Prevalence of HIV seropositive status and associated factors among family members of index cases of antiretroviral clinical attendants in Sodo Town, Southern Ethiopia

Alemayehu Kefale; Kassa Daka; Amene Abebe; Dereje Haile; Kebreab Paulos; Abdulbasit Sherfa; Animut Addis; Muluken Gunta; Asaminew Ayza; Jegnaw Wolde

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280571

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 2, 2022
31 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Colin Johnson, Editor PONE-D-22-04620PREVALENCE OF HIV SEROPOSITIVESTATUS AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS AMONG FAMILY MEMBERS OF INDEX CASES OF ART CLINICATTENDANTS INSODO TOWN, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIAPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Haile, 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. Specifically although the study was found to be well conducted and the statistical analysis reasonable, extensive re-wrting of the grammar and reorganization of the manuscript are needed to make the manuscript easier to read and understand. Included is a list of suggested changes to improve the written english of the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 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, Colin Johnson, Ph.D. 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. Thank you for indicating in your ethics statement that informed written and verbal consent was obtained from each spousal partner and assent for biological children. Based on this statement it is not clear whether the informed consent was obtained from the participants included in the study. Please revise your statement to reflect this. [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: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The Manuscript required extensive reviewing, particularly in terms of language (literally requiring a line by by line reviewing). The formatting lacks the very basics like line spacing and text alignments. Seems that this manuscript slipped though the standard PLoS pre-reviewing. As my comments are, out of necessity, more than 20,000 characters, I have included the file as an attachment. ****** 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: Sileshi Lulseged ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280571.r001
Revision 1
20 Oct 2022 Author Response Manuscript #: PONE-D-22-04620 Title: Seropositive Status and Associated Factors among Family Members of Index Cases of ART clinic Attendants in Sodo Town, Southern Ethiopia 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: No ________________________________________ 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) General Comments: focused objective and has generated the required data and performed an appropriate analysis of the data and interpretation of the results. It has generated conclusions warranted by the data. However, the language of the submitted manuscript for from adequate, both from the perspective of clearly conveying what is intended and quality standards of scientific publications. Here, review comments are provided that the authors may wish to consider improving the quality of the manuscript, particularly in terms of content organization, formatting, and language to make the manuscript potentially publishable in PLOS. Authors need to use the ‘PLoS Guidelines to Authors’ in the formatting (line spacing, text alignment) as well as in organizing the content in the different sections of the manuscript. Please note that some of the comments given in the different sections below clearly indicate this. The manuscript requires heavy language editing – authors may wish to enlist support from a language editor. Much language editing in the manuscript is done as part of this review (please see below comments in each section) Thank you for your patience and meticulous observation of this manuscript and your point-by-point comments. We have carefully addressed the comments raised accordingly. Specific comments: Title/Title Page The title should be written in sentence case (capitalize only the first word of the title and proper names); expand ART to Antiretroviral Treatment Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 1: Missing space between Seropositiveand Status Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 3: Missing space between words. Correct CLINICATTENDANTSINSODO to Clinic Attendants in Sodo Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 4: Would edit Abebe 2Dereje asread Abebe2, Dereje Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 5: Would remove the extra comma between Addis4 and Muluken Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Lines 6-9: Would edit the affiliation for each author (include department, University, or organization affiliation, and its location, including city, state/province, and country Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Would add on this page: first author’s e-mail address followed by name initials in parenthesis Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript On this page: also indicate authors’ contribution(s) using symbols as given in PLoS One “Title, Author, Affiliation Formatting Guidelines”. Abstract: Lines 30-31: the sentence needs editing; suggest "... transmitted through … sexual contact with an infected partner and babies born to mothers infected with the virus.” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Lines 33-35: The sentence is the title repeated as is; suggest restating this in a form of an objective ... Like “This study aimed at identifying prevalence and determinants of HIV infection among family members of index cases on antiretroviral treatment (ART).” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 38: Would Insert HIV between “of” and “index” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 39: “.. collected data ……” on what ? Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 39: Would add space after the stop after data. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line39: Would replace “investigate” with “identify” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line40: Helpful to add the expanded form for AOR upfront here so that we use the acronym in the rest f the manuscript; i.e., adjusted odds ratio (AOR) Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line41: Same here. 95% Confidence interval (CI) Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Lines41: The P in P-values is written in upper case as is and italicised (P). Please do this across the manuscript. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Lines41-42: last part of the sentence requires editing. Suggest changing “----used to declare the cut-off point in determining the level of significance” to “---- used as a cut-off point to determine the level of statistical significance of point estimate.” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 45:Would edit“----- revealed that 31.5% with 95%CI (27.6-35.2%)’ as “----- revealed that 31.5% (95%CI: 27.6-35.2%); need to use same formant across the manuscript. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Lines 46-47: Would edit:(…11.1% with 95%CI (8.4–14.5%..) as (…11.1% (95%CI: 8.4–14.5%) Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 47:Would edit:“…and 69.6% with 95%CI (63.1–75.6%..)” as“….. and 69.6% (95%CI: 63.1–75.6%) Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 50:Would insert ‘of’ between “level” and “350” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 51:Would edit “….. significant with ….” as “….. significantly associated with …” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 54:Would edit:“…. infection since known …”, may remove ‘since known’ as this does not add an y useful information. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript Line 59:Would change ‘should be’ to 'might be' or 'need to'; one needs to avoid strong words like should in conclusions/recommendations. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Introduction Line 60: May consider editing as “HIV infection, HIV seropositive, biological children, spousal partners, index case,”. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 63: Definition is incomplete, and the language requires editing. Option: "Index testing is a voluntary process where counsellors or health care providers ask a newly diagnosed HIV positive patient or an HIV positive patient already accessing HIV treatment to list all partners who could have been exposed to HIV through them, the index cases" [1]. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 57: Just use the acronym ‘ICT’; already used at first enter above with the expanded forms. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 67: Insert space “ ….models of testing:(1)Facility…..” so that it reads“ ….models of testing (1) Facility…..” Line:67:Would edit “… (1)Facility Based ICT …” as “ ……. (1) Facility-based ICT …” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 68; Would edit “…. index case and gets the names ..” to read “…. index cases on ART at the health facility, and gets the names .. “ Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 69: Would replace ‘old’ with “of age’ Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 69: Would Insert a comma after ‘old’ and delete “in Antiretroviral Treatment (ART) service giving facility. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 69-72: Sentence after ‘(2)’ needs revision, as it has many grammatic errors; suggest: “community-based ICT: a counsellor traces sexual partner(s) of index cases and their biological children who are under 15 years of age through home-to-home visits, offers HTS, and links newly identified People Living with HIV (PLHIV) to ART services [1]. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 75. Would add ‘year’ at the end of the sentence. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 76. Paragraph starting with this line is a continuation of the above; Would keep this para with the above. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 76: Would edit “….. PLHIV were lived and …” as “…. PLHIV were living in 2021, and of which ….” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 77: In “… transformative and ---” would add ‘a’ before transformative. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 78: Would edit “ …. expansion of ART indicating that from total of ….”as “…… as indicated by the total number of …” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 79: Would edit “…. sixteen million (16 million) …” as “..16 million…” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 79: Would need space between treatment and the citation in“…. on treatment[2] ….”.Would do this consistently all along. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 80: Would replace ”…among which …” by “… of which ….” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 82: Would keep this paragraph starting with line with the one above paragraph. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 82: Would delete ‘also” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 82.Would replace …among which….” With “… of which …” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 83: Would edit “… of age, with 13,000 …” to read “ of age. There were 13,000….” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 83: Would edit “ …. under 15 years old.” as “….. under 15 years of age. ….” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 84: Would edit “PLHIVs” should be “PLHIV” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 86: Would merge the paragraph starting with “according to the Ethiopian ….” with the above paragraph Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 87: Would edit “….was 0.9 percent (0.7 percent ….” as “… was 0.9% (0.7% …..”; and be consistent all along. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 88: Would replace “With this general prevalence, the current epidemiology of HIV is heterogeneous, with ….” with 'HIV/AIDS in Ethiopia is regularly categorized as “generalized“ among the adult population, with …….” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 90: Would replace “…. Geographical ….” with ““…. Geographic ….” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 90: Would insert a reference (e.g., the Ethiopian Population-based HIV Impact Assessment 2020) at end of the line (after subgroups) Response: thank you for your comment; we have added and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 92: Would insert after “below 0.1” a reference (e.g., EPHI, Mini EDHS 2018/19). Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 92: Would replace ‘Somalia” with ‘Ethiopian Somali Region” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 97:Paragraph starting with this is redundant, repeating what is covered in the above paragraph. Would delete. Response: thank you for your comment; we have deleted and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 101: Would insert HIV between universal and testing and edit “ …. testing strategy …”, as“…..test and treat strategy ….” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 101: Would edit “…. testing all individuals as a mass ……” as“ …. testing all individuals in the population who were at risk …” Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 102: Would edit :…. index case clients are one of these areas [6] …” as“….index cases as a target population for this strategy [6]. Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 104: Would keep paragraph starting with this line with the above one. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 105: Would edit “….and Family-Based Index Case Testing ….” as“…..Family-based Index Case Testing ……” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 105: Would edit “……. or Index Case Testing (ICT) strategy ….” as “……. or the ICT strategy ….” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 107: Would edit “…..under-15-year old…” to“…..under 15-year-old…” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 107: Would edit: “…… biological children to break the chain of ……. “ as “…… biological children. This breaks the chain of ……. “ NB. This breaks a long sentence. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 108: Would edit: “….. who have been exposed to HIV …”as“….. who are exposed to HIV …” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 108: Would edit “….. to HIV to give preventive …..” as “to HIV, provide preventive ….” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 109: Would edit “…… services for negative and, ….” as“…… services for those testing HIV-negative, and, …. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 109: Would edit “…. if positive, linkage and treatment that increase case detection and attain ….” as “. if positive, link them to cared and treatment services, a cascade that will contribute to attaining the..” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Lines 110-111: Would edit “…. while family members have an ongoing risk of contracting HIV.” as“….. exposing the family members to an ongoing risk of contracting HIV.” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 111:Would replace “So” with “Therefore” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Lines 112-113: Would edit “….under 15 years of biological children[1].” as “….under 15-years old biological children[1].” Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 117: The paragraph starting with this line would rather be kept with the above one. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 120-122: Would replace “Testing for HIV and linking to care for those identified by the families of the index cases will improve the health outcomes of the seropositive family members[5].” with “Testing for HIV and linking those who are positive to care and treatment services will improve the health outcomes of the seropositive family members[5]. Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. “Line 123: Would replace ‘But’ with :Nevertheless’ Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 123: Would edit “HIV positive” as “HIV-positive”; and do this consistently across the manuscript Response: thank you for your comment; we have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Lines 123-127: “…people for HIV testing and associated factors among ART clinic attendants at FelegeHiwot Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia, reveals that 25.8% of index cases were not tested. Even though there were a significant number of family members not tested in this study, 30% of family members were seropositive[8].” requires editing; Would consider “……. ART clinic attendants at a referral hospital in Northwest Ethiopia revealed that many children and adults were traced and tested for HIV. Yet, there were many untested partners, children and other individuals living with index cases who were not tested. Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Lines 128-130: Would delete this para; already addressed in the paragraphs above. Response: thank you for your comment; we have deleted and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line131: Paragraph starting with this line would rather be kept with paragraph above ending with ref #8. Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 131: Would edit “…. no study was conducted …” as“… no similar study was conducted …” Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. ‘Line 134: Would replace ‘’would’ with “will” Response: thank you for your comment; we have replaced and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Lines 134-136: “ ….. the family members' information in routine clinical practice and could facilitate ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic vision in 2030.” requires editing; would suggest: :… 'HIV serostatus information on family members of index cases, which will contribute to improving HIV care and testament services and epidemic control in Ethiopia'. Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Methods Line 138: Usually written as ‘Materials and Methods” or just “Methods” Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 142: Would expand SNNPR. Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region (SNNPR). Response: thank you for your comment; we have expanded and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 142: Would edit “… Sodo Town has been…” as“… Sodo Town is …” Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. ‘Line 143: Would replace ‘3’ with ‘three’ Response: thank you for your comment; we have replaced and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 143: Would edit as “ … kebele (lowest administrative entity)” Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 144: Would insert reference for “According to the 2021 population and housing census projection [ ]. …” Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 146: Would replace ‘3’ with ‘three’ Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 146: Would edit: “.. service-giving facilities ….” as“.. service-delivery facilities ….” Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 147: Would replace ‘2” with ‘two” and ‘1’ with ‘one’ Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 150: Would replace sentence with “The study was a community-based cross-sectional study” Response: thank you for your comment; we have edited and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Line 15 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviwer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280571.r002
17 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Colin Johnson, Editor PONE-D-22-04620R1Prevalence Of HIV Seropositive Status and Associated Factors Among Family Members Of Index Cases Of Antiretroviral Clinical Attendants in Sodo Town, Southern EthiopiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Haile, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration by a referee, a list of grammar suggestions that may improve the manuscript were provided. Please examine the list of possible changes and submit a revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 01 2023 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, Colin Johnson, Ph.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. [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: (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 #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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: 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 #1: There are grammatic corrections that need to made by authors and section that need to be revised (e,g. references). These are highlighted in the revised manuscript with sticky notes - uploaded as an attachment. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Sileshi Lulseged ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-04620_R1.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280571.r003
Revision 2
5 Dec 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1: There are grammatic corrections that need to made by authors and section that need to be revised (e,g. references). These are highlighted in the revised manuscript with sticky notes - uploaded as an attachment. Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected and highlighted it in the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to reviwer comment.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280571.r004
20 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Colin Johnson, Editor PONE-D-22-04620R2Prevalence Of HIV Seropositive Status and Associated Factors Among Family Members Of Index Cases Of Antiretroviral Clinical Attendants in Sodo Town, Southern EthiopiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Haile, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The manuscript you submitted is significantly improved however the Reviewer has raised a question with regard to calculating the smallest sample size for the size needed to show the effect. This methods and analysis question as well as some minor suggestions are attached a document. If you could provide a revised manuscript that addresses this question, and make any other necessary changes, I anticipate moving forward with accepting the study. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 04 2023 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, Colin Johnson, Ph.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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.0280571.r005
Revision 3
29 Dec 2022 Author Response Response to the reviewer: thank you for your meticulous observation and comment. In this study, a sample size was determined using the single population proportion formula by assuming a proportion of 50%, a margin of error of 5%, a 95% confidence interval, and a non-response rate of 10%. The calculated sample size was 423. However, a total of 651 eligible index cases of HIV were identified from the registry, so we used the census method to recruit all study participants. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to the reviewer R3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280571.r006
4 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Colin Johnson, Editor Prevalence Of HIV Seropositive Status and Associated Factors Among Family Members Of Index Cases Of Antiretroviral Clinical Attendants in Sodo Town, Southern Ethiopia PONE-D-22-04620R3 Dear Dr. Haile, 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, Colin Johnson, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280571.r007
Formally Accepted
1 Feb 2023 Acceptance Letter - Colin Johnson, Editor PONE-D-22-04620R3 Prevalence of HIV Seropositive Status and Associated Factors among Family Members Of Index Cases Of Antiretroviral Clinical Attendants in Sodo Town, Southern Ethiopia Dear Dr. Haile: 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. Colin Johnson Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280571.r008

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 .