Uptake of appointment spacing model of care and associated factors among stable adult HIV clients on antiretroviral treatment Northwest Ethiopia

Abaynew Assemu Asrade; Nurilign Abebe Moges; Maru Meseret; Kasaye Demeke Alemu; Tilahun Degu Tsega; Pammla Petrucka; Animut Takele Telayneh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279760

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 14, 2022
2 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Avanti Dey, Editor PONE-D-22-11061Uptake of Appointment Spacing Model of care and associated factors among stable adult HIV clients on antiretroviral treatment Northwest EthiopiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Telayneh, 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. Can you please address the concerns raised by the expert reviewer? Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 15 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, Avanti Dey, PhD Staff 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 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: This is an important study about uptake of ART. The manuscript is well-written and has a nice layout, which make it easy to read and follow. However, I have a few concerns, which if considered and applied by the authors might improve its readability. 1. It’s unclear how appointment spacing model solves the challenges in line #53-57, it would be helpful for the authors to expound on this relationship in the text. 2. Related to the above comment #1, the authors state that ASM is associated with lower probability of death and use citation #7 to back that assertion, but that citation did not have anything to do with that finding. What is the relevance of this citation to this text? Given that observation, it now becomes unclear in the text, what is the benefit of ASM to ART, and why it should be advocated for people on ART. The authors need to cite an original source that developed the ASM model and the study that showed its benefits to people on ART. That will form the foundation and validity of this current study/investigation. 3. How were the three out of the 10 hospitals and nine out of 29 health centers selected for the study? 4. On line #91 the authors reported that “high caseload ART facilities which hosted more than 500 cases selected for this study”, but on line #97 they reported that “final sample of 423”. 5. The tables have n=415, the authors should consider revising the results section and the rest of the manuscript to reflect that sample size. The number of study participants should be consistent across the manuscript. Right now it is a little bit confusing as indicated above. ****** 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: Chris B. Agala ******** [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.0279760.r001
Revision 1
18 Sep 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers We are happy for your constructive comments and suggestions. We are also learned a lot from these substantial scientific comments to improve the quality of this manuscript. We are addressed your comments and suggestions as stated below. The manuscript was revised as indicated in the highlights and track change. 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 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. Tank you! We are accepted your comment. We are prepared according to the journal guidleine and checked all refernces. We found only one “Cawley C, Nicholas S, Szumilin E, Perry S, Quiles IA, Masiku C, Wringe A: Six-monthly appointments as a strategy for stable antiretroviral therapy patients: evidence of its effectiveness from 7 years of experience in a Medecins Sans Frontieres supported programme in Chiradzulu district, Malawi. In: Journal of the International AIDS Society: 2016: John Wiley & Sons Ltd the Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, 2016” is identifed as retracted and removed from this list. 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 Thank you! ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Thank you! ________________________________________ 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 Thank you! ________________________________________ 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 Thank you! ________________________________________ 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: This is an important study about uptake of ART. The manuscript is well-written and has a nice layout, which make it easy to read and follow. However, I have a few concerns, which if considered and applied by the authors might improve its readability. 1. It’s unclear how appointment spacing model solves the challenges in line #53-57, it would be helpful for the authors to expound on this relationship in the text. Thank you! We are accepted your constructive comments and included your comment in the document page 3 lines 58-65. 2. Related to the above comment #1, the authors state that ASM is associated with lower probability of death and use citation #7 to back that assertion, but that citation did not have anything to do with that finding. What is the relevance of this citation to this text? Given that observation, it now becomes unclear in the text, what is the benefit of ASM to ART, and why it should be advocated for people on ART. The authors need to cite an original source that developed the ASM model and the study that showed its benefits to people on ART. That will form the foundation and validity of this current study/investigation. Thank you! We are accepted your scientific comment and corrected as your comment in page 3-4 lines 58- 78. 3. How were the three out of the 10 hospitals and nine out of 29 health centers selected for the study? Thank you! In this study, 30% and above health facilities providing ART service to ensure the representativeness and select high case load health facilities served more than 500 HIV patients in East Gojjam Zone were included. 4. On line #91 the authors reported that “high caseload ART facilities which hosted more than 500 cases selected for this study”, but on line #97 they reported that “final sample of 423”. Thank you! All health facilities included in this study, >500 HIV patients enrolled and received ART. The sample size calculated for this study was 423 and this sampled study participants were proportionally allocated to each selected health facilities among stable adult ART patients. We are included the schematic presentation of sampling procedure (figure 1) in the document. 5. The tables have n=415, the authors should consider revising the results section and the rest of the manuscript to reflect that sample size. The number of study participants should be consistent across the manuscript. Right now it is a little bit confusing as indicated above. Thank you! In this study, 415 ART patients were participated in this study with 98% response rate. The remaining study participant were not welling to complete all the questionnaire components resulting 8 study participants were incomplete data and not included in the analysis. ________________________________________ 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: Chris B. Agala ________________________________________ Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions‼! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reveiwers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279760.r002
14 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Hans-Uwe Dahms, Editor Uptake of Appointment Spacing Model of care and associated factors among stable adult HIV clients on antiretroviral treatment Northwest Ethiopia PONE-D-22-11061R1 Dear Dr. Animut Takele Telayneh, 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, Hans-Uwe Dahms, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279760.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Hans-Uwe Dahms, Editor PONE-D-22-11061R1 Uptake of Appointment Spacing Model of care and associated factors among stable adult HIV clients on antiretroviral treatment Northwest Ethiopia Dear Dr. Telayneh: 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. Hans-Uwe Dahms Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279760.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 .