Experiences of women with Zika virus (ZIKV) versus the provision of health services in two cities in Colombia: A qualitative study

Jovana Alexandra Ocampo Cañas; Maria Janeth Pinilla Alfonso; Clemencia del Pilar Navarro Plazas; Carlos Mauricio Mejia Arbelaez; Jhon Sebastián Patiño Rueda

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260583

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 4, 2020
27 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Gabriela Paz-Bailey, Editor PONE-D-20-38136 Experiences of women with ZIKV virus (ZIKV) versus the provision of health services in two cities in Colombia: a qualitative study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ocampo Cañas, 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 Sep 09 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. 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, Gabriela Paz-Bailey Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): This is an important contribution to the Zika literature. The manuscript would benefit from editing by a native English speaker. The quotes from participants are not written in clear English and the ideas are not clear. Please simplify, remove redundant words and edit in English. The abstract does not include study results but a general description of the topics covered. Please modify the results section in the abstract to include a summary of the results in the abstract. Please clarify of all interviewed women, during which trimester they received the Zika diagnoses. Please describe the birth outcomes for the women interviewed: birth defects, healthy children, voluntary termination of pregnancy (VTP), perinatal mortality, etc. Some of the conclusions are not supported by the results, clarify or remove. 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 amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. 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. 5. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. A qualitative study of the experiences of pregnant women in accessing healthcare services during the Zika virus epidemic in Villavicencio, Colombia, 2015-2016" (doi: 10.1002 / ijgo.13045). Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript. [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: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: 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: The manuscript by Campos et al addresses a highly pertinent topic and their findings/conclusions can be of significance in the field, the main aim was to explore the experiences of pregnant women, diagnosed with ZIKV infection, with regard to the provision of health services The manuscript is very well written and structured. However, I have some minor observations Introduction The first two paragraphs are very short and with unfinished ideas (Unify) Line 72 In Cali, 1,259 cases were reported with an average age of 26 years (A reference that supports this information is missing) Line 74-75 Likewise, 27 cases of death before childbirth were reported in the products of pregnancy (A reference that supports this information is missing) In the paper Ocampo et al 2020 you have this information “Between April 2015 and August 2016, 11 944 pregnant women were reported to have Zika virus in Colombia, of which 12.4% (n=1484) were diagnosed positive using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).”. That is very similar to the lines 61-64 in this manuscript. Please rephrase it. Materials and methods Figure 1. Have a mistake, assessed to elegibility should be 39 not 38 because 38 minus 17 is equal to 21 not 22 In introduction section you said (In Colombia, 11,944 34 pregnant women registered a ZIKV infection during the epidemic) Do you consider that 22 people are a significant sample? although it is mentioned in limitations. Reviewer #2: In general, the manuscript follows the criteria mentioned above. There are some minor recommendations that should be addressed on the lines described below. An additional reading is recommended to proofread and check writing. • 72-76: Please specify if these numbers are cases in the general population or in pregnant women. • 129: the number of total women selected for interview (39) does not match with the same number in Fig 1 (38). Need to change. • 146: Table 1 – “Characterization” needs to be more specific with the description of this item. It seems that it involves sociodemographic information only. • 199- What does “special scheme’ entails. Please, specify. • 261: just a comment. • 280 and 283: might need some tweaking to make it easier to read. • 401 and participants’ comments in general: might be good to delete information that is repetitive in excess and not relevant to make it succinct and clear; for example, when participants begin to stammer. • 434: there is information presented in the conclusion that was not clearly specified in the results and discussion section. • 449: I would add specific examples on how the information could help implement public health initiatives. ****** 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: Rev.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-38136 cpg 7.1.2021 Colombia.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260583.r001
Revision 1
6 Oct 2021 Author Response Thank you for the revisions that you made to our article, this allowed us to highlight some problems in our first version of the article. We have tried to correct these problems by drafting a new version of the article. In the following sections, we will respond to the comments made by the reviewers. We made all changes to the document, as showed by the journal's editorial policies. Editor Comments 1. This is an important contribution to the Zika literature. a. Thanks for this comment. 2. The manuscript would benefit from editing by a native English speaker. a. The article was not reviewed by a native English speaker; however, the English script was revised again, and some corrections were made. The main problem was in the interview quotes, all of which were corrected. 3. The quotes from participants are not written in clear English and the ideas are not clear. Please simplify, remove redundant words, and edit in English. a. This is true, all quotes were corrected and edited in English. 4. The abstract does not include study results, but a general description of the topics covered. Please modify the results section in the abstract to include a summary of the results in the abstract. a. We modify the entire results section of the abstract. 5. Please clarify of all interviewed women, during which trimester they received the Zika diagnoses. Please describe the birth outcomes for the women interviewed: birth defects, healthy children, voluntary termination of pregnancy (VTP), perinatal mortality, etc. a. We add this information in S1 and S2 tables. 6. Some of the conclusions are not supported by the results, clarify, or remove. a. We removed the section of the conclusion that was not supported by the results Journal Requirements 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. a. We checked the templates for the title sheet and for the body of the article. The errors were corrected. i. We add #a symbol for the current address ii. We change the acronyms (SIGIT and SEP) for the meaning of them. iii. We add the current address iv. We increased the line spacing to double space v. We increase the indentation of the first line of each paragraph. vi. We increased font size for subheadings in abstract. 2. Please amend your current ethics statement a. We clarified that informed consent was written in all women. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. a. We do not understand this comment since the manuscript does not have any information about funding. However, we ensure that the two sections coincide in the submission system 4. Data Availability statement a. We put the question to the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Universidad de los Andes, who answered that given the scope of the study, and the impossibility of anonymizing all sensitive data of people, we cannot deliver the transcripts of the interviews. Similarly, Colombian legislation (Article 15, paragraph H, of Resolution 8430 of 1993, of the Ministry of Health) requires that the security of data and, in particular, data that could identify individuals be guaranteed. Therefore, in the informed consent signed by the participants, there is a guarantee not to share the information collected in the interviews. b. Given these three reasons, we cannot share the transcripts of the interviews, beyond the information written in the body of the manuscript and in the supporting tables. 5. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. A qualitative study of the experiences of pregnant women in accessing healthcare services during the Zika virus epidemic in Villavicencio, Colombia, 2015-2016" (doi: 10.1002 / ijgo.13045). Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript. a. We made the clarification of why we do not consider it a dual publication in the cover letter Reviewer 1 1. The manuscript is very well written and structured. However, I have some minor observations a. Thanks for this comment. 2. The first two paragraphs are very short and with unfinished ideas (Unify) a. We unify the two paragraphs 3. Line 72 In Cali, 1,259 cases were reported with an average age of 26 years (A reference that supports this information is missing) a. We add the reference and change de average age. 4. Line 74-75 Likewise, 27 cases of death before childbirth were reported in the products of pregnancy (A reference that supports this information is missing) a. We add the reference 5. In the paper Ocampo et al 2020 you have this information “Between April 2015 and August 2016, 11 944 pregnant women were reported to have Zika virus in Colombia, of which 12.4% (n=1484) were diagnosed positive using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).”. That is very similar to the lines 61-64 in this manuscript. Please rephrase it. a. We rephrase the sentence 6. Figure 1. Have a mistake, assessed to eligibility should be 39 not 38 because 38 minus 17 is equal to 21 not 22 a. We fix the error in fig 1. 7. In introduction section you said (In Colombia, 11,944 34 pregnant women registered a ZIKV infection during the epidemic) Do you consider that 22 people are a significant sample? although it is mentioned in limitations. a. We add a paragraph in limitations that explain this limitation and explain the snowball methodology used in the article Reviewer 2 1. 72-76: Please specify if these numbers are cases in the general population or in pregnant women. a. We clarify that the number are cases in pregnant women 2. 129: the number of total women selected for interview (39) does not match with the same number in Fig 1 (38). Need to change. a. We fix the error in fig 1 3. 146: Table 1 – “Characterization” needs to be more specific with the description of this item. It seems that it involves sociodemographic information only. a. We changed the segment name and specified the socio-demographic data 4. 199- What does “special scheme’ entails. Please, specify. a. We define the special scheme as persons belonging to the armed forces and the public education system. 5. Family planning campaigns should be developed as a routine. Additionally, Campaigns about Zika should have included pregnancy prevention or family planning before getting pregnant and provide options to both women and men on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. a. We accepted the comment and rephrased the sentence 6. 280 and 283: might need some tweaking to make it easier to read. a. We rephrase the sentence 7. 401 and participants’ comments in general: might be good to delete information that is repetitive in excess and not relevant to make it succinct and clear; for example, when participants begin to stammer. a. We modify all quotations, cutting out the nonrelevant information. 8. 434: there is information presented in the conclusion that was not clearly specified in the results and discussion section. a. We removed the section of the conclusion that was not supported by the results 9. 449: I would add specific examples on how the information could help implement public health. a. We add a new paragraph according to this comment. Thank you very much for revisions Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260583.r002
15 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Gabriela Paz-Bailey, Editor Experiences of women with Zika virus (ZIKV) versus the provision of health services in two cities in Colombia: a qualitative study PONE-D-20-38136R1 Dear Dr. Ocampo, 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, Gabriela Paz-Bailey Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Thanks for providing revisions and detailed response to comments. The manuscript would benefit from an editorial review by a native English speaker. Pelase do this before final submission. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260583.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Nov 2021 Acceptance Letter - Gabriela Paz-Bailey, Editor PONE-D-20-38136R1 Experiences of women with Zika virus (ZIKV) versus the provision of health services in two cities in Colombia: a qualitative study Dear Dr. Ocampo Cañas: 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. Gabriela Paz-Bailey Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260583.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .