Nutritional self-care practices and skills of patients with diabetes mellitus: A study at a tertiary hospital in Ghana

Kwabena Opoku-Addai; Kwadwo Ameyaw Korsah; Gwendolyn Patience Mensah

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265608

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 21, 2021
15 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Sheikh Mohd Saleem, Editor PONE-D-21-20315Nutritional self-care practices and skills of patients with diabetes mellitus: A study at a tertiary hospital in GhanaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gwendolyn Patience Mensah, 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 30 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, Sheikh Mohd Saleem, MBBS, MD 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: ● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript ● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) ● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file). 3. When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number of interviewers, their training and characteristics; and please provide the interview guide used. Additional Editor Comments: Thankyou Very much for submission to PLOS ONE. we have received the comments from our reviewers and based on that we have decided to have a major revision for you paper. Kindly address each point as suggested by the reviewer's while revising your manuscript. I would suggest to use an academic writer or professional English writing tool for handling your manuscript. Best wishes [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: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A 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: 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: Most of the key words not MeSH terms. Scientific or otherwise basis of chosing 15 participants not explained. Results section of abstract does not show any numerical or percentage value. Literature review on subject is not up to the mark. Sampling technique is not mentioned. Values of findings in results should be mentioned as percentage points or qualifiers like half of participants, one third, one fourth etc. Absolute numbers are avoided in qualitative studies. Grammer need to be improved. Reviewer #2: The present study has many limitations, majorly sample size is very less and the due to this it cant provide definite conclusions. inclusion authors considered both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Authors may present the the nutritional status and in the tabular form. ****** 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.0265608.r001
Revision 1
29 Dec 2021 Author Response Response to Review Decision 29/12/2021 Manuscript number: PONE-D-21-20315 Title of the manuscript: Nutritional self-care practices and skills of patients with diabetes mellitus: A study at a tertiary hospital in Ghana Dear Editor, We are so grateful for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript for resubmission. The suggestions from the reviewers and editor have greatly improved the manuscript. All the concerns raised by the reviewers have been addressed accordingly. We thank you and the reviewers for your comments. Below are our responses to the points raised by you and the reviewers. All authors have agreed to the revisions made in the manuscript for submission. Yours sincerely, a Gwendolyn Patience Mensah (PhD) (corresponding author) EDITOR: 1. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. The manuscript has been edited by an academic writer who does professional scientific editing. All the grammatical errors have been corrected by the academic writer who edited the manuscript. She is Ms. Vicki Igglesden, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. 2. When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number of interviewers, their training and characteristics; and please provide the interview guide used. On lines 10 to 12 of page 6, information on who conducted the interviews has been clearly stated. The interview guide for the study has also been provided as an attachment to the manuscript. REVIEWER #1: 1. 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 The manuscript has been edited by an academic writer who does professional scientific editing. The typographical and grammatical errors have been corrected by the academic writer who edited the manuscript. 2. Most of the key words are not MeSH terms. The keywords that were not MeSH terms have now been changed to MeSH terms. This can be found on the last line of page 2. 3. Scientific or otherwise basis of choosing 15 participants not explained. The scientific rationale or basis for choosing 15 participants has now been clearly stated on lines 15 to 18 of page 5. 4. Results section of abstract does not show any numerical or percentage value. The results section of the abstract has now been edited to include numerical values. This can be found on page 2. 5. Literature review on subject is not up to the mark. Literature has been reviewed on the subject. On lines 15 to 18 of page 3 and lines 7 to 11 of page 4, new literature has been added to the manuscript. 6. Sampling technique is not mentioned. The sampling technique that was used for the study has been clearly stated on line 11 of page 5. 7. Values of findings in results should be mentioned as percentage points or qualifiers like half of participants, one third, one fourth etc. Absolute numbers are avoided in qualitative studies. This has been corrected on all the pages of the results section of the manuscript. 8. Grammar needs to be improved. The manuscript has been edited by an academic writer who does professional scientific editing. All the grammatical errors have been corrected by the academic writer who edited the manuscript. REVIEWER #2: 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 #2: No The manuscript has been edited by an academic writer who does professional scientific editing. All the grammatical and technical errors have been corrected by the academic writer who edited the manuscript. The scientific basis for the sample size used has been stated on lines 15 to 18 of page 5. We believe the corrections effected have made the manuscript technically sound. 2. 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 We believe that the data underlying the findings of the study has been indicated or provided in the manuscript. The results section of the manuscript contains numerous direct quotes from the participants of the study. 3. 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 The manuscript has been edited by an academic writer who does professional scientific editing. The typographical and grammatical errors have all been corrected by the academic writer who edited the manuscript. 4. The present study has many limitations, majorly sample size is very less and due to this it can’t provide definite conclusions. The scientific rationale for the sample size used has been indicated on lines 15 to 18 of page 5. The sample size was determined by saturation. We believe this justifies the conclusions drawn. 5. Inclusion: authors considered both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. This has clearly been indicated on lines 12 and 13 of page 5. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265608.r002
7 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Sheikh Mohd Saleem, Editor Nutritional self-care practices and skills of patients with diabetes mellitus: A study at a tertiary hospital in Ghana PONE-D-21-20315R1 Dear Dr. Mensah, 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, Sheikh Mohd Saleem, MBBS, MD 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: 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: Partly ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: No other comments to the authors, authors answered all my queries. Hence the the present manuscript format can be accepted. ****** 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: PK Anand Reviewer #2: Yes:** Ramu Adela https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265608.r003
Formally Accepted
15 Mar 2022 Acceptance Letter - Sheikh Mohd Saleem, Editor PONE-D-21-20315R1 Nutritional self-care practices and skills of patients with diabetes mellitus: A study at a tertiary hospital in Ghana. Dear Dr. Mensah: 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. Sheikh Mohd Saleem Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265608.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 .