Usability, acceptability, and self-reported impact of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention for men have sex with men: A mixed methods study

Tamara Prinsenberg; Joël Illidge; Paul Zantkuijl; Maarten Bedert; Maria Prins; Marc van der Valk; Udi Davidovich

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263654

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 27, 2021
29 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Benjamin R. Bavinton, Editor PONE-D-21-13933 A mixed methods evaluation of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention for men who have sex with men PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Prinsenberg, 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 ensure that a thorough proof-read is conducted on the manuscript. Both reviewers have noted that the IMB model is mentioned but not discussed in depth. I agree with this and encourage the authors to elaborate on the inclusion of the model and integrate it better throughout the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 12 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, Benjamin R. Bavinton 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. Please include a copy of the interview guide used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This project was performed within the MC Free consortium. MC Free is funded by grants from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Roche Diagnostics. The funders had no involvement in the study design, writing of the manuscript, and decision to submit the article for publication. “ We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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: ”TP and MP report speaker fees and grants from Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and AbbVie paid to their institute. MvdV's institute received unrestricted research grants and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and ViiV Health Care.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. 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. [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: 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: No 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: A mixed methods evaluation of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention for men who have sex with men This paper details the mixed-methods evaluation of a toolbox provided to MSM at risk of HCV. The methods, analysis and write-up are straightforward and the output is suitable to a range of audiences within academia, clinical settings and the voluntary sector which is great to see. I have a few comments to further strengthen this publication. The authors state that the contents of the tool-box were collectively decided with community members. It would be really helpful to have a greater understanding of this process and the reasons which underpinned intervention design. Co-creation is an important approach and it would help the reader to understand how this worked and what the implications were. A related point, the authors state the IMB model was used as an explanatory framework in describing how the toolbox was formed. It would be helpful to have a greater elaboration on this. Currently it is only mentioned briefly in the introduction and the discussion, and I think there needs to be greater reflection. For example, was there a theory of change or a logic model produced which used on this model to conceptualise how the toolbox could facilitate behaviour change? If so this should be described and presented, perhaps in supplementary information. I’m also not sure how well the results demonstrate the utility of IMB model in this application, more reflection on this in the discussion is required. Finally, and this is more of a suggestion, the results from the healthcare providers seem to mirror those of the MSM who used the tool-box quite closely. I think these could be merged easily to create a more coherent narrative around the tool-box and its utility. This would also improve legibility. I did not proof-read or look for minor grammatical errors. Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting work. Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This manuscript aimed to assess the use of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention and the impact on behaviors among men who have sex with men. The topic is of great importance, however, the research and result interpretation part may require further adjustment. The comments are as follows: 1. Title: the authors referred this study to an evaluation of the intervention. The study seemed more like a presentation of the current implementation of the intervention rather than an outcome evaluation, as the latter may require more sophisticated research design to conduct a causal inference. It may be better to adjust the title to better fit the research objectives. 2. Introduction: the authors regarded toolbox as an innovative intervention. It may be more persuasive to add some background of this intervention that indicates how innovative it is by comparing it with prior interventions. 3. Methods: the authors reported that the toolbox had been designed according to the IMB model. “According to the model, HCV prevention information and motivation each have a direct effect on behavior as well as combined effect through behavioral skills (P4 Lines 83-85). Please further elaborate this sentence by specifying how the IMB model informed the intervention design, what was the specific direct effect of each tool and what were the combined effect of this toolbox. 4. Research design: the authors reported that the objective was to assess the use of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention and the impact on behaviors. I assumed that the authors mainly concerned the consumers in terms of intervention utilization rather than providers. If it is the case, I suggest the authors focusing on reporting findings regarding consumers attitude and behaviors. Some findings from the interviews with providers could be integrated into main themes, for instance, barriers for intervention utilization behaviors. 5. Methods: the authors conducted online survey and telephone interview, respectively. Were these two samples mutually exclusive to each other? If not, it may not be appropriate to conduct inter-group comparison. 6. Results: please move the descriptions on research methods (e.g. “the interviews lasted 30 to 60 minutes” P9 Lines 178-179) to the Methods section. ****** 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.0263654.r001
Revision 1
13 Oct 2021 Author Response Response to reviewers’ comments Title: A mixed methods evaluation of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention for men who have sex with men This document includes the reviewers’ comments and our response to each comment. The changes we have made in the manuscript in order to address these comments are detailed in our responses As suggested by reviewer #2 (comment 1) the title is changed to: Usability, acceptability, and self-reported impact of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention for men who have sex with men: a mix methods study Reviewer #1: This paper details the mixed-methods evaluation of a toolbox provided to MSM at risk of HCV. The methods, analysis and write-up are straightforward and the output is suitable to a range of audiences within academia, clinical settings and the voluntary sector which is great to see. I have a few comments to further strengthen this publication. 1. The authors state that the contents of the tool-box were collectively decided with community members. It would be really helpful to have a greater understanding of this process and the reasons which underpinned intervention design. Co-creation is an important approach and it would help the reader to understand how this worked and what the implications were. We have added more information on the co-creation process, under ‘Toolbox development and distribution’ in the methods section. In short, it involved: 1) meetings to assess information needs, 2)discuss and generate the intervention ideas, 3) brainstorm sessions on the content of the toolbox, 4) final decision making on the toolbox content and 5)packing of the toolbox. (clean revised version: lines 95-123) 2. A related point, the authors state the IMB model was used as an explanatory framework in describing how the toolbox was formed. It would be helpful to have a greater elaboration on this. Currently it is only mentioned briefly in the introduction and the discussion, and I think there needs to be greater reflection. For example, was there a theory of change or a logic model produced which used on this model to conceptualise how the toolbox could facilitate behaviour change? If so this should be described and presented, perhaps in supplementary information. I’m also not sure how well the results demonstrate the utility of IMB model in this application, more reflection on this in the discussion is required. The IMB-model was solely used to guide the development of the intervention, and not for evaluation purposes. We have explained the reason for using the IMB model, as the basis of the intervention in the introduction IMB- based interventions have been shown to be effective in preventing risky sexual behaviours among groups exposed to these interventions (lines 82-84). In addition, we have elaborated on how the IMB model constructs were integrated in the intervention. We have given the aims for each construct and how the different intervention components contribute to reaching these aims. (clean version lines 104- 109) The intervention components and their focus on information, motivation and behavioural skills have been specified in Table 1. The reviewer is correct that we did not use the IMB-model for the assessment of the effect of the intervention. We concentrated on users’ experiences with the toolbox and report on these under four main themes: 1) Reasons for obtaining toolbox, 2) Toolbox usability and acceptability, 3) Context of use of the toolbox, and 4) Self-reported impact of the toolbox on HCV awareness and behaviour change. 3. Finally, and this is more of a suggestion, the results from the healthcare providers seem to mirror those of the MSM who used the tool-box quite closely. I think these could be merged easily to create a more coherent narrative around the tool-box and its utility. This would also improve legibility. We combined the perspectives of the toolbox recipients and health care professionals by integrating the results of the health care professionals into theme 1 (reasons for obtaining the toolbox). I did not proof-read or look for minor grammatical errors. The manuscript was proof-read by an English native speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting work. Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This manuscript aimed to assess the use of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention and the impact on behaviors among men who have sex with men. The topic is of great importance, however, the research and result interpretation part may require further adjustment. The comments are as follows: 1. Title: the authors referred this study to an evaluation of the intervention. The study seemed more like a presentation of the current implementation of the intervention rather than an outcome evaluation, as the latter may require more sophisticated research design to conduct a causal inference. It may be better to adjust the title to better fit the research objectives. We agree that our study does not measure causal inference but rather the self-reported impact of the intervention by its users. Our study is still an evaluation, but not an impact evaluation that aims to establish causality between the intervention and outcomes. We concentrated mainly on the usability, acceptability and the self-reported impact of the intervention by its user. Therefore, we have changed the title to: Usability, acceptability, and self-reported impact of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention for men who have sex with men - a mix methods study 2. Introduction: the authors regarded toolbox as an innovative intervention. It may be more persuasive to add some background of this intervention that indicates how innovative it is by comparing it with prior interventions. To the best of our knowledge, there is only one other published HCV risk reduction intervention for MSM that also aims to reduce high risk sexual behavior. This intervention was developed in 2016 as part of the Swiss HCVree trial. The intervention is a counselling intervention for HIV/HCV co-infected MSM, to improve self-regulation of risks associated with high risk sexual behaviours and sexualised drug use. The counseling intervention was provided in combination with DAA treatment. We have taken a different approach by targeting MSM based on their sexual practices and not their HIV/HCV-status. Furthermore, our intervention is innovative because: 1) there is a lack of interventions that go beyond promoting condom use alone, 2) it contains practical tools for HCV risk reduction, 3) was co-created with the gay community. We have added this to our introduction. 3. Methods: the authors reported that the toolbox had been designed according to the IMB model. “According to the model, HCV prevention information and motivation each have a direct effect on behavior as well as combined effect through behavioral skills (P4 Lines 83-85). Please further elaborate this sentence by specifying how the IMB model informed the intervention design, what was the specific v and what were the combined effect of this toolbox. We used the IMB model as a theoretical framework to guide the development of the intervention. We did not use the model to assess the effect of the intervention, we were interested in the users’ experiences with the toolbox. In addition, see the response to comment 2 of reviewer 1. 4. Research design: the authors reported that the objective was to assess the use of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention and the impact on behaviors. I assumed that the authors mainly concerned the consumers in terms of intervention utilization rather than providers. If it is the case, I suggest the authors focusing on reporting findings regarding consumers attitude and behaviors. Some findings from the interviews with providers could be integrated into main themes, for instance, barriers for intervention utilization We integrated the perspectives of the professionals in theme 1: Reasons for obtaining the toolbox. 5. Methods: the authors conducted online survey and telephone interview, respectively. Were these two samples mutually exclusive to each other? If not, it may not be appropriate to conduct inter-group comparison. The reviewer is correct, there could possibly be overlap. We are not able to correct for that overlap since the questionnaires were collected anonymously. Therefore, we decided it would be best to remove the comparison. 6. Results: please move the descriptions on research methods (e.g. “the interviews lasted 30 to 60 minutes” P9 Lines 178-179) to the Methods section. Study period, number of participants and duration of interviews have been moved from the results to the methods section. We have amended our Acknowledgements section and Funding Statement to: Funding statement This study was performed within the MC Free consortium. MC Free is funded by grants from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Roche Diagnostics. The funders had no involvement in the study design, writing of the manuscript, and decision to submit the article for publication. TP and MP report speaker fees and grants from Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and AbbVie paid to their institute. MvdV's institute received unrestricted research grants and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and ViiV Health Care. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all participants and professionals, who shared their experiences with the toolbox with us. Data availability We have uploaded our data to Figshare, they can be access on: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16676872.v1 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263654.r002
26 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Benjamin R. Bavinton, Editor PONE-D-21-13933R1Usability, acceptability, and self-reported impact of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention for men who have sex with men: a mixed methods studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Prinsenberg, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The reviewers both agreed that the previous comments have been adequately addressed. However, one of the reviewers has made some suggestions/asked some questions that I believe will strengthen the manuscript. These are mostly along the lines of being at your discretion. Therefore, I provisionally accept this mansucript, but invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the new points raised by the reviewer. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 10 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, Benjamin R. Bavinton Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: I appreciate for the authors' response and revision. They have addressed all my comments and I do not have further comments on this manuscript. Reviewer #3: The following mixed-methods study provides perceptions of a toolkit to reduce high-risk sexual behaviours and high-risk behaviours for HCV infection among MSM and health professionals. I have provided some additional comments that I hope will be of benefit. Introduction: “The NoMoreC toolbox contains practical tools, to encourage HCV risk reduction in different settings” – Please provide some examples for an audience that is not in the HCV field. Methods: Development of the toolbox with a “group of MSM”. Who are the group of MSM? Are they are community group? If yes, perhaps state this upfront to increase clarity. Methods: “practical risk reduction steps” – Perhaps provide some examples of these for an international audience that is not in the field of HCV. Methods: “Decisions on the addition of other products to add to the toolbox…” What were the products? (refer to the Figure here as this detailed is provided later). Also, approximately many boxes were packed? Methods: “Study participants from both studies…” Please reference the studies here. Methods: “Possible impact of the toolbox on their behaviour…” Please provide some examples. Are we referring to just sexual behaviours and/or drug use? Or both? What aspects of behaviour at the authors particularly interested in? Methods: Was there a recruitment strategy for the qualitative interviews with MSM or was it just anyone who received a toolbox could participate. Please explain. Methods: How many STI clinics were contacted for a qualitative interview? It states that the researchers reached thematic saturation following a discussion with 7 participants? Is it possible that the intention was to reach more representatives from the clinics? Were their attempts to reach clinic based in both urban and rural areas? What was the sampling/recruitment strategy? Were the clinics sent the toolboxes or did they request the toolboxes? Methods: “Discrepancies between initial codes and themes…” Please modify this sentence to increase clarity. Discrepancies between the codes AND themes? Or discrepancies when coding? Methods: The quantitative data analysis is clear. Please consider adding a bit more detail regarding the qualitative data analysis (e.g., could explain what inductive thematic analysis is or provide a couple of references for the reader). Results: “At risk of hepatitis C”. Please modify to HCV to be consistent throughout. Results: Theme 2 and Theme 3 both mention that the toolbox was not utilised outside of the home due to its size. Please consider placing into one section so as to not be repetitive. Discussion: A health professional did not want to discuss the toolbox due to the safe injecting equipment. One of the strategies implemented by the community group was to have the safe injecting equipment in another box within the box. Did the health professional know this? How might the box be marketed in such a way that the ‘baby does not get thrown out with the bath water’? It serves an important purpose but might not be marketed at all if health professionals are uncomfortable with the harm reduction approach to drug use. Perhaps the creation of two boxes? Or MSM could order a personalised toolbox? Discussion: Do the study authors intend to distribute the toolbox at saunas and clubs? (as mentioned in the Results, participants felt uncomfortable carrying the box outside of the home). Discussion: “…sexual behaviour and risk knowledge form structural barriers that impeded the identification of men at risk of HCV.” This sentence is not clear. Please consider modifying. Limitations: “possible behaviour change over a longer period of time”. How long is it expected that such an intervention would have an impact? Are future studies needed in this area? How can MSM be supported to reduce their risk of HCV infection long-term (peer-based organisations? Trusting therapeutic relationships with their providers?). Also, as mentioned by the authors, presumably individuals in this study would be open to changing their at-risk behaviours. What about persons who were not interested in changing their sexual risk behaviours? What might be some strategies to engage this group? ****** 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263654.r003
Revision 2
4 Jan 2022 Author Response We have submitted a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the new points raised by one of the reviewers. Thank you for the opportunity to strengthen our paper. We have uploaded the response to reviewers document with a description of how the suggestions of the reviewer were incorporated in the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response te reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263654.r004
25 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Benjamin R. Bavinton, Editor Usability, acceptability, and self-reported impact of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention for men who have sex with men: a mixed methods study PONE-D-21-13933R2 Dear Dr. Prinsenberg, 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, Benjamin R. Bavinton Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263654.r005
Formally Accepted
9 Feb 2022 Acceptance Letter - Benjamin R. Bavinton, Editor PONE-D-21-13933R2 Usability, acceptability, and self-reported impact of an innovative hepatitis C risk reduction intervention for men have sex with men: a mixed methods study Dear Dr. Prinsenberg: 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. Benjamin R. Bavinton Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263654.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 .