PONE-D-21-14262MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY FOR WOMEN AND MEN: A PROTOCOL FOR A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSISPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bezerra,

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, review the protocol based on the reviewer 1 comments and consider the following aspects. 

The author cited the PRISMA Statement as methodological guidance; however, the PRISMA is considered a reporting guideline. Please, see the following editorial for more information: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-021-01671-z

The decision to use fixed and random effects in the meta-analysis should be reviewed because using I2 statistics to do that is not recommended. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 18 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,

Rafael Sarkis-Onofre

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 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. 

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Academic Editor:

Please, review the protocol based on the reviewer 1 comments and consider the following aspects.

The author cited the PRISMA Statement as methodological guidance; however, the PRISMA is considered a reporting guideline. Please, see the following editorial for more information: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-021-01671-z

The decision to use fixed and random effects in the meta-analysis should be reviewed because using I2 statistics to do that is not recommended.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

The research protocol presents a very relevant theme. The study is justified based on the information presented in the protocol. The idea is interesting, but the study needs adjustments and improvements before being considered for publication and generating significant results.

Some points must be considered:

1. Considering the dates presented in the protocol for the beginning of the searches and the conclusion of the reviews, we can assume that the project already presents results, so why not present them?

2. The registration date in PROSPERO presented on the platform is 16 April 2021 and not 10 May as informed in the methodology.

3. There appears to be misuse of the PRISMA-P statement. Misuse often appears through authors trying to use the PRISMA statement and its extensions as a methodological guideline. Phrases such as "The project will be CONDUCTED/PERFORMED/DEVELOPED based on PRISMA-P." to justify the use of PRISMA are wrong.

4. There is inconsistency regarding the databases that will be consulted. The "CINAHL" database is mentioned in the abstract and in the "Electronic surveys" topic, but it does not appear in the flowchart, where the "LILACS" database is mentioned.

5. Table 1 referenced in the text (search strategy) does not match table 1 presented (PICO description). The same goes for table 2.

6. In the case of a systematic review of cross-sectional observational studies, the acronym PICO needs to be reviewed, as well as its description throughout the text and in the table.

7. There is a lack of a more detailed description in the study methodology, mainly in the eligibility criteria. This is critical for the reproducibility of the study.

8. Different accessibility concepts and approaches are mentioned in the introduction. How will the authors take care of this in the inclusion and analysis of the different studies in the review?

9. Are there any restrictions during the search or selection of studies (language restrictions, for example)?

10. How will authors deal with missing data in data extraction and evaluation of included studies?

11. Justify why you used the mentioned classification in topic "Risk of bias assessment" for the results of the Joanna Briggs Institute for Analytical Cross-Cutting Studies Checklist.

12. Add possible study limitations at the end of the discussion.

13. Authors need to describe where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete.

**********

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.

PONE-D-21-14262R1MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY FOR WOMEN AND MEN: A PROTOCOL FOR A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSISPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bezerra,

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 03 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,

Rafael Sarkis-Onofre

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The reviewer highlighted that some important aspects were not reviewed. Please, review the protocol accordingly.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

**********

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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

Despite noting the improvements with the revisions carried out, I still consider that the study needs adjustments before being considered for publication and generating good results. Some points must be considered:

1. Study protocols should describe detailed plans and proposals for research projects. Also, according to the journal's submission guide (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-study-protocols), the protocol must: 1. Relate to a research study that HAS NOT YET GENERATED RESULTS; 2. Be SUBMITTED BEFORE participant recruitment or DATA COLLECTION for the study is complete. Considering the projection of the beginning and end of the review process presented in the protocol, as well as the presence of preliminary results, it does not make sense to publish this protocol.

2. In the abstract, the erroneous statement that the protocol will be DEVELOPED based on the PRISMA-P guideline continues. PRISMA and its extensions only guide reporting, not the conduct of studies and protocols.

3. The phrase "The protocol is being reported and directed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P)" should be transferred to the topic "Protocol and register" as it has no relation to "Electronic searches"

4. Regarding the description of the reported acronym PECO (Participants: Adult women; Exposition: Accessibility to mental health services; Comparison: Adult men; Outcome: Prevalence of access to mental health services). Comparison should be the control for exposure, in my view, inaccessibility to mental health services. Description must be revised.

5. Although the review provides a more detailed description of the eligibility criteria, these and the methodology as a whole still lack details. For example, what the authors consider accessibility to health services can be described in the inclusion criteria (as already answered in question 8). What will be considered a mental health service? Will gender be collected and analyzed in the study only when it was reported by the patient, by data from medical records, or both?

6. In the exclusion criteria in the methodology, it is reported that studies that do not show prevalence of accessibility will be excluded. However, in the data extraction it is mentioned that even when these data are absent, studies will be considered, if the calculation of prevalence with raw data is possible. Need standardization!

7. Limitations such as dependence on the quality and adequate reporting of primary studies, as well as the difficulty in combining studies that consider different meanings for accessibility to health services, were not considered.

**********

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.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY FOR WOMEN AND MEN: A PROTOCOL FOR A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

PONE-D-21-14262R2

Dear Dr. Bezerra,

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,

Rafael Sarkis-Onofre

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Academic Editor:

All of my concerns were addressed.

Reviewers' comments: