Prevalence and determinants of using complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic illnesses: A multicenter study in Bangladesh

Md. Shahjalal; Samar Kishor Chakma; Tanvir Ahmed; Irin Yasmin; Rashidul Alam Mahumud; Ahmed Hossain

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262221

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 12, 2021
10 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Bashir Alsiddig Yousef, Editor PONE-D-21-26170Prevalence and determinants of using complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic illness: A multicenter study in BangladeshPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hossain, 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 Jan 24 2022 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, Bashir Alsiddig Yousef, Ph.D 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 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 the ethics committee approved the verbal/oral consent procedure, 2) why written consent could not be obtained, and 3) how verbal/oral consent was recorded. If your study included minors, please state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians in these cases. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 4. 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. 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: I Don't Know 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: - In introduction, add a concise definition for CAM -In the sampling (page 5), hospital selection based on convivence, which may decrease the external validity if the study - In methodology, Study pupation, (page 5) pregnant excluded, Why?, Aslo individuals using self medications were excluded, why?. - Reviewer #2: Attached comments for the author: Minor change in the tiltle " illnesses". Minor comments in abstract. Materials should be clear title. Results : should be explain with more clear figure. The type of referencing should be consistent. ****** 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:** Abdelgadir Alamin Abdelgadir [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-21-26170 - Abdelgadir.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262221.r001
Revision 1
18 Dec 2021 Author Response December 18, 2021 Bashir Alsiddig Yousef, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE PONE-D-21-26170 Prevalence and determinants of using complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic illnesses: A multicenter study in Bangladesh Dear Professor Bashir Alsiddig Yousef, Thank you very much for your editorial suggestions and the reviewers’ comments. They were accommodating. Please find enclosed an itemized list of responses along with the revised manuscript. In our response to the reviewer, we used regular font for the comments/questions by the referees and regular, bold font for our responses, which are shown immediately following the questions/comments. Thank you once again for the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript. Ahmed Hossain, PhD Professor, Department of Public Health Director, Global Health Institute. North South University. Reviewer #1: - In introduction, add a concise definition for CAM Authors: Thank you very much for your insightful comment. We included the following definition in the introduction: Complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) are a non-mainstream approach that do not fit under the umbrella of traditional medicine. Acupuncture, homeopathy, aromatherapy, meditation, and colonic irrigation are examples of these medications and treatments. -In the sampling (page 5), hospital selection based on convivence, which may decrease the external validity in the study. Authors: Thank you very much for your wonderful comment. We agree with you that the convenient sampling has its own limitations of taking under- or over-representation sample of the population. It is the most commonly used sampling technique in public health as it is incredibly prompt, uncomplicated, and economical. To reduce the biasness in our study we choose three popular public hospitals in Dhaka. We also reduced bias in sampling by using systematic sampling in patients’ selection. Thus, we used both convenience sampling and probability sampling techniques to draw a more accurate result. The probability aspect used, along with convenience sampling, helped us to reduce bias in the results. - In methodology, Study pupation, (page 5) pregnant excluded, Why? Authors: We excluded pregnant women from the study to reduce scientific complexity, as there is a chance that a patient seeking medical attention for pregnancy rather than chronic illness would be included. Pregnant women are scientifically complex, owing to their physiologic and ethical complexity. Also, pregnant women with substantial medical issues (e.g., diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, depression, and epilepsy) may have a false positive reaction as a chronic illness patient. Because these factors could have a negative impact on the study, pregnant women were excluded in our study. Aslo individuals using self medications were excluded, why?. Authors: Patients who self-medicate do not engage in health-care consultations, which may obstruct our goal of determining the way to seek medical attention. Patients who self-medicate were excluded from the study to avoid the complexities of finding practice of medical care for a chronic illness. Reviewer #2: Attached comments for the author: Minor change in the tiltle " illnesses". Authors: Many thanks. Changed it to illnesses. Minor comments in abstract. Results : should be explain with more clear figure. Authors: There were two graphs shown in the manuscript and two more figures were presented in the supplement. The flow chart of sample selection is shown in the first figure, and the Barplot of reasons for CAM use is shown in the second figure. In the manuscript, both figures were explained and clearly presented. Besides, the supplementary figures were explained in the manuscript. The type of referencing should be consistent. Authors: The references are verified with Pubmed suggested AMA style. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer report 1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262221.r002
20 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Bashir Alsiddig Yousef, Editor Prevalence and determinants of using complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic illnesses: A multicenter study in Bangladesh PONE-D-21-26170R1 Dear Dr. Hossain, 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, Bashir Alsiddig Yousef, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262221.r003
Formally Accepted
27 Dec 2021 Acceptance Letter - Bashir Alsiddig Yousef, Editor PONE-D-21-26170R1 Prevalence and determinants of using complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic illnesses: A multicenter study in Bangladesh Dear Dr. Hossain: 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. Bashir Alsiddig Yousef Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262221.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 .