Drivers of long-lasting insecticide-treated net utilisation and parasitaemia among under-five children in 13 States with high malaria burden in Nigeria

Perpetua Uhomoibhi; Chukwu Okoronkwo; IkeOluwapo O. Ajayi; Olugbenga Mokuolu; Ibrahim Maikore; Adeniyi Fagbamigbe; Joshua O. Akinyemi; Festus Okoh; Cyril Ademu; Issa Kawu; Jo-Angeline Kalambo; James Ssekitooleko

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268185

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 21, 2021
27 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Sammy O. Sam-Wobo, Editor PONE-D-21-27138Drivers of long-lasting insecticide-treated net utilisation and parasitaemia among under-five children in 13 States with high malaria burden in NigeriaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Akinyemi, 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. Let your revisions be in a different font colour to enable tracking Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 11 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, Sammy O. Sam-Wobo 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. 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. 3. 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 (if provided): Authors to attend to the comments and send back. Note that your revisions must be in a different font colour to enable tracking [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: ABSTRACT – Methods Line 28: Data from…………….were obtained and analyzed. You didn’t state the role of the 2015 data set (to categorize malaria burdens in states, to compare with 2018 data for increase or reduced parasitaemia?) Line 29 - 30: The thirteen states studied were stratified into two based on increased or reduced parasitaemia between 2015 and 2018. (Remove whether they had…). Line 43: Last paragraph of the result….. 2.70) were more likely to have parasitaemia. NOT were more likely of parasitaemia. INTRODUCTION Line 70: economic loses: out of pocket payment, …….. (Add colon before listing). Line 93: For instance, parasitaemia was reported to be more prevalent……… Line 95: ……..those from rich households were reported to have lower risks (5) Line 95 – 96: remove the statement ‘this is a direct reflection of the fact that malaria is a poverty related disease’. Line 103 – 105: Four of these states had increased parasitaemia between 2015 and 2018, while the remaining nine experienced a decrease (Citation is required). Line 106: What is programmatic intervention? Line 109 – 110: the statement there is not necessary. METHODS Line 113: This study involves analysis of secondary data obtained from the …..OR This is a retrospective study that utilized two national data sets. The 2015 data set on NMIS was used to categorize states as having high or low malaria burden, and also to compare with 2018 data for indicating increased or reduced paraasitaemia…….. Line 113 – 115: collapse into the subtitle ‘description of data sources’ Line 119: 49 years old Line 122: specify the sample size ; not over 8,000 households Line 126: 15 – 45 years Line 126 – 130: no indication of study duration, from which month to ? Line 132: The data sets from 2015 NMIS and 2018 NDHS were both obtained from stratified samples selected in two stages. Line 134: write EAs in full Line 144: men aged 15 to 59 years were not mentioned before ??????? Line 144: biomarker sample? Do you mean blood sample? Line 148 – 152: did you select the states based on rural / urban stratification? and/or on high malaria burden? Which of the data sets provided guide for the selection or description of the study population? Line 160: Write GF in full Line 173: Wealth quintiles? Do you mean quartiles? RESULTS Line 209 – 214: you did not clearly explain Table 2. Line 211: ………., while close to one quarter. Please specify the value. Line 216: first column in Table 2 has no title. I suggest ‘Variables / categories’ Line 216: titles of the 2nd and 3rd panels in Table 2 are not clear. ‘state with increase’? ‘states with reduction’? Line 246 – 252: where is the result described? There is no reference to any Table or Figure. Line 271: …….24.2 % respectively in 2018. Remove comma. Line 272: is the difference in prevalence between 2015 and 2018 data the same as prevalence ratio? Line 275: where is the Figure 3? Line 281 – 282: where is the reference group in that statement? ‘In contrast, stunted (OR=1.16, 95%CI: 1.00-1.34) and wasted (OR=1.40, 95% CI:1.05-1.88) children were more likely of sleeping under LLIN, than ……….. Your result presentation focused only on 2018 data. No Table presented comparative prevalence in 2015 and 2018 to show increase or decrease in prevalence. DISCUSSION Line 390 – 391: ……..global scales (Allwell-Brown, 2017). This citation format is not consistent with the one you have been using. Check other parts of this work and make the citation uniform. Line 407: an increase in parasitaemia level over. What is OVER in the sentence? Line 428 – 429: Recast this phrase ‘Malaria eliminating countries’ Line 438 – 439: check the punctuations in that statement. ****** 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:** Dr. C. M. Egbuche [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS ONE - Reviewers comment from Dr. C. M. Egbuche.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268185.r001
Revision 1
3 Nov 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1: ABSTRACT – Methods Line 28: Data from…………….were obtained and analyzed. You didn’t state the role of the 2015 data set (to categorize malaria burdens in states, to compare with 2018 data for increase or reduced parasitaemia?) RESPONSE: Thank you. We have stated the role of 2015 data. Line 29 - 30: The thirteen states studied were stratified into two based on increased or reduced parasitaemia between 2015 and 2018. (Remove whether they had…). RESPONSE: This has been done. Thank you Line 43: Last paragraph of the result….. 2.70) were more likely to have parasitaemia. NOT were more likely of parasitaemia. RESPONSE: Thank you, correction has been done as recommended INTRODUCTION Line 70: economic loses: out of pocket payment, …….. (Add colon before listing). RESPONSE: thank you, colon has been added before listing Line 93: For instance, parasitaemia was reported to be more prevalent……… RESPONSE: Thank, edits has been adopted Line 95: ……..those from rich households were reported to have lower risks (5) RESPONSE: Thank you, suggestion has been adopted Line 95 – 96: remove the statement ‘this is a direct reflection of the fact that malaria is a poverty related disease’. RESPONSE: Statement has been removed Line 103 – 105: Four of these states had increased parasitaemia between 2015 and 2018, while the remaining nine experienced a decrease (Citation is required). RESPONSE: Citation has been provided Line 106: What is programmatic intervention? RESPONSE: We have revised it for better clarity Line 109 – 110: the statement there is not necessary. RESPONSE: This statement was meant to clearly described the objectives of the paper. We retained it so that readers can easily link our results with the objectives. METHODS Line 113: This study involves analysis of secondary data obtained from the …..OR This is a retrospective study that utilized two national data sets. The 2015 data set on NMIS was used to categorize states as having high or low malaria burden, and also to compare with 2018 data for indicating increased or reduced paraasitaemia…….. RESPONSE: Thank you for these suggested revisions. We have adopted it and edited the section accordingly. Line 113 – 115: collapse into the subtitle ‘description of data sources’ RESPONSE: This has been done Line 119: 49 years old RESPONSE: This correction has been made. Thank you Line 122: specify the sample size ; not over 8,000 households RESPONSE: the actual no of households have been stated Line 126: 15 – 45 years RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing out this typo. We have corrected it Line 126 – 130: no indication of study duration, from which month to ? RESPONSE: This has been provided Line 132: The data sets from 2015 NMIS and 2018 NDHS were both obtained from stratified samples selected in two stages. RESPONSE: thank you for the suggested revision which we have adopted Line 134: write EAs in full RESPONSE: EA has been written in full Line 144: men aged 15 to 59 years were not mentioned before ??????? RESPONSE: Usually, DHS surveys include men. However, we have deleted the mention of men in this manuscript because we did not analyse men’s data. Line 144: biomarker sample? Do you mean blood sample? RESPONSE: Yes, we meant blood sample. We have replaced biomarker with “blood” Line 148 – 152: did you select the states based on rural / urban stratification? and/or on high malaria burden? Which of the data sets provided guide for the selection or description of the study population? RESPONSE: States were selected based on malaria burden. Both datasets provided guide for description of study population Line 160: Write GF in full RESPONSE: Apology for the mistake. GF has been deleted Line 173: Wealth quintiles? Do you mean quartiles? RESPONSE: This is wealth quintiles because it has 5 categories. Quartiles would have only 4. RESULTS Line 209 – 214: you did not clearly explain Table 2. RESPONSE: Pls, note that Table 2 was further described under “utilisation of LLIN” and “prevalence of parasitaemia” Line 211: ………., while close to one quarter. Please specify the value. RESPONSE: The actual value has been stated Line 216: first column in Table 2 has no title. I suggest ‘Variables / categories’ RESPONSE: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the column title as recommended Line 216: titles of the 2nd and 3rd panels in Table 2 are not clear. ‘state with increase’? ‘states with reduction’? RESPONSE: The column titles has been made clearer Line 246 – 252: where is the result described? There is no reference to any Table or Figure. RESPONSE: We have provided reference to Tables 4a, 4b and Figure 3 Line 271: …….24.2 % respectively in 2018. Remove comma. RESPONSE: Thank you, Comma has been removed Line 272: is the difference in prevalence between 2015 and 2018 data the same as prevalence ratio? RESPONSE: No, they are not the same Line 275: where is the Figure 3? RESPONSE: Figures are provided as separate files but included in the manuscript for review Line 281 – 282: where is the reference group in that statement? ‘In contrast, stunted (OR=1.16, 95%CI: 1.00-1.34) and wasted (OR=1.40, 95% CI:1.05-1.88) children were more likely of sleeping under LLIN, than ……….. RESPONSE: Sentence has been revised. Thank you Your result presentation focused only on 2018 data. No Table presented comparative prevalence in 2015 and 2018 to show increase or decrease in prevalence. RESPONSE: Figure 3 utilized data from both MIS 2015 and DHS 2018. Besides, we have added tables 4a and 4b which showed comparison of LLIN utilization and parasitaemia prevalence as well as percentage changes in the 13 study States between 2015 and 2018 DISCUSSION Line 390 – 391: ……..global scales (Allwell-Brown, 2017). This citation format is not consistent with the one you have been using. Check other parts of this work and make the citation uniform. RESPONSE: Reference style has been corrected for consistency Line 407: an increase in parasitaemia level over. What is OVER in the sentence? RESPONSE: We have deleted the extraneous word “Over” Line 428 – 429: Recast this phrase ‘Malaria eliminating countries’ RESPONSE: The phrase has been recasted Line 438 – 439: check the punctuations in that statement. RESPONSE: Thank you the error in punctuation have been corrected Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS ONE ReviewersComments AND RESPONSES.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268185.r002
9 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Clement Ameh Yaro, Editor PONE-D-21-27138R1Drivers of long-lasting insecticide-treated net utilisation and parasitaemia among under-five children in 13 States with high malaria burden in NigeriaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Akinyemi, 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 Apr 22 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, Lucinda Shen, MSc Staff Editor on behalf of Clement Ameh Yaro Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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: COMMENTS TO AUTHOR(S) The manuscript is sound but there is need for minor revision in some components as elaborated in the comments by the reviewers. REVIEWER 1: COMMENTS The author has effected all the corrections pointed out. Aside that, I noted the following minor corrections which I did not point out the first time (Please I apologize for that). 1. Add title to the first column in table 3. I suggest ‘Variables / categories’ 2. Redo the first and second rows of Table 5 as shown below. 3. Redo the first and second rows of Table 6 as shown below The author can actually lift the Tables (Tables 5 and 6) as presented here. I have only adjusted the rows for the author. I did not touch the data. The manuscript is recommended for publication. Thanks. Dr. Chukwudi Michael Egbuche REVIEWER 2: The manuscript presents data on drivers of LLIN in malaria endemic states in Nigeria. The data is sound and the implication of the study is genuine. However, I think the manuscript should be reread and language should be looked into seriously. Also, the conclusion and implication part at the end should be rewritten to communicate aptly the message in the write up. The abstract can also be improved on. I recommend the paper for publication because it presents information that can be impactful in assisting Nigeria and international funders to focus on drivers of malaria prevalence in the country. Line 29-30: "The 13 study States were stratified into two based on whether they had increased or reduced parasitaemia between 2015 and 2018.". THIS STATEMENT NEED TO RECASTED FOR CLARITY. Line 38: "were also more likely of LLIN use". RECAST TO "were also more likely to use LLIN". Line 43: "were more likely of parasitaemia". RECAST "were more likely to have the parasite". Line 47-48: "The key drivers of LLIN utilisation mainly related to net source and socioeconomic characteristics which is a key factor for parasitaemia". ALL THE CONCLUSION SHOUKD BE REWRITTEN. Line 60: World Malaria Report of 2021 should be used instead. Line 69: The most predominant in Nigeria only or in all regions of the world. Line 72: I dont think the word "NATIONAL" is needed in the statement "the national prevalence of malaria". Line 89: Remove the word "THE" in the sentence "in the 13 Nigerian States with" Line 103: The spelling for "FOCUSED" isnt correct. Line 216: CHILDREN'S Line 381: Which other studies? Line 381-384: The statement need to be recasted Line 396-398: It has been shown scientifically that children in areas of high malaria transmission intensity develop age398 related immunity. ANY REFERENCE FOR THIS Line 411: Remove "THE" in the statement "management and the use of antimalarials". Line 469-475: I think this statement should be removed because this isnt part of conclusion. Line 489: I think the authors should rewrite the whole statement under "IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS FOR POLICY AND PROGRAMMES" as the statements looks more of conclusion. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 author has effected all the corrections pointed out. Aside that, I noted the following minor corrections which I did not point out the first time (Please I apologize for that). 1. Add title to the first column in table 3. I suggest ‘Variables / categories’ 2. Redo the first and second rows of Table 5 as shown below. 3. Redo the first and second rows of Table 6 as shown below The author can actually lift the Tables (Tables 5 and 6) in the attached document. I have only adjusted the rows for the author. I did not touch the data. The manuscript is recommended for publication. Thanks. Dr. Chukwudi Michael Egbuche Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents data on drivers of LLIN in malaria endemic states in Nigeria. The data is sound and the implication of the study is genuine. However, I think the manuscript should be reread and language should be looked into seriously. Also, the conclusion and implication part at the end should be rewritten to communicate aptly the message in the write up. The abstract can also be improved on. I recommend the paper for publication because it presents information that can be impactful in assisting Nigeria and international funders to focus on drivers of malaria prevalence in the country. Line 29-30: "The 13 study States were stratified into two based on whether they had increased or reduced parasitaemia between 2015 and 2018.". THIS STATEMENT NEED TO RECASTED FOR CLARITY. Line 38: "were also more likely of LLIN use". RECAST TO "were also more likely to use LLIN". Line 43: "were more likely of parasitaemia". RECAST "were more likely to have the parasite". Line 47-48: "The key drivers of LLIN utilisation mainly related to net source and socioeconomic characteristics which is a key factor for parasitaemia". ALL THE CONCLUSION SHOUKD BE REWRITTEN. Line 60: World Malaria Report of 2021 should be used instead. Line 69: The most predominant in Nigeria only or in all regions of the world. Line 72: I dont think the word "NATIONAL" is needed in the statement "the national prevalence of malaria". Line 89: Remove the word "THE" in the sentence "in the 13 Nigerian States with" Line 103: The spelling for "FOCUSED" isnt correct. Line 216: CHILDREN'S Line 381: Which other studies? Line 381-384: The statement need to be recasted Line 396-398: It has been shown scientifically that children in areas of high malaria transmission intensity develop age398 related immunity. ANY REFERENCE FOR THIS Line 411: Remove "THE" in the statement "management and the use of antimalarials". Line 469-475: I think this statement should be removed because this isnt part of conclusion. Line 489: I think the authors should rewrite the whole statement under "IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS FOR POLICY AND PROGRAMMES" as the statements looks more of conclusion. ****** 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:** Dr. Chukwudi Michael Egbuche 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-27138R1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268185.r003
Revision 2
6 Apr 2022 Author Response COMMENTS TO AUTHOR(S) The manuscript is sound but there is need for minor revision in some components as elaborated in the comments by the reviewers. REVIEWER 1: COMMENTS The author has effected all the corrections pointed out. Aside that, I noted the following minor corrections which I did not point out the first time (Please I apologize for that). 1. Add title to the first column in table 3. I suggest ‘Variables / categories’ 2. Redo the first and second rows of Table 5 as shown below. 3. Redo the first and second rows of Table 6 as shown below The author can actually lift the Tables (Tables 5 and 6) as presented here. I have only adjusted the rows for the author. I did not touch the data. The manuscript is recommended for publication. Thanks. Dr. Chukwudi Michael Egbuche RESPONSE: THANK YOU FOR THE SUGGESTIONS. ALL HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED REVIEWER 2: The manuscript presents data on drivers of LLIN in malaria endemic states in Nigeria. The data is sound and the implication of the study is genuine. However, I think the manuscript should be reread and language should be looked into seriously. Also, the conclusion and implication part at the end should be rewritten to communicate aptly the message in the write up. The abstract can also be improved on. I recommend the paper for publication because it presents information that can be impactful in assisting Nigeria and international funders to focus on drivers of malaria prevalence in the country. THANK YOU FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS Line 29-30: "The 13 study States were stratified into two based on whether they had increased or reduced parasitaemia between 2015 and 2018.". THIS STATEMENT NEED TO RECASTED FOR CLARITY. RESPONSE: IT HAS BEEN RECASTED Line 38: "were also more likely of LLIN use". RECAST TO "were also more likely to use LLIN". RESPONSE: DONE Line 43: "were more likely of parasitaemia". RECAST "were more likely to have the parasite". RESPONSE: REVISED AS SUGGESTED Line 47-48: "The key drivers of LLIN utilisation mainly related to net source and socioeconomic characteristics which is a key factor for parasitaemia". ALL THE CONCLUSION SHOUKD BE REWRITTEN. RESPONSE: REVISED AS SUGGESTED Line 60: World Malaria Report of 2021 should be used instead. THANK YOU. THIS WAS NOT YET OUT AS AT SUBMISSION. WE HAVE USED THE 2021 REPORT NOW Line 69: The most predominant in Nigeria only or in all regions of the world. RESPONSE: WE HAVE INDICATED NIGERIA Line 72: I dont think the word "NATIONAL" is needed in the statement "the national prevalence of malaria". RESPONSE: REVISED AS SUGGESTED. THANK YOU Line 89: Remove the word "THE" in the sentence "in the 13 Nigerian States with" RESPONSE: DONE Line 103: The spelling for "FOCUSED" isnt correct. RESPONSE: THANK YOU. IT’S BEEN CORRECTED Line 216: CHILDREN'S RESPONSE: CORRECTED Line 381: Which other studies? RESPONSE: PREVIOUS STUDIES. REFERENCES PROVIDED Line 381-384: The statement need to be recasted RESPONSE: REVISED Line 396-398: It has been shown scientifically that children in areas of high malaria transmission intensity develop age398 related immunity. ANY REFERENCE FOR THIS RESPONSE: REFERENCE PROVIDED Line 411: Remove "THE" in the statement "management and the use of antimalarials". RESPONSE: THANK YOU. REVISED AS RECOMMENDED Line 469-475: I think this statement should be removed because this isnt part of conclusion. RESPONSE: STATEMENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO DISCUSSION SECTION. THANK YOU Line 489: I think the authors should rewrite the whole statement under "IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS FOR POLICY AND PROGRAMMES" as the statements looks more of conclusion. RESPONSE: NECESSARY REVISIONS HAS ALSO BEEN DONE IN THIS SECTION. THOUGH, IT WAS NOT A CONCLUSION Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: R2 PLOS ONE ReviewersComments AND RESPONSES.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268185.r004
25 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Clement Ameh Yaro, Editor Drivers of long-lasting insecticide-treated net utilisation and parasitaemia among under-five children in 13 States with high malaria burden in Nigeria PONE-D-21-27138R2 Dear Dr. Akinyemi, 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, Clement Ameh Yaro, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The author has addressed all the corrections earlier pointed out EXCEPT ONE of those I noted in my second review. 1. Add title to the first column in table 3. I suggested ‘Variables / categories’ You have already done that in Table 2, so repeat same in Table 3. 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 author has addressed all the corrections earlier pointed out EXCEPT ONE of those I noted in my second review. 1. Add title to the first column in table 3. I suggested ‘Variables / categories’ You have already done that in Table 2, so repeat same in Table 3. Reviewer #2: All my previous concerns have been addressed. I believe the manuscript is ready for publication. Thank you ****** 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: Dr. Chukwudi Michael Egbuche Reviewer #2: Yes:** Omotayo Ahmed Idowu https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268185.r005
Formally Accepted
28 Apr 2022 Acceptance Letter - Clement Ameh Yaro, Editor PONE-D-21-27138R2 Drivers of long-lasting insecticide-treated net utilisation and parasitaemia among under-five children in 13 States with high malaria burden in Nigeria Dear Dr. Akinyemi: 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. Clement Ameh Yaro Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268185.r006

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 .