A scoping review key elements and effects of cardiovascular disease management programs based on community-based participatory research

Juhyeon Yang; Bohyun Park

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279563

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 14, 2021
24 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Ahmed Negida, Editor PONE-D-21-11065A scoping review on the key elements and effects of cardiovascular disease management programs based on community-based participatory researchPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Park, 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. Literature search results are "results" not methods. The flow diagram and literature search results/numbers should be in the first paragraph of results, not methods. Further, please, address the reviewers' comments below. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 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, Ahmed Negida, 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 2. During the internal evaluation of your manuscript we have noted that the literature search was completed in April 2020. Please consider whether an update to the literature search should be conducted since scoping reviews should provide an up-to-date overview of the research topic covered. 3. 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. 4. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention. 5. 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. 6. 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. [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: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: Thanks for your efforts regarding this well written review summarizing current CBPR practices, the research question is an important one in the current Cardiology community practice which was properly addressed by the authors, also results led to proper conclusions I had some comments regarding Abstract : Any reason for choosing the age above 18 to be enrolled in the review? It was written in the abstract in all 6 RCTs without any brief explanation of them in previous paragraph. Materials and methods: Describe review method developed by Arcey and O'Malley. Describe PRISMA extension for scoping review check list. Please explain search terms Cardiovasc* , vascul* disease, PAR ? , participat ? In line 270, 271 describe each model Details of statistics of your chosen studies need to be properly high lighted. Rewrite both tables 2 and 3 (establishing partner ship, CBPR principle) in a simple fashion. Reviewer #2: The authors presented a scoping review about e key elements and effects of cardiovascular disease management programs based on community-based participatory research. The idea is interesting, the article is well written. I thank the authors for their effort. However, minor concerns exist. 1-In table 1, there is a study where adults & children were included and another one that did not report the included age. This does not meet the criteria of your selection (>18 y). 2-The introduction and the discussion need to be shortened. 3-The answers for the research questions should be clarified during the discussion. ******** 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: Yes:** Mohammad Eltahlawi [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279563.r001
Revision 1
11 Jul 2022 Author Response Authors’ Response for the Reviewers’ Report: # Editor Thank you for your good comments on this study. You can check the revised contents through the track change. 1. Literature search results are "results" not methods. The flow diagram and literature search results/numbers should be in the first paragraph of results, not methods. � Generally, in scoping reviews and systematic reviews, the study selection process is described in the research method. 2. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. � After reviewing PLOS ONE’s style requirements, we revised the manuscript and references. 3. During the internal evaluation of your manuscript we have noted that the literature search was completed in April 2020. Please consider whether an update to the literature search should be conducted since scoping reviews should provide an up-to-date overview of the research topic covered. � After searching for additional published studies from April 2020 to April 2022, the results were added and described. 4. 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. � In this study, the data extraction process was presented in detail in the research method. Tables 2–5 present the result of the study, that is, the final data. The search strategies were attached as supplementary data. 5. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention. � The abstract does not contain any citations any longer. 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. � We attached the search strategies for each database and PRISM-ScR at the end of our manuscript. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. � We reviewed and revised the reference list. Reviewer #1: Thank you for your good comments on this study. You can check the revised contents through the track change. Thanks for your efforts regarding this well written review summarizing current CBPR practices, the research question is an important one in the current Cardiology community practice which was properly addressed by the authors, also results led to proper conclusions � Thank you for your encouraging comments. We have made revisions based on your feedback, which, we believe, has improved the quality of our paper. 1. Abstract: Any reason for choosing the age above 18 to be enrolled in the review? � The target population of this study is adults. Many studies define people over the age of 18 as adults, and thus we applied that criterion in this study. 2. Abstract: It was written in the abstract in all 6 RCTs without any brief explanation of them in previous paragraph. � We added a brief explanation of this point, as follows. Page 2 Line 35 to 37 In addition, among the 21 studies selected were 6 RCTs, all of which showed a significant positive effect in experimental groups compared to control groups. 3. Materials and methods: Describe review method developed by Arcsey and O'Malley. � The review method developed by Arcsey and O’Malley is described in lines 96–100, on page 6. 4. Describe PRISMA extension for scoping review check list. � PRISMA-SCR is an abbreviation of ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews’, and the full term is presented inside parentheses. Page 5 Lines 98 to 99: In the process of conducting this scoping review and reporting the results, we abided by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist [22]. 5. Please explain search terms Cardiovasc* , vascul* disease, PAR ? , participat ? � * is a symbol that has the function to search for all words that match the spelling located before * when searching in electronic databases such as PubMed and CINAHL (Searching using 'Cardiovasc' searches for 'Cardiovascular', 'Cardiovasculitis', etc). PAR, which is abbreviation for Participatory Action Research, was selected in the search because it is a research form similar to CBPR. ‘participat’ was revised to ‘participant’ because it was a typo. 6. In line 270, 271 describe each model � ‘Intervention mapping’ and ‘precede–proceed model’ are the names of the health planning models. Since these models were used in the selected studies, we simply listed the names of models in the manuscripts. We deleted 'CATCH-PATH model' as it was confirmed that it was not a planning model. 7. Details of statistics of your chosen studies need to be properly highlighted. � The statistical methods used in the selected study were added to Table 5. 8. Rewrite both tables 2 and 3 (establishing partnership, CBPR principle) in a simple fashion. � The text of Tables 2 and 3 has been restated more concisely. Lines 227–247. Reviewer #2: Thank you for your good comments on this study. You can check the revised contents through the track change. The authors presented a scoping review about key elements and effects of cardiovascular disease management programs based on community-based participatory research. The idea is interesting, the article is well written. I thank the authors for their effort � Thank you for your encouraging comments. We have made revisions based on your feedback, which, we believe, has improved the quality of our paper. 1. In table 1, there is a study where adults & children were included and another one that did not report the included age. This does not meet the criteria of your selection (>18 y). � Although Schroeder et al. (2017) studied both adults and children, we included results from the study with adults because we were able to confirm them. We deleted “children” from the table because it could make confusion for readers. 2. The introduction and the discussion need to be shortened. � We reviewed the introduction and discussion parts and described them more concisely. We deleted the description of why we used the scoping review method at the beginning of the discussion. 3. The answers for the research questions should be clarified during the discussion. � The discussion was revised to focus on the answers to the research questions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: authors_response_0602.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279563.r002
3 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Julie Gleason-Comstock, Editor PONE-D-21-11065R1A scoping review on the key elements and effects of cardiovascular disease management programs based on community-based participatory researchPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Park, 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 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, Julie Gleason-Comstock 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. Additional Editor Comments: Abstract/Line 111: Spell out Randomized Controlled Trial before acronym of "RCT" -Lines 201-203: The new Table 2 including racial statistics includes six studies which authors state did not mention race, and they use the term "Nor." Further author investigation of those six studies as to participant race and explanation of "Nor" is requested. -Line 420: With author manuscript revisions, the search timeline was expanded from ten to twelve years. Please update. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #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: Yes 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: Thanks for addressing the requested changes and questions, kindly you need to edit participat to participant as it is a typo also the search timing need to emphasize it was between March and April and data from studies till 2022 were added as its review of literature so we ensure that its updated. Reviewer #2: The authors addressed the concern well. I Thank you for your satisfactory reply. The discussion now sounds good ****** 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: Yes: Mohammad Eltahlawi ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279563.r003
Revision 2
7 Nov 2022 Author Response Thank you for your good comments on this study. We marked the modified part in red. 1. 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. � We checked the reference list and corrected. No. 27 was missed and added. Number errors (27 -> 28, 28 -> 29) were corrected and No 29 was deleted 2. Abstract/Line 111: Spell out Randomized Controlled Trial before acronym of "RCT" � The ‘RCT’ was deleted from the abstract and presented as 'Randomized Controlled Trial'. 3. Lines 201-203: The new Table 2 including racial statistics includes six studies which authors state did not mention race, and they use the term "Nor." Further author investigation of those six studies as to participant race and explanation of "Nor" is requested. -> ‘Nor reported’ was corrected to ‘Not reported.’ Six studies that did not mention race were reviewed again and the selected subject characteristics were added. 4. Line 420: With author manuscript revisions, the search timeline was expanded from ten to twelve years. Please update. � I updated search timeline from 10 years to 12 years. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: authors_response_221106.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279563.r004
12 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Julie Gleason-Comstock, Editor A scoping review on the key elements and effects of cardiovascular disease management programs based on community-based participatory research PONE-D-21-11065R2 Dear Dr. Park, 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, Julie Gleason-Comstock Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279563.r005
Formally Accepted
19 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Julie Gleason-Comstock, Editor PONE-D-21-11065R2 A scoping review key elements and effects of cardiovascular disease management programs based on community-based participatory research Dear Dr. Park: 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 Professor Julie Gleason-Comstock Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279563.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .