB; BS

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 including your ethics statement: 

"Human Subject Research (involving human participants and/or tissue)

- Name of the institutional review board or ethics committee that approved the study: The study designs were considered and approved by the Ethical Review Board for Biomedical Research at the Hanoi University of Public Health.

- Approval number and/or a statement indicating approval of this research: 144/2020/YTCC-HD3".   

a. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians.

If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should be uploaded as separate "supporting information" files.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript.

If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section.

Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[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: Partly

**********

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: This study assessed Health related Quality of Life (HRQOL) among three groups (Isolation at Government facility, Self-isolation and general population not isolated) of Vietnamese population at the peak of the strict COVID quarantine measures between April and May 2020. Data was collected virtually using Google tool. EuroQual Vietnamese validated version was used for data collection. The study concluded that contrary to expectation, the HRQOL of the three groups of Vietnamese was better during the strict quarantine measure than was before and adduced this to better palliative measures by the Government.

General Comments:

The manuscript contribute to body of scientific knowledge by providing insight into the living condition and health status of the Vietnamese population during COVID quarantine measure. However, the sample size is rather low for generalization to a population of over 90 Million. Although the authors expressed this as one of the limitations of the study, rather a sample size of 10 for the Government quarantine facility is a major flaw to the study.

Introduction:

The syntax errors in lines 40 and line 57 should be corrected. prepositions are missing

Literature review lacked HRQOL among the Vietnamese population pre-COVID. The authors should include a few sentences on this.

Methods:

Line 82-83: How does ending data collection process at the end of strict lock-down prevent information bias?

Line 83: Google survey tool should be properly described and reference

Line 87: Use of "e.g" and "etc" should be discouraged in biomedical writing

Line 90-93: The use of sort questions to classify participants into the three groups is unnecessary, reason being that the grouping in this study can only be objectively informed by the living condition during the quarantine policy rather their COVID status.

Line 95-102: Can compliance to the quarantine policy be a major confounder in this study?

Line 106 -108: These statements require proper references

Analysis:

Line 120-121: The assumptions for applying Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis tests should be clearly stated in addition to their limitations

No statement on significance level was made. This is a vital to the study

Results:

In general, the authors should clearly state significant findings in this study

Table 1: Shows a very young population (31.8 years). Could this have confounding influence on HRQOL and quarantine? This worth exploring in the analysis by controlling for the age. This was corroborated with an interesting finding in Table 2 where 44+ years have reduced HRQOL compared to younger age groups

Table 2: With only 10 participants in (F1 group) the group that was hypothesized to have worse HRQOL, how reliable is this?. Furthermore, the Kruskal Wallis test also show too many empty cells and therefore make some of the analysis unreliable

Tables 2 & 3: Kruskal Wallis test is an Omnibus test and therefore require a Poc hoc analysis to reflect the significant combinations. The authors should include this in their analysis

Discussion:

Line 191-194: The main findings of HRQOL among the three groups studied were statistically insignificant from the results reported but the author based the main conclusion on this findings. It will be desirable if the authors can include other salient significant findings from the inferential statistics in both the discussion and the summary (e.g Compliance, age, sex, chronic illness). Critically appraisal of these factors will give more credence to the study

References:

All the internet references lacked accessed date. This should be indicated in the relevant

Reviewer #2: This manuscript assessed the HRQOL of the Vietnamese during the lockdown instituted in response to the Covid – 19 pandemic. It was able to demonstrate that the quarantine measures instituted by the Vietnamese government had not reduced the HRQOL of the general population. There are however minor issues that may require correction and clarification as follows:

1. Limitation of the sample size has been addressed in your discussions, however the composition of your sample and its effect on your final outcome may require further discussion/clarification owing to the association of higher HRQOL with higher education levels [I, II] and 92.3% of your respondents having university degrees and above.

References

I. Hoi, Le & Chuc, Nguyen & Lindholm, Lars. (2010). Health-related quality of life, and its determinants, among older people in rural Vietnam. BMC public health. 10. 549. 10.1186/1471-2458-10-549.

II. Mielck, Andreas ,Reitmeir, Peter, Vogelmann, Martin, Leidl, Reiner(2012)

Impact of educational level on health-related quality of life (HRQL): results from Germany based on the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) European Journal of Public Health.

DO 10.1093/eurpub/ckr206

III. Gil-Lacruz, M., Gil-Lacruz, A.I. & Gracia-Pérez, M.L. Health-related quality of life in young people: the importance of education. Health Qual Life Outcomes 18, 187 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01446-5

Other minor issues include;

2. Line 138 - Data set incorrectly ordered for the dimension character listed prior and its corresponding numerical value. The correct order should be 297, 259, and 206 respectively (as opposed to 297, 206 and 259).

3. Line 166 – Table 2 should read mean and standard deviation (as opposed to median and standard deviation)

4. Line 161-163 report of result may require restructuring of sentence for clarity.

Otherwise the paper is clear, concise and informative.

**********

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: Oladimeji Akeem Bolarinwa

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.

Health-related Quality of Life of the Vietnamese during the COVID-19 Pandemic

PONE-D-20-22842R1

Dear Dr. Mai Quynh Vu,

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,

Olanrewaju Oladimeji, Ph.D., MB; BS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: