Individual and intimate-partner factors associated with cervical cancer screening in Central Uganda

Alone Isabirye

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274602

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 18, 2021
19 May 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Farooq Umer, Editor PONE-D-21-33110 The role of the male partner and cervical cancer screening among married women in Central Uganda PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Isabirye, 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 carefully revise the paper according to reviewers' suggestions and resubmit within 30 days. The title of the study should be in line with the methodology, findings and conclusion. Also, the expression of English language be revised throughout the manuscript for its better understanding. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by 17th June 2022. 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 Guest 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. 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. 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: This study examined the role of men in cervical cancer screening among married women in Central Uganda using cross-sectional survey. The comments are as follows. Background Why should the authors conduct the research? The knowledge gap between previous studies and study aim should be mentioned. The study aim (purpose) should be clearly mentioned in the end of background. Study design In calculating sample size, the authors stated that “The prevalence of cervical cancer screening was estimated at 50% because no studies were found in literature for similar population.” Why did the authors use 50%? Even if the authors have such claim above, they also need to mention the source of “50%”, which may from other population. The number of participants (study subjects) should be higher (usually 10%-20%) than the calculated sample size for possible incomplete data collection and withdrawn of study subjects. Have the authors considered it? Have the authors referred to other well-developed questionnaire in designing the questionnaire in the study? If yes, the reference should be noted. Results In the tables, please use three-line table. Discussion What are the strengths of the study? This should be mentioned with limitations of the study. Others The manuscript need proofreading before submission. The format of the reference should be carefully checked one by one, the mistakes and format issue should be revised. Reviewer #2: The paper's title is inconsistent with the study findings. The author studied factors associated with cervical cancer screening among women in the two study districts of which male partner's age was one of the significant factors but opted to present the factor in the context of male involvement. Besides, if the study was on male involvement, why did the author study women? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274602.r001
Revision 1
18 Jun 2022 Author Response Response letter Date 18 June 2022 To: PLOS ONE em@editorialmanager.com From: "Alone Isabirye" aloneisab@gmail.com Subject: Response to review comments of our manuscript submitted to PLOS ONE (PONE-D-20-2133110) Male partner correlates of cervical cancer screening in Central Uganda Alone Isabirye, Dear Editor, Thank you for your reply regarding my manuscript "Male partner correlates of cervical cancer screening in Central Uganda". I am grateful for your and the reviewers’ comments. I have revised and modified the manuscripts according to your and reviewer’s comments. As a consequence, I provide a revised manuscript with your and the reviewers’ suggestions integrated therein: Response to editor’s comments The title of the study should be in line with the methodology, findings and conclusion. Also, the expression of English language be revised throughout the manuscript for its better understanding. The title was revised to reflect the methodology, findings and conclusions. 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. The manuscript was written following the PLOSONE style. 2. 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. Information about funding was systematized. 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. The ethics statement is presented in the methods section. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Captions for supporting information files were included at the end of the manuscript. Response to reviewer 1’s comments Background Why should the authors conduct the research? The knowledge gap between previous studies and study aim should be mentioned. The knowledge gap between previous studies and study aim was mentioned. The study aim (purpose) should be clearly mentioned in the end of background. The main objective of the study was clearly stated. Study design In calculating sample size, the authors stated that “The prevalence of cervical cancer screening was estimated at 50% because no studies were found in literature for similar population.” Why did the authors use 50%? Even if the authors have such claim above, they also need to mention the source of “50%”, which may from other population. The number of participants (study subjects) should be higher (usually 10%-20%) than the calculated sample size for possible incomplete data collection and withdrawn of study subjects. Have the authors considered it? The 50% prevalence rate was justified with relevant literature. The sample size formula I deployed in calculating the sample size catered for the non-response rate. The non-response rate was indeed fixed at 10%; in other words, a response rate of 90% was considered. Have the authors referred to other well-developed questionnaire in designing the questionnaire in the study? If yes, the reference should be noted. The questionnaire contains items used by previous studies, and this was supported with relevant literature. Results In the tables, please use three-line table. All results-tables were presented as three-line tables. Discussion What are the strengths of the study? This should be mentioned with limitations of the study. The strengths of the study were presented. Others The manuscript need proofreading before submission. The manuscript was proofread and all omissions and grammatical issues were fixed. The format of the reference should be carefully checked one by one, the mistakes and format issue should be revised. All references were checked and perfected. Response to reviewer 2’s comments The paper's title is inconsistent with the study findings. The author studied factors associated with cervical cancer screening among women in the two study districts of which male partner's age was one of the significant factors but opted to present the factor in the context of male involvement. Besides, if the study was on male involvement, why did the author study women? The title was revised to reflect the study findings. Women were interviewed instead of men because they provided data related to their partners without necessarily contacting men. I hope that my modifications render my manuscript in its current form suitable for publication in PLOSONE Yours sincerely, Isabirye Alone aloneisab@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274602.r002
12 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Farooq Umer, Editor PONE-D-21-33110R1Male partner correlates of cervical cancer screening among married women in Central UgandaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. %Isabirye%, 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: The previous Reviewer's comments (Reviewer 2) were not satisfactorily addressed. Another reviewer was invited and the new comments (Reviewer 3) are also not very encouraging. I urge you to carefully address all the concerns by responding to each query of previous as well as new reviewer. The publication at this stage depends upon the quality of response from you. All the comments are clear and self-explanatory, but if you need further clarity, please feel free to contact us. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by %20th July 2022%. 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 PhD Epidemiology and Health Statistics 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: All comments have been addressed 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: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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 #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: Yes 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: The authors have addressed all the comments of the reviewer and the manuscript can be accepted after proof reading. Reviewer #3: Comments This research article signifies the women and the partner’s factors associated with the cervical HPV screening in the underprivileged population of Central Uganda having high burden of the cancer. The article has already been through the major revision and the author though has claimed to have addressed the major observations marked previously. The study is reasonably constructed and can be published but the author has to address the major observations noted herein again as follow. Title Title of the article has not been revised as suggested by both the previous reviewers. Streamline the literature presented with suitable title. The red highlights in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes“ in the pdf file mostly are the same as presented in the original submission. Improve the expression of English suggested by the Reviewer 1 as the red highlights are not changes but are consistent with the original submission. Abstract: P2L3 Replace capital M in male with small letter. Revise English language for better understanding. Background Track changes appearing red are the same as the original submission. Highlight the knowledge gap and rationalize your study as previously suggested Methods Cite Reierson Draugalis et al. in the references in the sub heading of “Sample size and sampling procedure. The author adopted the questionnaire from the previous studies. Was the translated questionnaire checked for reliability and validity? And what about the internal consistency, pilot test and Cronback’s alpha? Results Tables are not presented as three-line tables. Discussion Adequate Conclusion Adequate References Format of references not rectified and missing journal name, volume, issue and page number should be mentioned (Ref 1, Ref 14, Ref 21, Ref 28, Ref 34, Ref 38, Ref 49, Ref 43, Ref 46, Ref 50, Ref 56, Ref 58 and others ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS HPV.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274602.r003
Revision 2
20 Aug 2022 Author Response Response letter Date 18 June 2022 To: PLOS ONE em@editorialmanager.com From: "Alone Isabirye" aloneisab@gmail.com Subject: Response to review comments of our manuscript submitted to PLOS ONE (PONE-D-20-2133110) Male partner correlates of cervical cancer screening in Central Uganda Alone Isabirye, Dear Editor, Thank you for your reply regarding my manuscript "Male partner correlates of cervical cancer screening in Central Uganda". I am grateful for your and the reviewers’ comments. I have revised and modified the manuscripts according to your and reviewer’s comments. As a consequence, I provide a revised manuscript with your and the reviewers’ suggestions integrated therein: Response to editor’s comments The title of the study should be in line with the methodology, findings and conclusion. Also, the expression of English language be revised throughout the manuscript for its better understanding. The title was revised to reflect the methodology, findings and conclusions. 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. The manuscript was written following the PLOSONE style. 2. 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. Information about funding was systematized. 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. The ethics statement is presented in the methods section. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Captions for supporting information files were included at the end of the manuscript. Response to reviewer 1’s comments Background Why should the authors conduct the research? The knowledge gap between previous studies and study aim should be mentioned. The knowledge gap between previous studies and study aim was mentioned. The study aim (purpose) should be clearly mentioned in the end of background. The main objective of the study was clearly stated. Study design In calculating sample size, the authors stated that “The prevalence of cervical cancer screening was estimated at 50% because no studies were found in literature for similar population.” Why did the authors use 50%? Even if the authors have such claim above, they also need to mention the source of “50%”, which may from other population. The number of participants (study subjects) should be higher (usually 10%-20%) than the calculated sample size for possible incomplete data collection and withdrawn of study subjects. Have the authors considered it? The 50% prevalence rate was justified with relevant literature. The sample size formula I deployed in calculating the sample size catered for the non-response rate. The non-response rate was indeed fixed at 10%; in other words, a response rate of 90% was considered. Have the authors referred to other well-developed questionnaire in designing the questionnaire in the study? If yes, the reference should be noted. The questionnaire contains items used by previous studies, and this was supported with relevant literature. Results In the tables, please use three-line table. All results-tables were presented as three-line tables. Discussion What are the strengths of the study? This should be mentioned with limitations of the study. The strengths of the study were presented. Others The manuscript need proofreading before submission. The manuscript was proofread and all omissions and grammatical issues were fixed. The format of the reference should be carefully checked one by one, the mistakes and format issue should be revised. All references were checked and perfected. Response to reviewer 2’s comments The paper's title is inconsistent with the study findings. The author studied factors associated with cervical cancer screening among women in the two study districts of which male partner's age was one of the significant factors but opted to present the factor in the context of male involvement. Besides, if the study was on male involvement, why did the author study women? The title was revised to reflect the study findings. Women were interviewed instead of men because they provided data related to their partners without necessarily contacting men. I hope that my modifications render my manuscript in its current form suitable for publication in PLOSONE Yours sincerely, Isabirye Alone aloneisab@gmail.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal-letter-Plos-20-8-2022.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274602.r004
1 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Farooq Umer, Editor Individual and intimate-partner factors associated with cervical cancer screening in Central Uganda PONE-D-21-33110R2 Dear Dr. Isabirye, 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, BDS, MSPH, FRSPH, PhD Epidemiology and Health Stat Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #3: 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 ****** 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: 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: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274602.r005
Formally Accepted
7 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Farooq Umer, Editor PONE-D-21-33110R2 Individual and intimate-partner factors associated with cervical cancer screening in Central Uganda Dear Dr. Isabirye: 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.0274602.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 .