Factors influencing adoption of oral health promotion by antenatal care providers in Moyo district, North-Western Uganda

Patrick Madrama Lulu; Miisa Nanyingi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272238

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 15, 2022
19 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Farooq Umer, Editor PONE-D-22-18056Factors influencing adoption of oral health promotion by antenatal care providers in Moyo district, North-Western UgandaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lulu, 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 read carefully the comments in the attached PDF file/s and address each question from the reviewer. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by 19th November. 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, Muhammad Farooq Umer, BDS, MSPH, FRSPH, PhD Epidemiology and Health Stat Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex 3. 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 [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: 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: Dear Authors, I appreciated the entirety of your research article, it comprehends several aspects that are frequently assessed for different diseases in the oral cavity during pregnancy and antenatal care. Overall details shared in the article are adequately explained via appropriate tables ad figures. The present manuscript is well written, organized and the topic is interesting for the leadership of oral diseases. Minor changes are recommended to improve the manuscript of this article. Reviewer #2: this work is an important contribution to the oral health promotion the work can be very much developed by rearranging the manuscript the results will be better if presenting the quantitative separately and then the qualitative part some parts of the methods need corrections and additions some figures in the tables need revision please check the recommendations in the pdf format ****** 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. Afsheen Mansoor Associate Professor ACMED, MSHM, PhD. Gold Medalist School of Dentistry, Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University (SZABMU) Islamabad Pakistan Ph # 92-321-5879166 drafsheen@szabmu.edu.pk and drafsheenqamar@gmail.com Reviewer #2: Yes: Elwalid Fadul Nasir ******** [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: Reviewer Comments 24 Aug .docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-18056_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272238.r001
Revision 1
17 Dec 2022 Author Response Patrick Madrama Lulu, Clarke International University, P.0. Box 7782, Kampala- Uganda 14th .11.2022 Dear Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief, Plos One Journal Ref: Response to Reviewers for “Factors influencing adoption of oral health promotion by antenatal care providers in Moyo district, North-Western Uganda.” Thank you for taking time to review our manuscript that was submitted to you, thank you for the comments. Below are the responses to the reviewers. Section Reviewers’ Comment Responses Abstract you may need to insert the OR and CIF for the first 2 factors as well OR and CIF have been inserted for the first 2 factors. Delete a a, have been deleted from aOR Background This sentence better to come after the second sentence in the introduction as it is continuation regarding oral health followed by the sentence starting with Antenatal care The suggested sentence has been inserted after the second sentence in the introduction as suggested by the reviewers. Study Population and settings Exclusion criteria is to be revised! as a general principle exclusion is to exclude the already included (fulfilling the inclusion criteria) but with some characteristics they are to be excluded. Exclusion criteria has been revised following general principles. Study Variables What was the logic behind applying these cut-off points? I would suggest to use the mean score as the cut-off point! The researchers have now clearly indicated the values for mean scores for each cut off point. what was the cut-off point in these two variables The cut-off point for these two variables have now been clearly indicated. Study Design Could you please elaborate on the equation by adding the numbers used in the equation e.g. population size The formula for calculating the sample size has been elaborated as suggested by the reviewers and population size indicated. Data Analysis what was the level of significance used? This has been adjusted. Results This is not shown the table 1 Has been adjusted as required. what is the expected level and the actual level measured? It was an error, expected levels have been removed. This table would be better presented in two columns the second containing both frequency and parentage! This table 1 has been adjusted as suggested by reviewers. This should be 69.7 the total adds to 100.2% This value has been adjusted in table 1, as required. This should be 54% This has as well been adjusted as required. You need to mention the OR and CI OR and CI have been added. ONLY this age-group was significant others were not check the OR and CI AND p-values as well! This has been adjusted as required. this comparison is wrong!!! the reference group is 31-40 years’ experience both groups are compared to the last group of experience (they are not significant look at te CI) REVISE This has been revised. This comparison is wrong the reference group is HC IV This has been adjusted. Wrong interpretation of the UOR!! REVISE The interpretation has been revised. compared to those had skills!! This comparison has been adjusted. Mention the livelihood between the two groups UOR three times, eight times and twice The likelihood between the two groups have been revised. This sentence belong to the discussion than the results section The sentence has been removed from results section. These results depicted in figure 3 NOT one This has been adjusted as required. These results are depicted in figure 1. Has been adjusted as required. What was the CI This has been revised in table 3. Strength and Limitations Data analyses does not control for any bias! This has been revised. References Any abbreviation for this journal! Abbreviation for the journals have been indicated as required. Yours Sincerely Patrick Madrama Lulu Phone: +256 782 98 04 51 Email:Lulu.madrama@gmail.com Consultant Research Ethics Committee/Lecturer, Clarke International University Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272238.r002
7 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Farooq Umer, Editor PONE-D-22-18056R1Factors influencing adoption of oral health promotion by antenatal care providers in Moyo district, North-Western UgandaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lulu, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please address the comments from one of the reviewers who has asked to review English language and back your analysis with more graph(s) where necessary.Please complete the revision within next 10 days so that editorial process for this research may be completed soon as possible. Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact. For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 24 2023 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, Muhammad Farooq Umer, 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 #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: No Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Please add more graphs to support your results the result section needs to be re organised. minor language changes are advised. long continous sentences can be made short and clear Reviewer #4: The topic is an important issue ,research is good.Author has well explained the methodology and embedded all the amendments highlighted by the first reviewer ****** 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 Reviewer #4: 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-22-18056_R1_reviewed.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272238.r003
Revision 2
28 Mar 2023 Author Response Patrick Madrama Lulu, Clarke International University, P.0. Box 7782, Kampala- Uganda 25th .02.2023 Dear Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief, Plos One Journal Ref: Response to Reviewers for “Factors influencing adoption of oral health promotion by antenatal care providers in Moyo district, North-Western Uganda.” Thank you for taking time to review our manuscript that was submitted to you, thank you for the comments. Below are the responses to the reviewers. Section Reviewers’ Comment Responses Materials and Methods Please elaborate about your exclusion criteria We were looking at the fact that Medical Doctors, Nurses, Clinical Officers etc who did not work at ANC department did not have much opportunity to care for pregnant mothers, therefore, did not qualify for the study. ANC providers who had worked within the district less than six months may not be able to give authentic responses related to the study within the area of the study. Study Variables Items used to measure adoption: list of items used??? Items have been listed. please mention the list of practice items that was used Items have been listed. List of items used to measure Knowledge Items have been listed. List of items used to measure attitude Items have been listed. List of items used to measure capacity of health facilities. Items have been listed. Results please reformat this table, title for the column is missing in Table 1, has unlabelled column This has been formated and deleted in line comments from previous first review. Clinical Officers - 2013.2 in table 1 This has been corrected 20(13.2) what was your basis for this conclusion?? How was the adoption measured? Adoption was measured as described under the variables in page 4 of this manuscript. General Please address the comments from one of the reviewers who has asked to review English language and back your analysis with more graph(s) where necessary. Review of English language have been done. Our manuscript has the necessary supporting figures and tables in line with plos one guidelines. Yours Sincerely Patrick Madrama Lulu Phone: +256 782 98 04 51 Email:Lulu.madrama@gmail.com Consultant Research Ethics Committee/Lecturer, Clarke International University Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272238.r004
10 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Farooq Umer, Editor Factors influencing adoption of oral health promotion by antenatal care providers in Moyo district, North-Western Uganda PONE-D-22-18056R2 Dear Dr. Lulu, 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, Muhammad Farooq Umer Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272238.r005
Formally Accepted
13 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Farooq Umer, Editor PONE-D-22-18056R2 Factors influencing adoption of oral health promotion by antenatal care providers in Moyo district, North-Western Uganda Dear Dr. Lulu: 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. Muhammad Farooq Umer Guest Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272238.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 .