Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behavior change in Northern Malawi

Marisen Mwale; Adamson S. Muula

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258527

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 9, 2020
21 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Wendee Wechsberg, Editor PONE-D-20-17629 Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behavior change in Northern Malawi PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mwale, 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 Mar 07 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, Wendee Wechsberg 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. When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number of interviewers, their training and characteristics; and whether bias issues were considered. Moreover, please provide the interview guide used. 3.In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4.Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: "The Government of the Republic of Malawi through Mzuzu University funded the study." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5.Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. [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: I Don't Know 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: 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: interesting study in an important public and reproductive health domain that is how to engage stakeholders in the highly sensitive domain of sexual and reproductive health/HIV in an adolescent population. The methodology and the findings are relevant for Malawi but also for sharing with other countries in the region Reviewer #2: This qualitative study explored the acceptability, sustainability, and need for modifications of an intervention model. The main strength of this article was that implementers and teachers who work in adolescent sexual and reproductive health were interviewed. There were several areas where the article could be improved. The intervention model in which the implementers were asked to react to was not described thus it was difficult to understand what specific aspects of the interventions were found to be acceptable or sustainable. There were several gaps in the methods sections and the themes described did not align well with the quotes. I offer the following suggestions to strengthen the article. Introduction - It is unclear what the RRBM is and how it differs from the RRBI. Describe the components of the intervention, the duration of the intervention, the target population, and the specific behaviors the intervention is meant to address - Examining triability and feasibility were considered part of the purpose of the study but this was not explored in the methods, results, or discussion. The article would be strengthened by grounding the article in concepts from implementation science. Consider using the following article: o Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and policy in mental health, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 - The section “purposes and objectives” should be cut as it is redundant from the previous paragraph. Methods - Page 6: The justification for selecting individual interviews over group interviews/workshops does not need to be included. Cut the following sentences: o “The choice of the individualized process compared to a stakeholder workshop was considered cost-effective. Above all else individualized interviews allowed input and accorded each stakeholder enough time to appraise the model and intervention comprehensively. In our assessment, this could have been compromised in a workshop scenario due to constraints that arise because of time limitations and perhaps group dynamics.” - Page 6: Provide more details about the interview process. Where were interviews conducted? Who conducted the interviews? Approximately how long did they last? - Page 7: Provide more information about the data analysis process. How many people were involved in analysis? How did they reach consensus? Was analysis software used? Results - Page 10: The quotes and associated text for theme 2 do not address implementation fidelity. The definition is, “…the degree to which an intervention was implemented as it was prescribed in the original protocol or as it was intended by the program developers (A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Dusenbury et al. 2003; A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. Rabin et al. 2008).” The quotes about the intervention needing to meet the needs of rural and out of school girls and girls with disabilities is closer to the implementation outcome of “reach.” Authors need to describe how teacher conservatism can affect fidelity. - Page 12: Provide more of a description of “youth priorities and needs.” The quotes included in the table aren’t all aligned with that theme. For example, the quote, “focus in implementation should be on already existing structures in communities but perhaps lacking empowerment and capacity building,” doesn’t seem like a youth priority or need. - Page 15: The last two quotes in the table more address the theme of sustainability in theme 5. Discussion - Page 18: Paragraphs two and three discuss structural and combination intervention approaches, however that was minimally discussed in the results section. Only one quote in table 2 describes the need for structural interventions. Cut those paragraphs. - Page 21: The first strength that this study is one of the few studies that includes stakeholder involvement can be tempered a little bit. There are many studies that involve stakeholder interviews. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258527.r001
Revision 1
5 Feb 2021 Author Response Dear Editor/(s) Thank you for the decision for us to revise our article # PONE-D-20-17629 – title, ‘Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behaviour change in Northern Malawi’. We have compiled our revisions beginning with those associated with PLOS One requirements and followed by revisions on queries raised by reviewers. In our rebuttal we first outline the query raised by either editor or reviewer and present its associated response as follows: Revisions – Editorial PLOS One requirements 1. Query – Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE’S style requirements including those for file naming: Response – Formatting of manuscript main body, files, title and author affiliations done in line with PLOS One guidelines. 2. Query - When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guideline. Moreover, please provide the interview guide used Response – COREQ guidelines for reporting qualitative results have been adhered to in line with - [Tong A, Sainsbury P & Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2007; 19(6): 349 – 357]. The interview guide has been included as a supporting file – SI File. File 1 Title- Interview guide. \\ 3. Query - In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found ….. Response – Minimal data set has been deposited in draft with Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) – University of Syracuse, and can be accessed at https://doi.org.10.5064/F6RGY6T3 4. Query – We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgements section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Please include your amended statement within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response- Funding related text has been removed from any section in the manuscript and has been instead included in the cover letter. 5. Query – Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. Response – The ethics statement has been included only in the Methods section and removed from declarations section with the entire declarations section removed. Revisions – Reviewer comments Introduction 1. Query - It is unclear what the RRBM is and how it differs from the RRBI. Describe the components of the intervention, the duration of the intervention, the target population, and the specific behaviours the intervention is meant to address. Response – The RRBM intervention has been presented as a separate sub-section in the methods with title, ‘The RRBM as an alternative model for HIV risk reduction among adolescents’ - (pages: 10-17) Components of the intervention as it was tested for efficacy, the duration of the intervention, the target population and the specific behaviours model was meant to address are presented in another sub-section of the methods, title – ‘The RRBM model as tested for efficacy through a peer education intervention with adolescent participants in Northern Malawi’ - (pages: 18-19) 2. Query – Examining triability and feasibility were considered part of the purpose of the study but this was not explored in the methods, results or discussion. The article would be strengthened by grounding the article in concepts from ‘Implementation science’. Consider using Proctor E et al (2011). Response – As recommended and in line with concepts from ‘Implementation science’ – Proctor et al (2011); the concepts triability and feasibility have been removed from manuscript - (pages: 2 & 3) and the same also applies to replacing the concept fidelity with the concept effectiveness in the results section (page – 22). Methods 3. Query – Page 6 – The justification for selecting individual interviews over group interviews /workshop does not need to included. Cut the following sentence, ‘The choice of the individualized process compared …….’ Response – The sentence per se has been removed as recommended (page 6). 4. Query – Page 6 – Provide more details about the interview process. Where were interviews conducted? Who conducted the interviews? Approximately how did they last? Response – Details about the interview process have been presented as recommended; including where interviews were conducted, the interviewer and duration (page 7) 5. Query – Page 7 - Provide more information about the data analysis process. How many people were involved in analysis? How did they reach consensus? Was analysis software used? Response – As recommended, information about the data analysis process; including number of people involved, how consensus was reached, and whether software was used has been presented on (page 8). Results 6. Query – Page 10 – The quotes and associated text for Theme 2 do not address implementation fidelity as defined in Rabin et al (2008). Response – The concept ‘fidelity’ has been replaced by the concept ‘effectiveness’ in associated text for Theme 2 to align with intended objective (page 22 & 32). 7. Query – The quotes about the intervention needing to meet the needs of rural and out of school girls and girls with disabilities is closer to the implementation outcome of ‘reach’. Authors need to describe how teacher conservatism can affect fidelity. Response – Point was taken and addressed with the replacement of the concept fidelity with the concept effectiveness as highlighted in 6 above. 8. Query – Page 12 – Provide more of description of ‘youth priorities and needs’. The quotes included in the table aren’t all aligned with that theme for example, the quote, ‘focus in implementation should be on already existing structures in communities but perhaps lacking empowerment and capacity building’ doesn’t seem like a youth priority or need. Response – The quote and other sections have been qualified with the concept youth as intended where necessary to align with the theme and objective and revised as follows: ‘focus in implementation should be on already existing youth structures in communities but perhaps lacking youth empowerment and capacity building’ (page 24 & 25). 9. Query – The last two quotes in the table more address the theme of sustainability in Table 5. Response – The quotes per se have been moved to the theme of sustainability in previously Table 5, but now Table 6 (page 29). Discussion 10. Query – Page 18 – Paragraphs two and three discuss structural and combination intervention approaches, however that was minimally discussed in the results section. Only one quote in Table 2 describes the need for structural interventions. Cut those paragraphs. Response – The paragraphs on structural and combination interventions have been removed as recommended (page 30 – highlighted). 11. Query – The first strength that this study is one of the few studies that include stakeholder involvement can be tampered a little bit. There are many studies that involve stakeholder interviews. Response – The statement has been revisited as follows: ‘Our study is one among intervention studies with a component involving seeking input from stakeholders …’ (page 33 - highlighted) We hope the responses cover all the queries raised in the review. Regards, Marisen Mwale Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS One_ Responses to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258527.r002
20 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Brian C. Zanoni, Editor PONE-D-20-17629R1Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behavior change in Northern MalawiPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mwale, 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 authors have sufficiently responded to the reviewers comments. However, the section "The RRBM as an alternative model..." is too long and detracts from the overall manuscript. Reviewer #1 has suggested cutting this section. As an alternative, the authors could reduce this to a single paragraph and include the remainder as a supplement. This would significantly improve the manuscript's focus and flow. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 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: https://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, Brian C. Zanoni, MD 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): The authors have sufficiently responded to the reviewers comments. However, the section "The RRBM as an alternative model..." is too long and detracts from the overall manuscript. Reviewer #1 has suggested cutting this section. As an alternative, the authors could reduce this to a single paragraph and include the remainder as a supplement. This would significantly improve the manuscript's focus and flow. [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: (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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: I have carefully read the paper as well as the responses to earlier comments and questions that have been well addressed in my view. No additional issues to be raised; interesting paper, well written Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. The manuscript is much improved and the majority of my comments have been addressed. One area that needs to be revised is in the description of the RRBM. While it was helpful to read a description, it was quite long. The section titled, "The RRBM model as tested for efficacy through a peer-education intervention with adolescent participants in Northern Malawi" provides sufficient detail. Rename that section "Risk Reduction Behavioral Model." Cut the section "The RRBM as an alternative model for HIV risk reduction among adolescents" on pages 10-17. ****** 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:** Marleen Temmerman, Aga Khan University, Nairobi Kenya 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.0258527.r003
Revision 2
24 Sep 2021 Author Response Dear Editor/(s) Thank you for the decision for us to revise our article # PONE-D-20-17629R1 – title, ‘Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behaviour change in Northern Malawi’. We have compiled our revisions beginning with those associated with PLOS One requirements and followed by revisions on queries raised by reviewers. In our rebuttal we first outline the query raised by either editor or reviewer and present its associated response as follows: Revisions – Editorial PLOS One requirements 1. Query – Please review your references 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 in the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. Response – References have been revised as recommended. Reference 61 has been swapped with reference 26 to suit the link of socio-ecological and socio-cultural models (citations 26, 27 and 28) as adapted in the paper (page 40). 2. Query - The authors have sufficiently responded to the reviewer comments. However, the section ‘The RRBM as an alternative model …’ is too long and detracts from the overall manuscript. Reviewer # 1 has suggested cutting this section. As an alternative, the authors could reduce this to a single paragraph and include the remainder as a supplement. This would significantly improve the manuscript focus and flow. Response – As recommended by the reviewer, the section ‘The RRBM as an alternative model ….’ Has been cut and the content has been retained as an additional supplementary file 1 (S1 File 1. Title – The Risk reduction behavioural model). Revisions – Reviewer comments 1. Query – The manuscript is much improved and the majority of my comments have been addressed. One area that needs to be revised is in the description of the RRBM. While it was helpful to read a description, it was quiet long. The section titled, ‘The RRBM model as tested for efficacy through a peer-education intervention with adolescent participants in Northern Malawi’ provides sufficient detail. Rename that section ‘The Risk Reduction Behavioural Model.’ Cut the section ‘The RRBM as an alternative model for HIV risk reduction among adolescents’. Response – As recommended by Reviewer # 2, the section titled ‘The RRBM model as tested for efficacy through a peer-education intervention with adolescent participants in Northern Malawi’ has been renamed to ‘The Risk Reduction Behavioural Model’ with a bit of revisions (pages 10 - 11). Additionally the section ‘The RRBM as an alternative model for HIV risk reduction among adolescents’ has been cut as recommended and the content thereof included as a detailed description of the risk reduction model in supplementary file 1 (S1 File 1. Title – The risk reduction behavioural model). We hope the responses cover all the queries raised in the review. Regards, Marisen Mwale Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS One_ Responses to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258527.r004
30 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Brian C. Zanoni, Editor Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behavior change in Northern Malawi PONE-D-20-17629R2 Dear Dr. Mwale, 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, Brian C. Zanoni, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The revised manuscript is suitable for publications. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258527.r005
Formally Accepted
8 Oct 2021 Acceptance Letter - Brian C. Zanoni, Editor PONE-D-20-17629R2 Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behavior change in Northern Malawi Dear Dr. Mwale: 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. Brian C. Zanoni Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258527.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .