Cigarette smoking and associated factors among men in five South Asian countries: A pooled analysis of nationally representative surveys

Md Shariful Islam; Mamunur Rashid; Monaemul Islam Sizear; Raafat Hassan; Mahbubur Rahman; Sarker Masud Parvez; Shuvon Chandra Hore; Rehnuma Haque; Farjana Jahan; Supta Chowdhury; Tarique Mohammad Nurul Huda; K. M. Saif-Ur-Rahman; Arifuzzaman Khan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277758

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 27, 2022
20 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Sonu Goel, Editor PONE-D-22-09037Cigarette smoking and associated factors among men in five South Asian countries: a pooled analysis of nationally representative surveysPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Md Shariful Islam 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 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, Sonu Goel, MD 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 [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: 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: The manuscript well written and easy to be followed The section about public health implication needs to be expanded and provide specific country specific implication The title of the figure should be under not above it. Some figures have no titles Reviewer #2: The study is apt and stands to contribute the the existing body of knowledge. It is however important that following revision are made Introduction 1. Region in line 59 should be regions 2. The sentence on lines 59 - 61 should be revised particularly "The World Health Organization (WHO) set" is not clear Methods 1. It appears that sample size for this study was not estimated which could have provided the basis for generalization and drawing of statistical inference. It will be good if the authors can provide the needed information in this regard in as much this study had used secondary data abstraction. 2. The rationale for using two different data sources (DHS and NHFS) is not clear and it will be good if a follow up information on this is provided in the manuscript. Additionally since these selected enumeration areas have different number of households, it would have been more scientific to have used proportion to size technique to determine number of households to be selected rather than picking fixed number of households per enumeration areas. However, provision of the rationale for the use of fixed number households by the authors will suffice. 3. The authors will need to provide more clarification of what the secondary data abstraction from DHS and NHFS were used for and that of the face to face interview. Additionally, the source of data collection tool used for face to face interview should provided as well as how the reliability and validity of the tool were ascertained? 4. The authors have not included the criteria for inclusion in the study. It will be good if the inclusion and exclusion criteria used are clear stated. Additionally, the study focused on males only but females also engage in tobacco use, the rationale for excluding female may be needed. 5. The authors had stated that face to face interviews were conducted, however, it is unclear what that was used to achieve. Additionally, since there is a face to face component of the data collection, it is important that details of how consent for participation was obtained and also ethical approval may be required as tis is different from the DHS Results 1.It is unclear how NA was taken care off or adjusted for in the analysis on table 2 and 3? ****** 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: Huda Omer Basaleem Reviewer #2: Yes: Tolulope Olumide Afolaranmi ******** [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.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277758.r001
Revision 1
5 Aug 2022 Author Response Thank you for reviewing the manuscript critically. Your comments are valuable to improving the quality of the manuscript. We have updated the manuscript based on your comments. Reviewer 1 The manuscript well written and easy to be followed The section about public health implication needs to be expanded and provide specific country specific implication Response: Thank you for your compliments. The title of the figure should be under not above it. Some figures have no titles Response: Thank you for this comment. We replace the title of Table 1,2,3 from above to the bottom of the tables. Please see at page #8 line #171, page #13 line #203, and page #17 line #258. We also added the title of Figures 1, 2,3, and 4. Please see pages #32-35. We also replace the position of title in the supplementary file. Please see pages #1,2 and 3. Reviewer 2 The study is apt and stands to contribute the the existing body of knowledge. It is however important that following revision are made Introduction 1. Region in line 59 should be regions Response: Change has been made accordingly, see in line #56. 2. The sentence on lines 59 - 61 should be revised particularly "The World Health Organization (WHO) set" is not clear Response: Thank you for your comments. We have updated the sentence. Please see lines 58-60. We removed the word "set ". It seems redundant. Now, the sentence is " The World Health Organization (WHO) introduced a target of a 25% reduction of death among individuals aged 30–70 years from cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory diseases between 2010 and 2025 ". Methods 1. It appears that sample size for this study was not estimated which could have provided the basis for generalisation and drawing of statistical inference. It will be good if the authors can provide the needed information in this regard in as much this study had used secondary data abstraction. Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. The datasets we merged were national representative for urban and rural areas, and for the first administrative level subdivisions, district data, and the response rate was quite high for each country (approximately 92% on average). The DHS research team calculated the sample size. Sample sizes for these DHS surveys are based on the number of survey domains (usually subnational units such as regions).. All survey sampling strategies are subject to sampling error. The DHS Program designs samples to provide national and subnational estimates with a reasonable relative standard error. We included all samples in our data analysis. As the data were represented nationally, even representative for the first administrative level, we think that there is no problem with the external validity (generalizability) of this study. Moreover, the high response rate and adequate sample size of each country provided sufficient statistical power, which abetted us to draw statistical inferences right. This has been clarify in the Method section page#4-5, lines#96-101, and in Discussion page#19, lines# 327-330. 2. The rationale for using two different data sources (DHS and NHFS) is not clear and it will be good if a follow up information on this is provided in the manuscript. Additionally since these selected enumeration areas have different number of households, it would have been more scientific to have used proportion to size technique to determine number of households to be selected rather than picking fixed number of households per enumeration areas. However, provision of the rationale for the use of fixed number households by the authors will suffice. Response: In India, DHS is known as NHFS. NHFS is the same as DHS. We have now updated line #86. About picking a fixed number of households per enumeration area, we agree with you that using the proportion to size technique to determine the number of households could be a better option. However, DHS picked a fixed number of households. The explanation from DHS is that a fixed number of households was selected to avoid the logistical burdens caused when the variable number of households is selected. At the same time, it is more cost-efficient. 3. The authors will need to provide more clarification of what the secondary data abstraction from DHS and NHFS were used for and that of the face to face interview. Additionally, the source of data collection tool used for face to face interview should provided as well as how the reliability and validity of the tool were ascertained? Response: We did not conduct any interviews. DHS surveys collect data through face-to-face interviews using households questionnaire incorporating reliable and valid tools and instruments. We’ve now revised our text related to a face-to-face interview in the manuscript, please see page #4, lines #99 – 100. 4. The authors have not included the criteria for inclusion in the study. It will be good if the inclusion and exclusion criteria used are clear stated. Additionally, the study focused on males only but females also engage in tobacco use, the rationale for excluding female may be needed. Response: We revised and added inclusion and exclusion criteria on page 5, lines #104-107. We excluded women because the prevalence of cigarette smoking among women in South Asian countries is very low. In South Asia, women use mainly smoke-less tobacco, which is out of interest in this study. 5. The authors had stated that face to face interviews were conducted, however, it is unclear what that was used to achieve. Additionally, since there is a face to face component of the data collection, it is important that details of how consent for participation was obtained and also ethical approval may be required as tis is different from the DHS. Response: We did not conduct any interviews. We only analyse data from DHS. We think we were not clear enough hence the confusion. We revised our writing about face-to-face interviews. Please see page #5, lines #99, and 100. The DHS program took ethical approval to conduct surveys in Afghanistan, Nepal, India, Pakistan, and the Maldives. The DHS program also took written consent to collect data from participants. We took approval from the DHS program to perform this data analysis. Please see page#7, line #155-156 and page #20, lines #352-354. Results 1.It is unclear how NA was taken care off or adjusted for in the analysis on table 2 and 3? Response: Among the five South-Asian countries we analysed data, the DHS in Afghanistan and Pakistan did not include men who are never married. Those countries included populations who were married or formally married. For this reason, the option became not applicable for these two countries. In our analysis, we used the currently married option as a reference value which is available for all countries. In our pool analysis, we re-normalised the s Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277758.r002
3 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Rajesh Raushan, Editor Cigarette smoking and associated factors among men in five South Asian countries: a pooled analysis of nationally representative surveys PONE-D-22-09037R1 Dear Dr. ISLAM, 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, Rajesh Raushan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Not any 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: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 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 #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: No more comments. Authors had fully addressed my comments and the manuscript is suitable for publication Reviewer #2: The authors have painstakingly effected all the review comments and hence the manuscript is publication worthy. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Huda Omer Basaleem Reviewer #2: Yes: Tolulope Olumide Afolaranmi ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277758.r003
Formally Accepted
6 Nov 2022 Acceptance Letter - Rajesh Raushan, Editor PONE-D-22-09037R1 Cigarette smoking and associated factors among men in five South Asian countries: a pooled analysis of nationally representative surveys Dear Dr. Shariful Islam: 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. Rajesh Raushan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277758.r004

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 .