https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2847-4841
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionFebruary 4, 2021 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-21-01660 Prevalence and Associated Factors of Pregnant Women attending Antenatal Care in Public Health Institutions of Awabale Woreda, Northwestern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aynalem, 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. The manuscript has been evaluated by three reviewers, and their comments are available below. The reviewers have raised a number of major concerns. They particularly note the need for greater detail and clarity in the manuscript’s reporting of the data collection and analyses. They specifically request further detail on the development and validation of the study instruments and further refinement in the statistical modelling. In addition, they note that greater depth of discussion is required with regards to prior literature, in both the introduction and discussion. They also noted the need for professional language assistance, which may help to address the aforementioned issues. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 23 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:
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: http://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, Avanti Dey, PhD Staff 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 [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 Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 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: No Reviewer #3: 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: Thank you very much for your interest in antenatal depression. 1. While the study appears to be sound and a very important study area, the authors have, however, failed to address how their findings relate to previous research in this area. A lot of work has been done especially in Ethiopia regarding antenatal depression to the extent that there are three recent systematic literature reviews [Ayano et al (2019), Getinet et al (2018), Zegeye et al (2018)]. The published work such as by Hanlon et al and Bitew et al has laid the foundation in this area of study. In the southern region of Africa, work by Honikman et al, Ng'oma et al, Stewart et al and Kaiyo et al also highlight the magnitude of the burden of antenatal depression. Could the authors align their introduction and discussion to reference such existing literature? The introduction should also highlight why the authors think that antenatal depression is a "serious health problem", and they should also bring out the known "negative consequences for the mother, fetus and the entire family" so as to convince the reader that surely there is need to tackle antenatal depression. 2. Kindly state your eligibility criteria that you used during sampling procedure and clearly explain why it was important to include those women and exclude the ones that were not eligible. The authors need to clearly explain the type of health institutions that are in their study area and why they had to use stratified sampling method to sample the health institutions. How many health facilities are in this region and how many did they use as study sites? How did they sample their participants from each study health facility? The study sample size was 363 but, in the end, they interviewed 354 participants. Does that mean there were no more eligible participants at the study sites? Considering this was a cross-sectional study, I am not sure why they could not reach the required minimum number of participants. 3. To save on repeating themselves, the authors could just have combined STUDY VARIABLES, OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS & MEASUREMENT TOOLS into one subheading eg STUDY MEASURES and define their terms. For example: Independent Variable Antenatal depression, defined as an illness in which pregnant women have an EPDS score of 13 and above, was assessed using the EPDS... then go on to describe the tool. Same applies to the other variables. 4. Were the study instruments validated for the specific population? The authors mention that the EPDS was validated in Addis Ababa and at a cut-off score of 7/8, it had a sensitivity of 84.6% and specificity of 77.0%. But they went on to use a cut off score of 13 to define their depression caseness. Can the authors please justify their cut off score? Please explain more about the OSLO-3 item social support scale. The authors should also explain the data collection procedures simply and clearly so that the reader can be able to picture what they did exactly. This also helps with reproducibility of their work. As it is, it is not clear how they collected their data. 5. The authors' statistical analyses are very vague. While they have explained how the associations between antenatal depression and the independent variables was identified, they did not explain how their study sample would be described. Descriptive statistics would be very important to describe the sample. The results show that frequencies (and percentages) were computed but this was not stated in their data analysis technique. What were the confounding variables that the authors considered in their multivariate analysis? And how did they come up with the confounders? 6. In the results section, kindly label the tables clearly, and clearly reference your tables in the text. Do not just put tables that have no link to the text. The authors should also explain their results for the reader to clearly follow their arguments. This is particularly about the section headed "Factors associated with antenatal depression"; the following sentence "Age, marital status.... .... ... were significant factors in the bivariate regression analysis". it would be helpful to put in the odd ratios, 95%CI and p values next to the factors eh "Age [COR (95%CI), p value], marital status [COR (95%CI), p value], ... ... ..were significant factors". It would be helpful also to mention the direction of the association. For example, Pregnant women aged below 16 were X times more likely to develop antenatal depression or whatever your results show. Please insert the table that shows the results of the bivariate logistic regression analysis. 7. Like mentioned before, please align your discussion to the previous research done especially in sub-Saharan region. There is also more recent work on this subject you could cite. The authors have highlighted their weaknesses, there is need to show that the study had some strengths well. Otherwise, why would it be worthwhile. Another weakness they can highlight is their study design - cross sectional studies do not show causality and also the social desirable bias due to face to face interviews they administered. With these results, what do the authors recommend to policy makers, researchers, and practitioners. What is their take home message? 8. The study is very important, but the language is unclear. The sentences are too long, winding and thus difficult to understand. I advise the authors to work with a copy editor to improve the flow and readability of the manuscript. Reviewer #2: Thank you authors for conducting this study. It is timely and important. Here are my comments 1. Revise the title including the topic of study 2. Considering the sample size, high volume of published information on the topic so far in Ethiopia using the dichotomous EDPDS, and most importantly the nature of your outcome variable which is latent variable, I strongly recommend making re-analysis using structural equation modeling and re-write the manuscript in such way. You can use stress-process model or other theoretical model to conceptualize the problem. Reviewer #3: Dear the authors, thank you for presenting a critical public health issue in the developing countries. This study may be important for the local health planners and researchers. However, there are plenty of studies in the topic area in the world as well as in Ethiopia. Your paper do not bring any new evidence to the scientific world. I have doubt the relevance of your study considering enough evidence of your topic title in your country. The paper lacks strong justification of the reasons of conducting the study topic in the area The variables under your study were limited(important variables were missed in your study) and it is difficult to reach conclusion without including all the relevant confounding variables. From the scientific perspective your study lacks many qualities; e.g. you have large confidence interval which this may be due to inadequate sample size, Data itself is not consistent, or you have outliers in the data, or you have poorly specified model, or you have (partial) collinearity between the variables. There are a lot of inconsistencies in your study data presentation. e.g in the abstract section you have mentioned women who were running their business were 0.015 times less likely of developing antenatal depression than housewives [AOR=0.015(0.001-0.236)]. however in result section Women who were running their business were 85% reduced to develop antenatal depression than housewives [AOR=0.15(0.001-0.25)]. Moreover, what is found in the abstract, result section are completely different from what is found in the tables. Please see the regression analysis table and description carefully and revise. more specifically your study topic lacks the outcome under the study: please revise Abstract section: if you add sample size, the study population, analysis run to identify the associated factors and the cut off score Large confidence interval Introduction section The gap for studying this title is not adequately mentioned There are abundant studies in Ethiopia. this study did not bring any new evidence the severity, the impact in the study area was not mentioned well Method section You have stated stratified sampling as your sampling techniques, so how is all pregnant woman during the study period included in your study? you have taken the proportion from the study done in Adama. Is Adama and Awabale woreda has the same characteristics in terms of population, health care services, etc.... ? you have used consecutive sampling(non-probability): I would rather use random sampling(e.g systematic sampling) for generalizability issue. If you have used stratified sampling why did you use consecutive sampling at the end? what is the reliability score of your tool in your study? You have mentioned the tool was validated in Ethiopia on postpartum depression. what about antepartum use? your study was on antenatal depression How didi you measure the fitness of the model? how did you measure the strength of association? Result section be consistent in the description. Discussion section The justification for the difference in the prevalence is not based on your findings, realistic and scientific. Even you have used two Ethiopian studies for comparison. one is higher and another is lower than your finding. this needs justification most of the reasons for justification are shallow Limitations of the study The EPDS measurement tool is a measurement scale, not a diagnostic tool.....This can't be the limitation. as your objective is not to diagnose the patient Reference References were not written to the journal standard Tables What is your base to classify rural - urban Monthly income: the categorization of income seems arbitrary Only 5 respondents had induced abortion . How did you fit type of abortion variable (the cell count 5) in your regression analysis? what is the question asked to measure family history of a depressive episode how does the participants knows depressive episode? What is the question asked to measure History of chronic illness how does the participants knows chronic illness? what are the types? ********** 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: Malinda Kaiyo-Utete Reviewer #2: Yes: Abel Dadi Reviewer #3: 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-21-01660R1 Prevalence of Depression and Associated Factors among Pregnant Women Attending Antenatal Care in Public Health Institutions of Awabale Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aynalem, 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 Oct 15 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:
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: http://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, Jianguo Wang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Please carefully address the comments and improve the quality of this manuscript. Most of all is to clearly hightlight the importance or novelty of this research. [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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (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: Partly Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: No ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: No ********** 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: No Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: No ********** 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: This has improved very much from the previous version. However, the authors still have not addressed the issue of the importance of their work. What have they done differently considering that a lot of work has already been done in Ethiopia. Could they please provide a sound justification for their work? The methodology section still needs to be revised. There is a lot of repetition. I suggest the authors send their work to a professional editor. Reviewer #2: My comments have not been well addressed. There has been a lot of studies on this area so far and I do not think this study brought new evidence that has not been known. Reviewer #3: Dear authors thank you for presenting important public health problem. I have forwarded comments and questions in the first review. I don't see much improvement from the first version. Please go through each comments and questions one by one and respond appropriately. Please find attached the comments and questions. 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: Malinda Kaiyo-Utete Reviewer #2: Yes: Abel Dadi Reviewer #3: 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.
|
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-21-01660R2Prevalence of Depression and Associated Factors among Pregnant Women Attending Antenatal Care in Public Health Institutions of Awabale Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aynalem, 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 Nov 14 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:
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, Jianguo Wang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Please carefully address each comment raised by reviewers and improve the quality of manuscript. [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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (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: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** 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 #3: 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: No Reviewer #3: 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 not addressed some of the issues raised in the previous review. For example, they state that there is paucity of data on antenatal depression in Ethiopia, yet there is a lot of work published from 2006 (Hanlon et al) to 2021 - a list of these articles have been provided in the attachment. Their participants were aged between 15-49 years of age. Participants below 18 would ethically require an assent and parental consent to participate in research. However, in their manuscript, the authors do not show how this was obtained. Could they have considered such women as emancipated adults. If so, they should provide reference. There are so many grammatical and spelling errors. Could the authors consider proof reading (maybe use of a professional editor) to correct these. Their methodological section is not flowing smoothly. They have repeated a lot of things unnecessarily. Their referencing style should be consistent with the journal's requirements. Please find attached comments to the article Reviewer #3: Dear authors, Though there are changes from the previous draft, most of my comments and questions are not addressed well. Please go through each questions and comments and respond ********** 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 #3: 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.
|
| Revision 3 |
|
PONE-D-21-01660R3Prevalence of Depression and Associated Factors among Pregnant Women Attending Antenatal Care in Public Health Institutions of Awabale Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aynalem, 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 insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished. Be sure to:
Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 13 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:
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, Jianguo Wang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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 #3: (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 #3: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: No ********** 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 #3: Dear authors, thank you for revising the manuscript. There are some changes from the previous drafts. kindly find some of the remining comments. ********** 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 #3: 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.
|
| Revision 4 |
|
PONE-D-21-01660R4Prevalence of Depression and Associated Factors among Pregnant Women Attending Antenatal Care in Public Health Institutions of Awabale Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aynalem, 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. This is the last chance for your revision. I hope that efforts should be made to improve the quality of this manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 21 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:
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, Jianguo Wang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: (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: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ********** 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: No ********** 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: No ********** 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: Review of the Manuscript: PONE-D-21-01660_R4 “Prevalence of Depression and Associated Factors among Pregnant Women Attending Antenatal Care in Public Health Institutions of Awabale Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study” The manuscript reads much better compared to the previous versions. However, I still have some issues with the manuscript. Introduction The authors are still to address the issue of the rationale for their study. As I mentioned previously, a lot of work on antenatal depression has been done in Ethiopia since 2009 (Hanlon et al., 2009; Hanlon et al., 2010). Recently, three systematic literature reviews have been published summarizing the burden of antenatal depression in Ethiopia (Dadi et al., 2020; Gertinet Ayano, 2019; Zegeye et al., 2018). So, please explain what your study is adding to the body of knowledge. The authors have stated that “The majority of studies on the prevalence of antenatal depression and associated factors have been conducted in developed countries”. However, there has been a lot of work that has been done in developing countries, particular in African countries (M. Kaiyo-Utete & T. Magwali, 2020; MacGinty et al., 2020; Redinger, 2018; Stewart et al., 2014; van der Westhuizen et al., 2018; van Heyningen et al., 2018; Weobong et al., 2014) to mention but a few. Please refer to such studies for your introduction to be more convincing. The authors mention that “There are studies undertaken on antenatal depression” as a limitation of the studies that were done in low-income countries. Their study is on antenatal depression so how can this be a limitation. Can they please revise their limitations? Methods and Results Can the authors please detail how they came up with their sample size? EPDS is a screening tool hence the pregnant women will have depressive symptoms, not depression. The authors should revise their statement “About 63 (17.8%) had antenatal depression.” What do the authors mean by “Two hundred nine (59%) of respondents had a history of pregnancy”? Is it that they were multipara? Please use the correct medical terminology. The authors could summarise the results of bivariate regression in a table and show the odds ratios (95%:CI; p value) to show the variables that were associated with antenatal depression. The narration “Age, marital status, educational status of the respondent, occupation of respondents and partners, history of abortion and stillbirth, trimester, unplanned pregnancy week at first ANC, poor husband support and feelings, social support, emotionally disturbing factors, history of depression, history of violence and substance use were significant factors in the bivariate regression analysis” is bare of the statistics. ********** 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 [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. |
| Revision 5 |
|
PONE-D-21-01660R5Prevalence of Depression and Associated Factors among Pregnant Women Attending Antenatal Care in Public Health Institutions of Awabale Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aynalem, 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 May 19 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:
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, Jianguo Wang, PhD 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. [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 ********** 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: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: No ********** 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 ********** 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 can still reference the vast work that has been done in Ethiopia already. I appreciate that their work is in a different economical region compared to the previous work but this gives us a better understanding of the burden of antenatal depression in their country. I would have wanted to hear more on what is different from these other studies in their discussion. ********** 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: Malinda Kaiyo-Utete [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. |
| Revision 6 |
|
Prevalence of Depression and Associated Factors among Pregnant Women Attending Antenatal Care in Public Health Institutions of Awabale Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study PONE-D-21-01660R6 Dear Dr. Aynalem, 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, Jianguo Wang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Please check your English and presentation before final submission. 'Pregnant women had high school and above educational level 18 times higher odds of developing antenatal depression than women who had no formal education' is a little confusing statement. Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-21-01660R6 Prevalence of Depression and Associated Factors among Pregnant Women Attending Antenatal Care in Public Health Institutions of Awabale Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study Dear Dr. Aynalem: 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. Jianguo Wang Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .