Peer Review History
Original SubmissionJanuary 12, 2021 |
---|
PONE-D-21-01166 Minimum prevention package of interventions for reducing vulnerability to HIV among adolescent girls and young women in Nigeria: An action research PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Arije, 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 25 2021 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:
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: http://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, Maria R. Khan, PhD, MPH 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 2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible. 3. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section. 4. Please include a copy of the interview guide used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously. 5. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. 6. 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. 7. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly 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: No 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: Review Abstract The background section in the abstract reads as a method section. The background section should reflect studies that have examined similar interventions and the authors should discuss the gap in the literature and how a study like this fills that gap. Introduction The authors state that “Despite the myriad programs and agencies offering HIV-related interventions in the country”- The authors should mention 2-3 of these programs and describe the HIV-related interventions these programs offer in comparison to what is being proposed in this study. The authors should either cite similar studies that have used action research methodology for HIV related research (in a different population, age group, or another disease) and mention how this study differs OR the authors should state that this will be the first study to their knowledge that uses the action methodology to address this burden. Line 77 needs a citation – “The Breakthrough Series (BTS) collaborative lends itself to the ideals of action research.” The authors define BTS well and state that the BTS approach has been used extensively but the authors fail to provide examples of studies that have used them. The authors can provide 1 or 2 examples in which the BTS method has been used The last paragraph of this section should have the objective of the paper and the hypothesis. The authors should consider a revision. Methods The authors should clearly state the study design e.g. this is a qualitative study using xx grounded approach/methodology. The authors state that “We purposively selected two local government areas (LGA) as implementation sites and one as the control site in each study location” but the authors fail to give a reason why?- The authors should consider providing a reason for this. The authors mention “local BTS teams planned the specific interventions to address the change topics identified in each study state” But the authors do not report on who makes up these local BTS teams. The description of the teams needs to be reported first before the activities of these teams are described. The authors should consider describing these BTS teams and the type of stakeholders that constitute each of these teams. A dedicated section for recruitment and population description needs to be included in the methods section i.e. how were youth participants and other local stakeholders recruited into the study. (please explain the process of recruitment). Describe all participants and stakeholders who participated in the study. What was the duration of each action period (3 months? 4 months?). The actual duration needs to be stated as well as the timing (2019-2020?) Line 59-60 needs to be revised “There were two action periods in this study, lasting three and two each.”- Do the authors mean to write 2- 3 months? This needs to be clarified The section labeled household survey is reporting on demographics, which should be in the results section. The household survey should simply describe the methodology that was employed and should not report on results (including demographics) of the survey. E.g. line 69 “The study population was females of the age range of 15 to 24 years old” These errors are also seen in lines 193-195. All these should be in the results section, not the methods section. The authors need to define acceptability (what do the authors hypothesize acceptability for this study will look like). If possible the authors should also cite their definition from the literature The authors need to define accessibility (what do the authors hypothesize accessibility for this study will look like). If possible the authors should also cite their definition from the literature Results For each theme/domain idea, the authors should consider including quotes from participants in describing some of the results. This is only evident in the parental communication intervention themes onwards, previous themes like Peer-to-peer communication interventions and Youth facilitator-driven interventions do not have quotes. The authors should consider revising this to include quotes from stakeholders. Discussion The authors state that “Several authors have successfully implemented HIV prevention interventions based on the MPPI strategy among in-school and out-of-school adolescents, including community mobilization, outreach, advocacy, and monitoring”- But the authors do not describe some of these studies. The authors should consider describing 1 or 2 of these studies. The authors should report on or cite other studies/programs from the literature (in other populations, countries, etc.) that have targeted AGYW and their parents for matters relating to sex or HIV prevention, etc. OR the authors must state that no such study exists in the literature and this study will be the first of its kind. Line 445-446 needs a citation from the literature- “These buttress the point that one size will not fit all, and context is (nearly) everything in HIV prevention programming for AGYW.” The authors must include a dedicated section in the discussion section to describe and discuss the study limitations. This should not be in the conclusion. Conclusion The conclusion section should simply summarize the overall findings and what future research should explore, the study limitations should be removed from this section and have a dedicated section in the discussion section. Overall Summary and reviewer final comments Overall this is a good paper, which takes an innovative approach to the topic. The authors should consider the revision suggestions above and also consider a clean copy edit of the manuscript as there are a few, run-on sentences, tense confusions, and grammatical errors which need to be fixed using spell check or software like Grammarly. Once these edits are incorporated this paper should be accepted for publication. Reviewer #2: This manuscript provides an excellent example of a true collaboration between the community and academia. The authors utilize a framework to ensure that the local priorities and context are taken into account when developing and implementing an intervention to reduce the risk of HIV in AGYW. Refining models of the intervention planning, implementation, and evaluation cycle to include those the intervention is meant to serve is laudable. However, my appreciation of the contribution of this research might be enhanced by a clearer presentation of methods, a more rigorous analysis of data (or at least a clear acknowledgment of its limitation), and a possible reframing of the discussion. I found it difficult to follow the connection between action research, breakthrough series, a learning collaborative approach, and a plan-do-study-act cycle. I also found it challenging to understand the relationship between change packages, the combination prevention intervention approach, intervention models, change ideas, and minimum prevention package of interventions. Additionally, I believe it would be helpful to have additional information about what measures were evaluated when. For example, what was assessed during the "monitoring and evaluation component"? What did local CBOs evaluate to test change ideas? What criteria were used to determine "whether to adapt, adopt, abandon, increase scale, or test under different conditions?" What was measured at baseline and follow-up, and what was considered an "outcome of the specific interventions" and evaluated only at follow-up? In terms of analysis, given that we don't know the baseline probability of receiving services, and the authors did not control for confounders or possible contamination effects, I'm wary of ascribing too much salience to the significant differences found between services used between the intervention LGAs and controls. Also, as multiple interventions were available in the LGAs, I believe the text would be improved by describing how authors ascertained that services used were due to a particular intervention. Finally, in the discussion, the authors state this their approach "helped improve the acceptability and accessibility of programs." I would be careful to overstate this point. While they've shown this approach results in acceptable and accessible programs, without comparing it to other models of intervention development and implementation, it's impossible to say whether it was an "improvement." However, I think the authors miss an opportunity to highlight how this collaborative approach, which engages the community and takes context into account, might be an improvement over other models. Consider framing the discussion to illuminate the relative benefits of this approach. ********** 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 |
PONE-D-21-01166R1Minimum prevention package of interventions for reducing vulnerability to HIV among adolescent girls and young women in Nigeria: An action researchPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Arije, 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 Jun 02 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:
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, Tai-Heng Chen, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: (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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Partly Reviewer #5: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: N/A Reviewer #4: I Don't Know Reviewer #5: 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 Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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 Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: 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 #3: This paper provides important evidence and discussion of ways in which to develop combination interventions that are context appropriate, and acceptable to their target populations and the communities they are embedded in – with the buy in and participation of the target population and broader community. However, I am not sure the authors have sufficiently discussed the potentially problematic contextual elements, community dynamics or beliefs, that might hamper AGYW sexual health, sexual rights, sexual autonomy and empowerment – such as entrenched gender inequities, “traditional beliefs”, or sexual communication norms that inhibit/prohibit open communication and access to information. Whilst the authors state that programmes should “engage parents” and provide parents with “correct information on HIV and sexuality and help them acquire the necessary communication skills to engage their adolescent children” – I don’t see discussions of potential sociocultural barriers towards doing this - what kinds of challenges or resistance there may be at the community level, and how interventions might circumvent/address these. General comments - I don’t see discussion of or reflection on diversity in sexuality. Was there reflection on heteronormativity in socio-cultural contexts, and how this was embedded in parent-adolescent sexuality communication? - How does the centrality and positioning of the church as a mechanism through which sexuality communication and education occurs shape the content and framing of sex? E.g. discussions of sexual pleasure and empowerment versus ‘abstinence until marriage’ etc? It would be good to see some reflection on this. - Norms around sexuality communication are mentioned – e.g. appropriateness of discussing sexual organs/genitalia, and euphemistic nature of language prohibiting open and explicit discussion – how does this impact young people’s knowledge and sexual decision making? - There is evidence of parental resistance to comprehensive sexuality education in this context (CSE)? Was this also the case at a broader community and institutional level (e.g schools, churches)? How does this impact intervention delivery? Specific comments: Page 2 - Line 19: re-order sentence – “AGYW in Nigeria…” Page 5 - Line 100: why is “problem’s” possessive? Incorrect use of apostrophe Page 7 - Lines 134-137: check brackets are closed Page 17 - Line 370: surely a 21 year old female is a “young woman”, not a “girl”? Refer to standard definitions of “girls” vs “women”, and age brackets of AGYW Reviewer #4: The manuscript is written in standard English, but I struggled with some ambiguous sentences and flow. Reviewer #5: Dear Editor, Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to review the manuscript. First, I had to read comments of earlier reviewers. The authors have addressed most concerns raised by earlier reviewers. I make the following comments: Title: The authors might consider revising the title to include or replace ‘minimum’ with ‘combined’ to tie with the objective of the study. In addition, the authors might consider including adolescent boys and young men in the title because results show that these people participated in the study too. Abstract: Lines 22-25 read like methods section. Authors should consider including recommendation(s) [it can be within the conclusion]. Proofread for typo errors e.g. Line 19 ‘adolescents’ ‘[adolescent]’. Introduction: First statement needs revision – whether it is about adolescent girls or adolescents in general. The section needs proofreading for grammatical errors. Transitions are lacking between some paragraphs. Methods and Materials: Lines 217-218 need citation(s). Results: Presentation of results is not clear especially at the beginning. I suggest focusing on the results and removing some background information. Some information might be used to strengthen the Methods and Materials section. Proofread for typo, grammar and spelling errors e.g. Line 423, line 458, line 497, line 533, line 545 etc. It is only when I get to line 479 that I begin reading of young men. Again, these are not reflected in the title, abstract, introduction, methods and materials sections. Provide an example to lines 484-487 or cite the literature. Some quotes are not identified (have no persons who said them). Other quotes can be shortened. Discussion and Conclusion sections are clear to me. Reference section needs editing for consistency including for dates. Others: Check whether it is HIV/AIDS or [HIV and AIDS] Thank you. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes: Wilfred Masebo [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 2 |
PONE-D-21-01166R2Combination prevention package of interventions for reducing vulnerability to HIV among adolescent girls and young women in Nigeria: An action researchPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Arije, 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 Nov 21 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:
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, Tai-Heng Chen, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 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: N/A ********** 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: This manuscript has been much improved. I believe it would be ready for publication once a few last changes have been made as suggested below: 1. Line 163: “Combination HIV prevention is the recommended approach for comprehensive HIV prevention.” – does this sentence have value? Would benefit from being rephrased. 2. Line 192: conceptual framework “used by / proposed by” Chimbindi et al ? 3. Can the authors make more specific and actionable recommendations based on their findings? For example strategies for supporting parent-adolescent SRH communication. 4. How much do parents’ own communication skills and SRH knowledge play a role? How can interventions bolster parents’ communication skills – such as those in the Akers paper the author cites. Also in: DiIorio et. (2000). Social cognitive factors associated with mother-adolescent communication about sex. Journal of Health Communication, 5(1), 41–51. doi:10.1080/108107300126740 5. How does parents’ own self-efficacy play a role? How can interventions best provide parents/caregivers with a knowledge base and skill-set, to enhance their motivation and confidence in communicating around SRH topics? See discussion on this in: - Guilamo-Ramos et al. (2008). Parent-adolescent communication about sexual inter- course: An analysis of maternal reluctance to communicate. Health Psychology, 27(6), 760–769. doi:10.1037/a0013833 - Seif et al. (2018). Caretaker-adolescent communication on sexual and reproductive health: A cross- sectional study in Unguja-Tanzania Zanzibar. BMC Public Health, 18(31), 1–13. doi:10.1186/ s12889-017-4591-2 6. How can interventions empower parent/caregivers in order to increase their ability to be responsive to the needs of adolescents and support them to make safe and informed decisions about sex? Can the authors make recommendations pertaining to this issue. See discussion on this in: - Grossman et al. (2017). “We talked about sex.” “No, we didn’t”: Exploring adolescent and parent agreement about sexuality communication. American Journal of Sexuality Education. doi:10. 1080/15546128.2017.1372829 - Nilsson et al. (2020). Obstacles to intergenerational communication in care- givers’ narratives regarding young people’s sexual and reproductive health and lifestyle in rural South Africa. BMC Public Health, 20(791). doi:10.1186/s12889-020-08780-9 7. If socio-cultural norms impede open sexuality communication, is there a strategy for helping parents/elders to understand the implications of their attitudes and communication style on adolescent sexual decision making? Specific recommendations relating to this issue would be helpful. See discussion of this in: - AVAC. (2018). Breaking the cycle of transmission: Increasing adoption of and adherence to effective HIV prevention among high-risk adolescent girls and young women. - Duby et al. (2022) ‘I can't go to her when I have a problem’: sexuality communication between South African adolescent girls and young women and their mothers, SAHARA-J: Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS, 19:1, 8-21, https://doi.org/10.1080/17290376.2022.2060295 8. How can policy makers and programme designers ensure that interventions are designed and implemented in ways that are sensitive to local cultural and linguistic norms and beliefs? See the Nilson and Duby references cited above for discussion of this. Including recommendations to consider this would be beneficial. ********** 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 ********** [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 3 |
Combination prevention package of interventions for reducing vulnerability to HIV among adolescent girls and young women in Nigeria: An action research PONE-D-21-01166R3 Dear Dr. Arije, 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, Tai-Heng Chen, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 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: N/A ********** 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: This manuscript is much improved, and the authors have responded to most of the previous reviewer comments. The new paragraph added relating to parent-adolescent SRH communication interventions does address some of my previous suggestions. However it was unclear which of the suggested references had been added and cited (this was unclear in the tracked changes). Additionally, there are some grammatical errors in the new paragraph - for example: Line 576: "Socio-cultural norms impede open sexuality communication, and it is a major impedance to parent-adolescent communication about SRH." - norms are plural, so "they" cannot be a singular impedance. This sentence should be revised and corrected. The new paragraph should be throughly and carefully copy edited. ********** 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 ********** |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-21-01166R3 Combination prevention package of interventions for reducing vulnerability to HIV among adolescent girls and young women in Nigeria: An action research Dear Dr. Arije: 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. Tai-Heng Chen 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 .