Testing and healthcare seeking behavior preceding HIV diagnosis among migrant and non-migrant individuals living in the Netherlands: Directions for early-case finding

Ward P. H. van Bilsen; Janneke P. Bil; Jan M. Prins; Kees Brinkman; Eliane Leyten; Ard van Sighem; Maarten Bedert; Udi Davidovich; Fiona Burns; Maria Prins

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264435

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 9, 2021
26 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Justyna Dominika Kowalska, Editor PONE-D-21-18622Testing and healthcare seeking behavior preceding HIV diagnosis among migrant and non-migrant individuals living in the Netherlands: directions for early-case findingPLOS ONE Dear Dr. van Bilsen, 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 Dec 10 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, Justyna Dominika Kowalska 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. In addition, please include any details concerning the validation of this tool within the Methods. 3. 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. 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: 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 presented analysis touches on a very important topic in Europe Testing and healthcare seeking behaviour preceding HIV diagnosis among migrant and non-migrant individuals living in the Netherlands: directions for early-case finding. The prepared material lacks the broader context of the situation described in the INTRODUCTION. There is no information about the epidemiological situation. There is even a lack of basic information on the number of infected people per year of tests, the proportion of HIV migrants and the specificity of HIV infection in the country described. Therefore, it is difficult to relate the obtained results to the general situation in the described country. There is also a lack of information about the testing system, is it open to the public, paid / free of charge, do the migrants have the same access for testing as other residents? Is there any barriers: eg language, knowledge. The METHODS: There is no explanation why 90% of the study was male? Do they test themselves more often, why is there such a small percentage of women both on tests and among migrants? Is it a national specificity or a deliberate selection for the study. If so, what was the decision made. 40% of the respondents refused to take part in the survey, there is no comment on this relatively large percentage The DISSCUSION part also needs improvement. There are few references to research on similar topics. Whether the obtained results are consistent with the previous research on testing, or are they different in terms of characteristics. It is worth comparing the obtained results to other studies on testing among migrants in Europe. The whole article is very interesting, but actually how it was written was the lack of detailed information on motives and barriers for HIV testing among our participants. This could be an interesting issue for further analysis. Reviewer #2: On my mind the objectives of this article is extremely important, because late HIV diagnostic remains as a huge problem not only for Western Europe but for Eastern Europe as well, where I am from. Cross-sectional study design and statistical analysis using multivariable logistic regression were good conducted. Previously, I did not find the criteria inclusion for late diagnosis in methods. But I found them in Table 1: Late HIV diagnoses is defined as having had an AIDS-defining illness or a CD4 less than 350 cells/mm3 at time of HIV diagnosis. I think it is better include to methods. Manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. Authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available. In conclusion, interventions to increase HIV testing are needed to diagnose and treat HIV-infections in an early stage. As most people diagnosed late used healthcare preceding their HIV diagnosis in which HIV testing was not discussed, it seems feasible to successfully roll out interventions to increase testing within the existing healthcare system. Simultaneously, efforts should be made to encourage future repeated or routine HIV testing among individuals whenever they undergo an HIV test. ****** 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: Magdalena Ankiersztejn-Bartczak Reviewer #2: Yes:** Tetiana Kyrychenko [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.0264435.r001
Revision 1
12 Jan 2022 Author Response Reviewers’ comments: Reviewer #1 The presented analysis touches on a very important topic in Europe Testing and healthcare seeking behaviour preceding HIV diagnosis among migrant and non-migrant individuals living in the Netherlands: directions for early-case finding. The prepared material lacks the broader context of the situation described in the INTRODUCTION. There is no information about the epidemiological situation. There is even a lack of basic information on the number of infected people per year of tests, the proportion of HIV migrants and the specificity of HIV infection in the country described. Therefore, it is difficult to relate the obtained results to the general situation in the described country. There is also a lack of information about the testing system, is it open to the public, paid / free of charge, do the migrants have the same access for testing as other residents? Is there any barriers: eg language, knowledge. Response: We acknowledge that the introduction was fairly brief and that additional information on the HIV epidemiology and testing services in the Netherlands is useful for the interpretation of our data. In the introduction section of the revised manuscript, we therefore elaborated on these topics. The METHODS: There is no explanation why 90% of the study was male? Do they test themselves more often, why is there such a small percentage of women both on tests and among migrants? Is it a national specificity or a deliberate selection for the study. If so, what was the decision made. 40% of the respondents refused to take part in the survey, there is no comment on this relatively large percentage Response: In the Netherlands, most new HIV infections occur in men who have sex with men (61% in 2019). Also in our study, the majority of participants were MSM (87%), which resulted in a relatively high proportion of men in the study. In table 1, the proportion of males in our study is specified, as well as the proportion of MSM and heterosexual individuals. With regard to the response rate, we added a comment on this in the limitation section of the revised manuscript. The DISSCUSION part also needs improvement. There are few references to research on similar topics. Whether the obtained results are consistent with the previous research on testing, or are they different in terms of characteristics. It is worth comparing the obtained results to other studies on testing among migrants in Europe. The whole article is very interesting, but actually how it was written was the lack of detailed information on motives and barriers for HIV testing among our participants. This could be an interesting issue for further analysis. Response: We agree with the reviewer that our discussion section lacked comparison between our study findings and that of previous studies or data of other high-income countries. In the revised version of our manuscript, we added information on this topic. We moreover mention that it would be interesting to further investigate motives and barriers for HIV testing among those with a late HIV diagnosis. Reviewer #2 On my mind the objectives of this article is extremely important, because late HIV diagnostic remains as a huge problem not only for Western Europe but for Eastern Europe as well, where I am from. Cross-sectional study design and statistical analysis using multivariable logistic regression were good conducted. Previously, I did not find the criteria inclusion for late diagnosis in methods. But I found them in Table 1: Late HIV diagnoses is defined as having had an AIDS-defining illness or a CD4 less than 350 cells/mm3 at time of HIV diagnosis. I think it is better include to methods. Manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. Authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available. In conclusion, interventions to increase HIV testing are needed to diagnose and treat HIV-infections in an early stage. As most people diagnosed late used healthcare preceding their HIV diagnosis in which HIV testing was not discussed, it seems feasible to successfully roll out interventions to increase testing within the existing healthcare system. Simultaneously, efforts should be made to encourage future repeated or routine HIV testing among individuals whenever they undergo an HIV test. Response: We thank the reviewer for this feedback. As suggested, we added the definition of late HIV diagnosis to the Method section of the revised manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264435.r002
11 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Awachana Jiamsakul, Editor Testing and healthcare seeking behavior preceding HIV diagnosis among migrant and non-migrant individuals living in the Netherlands: directions for early-case finding PONE-D-21-18622R1 Dear Dr. van Bilsen, 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, Awachana Jiamsakul, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The article deals with a very important problem in Europe. The comments made in the first review have been incorporated in the revised version of the article. The additions added by the authors help to better understand the context of the HIV epidemic in the country. Reviewer #2: I am very satisfied with results of the research and findings that late diagnosis was significantly associated with older age and being heterosexual. It very interesting that a large proportion of people diagnosed late had previously tested for HIV and had high levels of healthcare usage. Really, efforts should be made to encourage future repeated or routine HIV testing among individuals whenever they undergo an HIV test. In Ukraine we have late diagnosis of HIV, some patients were diagnosed with HIV more than15 years and they did not visit doctor until feel worse. I think we can collaborate for future research. Please, feel free to send me your proposal on email tanakyrychenko@gmail.com ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Magdalena Ankiersztejn-Bartczak Reviewer #2: Yes:** Tetiana Kyrychenko https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264435.r003
Formally Accepted
22 Feb 2022 Acceptance Letter - Awachana Jiamsakul, Editor PONE-D-21-18622R1 Testing and healthcare seeking behavior preceding HIV diagnosis among migrant and non-migrant individuals living in the Netherlands: directions for early-case finding Dear Dr. van Bilsen: 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. Awachana Jiamsakul Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264435.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 .