Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 23, 2022
Decision Letter - Caroline Kingori, Editor

PONE-D-22-05491A national household survey on HIV prevalence and clinical cascade among children aged ≤15 years in Kenya (2018)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mutisya,

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 Sep 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Caroline Kingori

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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“This survey was supported by the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the terms of Cooperative Agreement #U2GGH001226. Additional support was provided by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ"

4. 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.

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: Yes

**********

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: Overall well written and easy to understand. I would suggest adding a bit more demographic information earlier on to help with the flow of the paper. A lot of information is introduced in the method section e.g orphaned or living with parents, and guardian HIV status. Those can be briefly mentioned in abstract or introduction sections.

There are a few punctuation issues to be corrected as well.

Reviewer #2: I enjoyed the opportunity to review this manuscript, most notably, the strides made in tackling HIV prevalence and care among CLHIV. The use of a nationally representative sample provided great insight into who is most vulnerable and supports what is known about orphaned children. Overall a well written manuscript that outlines the need for continued efforts among those most at risk; rural and orphaned children. Insightful recommendations that those working in policy and in the community can use to identify those most vulnerable and target interventions effectively.

My feedback is really on structure and writing to make sure it is readable and findings easy to review.

• Tables 1 2 – work to make sure the titles are on one line somehow for easier reading, and maybe remove the “( )” in the 95% CI column

• Figures, I’d recommend those go/stay in the appendix section to avoid having an overly long manuscript

• Discussion section – a great job focusing on the study implications on orphaned children and the various initiatives implemented to tackle these, but maybe add a line on how effective these programs have been (given that your study shows this demographic continues to be at a significantly higher risk) and a recommendation for improvement based on your studies. You do this well in your next paragraph focused on adolescents to showcase effectiveness of the Operation Triple Zero.

• Writing – extra word “the” noted in data analysis paragraph; 3rd line from the bottom “The protocol was reviewed and cleared the by the Institutional”. As always be sure to review entire document to catch those hidden errors.

**********

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.

Revision 1

Thank you for reviewing and giving us the recommendations to our manuscript

Responses to the academic editor

• We have provided a funding statement which includes all funding sources as follows:-

� “This survey was supported by the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the terms of Cooperative Agreement #U2GGH001226. Additional support was provided by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.” There was no additional external funding received for this study.

• Add ORCID ID the corresponding author

� We have included the ORCID Id for the corresponding author

• Review reference list

� We have reviewed our reference list and ensured that it is complete and correct. We have not referenced any retracted papers

Responses to the peer reviewers

Reviewer #1:

• Overall well written and easy to understand. I would suggest adding a bit more demographic information earlier on to help with the flow of the paper. A lot of information is introduced in the method section e.g orphaned or living with parents, and guardian HIV status. Those can be briefly mentioned in abstract or introduction sections. There are a few punctuation issues to be corrected as well. Thank you for this comment. We have corrected the punctuation errors and included information on the burden of AIDS orphans in the introduction . ’

• In Kenya, an estimated 690,000 children are orphaned by AIDS [5]. AIDS orphans who are HIV infected, live under the care of relatives or children homes.

Reviewer #2:

• I enjoyed the opportunity to review this manuscript, most notably, the strides made in tackling HIV prevalence and care among CLHIV. The use of a nationally representative sample provided great insight into who is most vulnerable and supports what is known about orphaned children. Overall, a well written manuscript that outlines the need for continued efforts among those most at risk; rural and orphaned children. Insightful recommendations that those working in policy and in the community can use to identify those most vulnerable and target interventions effectively.

• My feedback is really on structure and writing to make sure it is readable and findings easy to review. Tables 1 2 – work to make sure the titles are on one line somehow for easier reading, and maybe remove the “( )” in the 95% CI column

• Thank you very much for picking this. We have corrected the tables.

• Figures, I’d recommend those go/stay in the appendix section to avoid having an overly long manuscript

• Figure 1 and Figure 2 renamed as Supplementary figures (to come at the end of the manuscript). Renamed Figure 3 as Figure 1 and retained it to appear in the main paper

• Discussion section – a great job focusing on the study implications on orphaned children and the various initiatives implemented to tackle these, but maybe add a line on how effective these programs have been (given that your study shows this demographic continues to be at a significantly higher risk) and a recommendation for improvement based on your studies. You do this well in your next paragraph focused on adolescents to showcase effectiveness of the Operation Triple Zero.

• Thank you for the comment. We have included information on PAMA care success . ‘Data from PAMA care shows high viral suppression among child -caregiver pairs at 98% and a 12 month retention in care at 99.8% [32]’.

• Writing – extra word “the” noted in data analysis paragraph; 3rd line from the bottom “The protocol was reviewed and cleared the by the Institutional”. As always be sure to review entire document to catch those hidden errors.

� Thank you this is corrected.

Decision Letter - Caroline Kingori, Editor

A national household survey on HIV prevalence and clinical cascade among children aged ≤15 years in Kenya (2018)

PONE-D-22-05491R1

Dear Dr. Mutisya,

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,

Caroline Kingori

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Authors provided great insight on the prevailing pediatric HIV incidence and prevalence rates in Kenya. It is concerning to see the staggering increase in pediatric HIV infections despite the success that Kenya has had in curtailing incidence rates across the populace. I am curious about the prevailing challenges post COVID-19 and how that has affected pediatric HIV infections. That could be a follow-up paper. For now, I support the reviewers comment and recommend the paper be accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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)

**********

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: Succinct and thorough research. The writers addressed all review concerns and I have recommend the paper for publishing.

Reviewer #2: (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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Caroline Kingori, Editor

PONE-D-22-05491R1

A national household survey on HIV prevalence and clinical cascade among children aged ≤15 years in Kenya (2018)

Dear Dr. Mutisya:

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. Caroline Kingori

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 .