Knowledge of COVID-19 and preventive behaviors among waiters working in food and drinking establishments in Southwest Ethiopia

Qaro Qanche; Adane Asefa; Tadesse Nigussie; Shewangizaw Hailemariam; Tadesse Duguma

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245753

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 19, 2020
28 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Jennifer A. Hirst, Editor PONE-D-20-25994 Knowledge of COVID-19 and practice of preventive behaviors among waiters working in food and drinking establishments in Southwest, Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Asefa, 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. Some revision of grammar is needed, and the discussion should be in context of current measures that are in place in Ethiopia to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 12 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, Jennifer A Hirst, DPhil Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Please find some additional comments on the manuscript that need revising as follows: • please provide a copy of the questionnaire used • More information on the questionnaire answers and scoring needs to be provided. For example, were correct answers from multiple choice or was a judgement made by the interviewer on whether the answer given was right or wrong? English - needs proofreading Introduction Page 4 – “between guests, staff, and guests and staff”: “between guests and staff” is sufficient. Study population – first sentence needs revising Page 6 sample size: please explain what the lottery method is Page 6 – Measurements. How was the 60% threshold reached for good behaviour? Similarly, how were the knowledge thresholds established? Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 3. Thank you for stating in the text of your manuscript "Before data collection, ethical clearance and a formal letter were obtained from the College of Health Science and Mizan-Tepi University. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, after explaining the study’s purpose, risks, and benefits. Moreover, participants were assured that their participation was voluntary and personal information will not be disclosed to third parties." Please also add this information to your ethics statement in the online submission form. 4. 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. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "The authors would like to thank Mizan-Tepi University for supporting the project." 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 author(s) received no specific funding for this work" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. 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 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 identifying or sensitive patient information) 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. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. 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. 7. 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: 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: No 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: Thank you for sharing this interesting research with me. Many research papers focus on the knowledge and attitude of the general public or medical staff towards COVID-19. This manuscript is focusing on waiters, who are also at risk of getting or transmitting the virus. Thus, they should follow strict measures to protect themselves as well as others. General comments: The language is clear in most of the paragraphs. However, some sentences are not clear and contain grammar mistakes. So, the manuscript may benefit from language proofreading. More depth should be added to some parts of the discussion. Specific comments Introduction • Paragraph 1, line 2: Please add the full name of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) • Paragraph 1, line 2: You mentioned that " It first occurred in the Hubei province of China in December 2019" Please modify into " It was first discovered in the Hubei province of China in December 2019" • Paragraph 2, line 3: You mentioned that "The disease clinically presented with Fever, cough, difficulty breathing, and other flu-like signs and symptoms including runny and stuffy nose, sneezing, and sore throat." The disease may present in sever and fatal forms as well, and that's why it's an international concern. Methods • In general, the methods are detailed and well written. Results • In the first paragraph about knowledge about COVID-19, you mentioned that "Nearly three-fourths (72.8%) were mentioned contact with contaminated animals and 60.6% mentioned directly touching contaminated objects/surfaces as modes spread of COVID 19." I would prefer if phrase the sentence as follows " Nearly three-fourths (72.8%) thought that contact with contaminated animals and 60.6% thought that touching contaminated objects/surfaces represent modes spread of COVID 19." • Table 2: First variable: Cause new corona disease should be changed into "The disease is caused by a new corona virus." • The table should divided into titles (in bald) and subtitles. For example Knowledge of mode of transmission should be bald followed by the questions about this point. The same for symptoms. • Table 3: The first option in the heading of the table should be "never" not "none" • Table 3: Question 4 : Please modify into "How often are you washing your hands with water and soap or sanitizers? • Table 3: Questions 7 and 9 don't make sense to me. Instead you could have asked "How often do you use public transportation?" and "Did you avoid unnecessary travel during the months of the pandemic?" • Table 4: Please add the p value for each factor of the regression analysis to the table. Discussion • I would prefer if the discussion starts with a brief paragraph about the measures taken by the government in Ethiopia to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. For example: Was there complete lockdown? Were restaurants and bars closed? If the answer is yes, when were they opened again? What are the measures imposed by the government on restaurants and bars to limit the spread of infection? Did these restaurants applied strict measures on quests as well? This will be very useful. • Paragraph 1, line 8: You mentioned that contaminated animals are a source of infection. Please add a reference for this information. • The study showed that majority of respondents knew common symptoms of COVID 19 disease and its prevention methods. It would have been interesting if they were asked about their source of information, especially because some of them had misconceptions about the sources of transmission. • Paragraph 2 line 1: You mentioned that "It was also identified that only 21.2% of the study participants had good preventive behavior against COVID-19." Was this due to limited tools? e.g no masks…no gloves...no soap? Please elaborate. • Paragraph 2 line 4: mentioned that "This variation could be due to differences in the socio-economic characteristics of study participants or it might be due to disparity in media exposure as the study area is relatively far from the center." What type of media channels? And why there is disparity in media exposure? No internet? No electricity? • Paragraph 4: You mentioned that "The study identified that a higher score of COVID-19 preventive practice associated with higher risk perception." Why do you think this group had a higher risk perception? Maybe they had a family member who has been infected or had chronic diseases? • The same applies for paragraph 6, where You mentioned that " The odds of good practice of COVID-19 prevention methods among subjects who had high perceived self-efficacy was higher as compared to those with low self-efficacy to practice COVID-19 prevention methods." Why did this group had higher self efficacy? • Was there a difference between application of preventive practices between those working in hotels and bars for example? Did different levels of restaurants (fantasy versus popular restaurants) affected using protective measures? Reviewer #2: in Data processing and analysis paragraph , please write manufacture origin of SPSS, please add references for you paragraph that you describe multivariate logistic regression analysis model , ( Bivariate binary logistic regression analysis was done to select candidate variables for multivariable binary logistic regression analysis at p-value < 0.25) ****** 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: Ahmed Samir Abdelhafiz Reviewer #2: Yes:** wafaa Yousif Abdel Wahed [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.0245753.r001
Revision 1
23 Nov 2020 Author Response Rebuttal letter Dear Editor, Dear Reviewers, Thank you very much for your important observations and recommendations, which, in our opinion, are contributing to a significant improvement of our manuscript’s quality and scientific impact. Based on your recommendations, we addressed all the issues raised and the corrections are included in the revised version of the manuscript. In the following, we provide details of the changes added to the manuscript, in respect to your valuable comments. Editor Comments: Please find some additional comments on the manuscript that need revising as follows: 1. Please provide a copy of the questionnaire used Response: Thank for the request. We have uploaded questionnaire as “Supporting Information files”. 2. More information on the questionnaire answers and scoring needs to be provided. For example, were correct answers from multiple choice or was a judgement made by the interviewer on whether the answer given was right or wrong? Response: Thank you. We included detail about questionnaire under method section; measures sub-headings (page 6). The questionnaire that used to measure the knowledge are based yes, no or I don’t know responses. The correct answers were determined in accordance with the available evidence during early phase of the pandemic. 3. English - needs proofreading Response: Thank you for your observation. We have edited the whole manuscript thoroughly for language error. 4. Page 4 – “between guests, staff, and guests and staff”: “between guests and staff” is sufficient Response. Thank you for your suggestion. We have accepted it 5. Study population – first sentence needs revising Response. Thank you for your observation. We have revised the statement (page 5). 6. Page 6 sample size: please explain what the lottery method is Response. Thanks. We have now described how lottery method done on page 5 and 6. 7. Page 6 – Measurements. How was the 60% threshold reached for good behaviors? Response. Thank you, the question. A 60% cutoff point for good behavior was on the modified threshold from study done in Iran. We have also considered modified Bloom’s cutoff point (60% cutoff point) 8. Similarly, how were the knowledge thresholds established? Response. Thank you, again. The threshold was determined according original Bloom’s cutoff point. We have cited the reference for the threshold used. 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. Response: Now we have updated the whole manuscript as per the requirement by the journal. 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Response: Thank you for your observation. We have edited the whole manuscript thoroughly for language error. 3. Please add ethics statement in the online submission form. Response: thanks, we have done it. 4. 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. Response: We included more detail about survey tool in method section under measures sub-headings (page 6). We have also uploaded the survey to which prepared as Supporting Information Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 5. "The authors would like to thank Mizan-Tepi University for supporting the project." 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. Response: Sorry for unclarity in our statement. We did not obtain any formal funding form any institution or body. The research was done as part of our professional duties in our institution. We acknowledged Mizan-Tepi university for providing us ethical clearance and informal supports. We have no modified the statements in the acknowledgement section. 6. 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 information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 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 identifying or sensitive patient information) 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. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Response: There is no ethical or legal restriction on sharing of anonymized data set. Thus, we have uploaded data set Supporting Information files. 7. Your ethics statement must 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 also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript. Response: Thanks for your observation. Now we include the ethics statement only in methods section. Reviewer #1 1. General comments: 1.1. The language is clear in most of the paragraphs. However, some sentences are not clear and contain grammar mistakes. So, the manuscript may benefit from language proofreading. Response: Thank you for your observation. We have edited the whole manuscript thoroughly for language error. 2. Specific comments Introduction 2.1. Paragraph 1, line 2: Please add the full name of the virus (SARS-CoV-2). Response: Thank you for your comment. We have written full name of SARS-CoV-2 in introduction, first paragraph (page 3, line 5) 2.2. Paragraph 1, line 2: You mentioned that " It first occurred in the Hubei province of China in December 2019" Please modify into " It was first discovered in the Hubei province of China in December 2019" Response: Thanks. We accepted the suggestion. (page 3, line 5) 2.3. Paragraph 2, line 3: You mentioned that "The disease clinically presented with. Fever, cough, difficulty breathing, and other flu-like signs and symptoms including runny and stuffy nose, sneezing, and sore throat." The disease may present in sever and fatal forms as well, and that's why it's an international concern. Response: The statements are modified as follow; “The disease is clinically presented with fever, cough, difficulty breathing, and other flu-like signs and symptoms including runny and stuffy nose, sneezing, and sore throat. Most COVID-19 patients can recover with mild or no symptoms; however, in rare cases, patients may develop a severe acute respiratory syndrome that requires mechanical ventilation”. Paragraph 2, line 15-19 (page 3) Results 2.4. In the first paragraph about knowledge about COVID-19, you mentioned that "Nearly three-fourths (72.8%) were mentioned contact with contaminated animals and 60.6% mentioned directly touching contaminated objects/surfaces as modes spread of COVID 19." I would prefer if phrase the sentence as follows " Nearly three-fourths (72.8%) thought that contact with contaminated animals and 60.6% thought that touching contaminated objects/surfaces represent modes spread of COVID 19." Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We accepted the suggestion and included in manuscript (page 9; line 7-9) 2.5. Table 2: First variable: Cause new corona disease should be changed into "The disease is caused by a new corona virus." Response: Thank you modified the statement to interrogative form; What causes a new coronavirus disease? 2.6. The table should divide into titles (in bald) and subtitles. For example, Knowledge of mode of transmission should be bald followed by the questions about this point. The same for symptoms Responses: Thank for your suggestions. To avoid redundance of words and minimizing the crowding of table with we to put common questions as in bold. For example, “Can COVID-19 infected patients present with the following symptoms?” 2.7. Table 3: The first option in the heading of the table should be "never" not "none" Responses: We accepted the suggestion. 2.8. Table 3: Question 4: Please modify into "How often are you washing your hands with water and soap or sanitizers? Table 3: Questions 7 and 9 don't make sense to me. Instead you could have asked "How often do you use public transportation?" and "Did you avoid unnecessary travel during the months of the pandemic Response: Thank you for constructive suggestions. We accepted and incorporated all in table 3. 2.9. Table 4: Please add the p value for each factor of the regression analysis to the table. Response: We accepted the comment and add p-value for variables in final best fit model. Discussion 1. I would prefer if the discussion starts with a brief paragraph about the measures taken by the government in Ethiopia to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. For example: Was there complete lockdown? Were restaurants and bars closed? If the answer is yes, when were they opened again? What are the measures imposed by the government on restaurants and bars to limit the spread of infection? Did these restaurants applied strict measures on quests as well? This will be very useful. Response: Thank so much for the comments. We have addressed the comments first paragraph of the discussion. 2. Paragraph 1, line 8: You mentioned that contaminated animals are a source of infection. Please add a reference for this information. Response: We thanks for the suggestion. Now, the issue is described with reference in introduction part page 3, line 11-15 3. The study showed that majority of respondents knew common symptoms of COVID 19 disease and its prevention methods. It would have been interesting if they were asked about their source of information, especially because some of them had misconceptions about the sources of transmission. Response: Thank for your observation. Since we have data regarding source of information, we have now included it result part page 9, line 5-7 4. Paragraph 2 line 1: You mentioned that "It was also identified that only 21.2% of the study participants had good preventive behavior against COVID-19." Was this due to limited tools? e.g no masks…no gloves...no soap? Please elaborate. Response: Thank for your nice observation. Results regarding barrier/hindering factors are added in both results and discussions sections 5. Paragraph 2 line 4: mentioned that "This variation could be due to differences in the socio-economic characteristics of study participants or it might be due to disparity in media exposure as the study area is relatively far from the center." What type of media channels? And why there is disparity in media exposure? No internet? No electricity? Response: Thank you. The study was conducted in remote area of the country where health and infrastructure in very low. Thus, access of health information health information is relatively low the area due low internet coverage and electronic medias. 6. Paragraph 4: You mentioned that "The study identified that a higher score of COVID-19 preventive practice associated with higher risk perception." Why do you think this group had a higher risk perception? Maybe they had a family member who has been infected or had chronic diseases? Response: since the study design purely quantitative, we could fully explain the reason behind high risk perception. Thus, we have described this in limitation of the study. Page 17 7. The same applies for paragraph 6, where You mentioned that " The odds of good practice of COVID-19 prevention methods among subjects who had high perceived self-efficacy was higher as compared to those with low self-efficacy to practice COVID-19 prevention methods." Why did this group had higher self-efficacy? Response: Due to the quantitative nature this study we did not know why those group have high self-efficacy. 8. Was there a difference between application of preventive practices between those working in hotels and bars for example? Did different levels of restaurants (fantasy versus popular restaurants) affected using protective measures? Response: In the area, many establishments provide mixed service. For instance, hotels are providing bar and restaurant service and vice-versa. Thus, it is difficult to assess if there are variations in practice of protective measures. Reviewer #2 1. In Data processing and analysis paragraph, please write manufacture origin of SPSS. Response: thank you. We have accepted the suggestion and included in the manuscript. 2. Please add references for you paragraph that you describe multivariate logistic regression analysis model, ( Bivariate binary logistic regression analysis was done to select candidate variables for multivariable binary logistic regression analysis at p-value < 0.25) Response: thank you. We have cited the reference as per your recommendation. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245753.r002
16 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Jennifer A. Hirst, Editor PONE-D-20-25994R1 Knowledge of COVID-19 and preventive behaviors among waiters working in food and drinking establishments in Southwest Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Asefa, 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 Jan 30 2021 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, Jennifer A Hirst, DPhil Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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 ****** 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: Thank you for making the required changes. The manuscript has improved a lot. I have some minor comments. Kindly find the comments below • Page 3, line 19: You mentioned that "however, in rare cases, patients may develop a severe acute respiratory syndrome that requires mechanical ventilation" I think that "rare" is not the correct term here. Maybe you can add a reference which includes the percentage of cases that develop ARDS. • Table 3, question one: The first question should be modified into "How often are you maintaining physical distance? • Table 4: The p values for some parameters are not written. Please add them. Discussion • Page 14, line 11: You mentioned that " During the periods of the state of emergency: land borders are closed, schools and universities remain shut, all gathering of more than four persons are forbidden" Please use the past tense instead of the present tense " borders were closed....universities remained shut… etc" please do this all through the paragraph. • Page 14, line 17: You mentioned that "Moreover, hotels, restaurants, and cafeterias allowed services to more than three patrons at a single table" I think you mean that that they didn't allow service to more than 3 persons at a single table. If so, please correct the sentence. ****** 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:** Ahmed Samir Abdelhafiz [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.0245753.r003
Revision 2
25 Dec 2020 Author Response Rebuttal letter Dear Editor, Dear Reviewers, We are very much grateful for the Editor and reviewers’ time and willingness to review the manuscript. We thank them for their constructive comments and suggestions. Based on your recommendations, we addressed all the issues raised and the corrections are included in the revised version of the manuscript. In the following, we provide details of the changes added to the manuscript, in respect to your valuable comments. Reviewer #1 Thank you for making the required changes. The manuscript has improved a lot. I have some minor comments. Kindly find the comments below 1. Page 3, line 19: You mentioned that "however, in rare cases, patients may develop a severe acute respiratory syndrome that requires mechanical ventilation" I think that "rare" is not the correct term here. Maybe you can add a reference which includes the percentage of cases that develop ARDS. Response: Thank you for your observation. Now, we have modified the statement based on your recommendation. 2. Table 3, question one: The first question should be modified into "How often are you maintaining physical distance? Introduction Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We accepted the suggestion and included in manuscript. 3. Table 4: The p values for some parameters are not written. Please add them. Responses: Thank you comment. Previous we included the p-values and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for only variables that are significant at p-value less than 0.05 in the table of multivariable result. Now based on your recommendation, we have included p- values and AOR for all variables in the models. 4. Page 14, line 17: You mentioned that "Moreover, hotels, restaurants, and cafeterias allowed services to more than three patrons at a single table" I think you mean that that they didn't allow service to more than 3 persons at a single table. If so, please correct the sentence. Responses: Thank for your nice observation. It was typo error and now we corrected it. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245753.r004
7 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Jennifer A. Hirst, Editor Knowledge of COVID-19 and preventive behaviors among waiters working in food and drinking establishments in Southwest Ethiopia PONE-D-20-25994R2 Dear Dr. Asefa, 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, Jennifer A Hirst, DPhil Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245753.r005
Formally Accepted
15 Jan 2021 Acceptance Letter - Jennifer A. Hirst, Editor PONE-D-20-25994R2 Knowledge of COVID-19 and preventive behaviors among waiters working in food and drinking establishments in Southwest Ethiopia Dear Dr. Asefa: 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. Jennifer A. Hirst Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245753.r006

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 .