Knowledge, attitudes, and practices associated with vitamin D supplementation: A cross-sectional online community survey of adults in the UK

Nuttan Kantilal Tanna; Manisha Karki; Iman Webber; Aos Alaa; Austen El-Costa; Mitch Blair

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0281172

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 16, 2023
26 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Sidrah Nausheen, Editor PONE-D-23-00391Knowledge, attitudes, and practices associated with Vitamin D supplementation: A cross-sectional online community survey of adults in the UKPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nuttan Kantilal Tanna, 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 15th May 2023. 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, Sidrah Nausheen, FCPS 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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. AEO & IW are in part supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) North-West London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS or the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care” We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Author, This is an interesting study considering the need for vitamin D supplementation in adult population. Overall, it is well written and structured study with intelligible presentation and appropriate methodology. Reviewer #2: Table 2 could be simplified for better understanding. comprehensive KAP regarding vit D in community. Good representation of minority groups at particular higher risk. provides baseline information to policy makers. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: KAP Vit D.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281172.r001
Revision 1
12 Jul 2023 Author Response Paper: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices associated with Vitamin D supplementation: A cross-sectional online community survey of adults in the UK Dear Professor Sidrah Nausheen, Academic Editor, PLOS ONE Thank you both to you and the peer reviewers for reviewing our paper ‘Knowledge, attitudes, and practices associated with Vitamin D supplementation: A cross-sectional online community survey of adults in the UK’, and the helpful comments. We appreciated the positive peer reviewer comments. We have addressed all the modifications requested, bar one, and look forward to the paper being published in PLOS ONE with a little assistance from the editorial team. We would appreciate help with formatting of Tables 2 and 3 in the manuscript, with proof for approval, before publication. With thanks Nuttan Tanna …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. PLOS ONE Journal Reviewer #1: Dear Author, This is an interesting study considering the need for vitamin D supplementation in adult population. Overall, it is well written and structured study with intelligible presentation and appropriate methodology. Reviewer #2: Table 2 could be simplified for better understanding. comprehensive KAP regarding vit D in community. Good representation of minority groups at particular higher risk. provides baseline information to policy makers. Dear Peer Reviewers, Thank you for your valuable time to peer review and comment on our paper. We are happy to note that you found the paper interesting and comprehensive, reporting results from a well-structured study design. This paper reports findings from the first phase of the FABCOM-D study. This was an online electronic survey available via the Qualtrics platform on a smartphone or computer. We were pleased that we managed to get good representation of ethnic minority respondents, with findings thereby applicable to the diverse UK wide community. We are currently analysing the dataset from the second qualitative phase which includes focus group discussions sessions and one-to-one interviews, with the view that this will generate additional information to help build on the first phase findings, and further inform our knowledge on facilitators and barriers associated with vitamin D supplementation. We have simplified Table 2 and present the data within Tables 2 and 3 in the revised manuscript and hope that this helps with a better understanding of the statistical analysis and results. Table 4, available as a supplementary file, provides the dataset from the logistic regression analysis. Reviewer’s comments 1. The study objective is about barriers and drivers of vitamin D supplementation in defined population. The result is more focused towards association of risk factor to vitamin D usage (table 2). Either this should be added in the objectives or deleted from the results. Thank you for this important observation. To clarify, our defined population was the community, so those that would generally be able to self-care. The FABCOM-D study includes a study design with 2 phases. This paper reports findings from the first quantitative phase. A background literature search helped with identification of risk factors that needed to be considered when exploring for facilitators or barriers within the community setting. We have stated that the main outcome measures for the first phase were awareness of vitamin D sources, health benefits and testing and attitudes to supplementation, sun exposure and fortification. We have also simplified Table 2 and present the dataset within Tables 2 and 3 in the revised manuscript. 2. It will be more impactful if a table is added showing which barriers and which drivers were identified for vitamin D usage in the study population. Thank you for this helpful comment. We are undertaking further work, with analysis of the dataset from phase 2. This second qualitative phase generated rich data from focus group discussions and individual interviews. The findings should add to and build on knowledge on facilitators and barriers around Vitamin D supplementation. We will report these findings in our next paper, in both narrative and tabular formats. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers final 0723.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281172.r002
21 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Sidrah Nausheen, Editor Knowledge, attitudes, and practices associated with Vitamin D supplementation: A cross-sectional online community survey of adults in the UK PONE-D-23-00391R1 Dear Dr.Nuttan Kantilal Tanna, 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, Sidrah Nausheen, FCPS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281172.r003
Formally Accepted
28 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Sidrah Nausheen, Editor PONE-D-23-00391R1 Knowledge, attitudes, and practices associated with Vitamin D supplementation: A cross-sectional online community survey of adults in the UK Dear Dr. Tanna: 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. Sidrah Nausheen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281172.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 .