Self-medication practice and contributing factors among pregnant women

Yirga Legesse Niriayo; Kadra Mohammed; Solomon Weldegebreal Asgedom; Gebre Teklemariam Demoz; Shishay Wahdey; Kidu Gidey

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251725

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 15, 2020
4 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Denis Bourgeois, Editor PONE-D-20-32462 Self-medication practice and contributing factors among pregnant women PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Niriayo, 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 09 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, Denis Bourgeois 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. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting. Please update your Methods and Results sections accordingly. 3. 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. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible. 4. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: - https://tropmedhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41182-018-0091-z In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. [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: Overall, the text is well organized and structured according to IMRED. The writing style is pleasant. However, the presentation of tables does not meet current standards for presentation of a table. It will remove the left and right borders and remove the intermediate lines only the bottom line and the variable banner (the 2 top lines). There are also shortcomings in the presentation of the references, in particular reference 17 to be corrected. The study population is well specified. Sample size and selection methods are also described.The ethical and regulatory aspects have been taken into account. The analyses are in agreement with the study scheme. Statistical analyses are carried out to high technical standards and are described in sufficient detail. However, we should have presented the results of the univariate analysis with the overall p value for a variable instead of the p value per variable category; especially for variables with more than 2 modalities. In the presentation of table 4, for the reference modality, the p value must not appear (in yellow in the table). The presentation of Table 4 needs to be improved. Make a clear distinction between the variables that were used for the univariate analysis and those that were retained for the multivariate analysis. The results meet the targeted objectives. The limits and biases as well as the impact of its biases are well mentioned. The manuscript as a whole is well organized and clearly written enough to be accessible even to non-specialists. The few shortcomings noted have no major impact on the study, which remains solid but which requires some corrections. Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting study : it could help to support and develop information and national and international prevention programs for pregnant women about the dangers of automédication for themselves and their fetus. ****** 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:** Jocelyne V. W. GARE 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-32462_reviewer_GARE.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251725.r001
Revision 1
29 Apr 2021 Author Response Manuscript number: PONE-D-20-32462 Title: “Self-medication practice and contributing factors among pregnant women” Authors: Yirga Legesse Niriayo1, Kadra Mohammed1, Solomon Weldegebreal Asgedom1, Gebre Teklemariam Demoz2, Shishay Wahdey3 Kidu Gidey 1, Authors’ response to academic editor’s and reviewers’ comments We thank the academic editor and the reviewer for reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the academic editor and reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions on our submitted manuscript. We have modified our manuscript based on the editor and reviewer comments and suggestions. We offer below responses to each of the points raised by the academic editor and reviewers. We have also attached the modified manuscript with track changes and without track change based on the editor’s and reviewers’ comments and suggestions with our resubmission. Please note that all page and line numbers we have mentioned below refer to the resubmitted manuscript with track changes. Response to academic editor comments: Journal 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 Response: We have ensured that all style requirements are addressed. 2. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting. Please update your Methods and Results sections accordingly Response: We thank you. We have done so with our resubmission. 3. 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. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible. We have made all data, including data set and data collection tool fully available as supporting information. Response: We have included the data collection tool used in this study that contains both English and Tigrigna version as supporting information. 4. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: - https://tropmedhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41182-018-0091-z In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. Response: We have paraphrased some of the overlapping texts. Actually, the overlaps are occurred just by chance. Moreover, we have cited all utilized resources. . Response to Reviewer comments 1. Overall, the text is well organized and structured according to IMRED. The writing style is pleasant. However, the presentation of tables does not meet current standards for presentation of a table. It will remove the left and right borders and remove the intermediate lines only the bottom line and the variable banner (the 2 top lines Response: We appreciate the reviewer comments. We have done so with our resumption. Please see the highlighted tables (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4) 2. There are also shortcomings in the presentation of the references, in particular reference 17 to be corrected. Response: We thank the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. We have corrected them with our resubmission. Please see the highlighted references with yellow colour. 3. Statistical analyses are carried out to high technical standards and are described in sufficient detail. However, we should have presented the results of the univariate analysis with the overall p value for a variable instead of the p value per variable category; especially for variables with more than 2 modalities. Response: Thank you for your suggestions. Actually, both approaches (overall p value for a variable and p value per variable category) are possible. We have modified it according to your suggestions in our resubmission. Please see the highlights on table 4. 4. In the presentation of table 4, for the reference modality, the p value must not appear (in yellow in the table). The presentation of Table 4 needs to be improved Response: We appreciate the reviewer comments. We have done so with our resubmission. Please see the highlights on table 4. 5. Make a clear distinction between the variables that were used for the univariate analysis and those that were retained for the multivariate analysis. Response: We have done so with our re-submission. Please see the highlights on page 10 lines 209-221. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to reviewers for plose one.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251725.r002
3 May 2021 Decision Letter - Denis Bourgeois, Editor Self-medication practice and contributing factors among pregnant women PONE-D-20-32462R1 Dear Dr. Niriayo, 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, Denis Bourgeois Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251725.r003
Formally Accepted
5 May 2021 Acceptance Letter - Denis Bourgeois, Editor PONE-D-20-32462R1 Self-medication practice and contributing factors among pregnant women Dear Dr. Niriayo: 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 Professor Denis Bourgeois Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251725.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 .