Prevalence and associated factors of overweight/obesity among severely ill psychiatric patients in Eastern Ethiopia: A comparative cross-sectional study

Dilnessa Fentie; Tariku Derese

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264461

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 2, 2021
9 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Aleksandra Barac, Editor PONE-D-21-28472Prevalence and Associated Factors of Overweight/Obesity among severely ill Psychiatric Patients in Eastern Ethiopia: A Comparative Cross-Sectional StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fentie, 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 24 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, Aleksandra Barac 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. 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 [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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 overall research hypothesis and how the research question were technically sound and interesting to share with the readers, however the way the data were presented had major problems. Numerous mistakes or inaccuracies with language made some parts of the manuscript difficult to read or follow the idea. Examples include: - Line 36 : It's ninety six, sex and age matched. Such a mistake in the abstract is very confusing to the reader. - Line 46: It's weight reduction not treatment, since the scope of your paper is around obesity. The term wight treatment might refer to treating underweight as well. Other problems with literature review or methodology that had missing important information for example: - Line 51: I'd rather see statistics from Africa not Europe, since your research is done in Ethiopia. Same data can be obtained from WHO statistics too. - Line 73: Which sociodemographic characteristics exactly? the was it's written in your review is vague. - Line 91: There is nothing called non=psychiatric individuals. It could be normal controls not suffering from psychiatric illnesses for example. - Line 97: Which edition of the DSM? Were the diagnoses made by specialist psychiatrists or GPs and family physicians? - Line 101: Why were those populations specifically excluded from the study? I would suggest doing this revisions and also doing an English proof reading by more fluent researcher or possibly whose native language is English and then resubmit. Reviewer #2: I hope you will find these comments to be helpful 1) some paragraphs need references ; first paragraph of the abstract and introduction ; to make the facts more reliable 2) the authors mentioned that their population was severely ill psychiatric patients, and again they mentioned they were selected from the outpatient! I find this to be contradicting . Do they mean chronic visitors? 3) what are the criteria of severely ill ? 4) Would severely ill patients be able to give a consent ? 5) the manuscript needs language editing ****** 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.0264461.r001
Revision 1
4 Dec 2021 Author Response Comments from Reviewer #1 The overall research hypothesis and how the research question were technically sound and interesting to share with the readers, however the way the data were presented had major problems. Numerous mistakes or inaccuracies with language made some parts of the manuscript difficult to read or follow the idea. The response of the authors: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have identified the problem and made the necessary corrections throughout the revised manuscript. Examples include: 1. Line 36 : It's ninety six, sex and age matched. Such a mistake in the abstract is very confusing to the reader. The response of the authors: We thank the reviewer for the comment and sorry for vague statements. Correction has made in the revised manuscript (page 2, line no.35-36). 2. Line 46: It's weight reduction not treatment, since the scope of your paper is around obesity. The term wight treatment might refer to treating underweight as well. The response of the authors: The reviewer is correct, it is out of our scope and we have modified the contents in the revised manuscript (page 3, line no.48-49)- Other problems with literature review or methodology that had missing important information for example: 3. Line 51: I'd rather see statistics from Africa not Europe, since your research is done in Ethiopia. Same data can be obtained from WHO statistics too. The response of the authors: We thank the reviewer for the suggestions and concern. We have added references indicate about African and Ethiopia to the manuscript on (page 3, line no. 54-56). 4. Line 73: Which sociodemographic characteristics exactly? the was it's written in your review is vague The response of the authors: We would like to appreciate the reviewer’s comment and concern. We have modified the suggested content to the revised manuscript on (page 4, line no. 87-88). 5. Line 91: There is nothing called non=psychiatric individuals. It could be normal controls not suffering from psychiatric illnesses for example. The response of the authors: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have identified the problem and made the necessary corrections in the revised manuscript (page 5, line no.102-105). 6. Line 97: Which edition of the DSM? Were the diagnoses made by specialist psychiatrists or GPs and family physicians? The response of the authors: The reviewer is correct, and we have incorporated the contents into the revised manuscript (page 5, line no. 100-102). DSM-5 and psychiatrists specialist 7. Line 101: Why were those populations specifically excluded from the study? Response of the authors: We would like to appreciate the reviewer’s comment and concern. We exclude those who were pregnant and physically deformed study participants because Body Mass Index (BMI) was measured by dividing a person’s weight in kilograms by his or her height in meters squared (kg/m2). The height of the participants was measured using a stadiometer with the participant standing upright with the heel, buttock, and upper back along the same vertical plane. The weight of the participants was measured using a calibrated weighing scale with the participant not wearing shoes and heavy clothes. We believe that physically deformed and pregnant individual measurements might result in abnormal BMI status, thus affecting the final outcomes. I would suggest doing this revisions and also doing an English proof reading by more fluent researcher or possibly whose native language is English and then resubmit. The response of the Authors: We would like to thank you for your comment and we have edited the grammatical issues in the revised manuscript. Reviewer #2: I hope you will find these comments to be helpful The response of the Authors: Thank you very much 1) some paragraphs need references ; first paragraph of the abstract and introduction ; to make the facts more reliable The response of the authors: The reviewer is correct, and we have incorporated the comments into the revised manuscript (page 3, line no.52). However, the first paragraph of the abstract was taken from(references 1,3,4) 2) the authors mentioned that their population was severely ill psychiatric patients, and again they mentioned they were selected from the outpatient! I find this to be contradicting. Do they mean chronic visitors? The response of the authors: We appreciate the reviewer’s concern and are sorry for the unclarity. Severely ill psychiatric patients (=patients with a diagnosis of one or more of those psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizoaffective disorders) and have chronic follow-up/chronic psychiatric outpatient visitors. 3) what are the criteria of severely ill? The response of the authors: We would like to appreciate your concern. We were considered the severity of psychiatric disorders as described in DSM-5. Our criteria was based on the number of symptoms, level of distress caused by the intensity of symptoms, and impairment in social and occupational functioning. 4) Would severely ill patients be able to give a consent? The response of the authors: We would like to appreciate your concern. We were selected severely psychiatric patients (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizoaffective disorders) and who attended the outpatient psychiatric clinic. Severely ill Clients who were unstable or unable to consent due to acute symptoms (as determined by the attending physician) were excluded. We were considered only stable study participants (those able to give consent). 5) the manuscript needs language editing The response of the Authors: We would like to thank you for your constructive comments and concerns for forwarding them to us to enrich our paper. We have corrected all the comments and we have also edited the language in the revised manuscript Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: renamed_e168b.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264461.r002
11 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Aleksandra Barac, Editor Prevalence and Associated Factors of Overweight/Obesity among severely ill Psychiatric Patients in Eastern Ethiopia: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study PONE-D-21-28472R1 Dear Dr. Fentie, 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, Aleksandra Barac Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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: 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 #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 revision put in consideration all of the comments. Except for 2-3 typing mistakes, the current manuscript is in a much better shape. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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:** Ahmed Abdelkarim Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264461.r003
Formally Accepted
18 Feb 2022 Acceptance Letter - Aleksandra Barac, Editor PONE-D-21-28472R1 Prevalence and Associated Factors of Overweight/Obesity among severely ill Psychiatric Patients in Eastern Ethiopia: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study Dear Dr. Fentie: 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. Aleksandra Barac Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264461.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 .