Evidence on access to healthcare information by women of reproductive age in low- and middle-income countries: Scoping review

Joyce Twahafifwa Shatilwe; Desmond Kuupiel; Tivani P. Mashamba-Thompson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251633

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 1, 2020
19 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Rohina Joshi, Editor PONE-D-20-25622 Evidence on access to health care information by women of reproductive age in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries: Scoping Review PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shatilwe, 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. The Reviewers have raised important concerns about the objectives and logical sequence of methods and results. Also, we note that the published protocol and this paper have a major overlap (similar sentences). Kindly rewrite those sections. Please review the manuscript for grammatical erros. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Rohina Joshi 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 is a scoping review on access to health care information by women of reproductive age in LMICs. Four papers met inclusion criteria and the authors were able to discuss the following topics: accessibility, financial accessibility/affordability, connectivity and challenges. I suggest the authors review the entire manuscript for inconsistencies in grammar and typographical errors. I have made comments below: Major comments: 1. Introduction a. The authors discuss healthcare service, maternal healthcare service and healthcare information in the first two pages of the manuscript. It is unclear to me what the focus of this scoping review is. I can see in the methods that healthcare information is one of the key words in the search strategy but access to information and access to service is drastically different. Also, all the results are maternal services. This manuscript would benefit if the authors streamline their terms. b. The aim is stated on page 3 and objective on page 4--- please use only one of these. c. This sentence on page 3 needs a reference: Women of reproductive age will utilize maternal healthcare information to their maximum if they have access to healthcare services. 2. Methods a. Please reference your protocol rather than just linking the paper. b. The long list that includes scoping review methodology (page 4, row 92-97) is unnecessary. c. Add search strategy in appendix please. d. Will need information on which authors performed the search, risk of bias, etc. e. Add data availability statement 3. Results a. Page 14, paragraph on financial accessibility- ‘The study further shows that the average cost of transport per women to and from the health facility was US$4.6. It further indicates that delivery cost was the highest with US$ 317,157 followed by antenatal care US$ 107 890 while post-natal care was the least with US$ 7.6’- are these costs per person? Please provide additional information. b. This sentence on page 15 is too long. Consider revising. ‘The study further revealed that women and girls’ fear or timidity has been reduced because their identity is not being revealed because of the insurance of mobile phone-based telemedicine’ There are several sentences in the results and discussion section that are long and difficult to follow. Can the authors address this please? c. Page 15 ‘The main barriers in most Asia-Pacific countries, including Myanmar, are high use fees and cash payment for health care services, which are highly likely to hinder disadvantaged communities from accessing healthcare facilities’. I am unsure if the authors can make this statement regarding most of Asia Pacific (bearing in mind that this is the results section and not the discussion) based on one study conducted in Myanmar. Perhaps better to move it to discussion if there is sufficient evidence. 4. Discussion a. The second sentence under discussion has a question mark, is this meant to be a question? b. While reading through this scoping review, one of the things that I thought was important to note was the lack of literature in this area. Consider mentioning this in the first paragraph of the discussion. c. The first paragraph under limitations is not related to limitations. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this scoping review of evidence on access to health care information by women of reproductive age in low-and middle-income countries. While the concept is important, the research question and presentation of the methods, results and discussion are unclear and do not flow logically throughout the manuscript. For example, there are separate sections on objectives and main research questions and this is confusing, it would be valuable to clearly state what is meant by "evidence on access to health care information", and what type of health care information this scoping review was assessing access to. The key words searched are described in different sections of the methods section: i.e. the study population key words are listed under search strategy and additional key words around the types of studies are contained under the information sources heading, and again this is separate to the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. It would be helpful to better understand the specific inclusion/exclusion criteria the excluded articles did/ did not meet, particularly the reasons for exclusion of the final 47 articles. There are several references missing including to support statements made in the background "women of reproductive age will utilize maternal healthcare information to their maximum if they have access to healthcare services" and the risk of bias assessment tool used MMAT is also not referenced on first use and has been abbreviated (MMAT) each time used throughout the manuscript. The limitations section of the manuscript should be written to speak to the limitations of the study, for example the small number of studies that were included, would it have benefited by widening the inclusion criteria or narrowing the exclusion criteria. A large proportion of the manuscript has been previously published in the form of a scoping review protocol which may conflict with PLOS ONE publication requirements. ****** 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:** Dr Cheryl Carcel Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251633.r001
Revision 1
5 Nov 2020 Author Response Dear Editorial Manager Thank you for the opportunity granted to me to work on my manuscript. Attached kindly receive the revised manuscript and the manuscript with track changes. I inserted the in-text of table 2-4 as requested. Kindly see page 4, 5 and 12. Below see my responses Best regards Joyce Reviewers’ Responses Introduction a. The authors discuss healthcare service, maternal healthcare service and healthcare information in the first two pages of the manuscript. It is unclear to me what the focus of this scoping review is. I can see in the methods that healthcare information is one of the key words in the search strategy but access to information and access to service is drastically different. Also, all the results are maternal services. This manuscript would benefit if the authors streamline their terms.‬ Response: Terms such as healthcare service, maternal healthcare service and healthcare information, access to information and access to service has been streamlined. Please see line 21, 22, 34 and 48 as well as the background section. See page 2 and 3. b. The aim is stated on page 3 and objective on page 4--- please use only one of these. Response: Aim retained and section on objective removed. See page 3 and 4. c. This sentence on page 3 needs a reference: Women of reproductive age will utilize maternal healthcare information to their maximum if they have access to healthcare services. Response: Reference on the sentence inserted. See page 3. 2. Methods a. Please reference your protocol rather than just linking the paper. Response: Reference on the published scoping review protocol inserted. See page 4. b. The long list that includes scoping review methodology (page 4, row 92-97) is unnecessary. Response: Long list deleted. See page 4. c. Add search strategy in appendix please. Response: Search strategy added in appendix. See page 31. d. Will need information on which authors performed the search, risk of bias, etc. Response: Authors contribution inserted. See page 20. e. Add data availability statement Response: Data availability statement added. See page 21. 3. Results a. Page 14, paragraph on financial accessibility- ‘The study further shows that the average cost of transport per women to and from the health facility was US$4.6. It further indicates that delivery cost was the highest with US$ 317,157 followed by antenatal care US$ 107 890 while post-natal care was the least with US$ 7.6’- are these costs per person? Please provide additional information. Response: Additional information for cost financial accessibility added. See page 14 b. This sentence on page 15 is too long. Consider revising. ‘The study further revealed that women and girls’ fear or timidity has been reduced because their identity is not being revealed because of the insurance of mobile phone-based telemedicine’ There are several sentences in the results and discussion section that are long and difficult to follow. Can the authors address this please? Response: Long sentences revised under on page. 15 c. Page 15 ‘The main barriers in most Asia-Pacific countries, including Myanmar, are high use fees and cash payment for health care services, which are highly likely to hinder disadvantaged communities from accessing healthcare facilities’. I am unsure if the authors can make this statement regarding most of Asia Pacific (bearing in mind that this is the results section and not the discussion) based on one study conducted in Myanmar. Perhaps better to move it to discussion if there is sufficient evidence. Response: Paragraph deleted. See page 15. 4. Discussion a. The second sentence under discussion has a question mark, is this meant to be a question? Response: Question mark under discussion section removed, it was a typo error. See page 16. b. While reading through this scoping review, one of the things that I thought was important to note was the lack of literature in this area. Consider mentioning this in the first paragraph of the discussion. Response: A paragraph on ‘’Lack of literature lacking in this areas’’ has been inserted in the first paragraph. See page 16. c. The first paragraph under limitations is not related to limitations. Response: The first paragraph under limitations section which does not match with the section has been deleted. See page 18. Responses for Reviewer #2 a) While the concept is important, the research question and presentation of the methods, results and discussion are unclear and do not flow logically throughout the manuscript. For example, there are separate sections on objectives and main research questions and Response: The method section has been re-arranged. The objective section and research questions has been deleted and aim of the study retained under background section as earlier mentioned under reviewer #1 responses. b) This is confusing, it would be valuable to clearly state what is meant by "evidence on access to health care information". Response: Insertion has been made with explanation as follows: This scoping review tried to search available interventions/strategies in place that enable women of reproductive age to access health care information. Please see page 3. c) What type of health care information this scoping review was assessing access to. Response: The scoping review was trying to search different interventions/strategies in place that enable women of reproductive age in low-and middle-income countries to access healthcare information. The interventions are such as healthcare promotion interventions programmes, health outreach programmes, facility based education initiative, health education initiatives (comprehensive sexuality education programmes), programmes to scale up healthcare information technology to promote technology (text messages, mobile health (M-health)), community based outreach programmes, school health programmes. Please see page 4 under materials and method section. d) The key words searched are described in different sections of the methods section: i.e. the study population key words are listed under search strategy and additional key words around the types of studies are contained under the information sources heading, and again this is separate to the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. Response: Amendment made on page 5 under section search strategy and information sources. The key words were mainly guiding the database search process while also applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are different from the key words although both are being used to guide the process of database search and the screening process. See page 5. e) It would be helpful to better understand the specific inclusion/exclusion criteria the excluded articles did/ did not meet, particularly the reasons for exclusion of the final 47 articles. Response: Some of the reasons for exclusion were as follows: Fourteen records do not focus on the age between 14-49 years old, one records do not meet age requirement, six records focus on general healthcare, eight records report on sexual and reproductive healthcare service, 15 records report on maternal healthcare services and three were literature review studies. See page 9. e) There are several references missing including to support statements made in the background "women of reproductive age will utilize maternal healthcare information to their maximum if they have access to healthcare services". Response: References has been inserted under the phrase mentioned above, See page 3. f) The risk of bias assessment tool used MMAT is also not referenced on first use and has been abbreviated (MMAT) each time used throughout the manuscript. Response: MMAT tool acronym has been spelt out in full and there after an acronym has been inserted. Please see page 7. g) The limitations section of the manuscript should be written to speak to the limitations of the study, for example the small number of studies that were included, would it have benefited by widening the inclusion criteria or narrowing the exclusion criteria. Response: Amendment has been made as follows: The first paragraph of under limitation section has been deleted and some insertions has been made. Please see page 18. h) A large proportion of the manuscript has been previously published in the form of a scoping review protocol which may conflict with PLOS ONE publication requirements. Response: Similarities in the two manuscripts (Scoping Review Protocol and Scoping Review Result Paper) has been addressed and revisions has been made accordingly. Amendments highlighted in purple colour. In-text for the tables has been inserted on page 4, 5 and 12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251633.r002
16 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Joyce Addo-Atuah, Editor PONE-D-20-25622R1 Evidence on access to health care information by women of reproductive age in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries: Scoping Review PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Joyce Twahafifwa Shatilwe, 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 read the attachment for recommendations to further improve the readability and flow of your manuscript for the benefit of readers. Please submit your revised manuscript by April 30, 2021. If you would 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 are 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Joyce Addo-Atuah, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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 revising There are still abbreviations not properly spelled out such as MCHI in page 3. ****** 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:** Cheryl Carcel [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments to the Authors.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251633.r003
Revision 2
23 Apr 2021 Author Response Dear Editor We would like to tender our vote of appreciation to you and the reviewer team for attending to our manuscript despite this challenging time of COVID-19 pandemic. Thank you very much for all the effort. Joyce Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx 18 April 2021.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251633.r004
27 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Joyce Addo-Atuah, Editor PONE-D-20-25622R2 Evidence on access to health care information by women of reproductive age in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries: Scoping Review PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shatilwe, 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 minor points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 7, 2021. 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Joyce Addo-Atuah, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments:: The resulting manuscript, which has taken into consideration all the reviewers' and editor's recommendations is a much improved version of the original one. However, a few items need to be looked into again as follows: 1) Fig 1 is a Schematic diagram of the selection process for the studies used for the scoping review and should be titled as such because the current title of Fig 1 is not appropriate 2) Under the Discussion-Summary of Evidence---lines 6-8 The sentence is better stated as follows: Women with high education have greater access to healthcare information than those with lower education. 3) Under limitations--line 9 on page 20 ------randomized control trials to assess strategies aimed at enabling these women to access------ (note that the correct word to use before strategies is "assess" and not "access") [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.0251633.r005
Revision 3
27 Apr 2021 Author Response Dear Editor Thank you very much for reviewing my manuscript. Your quick service is highly appreciated. Kind regards Dr. Shatilwe Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx 27 April 2021.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251633.r006
30 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Joyce Addo-Atuah, Editor Evidence on access to health care information by women of reproductive age in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries: Scoping Review PONE-D-20-25622R3 Dear Dr. Shatilwe, 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, Joyce Addo-Atuah, PhD Guest Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The manuscript has been revised and updated taking into consideration all the recommendations including changing the title of Fig 1, however,Fig 1 has become too small in the latest manuscript Reviewers' comments:None https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251633.r007
Formally Accepted
14 May 2021 Acceptance Letter - Joyce Addo-Atuah, Editor PONE-D-20-25622R3 Evidence on access to healthcare information by women of reproductive age in low- and middle-income countries: scoping review Dear Dr. Shatilwe: 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. Joyce Addo-Atuah Guest Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251633.r008

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .