PONE-D-21-00805

Do older adults of Rohingya community (Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals or FDMNs) in Bangladesh are fearful of COVID-19? findings from a cross-sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Author,

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 Jun 10 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. 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,

Ramesh Kumar, PhD

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. Please note that PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5). To that effect, please ensure that your submission is free of typos and grammatical errors, including the title.

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.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

4.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

4.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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: 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: Reviewer comment

Abstract:

In conclusion highlighted part is not reflected in result.

Introduction :

First paragraph: In highlighted part please add hand washing issue as a preventive measure.

Materials and Methods:

Please mention how age in inclusion criteria was confirmed?

Outcome measures:

To put operational definition of higher / lower score of fear

Reviewer #2: This paper contributes a very important and timely piece of work to the discussion around the impacts of COVID-19 on unreached and often disadvantaged populations. The authors should be commended on their ability to collect data from such a large sample size given the challenging circumstances associated with COVID-19.

Prior to acceptance of this research for publication, the following areas should be addressed:

1. This manuscript would benefit from extensive English language editing to improve readability.

Abstract:

2. In the abstract the authors note that the mean fear score was 14.8, but give no context as to what this score means. Authors should consider including the maximum possible fear score, ie ‘a mean score of 14.8 out of a possible XX’.

3. Additionally, it seems odd as a reader that the conclusion does not refer to strategies for individuals who were concerned, overwhelmed or fearful of COVID, given the reference to this group in the results.

Methods

4. If there were more than one person from a household interviewed, were interviews done separately or together. Were multiple individuals from the same household treated differently in the analysis (ie were there any tests done to determine whether this skewed results?)

5. How long did the survey take to complete (on average)?

6. Following the piloting of the survey in Bengali, were there any changes/modification to the original survey? Or to suit the specific cohort?

7. Justification is needed of why this scale was used (discussion refers to other available scales).

8. Did the survey collect information on covid-safe behaviours (ie handwashing, ability to practice social distance), presumedly these would have an impact on fear also or lack of fear may impact on not engaging in behaviours?

9. For the ethics section, how did the researchers maintain COVID-safe practices to protect the health of themselves and the participants. Were there any additional approvals required relating to this?

10. Were there any actions to mitigate the potential influence of perceived power (from the data collectors)? Ie did researchers have a previous relationship with participants? Given the stated concern of the community with authority/military, how did the researchers mitigate potential power imbalances? This includes both in participants giving consent (were there any measures beyond being told participation was voluntary?) and during interviews (how did researchers ensure participants did not give the responses they felt were wanted)?

Results

11. Given that the authors have only provided an analysis of mean scores, were there some individuals that reported ‘high’ scores? If so, what would be coded as high and how many fell into this category?

12. Table 2: Why does “Source of COVID-19 related information” have a *? There are no notes at the bottom of the Table

13. What has the p value for “Source of COVID-19 related information” been compared with? The other categories seem to compare mean scores within each category, has this score been compared to those who did not select those sources? If so, please include in the methods.

14. For Concerned/ overwhelmed about COVID-19 categories, was there a none option? Or were the options only ‘hardly’ or ‘sometimes/often’?

Discussion

15. Please clarify why there is a fairly low level of fear. Is this because the mean scores (around 15 out of a possible 35) have been categorised as low? Is this compared to the scores collected in the original COVID fear study?

16. The paper seems to have two limitations sections, these could be merged.

The following provides some suggestions the authors may choose to include to strengthen the manuscript:

Abstract

1. In the conclusion section the authors state that there was very little fear among the study sample. Given this point, it may be better to include the % of the sample who has a low fear score (instead of using the mean fear score as currently in the document).

2. Where the authors state “lack of awareness of the severity of the disease and brutality the older Rohingya adults faced in recent past which OUTRAGED this fear”, do you mean increased or exacerbated this fear, instead of outraged?

Introduction

3. Please include the year on the end of the following text: with more than one million deaths up to 8th October

4. When referring to the “poor social and physical conditions” in refugee camps, authors may wish to consider reflecting on the impact this has on COVID transmission. Ie the inability to quarantine cases, lack of WASH to reduce spread, lack of PPE.

5. Please ensure consistent terminology throughout the text, eg sometimes COVID, sometimes COVID-19

Results

6. The authors should consider including detail on the range of fear scores collected (rather than only reporting mean scores)-perhaps in a frequency table?

Discussion

7. Please clarify why there is a fairly low level of fear. Is this because the mean scores (around 15 out of a possible 35) have been categorised as low? Is this compared to the scores collected in the original COVID fear study?

8. The paper seems to have two limitations sections, these could be merged.

9. While the discussion mentions the “frequent discussion of the severity of COVID-19.”as impacting on fear, I wonder if the authors have considered the need to counter these messages and/or whether there is scope to include this in their manuscript? The WHO has developed resources to address stigma associated with COVID-19, such as https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/covid19-stigma-guide.pdf.

Conclusion

10. The conclusion makes some excellent that the authors could expand further in the discussion if they have room to do so. For example, Dissemination of the actual information, availability of the health care facilities and further qualitative study

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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-21-00805_reviewer Due 6 Feb 21 reviewed final.pdf

Are older adults of Rohingya community (Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals or FDMNs) in Bangladesh fearful of COVID-19? findings from a cross-sectional study

PONE-D-21-00805R1

Dear Dr. Mistry,

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,

Ramesh Kumar, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No