Running prevalence in Portugal: Socio-demographic, behavioral and psychosocial characteristics

Hugo V. Pereira; António L. Palmeira; Eliana V. Carraça; Inês Santos; Marta M. Marques; Pedro J. Teixeira

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245242

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 18, 2020
29 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Daniel Boullosa, Editor PONE-D-20-29049 Running prevalence in Portugal: Demographic, behavioral and psychosocial characteristics PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pereira, 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, revise your methodology to truly meet the standards of epidemiological studies. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 13 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, Daniel Boullosa 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 note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 3.Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [This study was partly supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, under Grant UIDB/00447/2020 to CIPER - Centro Interdisciplinar para o Estudo da Performance Humana (unit 447) and Universidade de Lisboa under PhD. grant conceded to Hugo V. Pereira. Marta M. Marques is funded by a Marie-Sklodowska-Curie Fellowship (Co-fund EDGE programme, grant agreement no. 713567).] We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: [The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.] Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [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: Yes 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: First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for the manuscript submitted. All the comments and suggestions I provide below have the only purpose of increasing the quality of this work and the future research lines from a constructive rationale. Physical inactivity is considered the fourth leading cause of death worldwide, causing 5-10% of total mortality in Europe, depending on countries. Despite the ACSM, the AHA and the WHO strongly tried to reduce physical inactivity levels and sedentary behaviour, the majority of the people who live in industrialized societies do not meet the established recommendations for an active and healthy lifestyle. To better manage this situation, it is important to know not only individual factors, but also the social and economic background which leads to reduced levels of physical inactivity. In this sense, I suggest authors to include along the introduction section the concept of “active communities”, since a favourable environment (e.g. parks, running/walking paths, bike lanes or other sport facilities) seems to play an important role in the promotion of higher physical activity levels. Regarding material and methods section, the final sample was composed by 1084 eligible individuals (after exclusions). However, Table 4 shows data of 1024 participants (910 non-runners vs 114 runners). Further, Table 1 presents data of runners sort by gender and age group. However, the runners’ group is constituted by 115 participants in this case (79 male and 36 female; 73 between 18-40 y and 42 between 41-65 y) instead of 114, like it does in Table 4. Tables 2, 3 and 5 do not display the sample size for any group. Moreover, the main result of the present investigation (i.e. the prevalence of recreational running in Portugal) is calculated over the 1084 eligible individuals, since 10.6% of this sample size results in 114 runners. The authors should clarify these issues and better explain the procedure, including specific exclusion and inclusion criteria for a better reader’s comprehension. In the results section, I suggest authors to include the units of measurement (e.g. km, min, etc.) in the Tables, where applicable, for a better comprehension. With regard to discussion section, at the end of the second paragraph, it is said that previous research estimates running prevalence in Portugal about 5.5% in 2015. Data derived from the present study showed that running prevalence was almost doubled within only 2 years (i.e. up to 10.6% in 2017). What do authors think about this issue, since the increase in the participation in running events already exponentially increased worldwide in the past two decades? Is the magnificent increment in the present study maybe not be comparable to previously reported data in Portugal due to different ways of assessment? Authors should change the name of section 5 to “conclusions” instead of “discussion” (discussion is already presented in section 4). I would also suggest authors to include in the conclusions section the limitations of the present investigation. Authors are also encouraged to revise PLOS ONE submission guidelines. Reviewer #2: General comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review the submitted paper “Running prevalence in Portugal: Demographic, behavioral and psychosocial characteristics”. The purpose of this study was estimate the prevalence of recreational running in Portugal and describe characteristics of recreational runners. The main results indicate that a portion of 10.6% of the population of Portugal practices running regularly, describing their main motivations and also important socio-demographic data for public knowledge. In view of the importance of disseminating descriptive data on the population, some observations should be taken into account for future publication. In the methods section, it is important to describe in more detail how the questions were structured, perhaps inserting supplementary material so that the research can be replicated. The results of the study are interesting. I imagine that they can be used in the construction of investment strategies in public policies and business marketing strategies; however, this discussion could be further explored in the text. The results could include an analysis by region in Portugal; different local characteristics can increase the information of the study. The conclusion of the study must be restructured. This chapter should be more direct. I suggest bringing information about the main motivation and something more related to the main results of the study. Major Issues In Title - The term "Socio-demographic" is always used in the text and that is different from the term used in the title (“Demographic”). I suggest standardize the term used. In P.5 -Where did the participants' phone numbers come from? How was randomization performed? In P.5 Can the data for estimating the prevalence of running from the Portuguese Cardiology Foundation be found on any website, magazine or elsewhere? In P.5 Did all contacted patients accept to participate in the study? From what is described it seems that yes, but that those who did not answer completely did not accept to participate in the study or had any difficulty in answering the questions? It is important to describe this flow of participants in detail; I suggest a figure to help explain it. In P.5- “…First, a panel of running and PA experts from academic and non-academic public and private institutions, agreed on a definition of recreational running – “running at least 2 days per week or at least 60 minutes per week, over the past 3 months, excluding any preparation for competitive sports…”. – This is important data from this study and cannot be defined in a generic way, a reference is needed to better support this classification. In P.9 - “The prevalence was higher in men compared to women” - Could you move forward in this discussion? Is the relative female population of Portugal proportional to the result found or is it really larger? What is the possible explanation for the result? In Table 3. - The methods describe "The significance level was set at p <0.05 for all tests." Why is 0.001 used in the Table 3? Minor issues In P. 7 - Review “10,6%”- 10.6% In P. 9 – “eighty-two”- I suggest changing it to 82%. In P.11 - Check the chapter 5 title. In general – Review the reference format. ****** 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: Yes:** Rodrigo Gomes da Rosa [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.0245242.r001
Revision 1
8 Dec 2020 Author Response Running prevalence in Portugal: Demographic, behavioural and psychosocial characteristics Response to the Editor and Reviewers Editor Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Answer: We have renamed all files according to PLOS ONE’s style template and verified the other style requirements. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. Answer: We thank the editor for the clarification. As requested, we have uploaded an anonymised dataset at https://osf.io/qmvws/, and added this information to the manuscript as follows “The dataset used for the analysis is publicly and freely available at https://osf.io/qmvws/”. We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: [The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.] Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Answer: We removed all funding-related text from the manuscript and included our funding statements in our cover letter. We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions, and for taking the time to revise this manuscript under the exceptional circumstances we are facing. All suggestions have been considered and addressed and we believe this has resulted in a substantially improved manuscript. Reviewer 1 Physical inactivity is considered the fourth leading cause of death worldwide, causing 5-10% of total mortality in Europe, depending on countries. Despite the ACSM, the AHA and the WHO strongly tried to reduce physical inactivity levels and sedentary behaviour, the majority of the people who live in industrialized societies do not meet the established recommendations for an active and healthy lifestyle. To better manage this situation, it is important to know not only individual factors, but also the social and economic background which leads to reduced levels of physical inactivity. In this sense, I suggest authors to include along the introduction section the concept of “active communities”, since a favourable environment (e.g. parks, running/walking paths, bike lanes or other sport facilities) seems to play an important role in the promotion of higher physical activity levels. Answer: We appreciate the insightful information. Our study aims to expand the understanding of behavioural, socio-demographic and motivational characteristics of recreational runners. Although it goes beyond the scope of our study, we considered that the concept of active communities and environmental determinants of PA is worth mentioning and have now included it in the introduction section (page 2): “Finally, a favorable built environment positively influences physical activity.(13) For instance, the role of active communities, including increases in PA accessibility, routes for walking and bicycling, providing protected and suitable access to parks, sidewalks, greenways, have been shown to play a role in PA promotion.(14)” Regarding material and methods section, the final sample was composed by 1084 eligible individuals (after exclusions). However, Table 4 shows data of 1024 participants (910 non-runners vs 114 runners). Further, Table 1 presents data of runners sort by gender and age group. However, the runners’ group is constituted by 115 participants in this case (79 male and 36 female; 73 between 18-40 y and 42 between 41-65 y) instead of 114, like it does in Table 4. Tables 2, 3 and 5 do not display the sample size for any group. Moreover, the main result of the present investigation (i.e. the prevalence of recreational running in Portugal) is calculated over the 1084 eligible individuals, since 10.6% of this sample size results in 114 runners. The authors should clarify these issues and better explain the procedure, including specific exclusion and inclusion criteria for a better reader’s comprehension. Answer: Thank you for the comment. The text wasn’t completely clear in this regard and this is an important point. Of the 1084 eligible participants, 115 were classified (based on the two initial questions about running behavior) as “recreational runners” (10.6%). Unfortunately, not all of the eligible participants had valid PA data. As we now describe in the material and methods section, 60 participants failed to provide valid data on weekly PA, leaving a sample of 1024. Therefore, Table 4 presents IPAQ-SF and ACI data for the 910 non-runners and 114 runners that had valid data. Additionally, we have now inserted the sample size for tables 2, 3 and 5. We have also clarified this in the Methods section (page 4): “Of the 2246 initial contacts, 1150 accepted participating in the study (participation rate of 51.2%), 40 were excluded due to chronic diseases, 10 due to pregnancy, and 16 due to incomplete answers (unable to complete de questionnaire). Therefore, the final sample was constituted by 1084 eligible individuals, i.e., with Portuguese nationality and aged between 18 to 65 years. Sixty participants failed to provide valid data on weekly PA and were not included is some PA analyses. All participants gave their informed consent before entering the study.” In the results section, I suggest authors to include the units of measurement (e.g. km, min, etc.) in the Tables, where applicable, for a better comprehension. Answer: As suggested, we have now included the measurement units in the tables. With regard to discussion section, at the end of the second paragraph, it is said that previous research estimates running prevalence in Portugal about 5.5% in 2015. Data derived from the present study showed that running prevalence was almost doubled within only 2 years (i.e. up to 10.6% in 2017). What do authors think about this issue, since the increase in the participation in running events already exponentially increased worldwide in the past two decades? Is the magnificent increment in the present study maybe not be comparable to previously reported data in Portugal due to different ways of assessment? Answer: Thank you. In fact, the methodology of the estimations was quite different. Scheerder and coworkers (20) estimated running prevalence in Portugal by multiplying the running percentages in Spain with their sport-participation rate, based on Eurobarometer data, and then multiplying it by Portugal’s sport-participation rate. In the second study, a different definition was used (21). Our definition of recreational running was not used in the previous study. We have explained in the discussion that, although running prevalence seems to have increased since the last estimation, evaluation approaches are not entirely comparable (page 9): “According to this estimation, the running participation rate for Portugal in 2015 was then 5.5%. Results are also higher than those emerging from another data set, in which the prevalence was 8.5%. (21) However, evaluation approaches are not entirely comparable. Gender differences in running participation are similar to those found previously (21) and reflect gender inequalities in overall PA involvement. (4)” Authors should change the name of section 5 to “conclusions” instead of “discussion” (discussion is already presented in section 4). Answer: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have now changed the name of section 5. I would also suggest authors to include in the conclusions section the limitations of the present investigation. Answer: We have now added a paragraph with limitations of the study in the Discussion section (page 11) – “Although our results confirm previous studies on PA motivation, the use of self-reported instruments to estimate running and weekly PA might lead to some bias and the cross-sectional nature of this investigation prevents determining the causal direction of the associations. Longer prospective and intervention studies are thus required to clarify how motivational dynamics influence psychological wellbeing and also running maintenance.” Reviewer 2 In the methods section, it is important to describe in more detail how the questions were structured, perhaps inserting supplementary material so that the research can be replicated. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have described the questionnaire structure in more detail in the Methods section (page 5), and now we have uploaded the full version of the questionnaire to https://osf.io/qmvws/. – “After eligibility checking, two questions about running frequency and volume (minutes) determined if the participant could be classified as a recreational runner. If so, running behavior, motives and regulations, as well as vitality and flow, were assessed (Full version of the questionnaire can be found in https://osf.io/qmvws/).” The results of the study are interesting. I imagine that they can be used in the construction of investment strategies in public policies and business marketing strategies; however, this discussion could be further explored in the text. Answer: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have linked the short summary of our results with a recommendation for public policies and marketing efforts aiming at running behaviour promotion – “Moreover, results suggest that intrinsic motives (general health orientation, self-esteem, and life meaning) and autonomous forms of behaviour regulation (intrinsic, integrated, and identified) are significant for these runners. With this in mind, public policies and marketing efforts could target these constructs, aiming to promote recreational running initiation and/or maintenance, by helping runners to find their own motivation through the satisfaction of the three psychological needs (competence, autonomy, and relatedness) identified by SDT, and training self-regulation strategies.” The results could include an analysis by region in Portugal; different local characteristics can increase the information of the study. Answer: This is a valuable suggestion. Representativeness of the Portuguese population (mainland Portugal and islands) by gender and age group (18-40 yrs.; 41-65 yrs.) was assured but, unfortunately, the collected data does not allow region differentiations. Although data was stratified by region, some regions presented very limited number of runners, limiting regional comparisons. We intend to consider this in a future study. The conclusion of the study must be restructured. This chapter should be more direct. I suggest bringing information about the main motivation and something more related to the main results of the study. Answer: Thank you for this recommendation. As mentioned above, we have adjusted the conclusion and also highlighted our findings regarding runners’ motivation, linking them with the suggestions for future marketing strategies. In Title - The term "Socio-demographic" is always used in the text and that is different from the term used in the title (“Demographic”). I suggest standardize the term used. Answer: Thank you for noticing this. We have corrected the title, choosing “socio-demographic”. In P.5 -Where did the participants' phone numbers come from? How was randomization performed? Answer: Thank you. To clarify this, we have now added the following information to the methods section (page 4): “Participants were selected based on a computer generated probabilistic (digit randomization) sample of telephone numbers, which were stratified by country region.” In P.5 Can the data for estimating the prevalence of running from the Portuguese Cardiology Foundation be found on any website, magazine or elsewhere? Answer: We thank the reviewer for pointing this. The running prevalence data from the Portuguese Cardiology Foundation was analysed in a Master’s Thesis (Santos M. Prevalência e características sociodemográficas dos praticantes de corrida em Portugal.: Universidade de Lisboa - Faculdade de Motricidade Humana; 2017), and results are accessible here (https://www.repository.utl.pt/handle/10400.5/14297). Considering data presented in this thesis, we decided to update both the introduction (page 3) and discussion (page 9). In P.5 Did all contacted patients accept to participate in the study? From what is described it seems that yes, but that those who did not answer completely did not accept to participate in the study or had any difficulty in answering the questions? It is important to describe this flow of participants in detail; I suggest a figure to help explain it. Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We didn’t report the participation rate, but we have now added this information to the Methods section (page 4) – “Of the 2246 initial contacts, 1150 accepted participating in the study (participation rate of 51.2%), 40 were excluded due to chronic diseases, 10 due to pregnancy, and 16 due to incomplete answers (unable to complete de questionnaire). Therefore, the final sample was constituted by 1084 eligible individuals, i.e., with Portuguese nationality and aged between 18 to 65 years.” In P.5- “…First, a panel of running and PA experts from academic and non-academic public and private institutions, agreed on a definition of recreational running – “running at least 2 days per week or at least 60 minutes per week, over the past 3 months, excluding any preparation for competitive sports…”. – This is important data from this study and cannot be defined in a generic way, a reference is needed to better support this classification. Answer: We couldn’t find a reference to support a “recreational runner” criterion when we implemented this survey. Most studies we consulted left this decision to the participant, or used samples that were participating in a public running event. We were not happy with these criteria, as we also wanted to reach participants that run recreationally without participating in public events, and we wanted to have a clear criterion in our study. Hence, we reached specialists to produce a consensus for this and future studies. We further explained the expert consultation process and mentioned the references upon which the first definition was built. Hope it further clarified the process (pages 4-5) – “First, a panel of running and PA experts from academic and non-academic public and private institutions, agreed on a definition of recreational running. In this process, a literature-based definition (26-28) was sent to 10 experts. After a content analysis of 8 definitions, the research team arrived at the following definition: a recreational runner is someone who runs at least 2 days per week or at least 60 minutes per week, over the past 3 months, excluding any preparation for competitive sports.” In P.9 - “The prevalence was higher in men compared to women” - Could you move forward in this discussion? Is the relative female population of Portugal proportional to the result found or is it really larger? What is the possible explanation for the result? Answer: According to the last Portuguese Census (2011), 52.2% of inhabitants were women. Nonetheless, the gender representativeness of the survey took this into account. Additionally, gender differences are similar to those found previously both among runners and in general PA. We have now added this in the Discussion section (page 9): “Gender differences in running participation are similar to those found previously (19) and reflect gender inequalities in overall PA involvement (4).” In Table 3. - The methods describe "The significance level was set at p <0.05 for all tests." Why is 0.001 used in the Table 3? Answer: Thank you for this observation. The minimum significance level for all tests was indeed 0.05, but in table 3 we observed a few significant results at the 0.001level, so we decided to include that information in this table. This is a common practice, suggested by institutions such as the APA. In P. 7 - Review “10,6%”- 10.6% In P. 9 – “eighty-two”- I suggest changing it to 82%. In P.11 - Check the chapter 5 title. In general – Review the reference format. Answer: Thank you for these suggestions, we have changed the text accordingly. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Pereira-PrevalenceRunning-ResponseToReviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245242.r002
26 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Daniel Boullosa, Editor Running prevalence in Portugal: Socio-demographic, behavioral and psychosocial characteristics PONE-D-20-29049R1 Dear Dr. Pereira, 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, Daniel Boullosa Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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 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 Response) 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Thank you for the authors' response. I believe that all the reviewers' questions have been answered and the text has substantially improved. Regarding the content of the article, I consider it ready for publication. ****** 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: Yes:** Rodrigo Gomes da Rosa https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245242.r003
Formally Accepted
11 Jan 2021 Acceptance Letter - Daniel Boullosa, Editor PONE-D-20-29049R1 Running prevalence in Portugal: Socio-demographic, behavioral and psychosocial characteristics Dear Dr. Pereira: 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. Daniel Boullosa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245242.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 .