PONE-D-22-03726Traditional treatment of HIV and the role of family members as barriers to access to HIV care service or antiretroviral therapy among people living with HIVPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fauk,

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 Jun 05 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,

Bronwyn Myers

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 a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. 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: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: No

**********

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: Traditional treatment of HIV and the role of family members as barriers to access to HIV care service or antiretroviral therapy among people living with HIV

Use of abbreviations like HIV in the title is not recommended and the title is not well articulated.

- Possibly “Traditional treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus as barriers to access HIV care and treatment in Belu, Indonesia”.

- Still can well articulate the title…

General: The paper raised an important issue that is the use of traditional treatments in Belu is a barrier to HIV care and ART. The role players for decision-makers for use of traditional medicine (TM) were family members and the culture. The impact of this practice is to the extent that the patients loss their life. However, this important finding is not well written and elaborated to show how much the use of traditional medicine in these specific areas is affecting the life of HIV patients. The paper is poorly written, I recommend this better be rewritten clearly organizing the drivers for the use TM and its impacts on the life of patients. In writing the manuscript please avoid unnecessary long statements (some of which seems desire to extend the statement – better use short sentences)

- As a researcher you seem biased, because you started by having negative belief on traditional medicine use. It would have been better if the impact on traditional medicine use on access to biomedical HIV care & treatment was assessed.

- Lacks the list of abbreviations/acronyms

- Good to have operational definitions for some terminologies. (like TM, traditional healers … in your context)

Abstract:

- “As a part of a qualitative study in Belu, this paper describes the use of traditional treatment and the role of families in determining traditional treatment for their HIV-positive family member as barriers to access to HIV care service or ART among PLHIV.” This statement not clear better to rewrite in more clear way.

- Snow ball technique you used is not clear – what is the information pack?

Background

- Good coverage, however most sentences are too long that need to be rephrased.

Last paragraph: In this aim statement and throughout the manuscript you have used terms in different words like “HIV care services or ART”, “traditional treatment or medicines” which you could use either of them or better expressive phrase.

- Why you did not discuss on the barriers to access ART, rather than having too narrow scope that focus only on family impact.

Methods:

Study Setting:

Recruitment and Data Collection:

• P1. “As part of a larger qualitative study to understand HIV risk factors, impacts and determinants of access to HIV care services among women and men living with HIV in Belu, this paper describes the use of traditional treatment for HIV and the role of family members, friends and neighbours in supporting the use of traditional treatment as barriers to the access of PLHIV to HIV care service or ART”.

- The aim of this study was already described in the background section; not necessary to repeat it here (remove this statement).

• The snowball technique used is not clear. I do not think this is a snowball technique?

• What was the study information pack given to the patients and HCPs?

• … “HIV clinic receptionist and healthcare facilities” not clear.

P1L11: “The initially interviewed participants were also asked to distribute the study information packs to their friends and colleagues who might be willing to participate.”

- I think this information sharing between participants makes the second group of participants affected (influenced) by others resulting in biased information.

• The method section should have clearly shown the positionality of the researcher (criticality), validity… quality measure of a qualitative study.

Result:

Generally good. Rephrase the statements to sound scientific.

• Table 1: The occupation for HCPs and PLHIV need to be separate. Also, the list of occupation needs to be re-categorized.

Discussion:

• Almost the result is rewritten. It is better to make well-referenced and explained comparing with national or international policies and research findings.

• P1L1: different form referencing (UNAIDS 2020). Make uniform.

Reviewer #2: This was an interesting article. There are some aspects that require revision. First, the entire paper needs to be professionally edited for English language. Many of the sentences are long and the english is hard to follow.

Introduction: I recommend describing barriers to use of ART rather than barriers to accessing HIV care services or use of ART- this is just too wordy and hard to follow.

Please describe the role and use of traditional medicines in Indonesia- more information is needed on the context of these medicines and how traditional and western systems of care for HIV interact if at all.

Methods: The sampling approach you mention here is not snowball sampling- rather convenience sampling

Data analysis section- it very long and can be abbreviated

All the COREQ guidelines have not been followed- please check and report back for example on member checking

Results: You only need 1-2 illustrative quotes per section. Three is too many. There seems to be some overlap between the themes - eg family influence permeates across several themes

Discussion. This needs the most work. You report the findings but do not discuss the implications for policy and practice. If family is so influential what can be done to improve HIV health literacy, overcome medication myths etc, can traditional healers be engaged in the HIV care system to advocate for use of ART? Needs to move beyond mere reporting of the results.

**********

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.

Traditional Human Immunodeficiency Virus treatment and family and social influence as barriers to accessing HIV care services in Belu, Indonesia

PONE-D-22-03726R1

Dear Dr. Fauk,

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,

Bronwyn Myers

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 #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 #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (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 #2: No

**********