Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 26, 2021
Decision Letter - Oathokwa Nkomazana, Editor

PONE-D-21-13785The impact of the caregiver mobility on child HIV care in the Manhiça District, Southern Mozambique: a clinical based studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nhampossa,

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 all the comments of Reviewer 2.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 26 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,

Oathokwa Nkomazana, MD MSC PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible.

3. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

6. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

7. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 15.

8. 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):

Thank you for submitting the manuscript to Plos One. This is very important subject that has broad applications. Please address the comments made by Reviewer 2.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The manuscript was well written. The methods were clear and sound. The objectives were clear and the authors achieved the objectives. The manuscript will contribute to patient care and improve access to ART. The authors observ d ethics very well.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study addressing a topic with clear social and scientific value. The motivation for this study is well presented and the objectives are articulated well.

The impact of the results is limited by the relatively small sample size of the study. Although the chosen period of the study is justified by the authors assumption that hospital visits increase two to three fold during this time, it is not clear whether secular trends could affect this. Therefore a longer period than the 3 month period would have been useful to account for this. There is need to provide an estimate of the denominator figure for Children Living with HIV in the Manhica area and the number receiving care at the Manhica district hospital to give the reader perspective.

Although the results presented (both in the abstract and the main body of the manuscript) highlight non-significant association (thus negative results regarding these associations), the conclusion has ignored the implication of these. Similarly the lack of association is not discussed in the discussion section. If these were hypothesized a priori (and thus included in the conditional logistic model), they need to be fully discussed in light of the literature.

The data analysis plan (statistical methods) refers to use of parametric tests for normal continuous variables. However these tests are not specified and a review of the results show categorical variables and non-normally distributed variables. The write up in the statistical methods section limits the analysis of categorical data to the Chi-squared test (omits the appropriateness of Fisher's exact test) even though the footnote in Table 1 indicates that Fisher's exact test was used where appropriate. Details about the estimated sample size as well as assumptions used are missing.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Goabaone Rankgoane-Pono

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.

Revision 1

REVIEWER #2:

1. This is an interesting study addressing a topic with clear social and scientific value. The motivation for this study is well presented and the objectives are articulated well. The impact of the results is limited by the relatively small sample size of the study. Although the chosen period of the study is justified by the author’s assumption that hospital visits increase two to three fold during this time, it is not clear whether secular trends could affect this. Therefore a longer period than the 3 month period would have been useful to account for this. There is need to provide an estimate of the denominator figure for Children Living with HIV in the Manhica area and the number receiving care at the Manhica district hospital to give the reader perspective.

Answer: We have included in Materials and Methods - Study setting section a phrase regarding the denominator figure for Children Living with HIV in the Manhiça area and the number receiving care at the Manhiça district hospital according to the local health authority’s annual report in order to give the reader perspective (in text line 109 in the Revised Manuscript with NO Track Changes).

2. Although the results presented (both in the abstract and the main body of the manuscript) highlight non-significant association (thus negative results regarding these associations), the conclusion has ignored the implication of these. Similarly the lack of association is not discussed in the discussion section. If these were hypothesized a priori (and thus included in the conditional logistic model), they need to be fully discussed in light of the literature.

Answer: The lack of association between caregiver’s mobility child continuations in HIV care had not been hypothesized a priori. In order to highlight the non-significant association found in the study, we have included the phrase “…..The caregiver mobility was not found to significantly affect child's retention on ART…” in the two conclusions sections (lines 48 and 372) and the phrase “However, our results show that none of the mobility pattern impacted on the child HIV care……” in third paragraph of the discussion section line 309.

3. The data analysis plan (statistical methods) refers to use of parametric tests for normal continuous variables. However these tests are not specified and a review of the results show categorical variables and non-normally distributed variables. The write up in the statistical methods section limits the analysis of categorical data to the Chi-squared test (omits the appropriateness of Fisher's exact test) even though the footnote in Table 1 indicates that Fisher's exact test was used where appropriate.

Answer: We corrected and updated the information about the statistical tests in the Statistical methods section line 175 and also in the footnote of table 1 line 216.

4. Details about the estimated sample size as well as assumptions used are missing.

Answer: Details about the estimated sample size as well as assumptions used are now presented in the Sample size calculation section line 144.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers PONE-D-21-13785 November 2021.pdf
Decision Letter - Oathokwa Nkomazana, Editor

The impact of the caregiver mobility on child HIV care in the Manhiça District, Southern Mozambique: a clinical based study

PONE-D-21-13785R1

Dear Dr. Nhampossa,

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,

Oathokwa Nkomazana, MD MSC PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Oathokwa Nkomazana, Editor

PONE-D-21-13785R1

The impact of the caregiver mobility on child HIV care in the Manhiça District, Southern Mozambique: a clinical based study

Dear Dr. Nhampossa:

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. Oathokwa Nkomazana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .