Prevalence, severity, and risk factors of disability among adults living with HIV accessing routine outpatient HIV care in London, United Kingdom (UK): A cross-sectional self-report study

Darren A. Brown; Kelly K. O’Brien; Richard Harding; Philip M. Sedgwick; Mark Nelson; Marta Boffito; Agnieszka Lewko

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267271

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 4, 2021
7 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Elizabeth S. Mayne, Editor PONE-D-21-28696Prevalence, severity, and risk factors of disability among adults living with HIV accessing routine outpatient HIV care in London, United Kingdom (UK): A cross-sectional self-report study.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Brown, 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. ============================== Although the reviewers felt this was a timely piece of research, there were some concerns regarding the grammatical and English language editing. The author should also review PLOS guidelines regarding data availability, abstract construction and the need for line numbers ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 24 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, Elizabeth S. Mayne, M.D. 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This study/project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Masters of Research (MRes) Programme. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. 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. 5. 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. Additional Editor Comments : Although the reviewers felt this was a timely piece of research, there were some concerns regarding the grammatical and English language editing. The author should also review PLOS guidelines regarding data availability, abstract construction and the need for line numbers [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: 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: 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 study reported the prevalence and severity disability and risk factors among adults living with HIV in London, United Kingdom; in order to identify areas to target interventions, reduce disability, and optimise health and function. This study provides useful information and contributes substantially to the epidemiology of HCV in preparation of the elimination in the country. The manuscript is well prepared and informative with clear statement of objectives. Similarly, the methods section is appropriately explained and results section is prepared well with minor mistakes as indicated below. While publication is recommended, the manuscript requires minor revision. The study mentioned that participants were on ART longer than 6 months, however they did not assess whether specific ART is associated with disability. Furthermore, although data on concurrent health conditions were collected and participants reporting living with a median of two concurrent health conditions in addition to HIV, additional data on the specific concurrent health condition would have added value to enhance the understanding of the risk factors associated with HIV and disability. Abstract The abstract is too long and it does not conform to PLOS one standards Results Page 15: Table 1: Participant characteristics Gender identity: singular vs plural eg Man vs Women Page 18, the authors did not follow PLOS instructions guidelines for labelling supplementary files Page 18, the authors state that “Difficulty levels across all WHODAS items were “mild difficulty” n=333 (38.8%)…. while page 28 in the discussion they state “In our study, 50.5% reported 4 or more functional limitations with mostly mild (36.8%) or …… General There are no line numbers used in the document- the authors did not following PLOS instructions guidelines Reviewer #2: The paper is very important and timely for the improvement of care for people with living with HIV. Though it's more or less exploratory, I believe has pointed a light to a potentially serious problem. The paper can improve with added attention to editing. Also, the data behind findings requirement is not sufficiently fulfilled. ****** 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.0267271.r001
Revision 1
5 Mar 2022 Author Response PONE-D-21-28696 Prevalence, severity, and risk factors of disability among adults living with HIV accessing routine outpatient HIV care in London, United Kingdom (UK): A cross-sectional self-report study. Thank you to the journal and peer reviewers for your positive and constructive feedback. The authors are grateful for the time taken to review this manuscript and have commented on your feedback below. Reviewers Comments Reviewer #1: 1. The study reported the prevalence and severity disability and risk factors among adults living with HIV in London, United Kingdom; in order to identify areas to target interventions, reduce disability, and optimise health and function. This study provides useful information and contributes substantially to the epidemiology of HCV in preparation of the elimination in the country. The manuscript is well prepared and informative with clear statement of objectives. Similarly, the methods section is appropriately explained and results section is prepared well with minor mistakes as indicated below. While publication is recommended, the manuscript requires minor revision. RESPONSE: Thank you for the positive and constructive feedback. Our responses to the mistakes and minor revisions are below. 2. The study mentioned that participants were on ART longer than 6 months, however they did not assess whether specific ART is associated with disability. RESPONSE: Thank you. We did not collect data on the types of medications (ART) participants were taking to treat HIV. The examination of different ART regimens, as potential risk factors for disability, was therefore not possible within this study. However, this is an important research consideration that could be included within future research into the disability experiences of people living with HIV. 3. Furthermore, although data on concurrent health conditions were collected and participants reporting living with a median of two concurrent health conditions in addition to HIV, additional data on the specific concurrent health condition would have added value to enhance the understanding of the risk factors associated with HIV and disability. RESPONSE: Thank you. We collected data on the number of concurrent health conditions participants were living with in addition to HIV. However, we did not collect data on the types of concurrent health conditions people were living with. Therefore it was not possible to report on the types of concurrent conditions people were living with. We agree that this additional data would have added value, and will be considered in future research into the disability experiences of people living with HIV. 4. The abstract is too long and it does not conform to PLOS one standards RESPONSE: Thank you. We have amended the abstract length and it now conforms with PLOS ONE standards. 5. Page 15: Table 1: Participant characteristics Gender identity: singular vs plural eg Man vs Women RESPONSE: Thank you. We have amended the table to ensure that participant characteristics are singular for both Man and Woman. 6. Page 18, the authors did not follow PLOS instructions guidelines for labelling supplementary files RESPONSE: Thank you. We have amended the labelling of supplementary files to follow PLOS ONE instruction guidelines. The sentence has been updated to “The WHODAS simple scores in response to all 12-items are shown in S1 Table” (page 18, line 507). We have also included an additional supplementary file (S1 File) “Demographic and HIV questionnaire”, which is cited in the manuscript (page 10, line 333). 7. Page 18, the authors state that “Difficulty levels across all WHODAS items were “mild difficulty” n=333 (38.8%)…. while page 28 in the discussion they state “In our study, 50.5% reported 4 or more functional limitations with mostly mild (36.8%) or …… RESPONSE: Thank you. We appreciate identification of this typo. We have updated the discussion (page 28, line 647) to say the correct value 38.8%. 8. There are no line numbers used in the document- the authors did not following PLOS instructions guidelines RESPONSE: Thank you. We have amended the document to include line numbers, and follow PLOS ONE instruction guidelines. Reviewer #2: 1. The paper is very important and timely for the improvement of care for people with living with HIV. Though it's more or less exploratory, I believe has pointed a light to a potentially serious problem. RESPONSE: Thank you for the positive feedback. 2. The paper can improve with added attention to editing. Also, the data behind findings requirement is not sufficiently fulfilled. RESPONSE: Thank you. We have amended the paper in response to the journal requirements and reviewer responses. We have uploaded our study’s minimal underlying data set to the public repository DRYAD. The data can be accessed on the URL and DOI below. We have updated the cover letter to include the links to the study’s minimal underlying data set. https://datadryad.org/stash/share/5o5ixIjJZbIjsqO9363pRnIPIg7LVUngZTYnEyX7JUc doi:10.5061/dryad.qnk98sfjn Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267271.r002
6 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Elizabeth S. Mayne, Editor Prevalence, severity, and risk factors of disability among adults living with HIV accessing routine outpatient HIV care in London, United Kingdom (UK): A cross-sectional self-report study. PONE-D-21-28696R1 Dear Dr. Brown, 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, Elizabeth S. Mayne, M.D. 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 authors have addressed all the comments according to my satisfaction. It was my pleasure to review this manuscripts 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: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267271.r003
Formally Accepted
3 May 2022 Acceptance Letter - Elizabeth S. Mayne, Editor PONE-D-21-28696R1 Prevalence, severity, and risk factors of disability among adults living with HIV accessing routine outpatient HIV care in London, United Kingdom (UK): a cross-sectional self-report study Dear Dr. Brown: 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. Elizabeth S. Mayne Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267271.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 .