The applicability of basic preventive measures of the pandemic COVID-19 and associated factors among residents in Guraghe Zone

Samuel Dessu; Tadesse Tsehay; Tadele Girum; Abebe Timerga; Mamo Solomon; Baye Tsegaye; Mulugeta Geremew; Biru Migora; Yibeltal Mesfin; Abdurezak Kemal; Fisha Alebel; Omega Tolosa; Shegaw Tesfa; Fedila Yasin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256598

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 19, 2021
31 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor PONE-D-21-05518 The applicability of basic preventive measures of the pandemic COVID-19 and associated factors among residents in Guraghe Zone PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dessu, 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. You must provide a reason why the effect size 1.5 is used. To due this the sample size is much lower and so the conclusion drawn from the analysis is questionable. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 15 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, Enamul Kabir 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 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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was suitably informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors under age 18, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. 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) [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 Reviewer #3: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: 1. The manuscript has a lot of typo errors grammatical, spelling, punctuation, and consistency in word usage like; COVID-19, COVID-2019 and COVID 19, Guraghe zone and Gurage zone, dyed instead of died. 2. High knowledge: If the respondent answers 11 of the 14 knowledge assessment questions correctly (10). What if the respondent answer 12, 13, and 14 of 14 knowledge assessment questions correctly???? 3. Moderate knowledge: If the respondent answers nine of the 14 knowledge assessment questions correctly (10). What if the respondent answers 10 of 14 knowledge assessment questions correctly???? 4. Poor or low knowledge: If the respondent responds below nine knowledge assessment questions correctly (10). 5. Good knowledge: If the respondent responds above nine knowledge assessment questions correctly 6. How did you measure attitude is not operationalized 7. The maximum total score ranged from 0–13, with a higher score indicating better knowledge about COVID-19. How can it be the maximum score of 13 if one individual answers all 14 questions correctly the maximum score will be 14? So, how do you justify it? 8. Data were cleaned, edited, coded, and entered into Epi-data version 3.1 and exported to SPSS version 25 for Windows. How can you cleaned, edited, and coded before data entry? 9. Television is not social media? 10. How do you manage the multicollinearity between being a rural residence and a lower educational level? 11. Should supply the basic preventive measures such as mask and sanitizers for financially poor individuals: You didn’t assess the availability of these preventive accessories so how can you recommend. 12. Those independent variables that had p-value less than 0.25 in bivariate analysis were entered in to the multivariable logistic regressions model. What is your justification to use 0.25 as cut off points? Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors conducted a community based cross-sectional study to assess The applicability of basic preventive measures of the pandemic COVID-19 and associated factors among residents in Guraghe Zone. The study is well written, is easy to follow and covers a hot topic, but some issues should be improved before publication. Comments 1.The study is well thought off. I believed that the topic and the content of the manuscript was different. So, it will be advisable to modify the title like KAP 2.In the method section, replace Method by Method and material 3.There are many language mistakes, please revisit the manuscript for correction. 4. Reference for your operational definition? 5.Please give some explanations about the current availability of the vaccine 6.Please complete all necessary information on the title of each Table 7. Discussion section: Will be useful to the reader to add some interesting recent literature about the updates against COVID-19 outbreak and related tools to counteract the same 8.Used very few reference, which results poor interpretation of your result, please use the following reference (Akalu Y, Ayelign B, Molla MD. Knowledge, attitude and practice towards COVID-19 among chronic disease patients at Addis Zemen Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. Infection and drug resistance. 2020;13:1949., Mulu GB, Mittiku YM, Jemere BA. Preparedness and Approaches of Healthcare Providers to Tackle the Transmission of Covid-19 among North Shewa Zone Hospitals, Amhara, Ethiopia, 2020.,Shibabaw T, Teferi B. Knowledge and Practice Toward Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Among Healthcare Workers at Delghi Primary Hospital During a Massive Test Campaign in Northwest Gondar, Ethiopia: Institution-Based Descriptive Cross-Sectional Survey. Infection and Drug Resistance. 2021;14:381. ) 9.Conclusion Section: The paragraph requires a general revision to eliminate redundant sentences and please refine and don’t repeat it in the abstract part. Reviewer #3: major 3 why use design effect 1.5? , is there scientifically recommended to use design effect 1.5 minor 1, there is sentence and paragraph without reference on introduction part 2, study are description part, please use recent data not more than 5 years 3, the sampling procedure is multistage , it is better represent graphically that makes easily understand to readers 4. on table 5 there is missing data , please incorporate this data 5, it is better to exclude those data are not significant on multi-variate regression 6, please include the p-value for those factors that are significant at multi-variant ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes:** Birhanu Ayelign Reviewer #3: 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-21-05518_reviewer comment.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256598.r001
Revision 1
16 Apr 2021 Author Response Response to the Reviewers 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 Reviewer #3: No Response; Thank you and certain revision were made. ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No Response: Thank you and it was revised in detail. ________________________________________ 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Response: Thank you ________________________________________ 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Response: Thank you and it was revised by a language expert. ________________________________________ 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) Response: It was revised and we have responded point by point for each raised concerns and corrected as highlighted in the revised version. Reviewer #1: 1. The manuscript has a lot of typo errors grammatical, spelling, punctuation, and consistency in word usage like; COVID-19, COVID-2019 and COVID 19, Guraghe zone and Gurage zone, dyed instead of died. • Response: Thank you. All the inconsistencies were resolved and the whole manuscript was revised by language expert. ________________________________________ 2. High knowledge: If the respondent answers 11 of the 14 knowledge assessment questions correctly (10). What if the respondent answer 12, 13, and 14 of 14 knowledge assessment questions correctly???? Response: Thank you and it was revised and it was to mean at least 11 of the 14 assessment questions. ________________________________________ 3. Moderate knowledge: If the respondent answers nine of the 14 knowledge assessment questions correctly (10). What if the respondent answers 10 of 14 knowledge assessment questions correctly???? • Response: It was revised and which was to mean at least nine of the knowledge assessment questions. ________________________________________ 4. Poor knowledge: If the respondent responds below nine knowledge assessment questions correctly (10). • Response: It was revised as:- “Poor knowledge: If the respondent responds < 8 knowledge assessment questions correctly”. ________________________________________ 5. Good knowledge: If the respondent responds above nine knowledge assessment questions correctly • Response: It was revised as: - “Good knowledge: If the respondent responds > 9 knowledge assessment questions correctly”. ________________________________________ 6. How did you measure attitude is not operationalized • Response: It was mentioned at the end of data collection tool and procedure but no we have stated at the subtitle, operational definition. ________________________________________ 7. The maximum total score ranged from 0–13, with a higher score indicating better knowledge about COVID-19. How can it be the maximum score of 13 if one individual answers all 14 questions correctly the maximum score will be 14? So, how do you justify it? • Response: Thank you. It was a typing error, which was to mean 14. If a respondent answers all the knowledge assessment questions correctly, stated as scored 14 of the 14 questions. ________________________________________ 8. Data were cleaned, edited, coded, and entered into Epi-data version 3.1 and exported to SPSS version 25 for Windows. How can you cleaned, edited, and coded before data entry? Response: The statement was rephrased and stated as:- “Data were entered into Epi-data version 3.1 and exported to SPSS version 25 for Windows, then cleaned, edited, coded and exploratory data analysis was carried out to check the levels of missing values, presence of influential outliers, multi-co linearity”. ________________________________________ 9. Television is not social media? Response: It was revised and which was to mean mass media. ________________________________________ 10. How do you manage the multicollinearity between being a rural residence and a lower educational level? Response: All the variables were checked for multicholinearity but multicholinearity was not existed. Therefore; no any management is required unless multicholinearity was observed. ________________________________________ 11. Should supply the basic preventive measures such as mask and sanitizers for financially poor individuals: You didn’t assess the availability of these preventive accessories so how can you recommend. Response: It was missed during manuscript preparation and incorporated now. This study was conducted as a baseline for further studies and for conducting community service across the study area. This study was presented within the university and community service was delivered through delivering the sanitizers, mask and health information dissemination. ________________________________________ 12. Those independent variables that had p-value less than 0.25 in bivariate analysis were entered in to the multivariable logistic regressions model. What is your justification to use 0.25 as cut off points? Response: In this study, we had used 12 independent variables. If we had sufficient variables, we can minimize the cutoff point but if the number of variables were not much we can increase the cutoff point. In addition; increasing the cutoff point will keep the marginally significant variables. Therefore; we have used the cutoff point 0.25 to select the candidate variable for multivariable analysis. ________________________________________ Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors conducted a community based cross-sectional study to assess The applicability of basic preventive measures of the pandemic COVID-19 and associated factors among residents in Guraghe Zone. The study is well written, is easy to follow and covers a hot topic, but some issues should be improved before publication. 1) The study is well thought off. I believed that the topic and the content of the manuscript was different. So, it will be advisable to modify the title like KAP Response: It was not aimed to investigate the knowledge and attitude but both of them were independent variables. They were described and as independent factors associated with the applicability of the basic preventive measures of COVID-19. As you have seen in the introduction part, it was focused to show the gap in the applicability of the basic preventive measures. In addition, as you have seen the outcome variable is the applicability of the basic preventive measures of the pandemic COVID-19, not KAP. ________________________________________ 2) In the method section, replace Method by Method and material Response: It was replaced accordingly. ________________________________________ 3) There are many language mistakes, please revisit the manuscript for correction. Response: The whole manuscript was revised by a language expert. ________________________________________ 4) Reference for your operational definition? Response: Thank you all the operational definitions were cited. ________________________________________ 5) Please give some explanations about the current availability of the vaccine Response; It was incorporated at the introduction section. ________________________________________ 6) Please complete all necessary information on the title of each Table Response: Thank you. It was revised and all the necessary information was incorporated. ________________________________________ 7) Discussion section: Will be useful to the reader to add some interesting recent literature about the updates against COVID-19 outbreak and related tools to counteract the same Response: Certain updated recent articles were cited. ________________________________________ 8) Used very few reference, which results poor interpretation of your result, please use the following reference (Akalu Y, Ayelign B, Molla MD. Knowledge, attitude and practice towards COVID-19 among chronic disease patients at Addis Zemen Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. Infection and drug resistance. 2020;13:1949., Mulu GB, Mittiku YM, Jemere BA. Preparedness and Approaches of Healthcare Providers to Tackle the Transmission of Covid-19 among North Shewa Zone Hospitals, Amhara, Ethiopia, 2020.,Shibabaw T, Teferi B. Knowledge and Practice Toward Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Among Healthcare Workers at Delghi Primary Hospital During a Massive Test Campaign in Northwest Gondar, Ethiopia: Institution-Based Descriptive Cross-Sectional Survey. Infection and Drug Resistance. 2021;14:381. ) Response: Thank you. All of them were cited. ________________________________________ 9) Conclusion Section: The paragraph requires a general revision to eliminate redundant sentences and please refine and don’t repeat it in the abstract part. Response: The conclusion was revised and certain amendments were made. ________________________________________ Response to Reviewer #3 Why use design effect 1.5? , is there scientifically recommended to use design effect 1.5 • Response: Design effect is determined by the researcher in considering the heterogeneity of the population. Most researchers use design effect 2 but it is possible to use also 1.5. We have decided to use it 1.5 in considering, the heterogeneity of the populations (which is adequate for them, there is no extreme heterogeneity between them) and the cost that we have afford. ________________________________________ Minor 1. There is sentence and paragraph without reference on introduction part Response: Thank you. All the statements were cited. ________________________________________ 2. On table 5 there is missing data , please incorporate this data Response: It was not a missing data, which was for the variables which were not statistically significant in multivariable analysis but to resolve this, we have the table in to two (table 5 & 6). ________________________________________ 3. It is better to exclude those data are not significant on multi-variate regression Response: It was revised and removed. ________________________________________ 4. Please include the p-value for those factors that are significant at multi-variant Response: Thank you, it was included. ________________________________________ Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256598.r002
15 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor PONE-D-21-05518R1 The applicability of basic preventive measures of the pandemic COVID-19 and associated factors among residents in Guraghe Zone PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dessu, 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 address second reviewer concern and rephrase sentences in the abstract and conclusion to minimize repetition. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 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. 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, Enamul Kabir 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: Line space in abstract part is not consistent. So make it consistent the line space for the conclusion part is not consistent with the other parts` Reviewer #2: The author addresses all comments, however, still they did not understood one of my comment regarding redundancy of sentence the conclusion in both the abstract and main body. Therefore, please rephrase and rewrite the conclusion to minimize repetition Reviewer #3: (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 Reviewer #3: 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.0256598.r003
Revision 2
15 Jun 2021 Author Response Both concdrns were addressed and corrected. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256598.r004
21 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor PONE-D-21-05518R2 The applicability of basic preventive measures of the pandemic COVID-19 and associated factors among residents in Guraghe Zone PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dessu, 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. One of the reviewers raised some minor issues those need to be fixed before taking final decision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 04 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, Enamul Kabir 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 (if provided): [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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: Comments The authors have carefully addressed almost all the issues raised by reviewers in the first review process. However, the additional comments below should be addressed to enhance the quality of the paper. On Abstract, data processing and analysis, and result session better to address these comments which are highlighted in the main manuscript: • P-value ≤0.05 better to change <0.05 • All prevalence, proportion, and magnitude are better to be in one decimal point including its confidence intervals. For instance, 21.9% (95%CI: 18.9, 25.1) of the respondents have good knowledge, 94.2% (95%CI: 92.3, 95.9) had a favorable attitude, and 17.7% (95% CI: 14.7, 20.5) apply basic preventive measures ………… • The odds ratio and its respective confidence interval better to be in two decimal points. For example, (AOR: 4.78; 95%CI: 2.50, 8.90) • As a principle; the prevalence, proportion, magnitude, odds, and its respective confidence interval should have a similar decimal points which means one decimal point for prevalence, proportion, and magnitude and two decimal points for odds. • All the recommendations have no owner it doesn’t tell anything about for whom you are going to recommend. So, it is better to indicate the specific stakeholders for each of your recommendations. Reviewer #2: The author addressed all comments provided by me and all other reviewers. Therefore, I confirmed that it is accepted. Reviewer #3: the author addressed all comments adequately and proper statically analysis and technically good and I recommend for publication ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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-21-05518_R2 with comments.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: Comments to Autor.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256598.r005
Revision 3
22 Jul 2021 Author Response Response to reviewers • P-value ≤0.05 better to change <0.05 Response: It was revised and corrected as “P-value <0.05 was used as a cutoff point to determine statistical significance in multiple logistic regressions for the final model”. • All prevalence, proportion, and magnitude are better to be in one decimal point including its confidence intervals. For instance, 21.9% (95%CI: 18.9, 25.1) of the respondents have good knowledge, 94.2% (95%CI: 92.3, 95.9) had a favorable attitude, and 17.7% (95% CI: 14.7, 20.5) apply basic preventive measures ………… Response: It was revised and corrected all over the manuscript as:- “In this study, 17.7% (95% CI: 14.7, 20.5) of the respondents apply the basic preventive measures towards the prevention of the pandemic COVID-19”. • The odds ratio and its respective confidence interval better to be in two decimal points. For example, (AOR: 4.78; 95%CI: 2.50, 8.90) o Response: It was revised and corrected as:- “In addition, being rural resident (AOR: 4.78,; 95%CI: 2.50, 8.90), being studied grade 1-8 (AOR: 3.70; 95%CI: 1.70, 7.90), being a farmer (AOR: 4.10; 95%CI: 1.25, 13.35), currently not married (AOR: 2.20, 95%CI: 1.24, 4.06), having family size 1-3(AOR: 6.50; 95%CI: 3.21, 3.35), have no diagnosed medical illness (AOR: 6.40; 95%CI: 3.85, 10.83) and having poor knowledge (AOR: 3.50; 95%CI: 1.60, 7.40) were factors which are statistically significant in multivariable logistic regression model”. • As a principle; the prevalence, proportion, magnitude, odds, and its respective confidence interval should have a similar decimal points which means one decimal point for prevalence, proportion, and magnitude and two decimal points for odds. o Response: It was revised and corrected as per your recommendations. • All the recommendations have no owner it doesn’t tell anything about for whom you are going to recommend. So, it is better to indicate the specific stakeholders for each of your recommendations. o Response: It was revised and the recommendations were given for the specific bodies. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256598.r006
11 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor The applicability of basic preventive measures of the pandemic COVID-19 and associated factors among residents in Guraghe Zone PONE-D-21-05518R3 Dear Dr. Dessu, 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, Enamul Kabir Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Yes 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: Yes 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: All comments have been addressed; The language, typographic errors, analysis, and overall the paper addressed scientific writeup formats. And all my concerns are addressed and it is fit to be accepted for possible publication. Reviewer #2: All comments are well addressed and incorporated in the main body of the manuscript. So, please do not submit again more for revision ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256598.r007
Formally Accepted
16 Aug 2021 Acceptance Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor PONE-D-21-05518R3 The applicability of basic preventive measures of the pandemic COVID-19 and associated factors among residents in Guraghe Zone Dear Dr. Dessu: 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. Enamul Kabir Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256598.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 .