Assessing the dynamic impacts of non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical intervention measures on the containment results against COVID-19 in Ethiopia

Hongli Zhu; Shiyong Liu; Wenwen Zheng; Haimanote Belay; Weiwei Zhang; Ying Qian; Yirong Wu; Tadesse Guadu Delele; Peng Jia

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271231

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 27, 2022
18 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Vinícius Silva Belo, Editor PONE-D-22-02713Assessing the dynamic impacts of non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical intervention measures on the containment results against COVID-19 in EthiopiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liu, 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 consider the comments pointed out by the reviewer. Also, analyze and discuss the potential influence of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 02 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, Vinícius Silva Belo 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: “The authors declare no conflict of interests” Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ****** 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: 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: Comments to Authors Currently, COVID-19 is a major public health issue and assessing the dynamic impacts of non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical intervention measures against COVID-19 is an important area of study. The authors try to investigate system dynamics model to capture COVID-19 characteristics, major social events, stringencies of containment measures, and vaccine dynamics. To improve the quality of the paper, I suggest to address the following issues: Abstract - Avoid abbreviation from the abstract. i.e. SD, SDM Background - The background section didn’t intensively explore literatures related with this study. - Many statements written without citing references that support the statement. Such us line 64-66, line 72-78, Line - This section didn’t motivate why doing this study is important and what are the limitation of other similar studies, i.e. Ejigu et al (2021) - Need proof reading. There are many grammatical issues across the paper. i.e., line 61 “only were 1.4%....”. line 161 “This study is to better understand…” Method - Line 161 is not a meaningful sentence. “This study is to better understand…” - Motivation to the considered “Model structure and formulations” were not clearly stated. Under what assumption this model is valid? How you get the model parameter input parameters? - Add links/hyperlinks (cite websites) from where you got the data under the “Data collection and quality” subsection. - Further in this section, you need to explain a) How the Immunological period (days) 240 and 180 determined. b) How the vaccine efficacy determined c) Briefly explain how other parameters also fixed - Result and discussion - Many of the assumptions set for the scenarios are far away the reality. For example, line 272-273, it was stated that “.. adherence level in wearing face was assumed 55%” which is really far away from the reality in the context of Ethiopia. As far as I know, 75% of the population in Ethiopia are living in rural areas and majority of them didn’t her about facemask. Further, in line 295 “…. adherence level of mask-wearing (48%, 60%, and 70%).” - Revise the assumed adherence level related with face masking, social distancing,… in the context of Ethiopia. - Line 297 “…total of 968 days”, but in line 205 “… total of 603 days” which one is correct. - Finding of other studies related with this work were not well discussed. - Limitation of the study not clearly stated. i.e., the quality of the data and others not clearly addressed. ****** 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 [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: Comments to authors.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271231.r001
Revision 1
13 Jun 2022 Author Response First of all, we would like to sincerely thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their comments and constructive critiques. We appreciate the opportunity to address the comments by submitting a revision. We have considered all comments with care, and we believe the revisions address these comments and have greatly improved the paper. In this revision report, we explain the responses to each comment in detail. We have reproduced the original comments in black and typed our responses in blue for clarity. Responses to Reviewer #1 1. - Avoid abbreviation from the abstract. i.e. SD, SDM Response: Thank you for mentioning this point. We have changed those abbreviations in the abstract to their full names. 2. -The background section didn’t intensively explore literatures related with this study. Response: We appreciate that you pointed this out. We further searched relevant studies and summarized them in the revised manuscript. Relevant references are listed below. References: 1. Ayele W, Tesfaye L, Abagero A, Taye G, Abate B, Habtamu T, et al. COVID 19 Epidemic trajectory modeling results for Ethiopia. Ethiop J Heal Dev. 2021;35: 25–32. 2. Ayele TA, Fentahun N, Tiruneh SA, Haile M, Zeru T, Meseret G, et al. Spatial variation and level of compliance on COVID-19 Prevention strategies in Amhara region, Ethiopia: Observational survey. Ethiop J Heal Dev. 2021;35. 3. Endriyas M, Kawza A, Alano A, Hussen M, Shibru E. COVID-19 prevention practices in urban setting during early introduction of the disease: results from community survey in SNNP Region, Ethiopia. BMJ Open. 2021;11. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047373 4. Haftom M, Petrucka PM. Determinants of Face Mask Utilization to Prevent Covid-19 Pandemic among Quarantined Adults in Tigrai Region, Northern Ethiopia, 2020. Clin Nurs Res. 2021;30: 1107–1112. doi:10.1177/10547738211013219 5. Tucho GT, Kumsa DM. Universal Use of Face Masks and Related Challenges During COVID-19 in developing countries. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14: 511–517. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S298687 6. Zewude B, Melese B, Addis E, Solomon W. Changing patterns of compliance with protective behavioral recommendations in the post first-round COVID-19 vaccine period among healthcare workers in Southern Ethiopia. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14: 3575–3587. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S325699 7. Bushira KM. Modeling the effectiveness of social distancing interventions on the epidemic curve of coronavirus disease in Ethiopia. Model earth Syst Environ. 2021; 1–11. doi:10.1007/s40808-021-01190-9 8. Deressa W, Worku A, Abebe W, et al. Social distancing and preventive practices of government employees in response to COVID-19 in Ethiopia. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16(9): e0257112:1-22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257112 9. Fikrie A, Amaje E, Golicha W. Social distancing practice and associated factors in response to COVID-19 pandemic at West Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia, 2021: A community based cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2021;16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261065 10. Hailu W, Derseh L, Hunegnaw MT, Tesfaye T, Angaw DA. Compliance, barriers, and facilitators to social distancing measures for prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 in Northwest Ethiopia, 2020. Curr Ther Res Exp. 2021;94. doi:10.1016/j.curtheres.2021.100632 11. Tolu LB, Ezeh A, Feyissa GT. How prepared is Africa for the COVID-19 pandemic response? The case of Ethiopia. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2020;13: 771–776. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S258273 3. - Many statements written without citing references that support the statement. Such us line 64-66, line 72-78, Line Response: Thank you for raising this point. We have double-checked the whole paper and added citations at relevant places. 4. - This section didn’t motivate why doing this study is important and what are the limitation of other similar studies, i.e. Ejigu et al (2021) Response: Thank you for the suggestions. We have added a paragraph deliberating this point. 5. - Need proof reading. There are many grammatical issues across the paper. i.e., line 61 “only were 1.4%....”. line 161 “This study is to better understand…” Responses: Many thanks to the reviewer for indicating this situation. We agree that improving the writing is very important for guaranteeing the quality of the manuscript. We have invited professional English-editing service to edit and polish the manuscripts. 6. - Line 161 is not a meaningful sentence. “This study is to better understand…” Responses: Thank you for helping improve the writing of this manuscript, we have revised this sentence and checked other places as well. 7. - Motivation to the considered “Model structure and formulations” were not clearly stated. Under what assumption this model is valid? How you get the model parameter input parameters? Responses: Thank you for mentioning this. We did have some elaboration on the motivation for using the extended SEIR model in “Introduction” and subsection of “Model structure and formulations” Built on previous research, our extended SEIR model tends to include not only the state variables of susceptible population, exposed population, symptomatic patients, asymptomatic patients, mild cases, severe cases, deaths, recovered cases, but also the sub-structure of hospitalized patients, un-hospitalized patients, vaccine administration. Piecewise calibration was conducted to estimate necessary model parameters, given that the cumulative infections and cumulative deaths did not follow an expectedly exponential growth curve. Historical data were split into two parts with one part being used for building the model. And the model was then verified and validated by the other part of the data. As for the model parameters, some of the parameters were obtained through the fitting with historical and they were verified through repetitive calibrations. Besides, the value settings for other parameters were done by referring to literature, which were clearly presented in Table 1. 8. - Add links/hyperlinks (cite websites) from where you got the data under the “Data collection and quality” subsection. Responses: Thank you for advising on this point, we have put the link in the relevant place of the “Data collection and quality” subsection. 9. - - Further in this section, you need to explain a) How the Immunological period (days) 240 and 180 determined. b) How the vaccine efficacy determined c) Briefly explain how other parameters also fixed Responses: Thank you for mentioning this. For a) and b), we have listed literature that indicated the source of the value ([1,2] for a) and [3-6] for b)). In this revision, we added several more references. Please also refer to the literature provided below. Regarding c), some of the parameters were obtained through the fitting with historical and they were verified through repetitive calibrations. Besides, the value settings for other parameters were done by referring to literature, which was clearly presented in Table 1. References: 1. Khoury DS, Cromer D, Reynaldi A, et al. Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat Med 2021;27: 1205-11 2. Tenforde MW, Self WH, Naioti EA, et al. Sustained effectiveness of Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna vaccines against COVID-19 associated hospitalizations among adults-United States, March, July 2021. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021; 70(34), 1156. 3. Bernal JL, Andrews N, Gower C, et al. Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on COVID-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: test negative case-control study. BMJ-British Med J. 2021; 373:n1088. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1088 4. Dagan N, Barda N, Kepten E, et al. BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in a nationwide mass vaccination setting. N Engl J Med. 2021; 384(15):1412-1423. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765 5. Jara A, Undurraga EA, Gonzalez C, et al. Effectiveness of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Chile. N Engl J Med. 2021; 385(10):875-884. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2107715 6. Shekhar R, Sheikh A, Upadhyay S, et al. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care workers in the United States. Vaccines. 2021;9,119. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020119 10. - - - Many of the assumptions set for the scenarios are far away the reality. For example, line 272-273, it was stated that “.. adherence level in wearing face was assumed 55%” which is really far away from the reality in the context of Ethiopia. As far as I know, 75% of the population in Ethiopia are living in rural areas and majority of them didn’t her about facemask. Further, in line 295 “…. adherence level of mask-wearing (48%, 60%, and 70%).” - Revise the assumed adherence level related with face masking, social distancing… in the context of Ethiopia. Responses: Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out. We agree that the compliance level to face mask-wearing in Ethiopia was very low, especially in those poor rural areas at the outset of COVID-19. However, with the supply of face masks, the level of compliance witnessed an obvious increase, which increased from 30% to as high as 62% (IHME). We also searched the literature and found results from some surveys done by Ethiopian scholars showing that the levels of adherence (Endriyas et al., 2021; Haftom and Petrucka, 2020) were more than 50%. Ayele Wondimu et al. evaluated the spread dynamics of COVID-19 in Ethiopia under the assumptions of face mask utilization of 20%, 40%, and 60%.Therefore, the percentages used in our scenarios represented relatively reasonable assumptions. References: 1. IHME, Mask use in Ethiopia. Accessed on June 5th, 2022 at https://covid19.healthdata.org/ethiopia?view=mask-use&tab=trend 2. Endriyas M, Kawza A, Alano A, Hussen M, Shibru E. COVID-19 prevention practices in urban setting during early introduction of the disease: Results from community survey in SNNP Region, Ethiopia. BMJ Open. 2021;11. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047373 3. Haftom M, Petrucka PM. Determinants of Face Mask Utilization to Prevent Covid-19 Pandemic among Quarantined Adults in Tigrai Region, Northern Ethiopia, 2020. Clin Nurs Res. 2021;30: 1107–1112. doi:10.1177/10547738211013219 4. Ayele W, Tesfaye L, Abagero A, Taye G, Abate B, Habtamu T, et al. COVID 19 Epidemic trajectory modeling results for Ethiopia. Ethiop J Heal Dev. 2021;35: 25–32. 11. - Line 297 “…total of 968 days”, but in line 205 “… total of 603 days” which one is correct. Responses: Thank you for mentioning this point. Our study has two parts with one focusing on counterfactual analysis that has a total of 603 days and the other focusing on the prediction that covers one year (365 days). Therefore, the total simulation days considering prediction are 968 days. To reduce confusion, we have made changes at the corresponding place. 12. - Finding of other studies related with this work were not well discussed. Responses: Thank you so much for pointing this out. We have added relevant studies in the Introduction, Results, and Discussion parts. 13. - - Limitation of the study not clearly stated. i.e., the quality of the data and others not clearly addressed. Responses: Thanks for your suggestions. We have added limitations at the end of the discussion part. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271231.r002
27 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Vinícius Silva Belo, Editor Assessing the dynamic impacts of non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical intervention measures on the containment results against COVID-19 in Ethiopia PONE-D-22-02713R1 Dear Dr. Liu, 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, Vinícius Silva Belo Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271231.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Jul 2022 Acceptance Letter - Vinícius Silva Belo, Editor PONE-D-22-02713R1 Assessing the dynamic impacts of non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical intervention measures on the containment results against COVID-19 in Ethiopia Dear Dr. Liu: 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. Vinícius Silva Belo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271231.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 .