PONE-D-20-40899Determinants of non-adherence to home injury prevention practice among parents of under-five children in North Seberang Perai district, Penang: A mixed methods study protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kadir Shahar,

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.

Your study protocol has been assessed by three reviewers and their comments are appended below. They raised important, constructive comments regarding the methodological and presentational aspects of your work. Please pay particular attention the comments related to the thorough reporting of data analysis, as these are critical for the publication of a study protocol. Given the extensive comments raised, it is likely that your submission will undergo a second round of peer-review once your revisions have been submitted. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 13 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,

Dario Ummarino, Ph.D.

Senior 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 stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

No authors have competing interests.

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. 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. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Question 1: The rationale and justification to conduct this study are well described and understood.

Question 2: Need some improvements on the objectives arrangement. It is best to put objective 3 (the association between independent variables and low injury practice) as objective no 2 and determinants of low injury practice as no 3.

Question 3: Methodology is feasible but some part did not mention in detail. Need improvement.

Some of the comments that need improvement:

Methodology for Qualitative phase: It is best if author provides the details of Question/Probing questions that are planned to be asked in this study.

Question 4: No comment

Question 5: Some errors showed in the reference section. A typo error on Institute of Public Health reference no. 19.

References: author needs to review the standard way of writing the references following the format for PLOS. There are few references need to be looked into ie. no 6 (is this from a journal or a book/others), no 9 (is this from journal or other?), no 19, 20, 21 (IPH: standardise the name), no 10 & 26: redundant, no 31. (Capital letter for Journal's name)

Reviewer #2: PONE-D-20-40899

Overall comments: This paper requires a significant review from a sentence structure and grammatical perspective. There are several fragmented sentences and areas where words are pluralized when they should not be, or vice versa. There are several areas where the authors need to provide justification for methodological choices and areas where much more information is needed. There should also be a section that describes the challenges that may be presented in doing this work and how the authors plan to mitigate these challenges.

Specific comments:

Introduction:

The data presented in the in the introduction is outdated, please update with more recent data.

I appreciate the iceberg analogy – please explain this further in your description for readers that may not be familiar.

You should spell out TB and HIV.

You need to review your paper for tense. Some areas speak in present and others in past tense. Should be consistent.

Is there a way to have another review of this paper to revise for sentence structure? I am not sure if it is a non-English as a first language issues, but it would help readers to do another review for clarity. For example: In Malaysia, injury mortality among under-five was found to be static since 1990 until 2013 despite a marked reduction in death from the communicable disease [4]. Eight percent of under-five mortality in Malaysia is contributed by injury and the leading cause

of death is drowning followed by road traffic accident, burn, choking and poisoning [5].

This would be clearer if written this way: In Malaysia, injury mortality for children under the age of 5 years remained unchanged from the years 1990 to 2013 inclusive, despite a marked reduction in death from all communicable diseases. Further, 8% of all mortality in children under the age of 5 years is caused by injury, with drowning, followed by road traffic collisions, burns, choking and poisonings as the leading causes of death.

There are several areas where words are pluralized, and shouldn’t be.

Page 3: Injury incidence was found to be significantly associated with poor prevention practice [10].

Is there a context to this sentence? Injuries in the home specifically?

Page 4: A local study also shows similar findings where only five to eleven percent of children were found to wear their seatbelts while riding cars and only around 30 percent of children were

found wearing helmets while riding motorbikes [11].

Several issues here: First, you are making the point about injuries in the home and this study does not support that, further, children are reported to be riding motorcycles? I would imagine this is as passengers? Please clarify.

Page 4: Based on the National Health and Morbidity Survey 2006, 2011 and 2016, the prevalence of child injury is highest in a high income family [19][20][21]. The contradicting finding is unique to Malaysia, and as to our knowledge, has never been explored yet.

Please clarify what type of injury you mean here, all injury? All unintentional injury?

Page 4: Most studies are quantitative and focus on injury rate rather than its prevention.

This sentence is misleading. Quantitative studies contribute to the breadth of knowledge for prevention including, but not limited to randomised controlled trials that evaluate the effectiveness of prevention interventions. Further, given you are using a mixed methods approach, you should justify the use of both methods. What research design are you using for the “quantitative” study?

It is unclear why you chose the inclusion criteria that you have, please explain. What selection bias is inherent when you chose families that visit maternal child health clinics?

There needs to be more information on your sample size calculation.

Page 9: Every 3rd patient (a random number generator generates number 3) from the list will be selected.

This is actually not random, please explain the use of this method.

Page 11: The score will be calculated by summing the individual items in the scale. The items in bold need to be recoded in reverse before summing.

Please explain what this means.

Page 14: Your data analyses section is quite short. Please provide more explanation to how you are modeling the data, what variables you will use in your model, how the data will be presented. For the qualitative analyses, how will you present these data? By high level theme only? How will the data be categorized?

Page 15: The sampling will be stopped when the saturation point is achieved.

Please explain in more detail how you determine saturation.

Page 15: A semi-structured interview will be used in this study with the help of an interview guide. The interview guide is prepared with the guidance of a few qualitative experts and previous literatures.

Please provide the interview guide as a table or supplementary table. It will be quite key to see how you are asking these questions, given you are a priori selected those participants that scored “poor practice”. Further to this point, there needs to be more information on how you are selecting the parents for the interviews. Are they based on one set of scores or a combination of several scores?

Page 15: There are several areas where you mention examining for face and content validity, there needs to be much more information on how you plan to do this. There should also be suggestions or plans for this if the questions require revision.

Page 15: Please describe more on how the data from the “pilot” will be used. What possible outcomes could occur here? Would you change the questions? Potentially change your sampling frame?

Page 17: …First during the first phase where the quantitative results help plan the follow-up qualitative data collection and the second integration when the results of the quantitative study are connected with the results of the qualitative study to derive a conclusion whether the qualitative results can explain the quantitative results.

Please explain this in a different way – do you mean that your quantitative results will inform your qualitative data collection? And then you will use the results of both to provide a more comprehensive discussion of the results? It is unclear what you mean by follow up qualitative data collection, you are collecting these data twice? Also, please explain how you will ensure the validity of the data collected from the interviews.

Discussion and conclusion: The authors should describe any challenges that may be presented in doing this work and how they plan to mitigate these challenges.

Reviewer #3: This is a study protocol of a mixed method study. I suggest to review the information on the discussions so that this study protocol is reproducible and can help others to conduct the study of same interest.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-40899.docx

PONE-D-20-40899R1Determinants of non-adherence to home injury prevention practice among parents of under-five children in North Seberang Perai district, Penang: A mixed methods study protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kadir Shahar,

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.

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please take attention for the comments raised by reviewer 2. Notwithstanding, the manuscript needs additional work to clarify some statements and to ensure clarity. So, I would also encourage you to send it for a professional supply of editing services for English usage.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 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,

Thiago Machado Ardenghi

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:

Please take attention for the comments raised by reviewer 2. Notwithstanding, the manuscript needs additional work to clarify some statements and to ensure clarity. So, I would also encourage you to send it for a professional supply of editing services for English usage.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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: No

**********

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: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Few comments regarding writing typo error in the text such as

1) pg 12 bottom line - repetitive of word index

Author needs to get final proofreading for english grammatical order.

Some of the reference were not written correctly following format ie. the WHO report in PDF from website, must have URL, date accessed

Reviewer #2: Please see attached word document for items that still require attention from the author team. I still do not think that the manuscript is presented in a language that is clear, correct and unambiguous. There is also a response to the reviewers that is not clear and requires revision.

**********

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: 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: PONE-D-20-40899_R2.docx

Determinants of non-adherence to home injury prevention practice among parents of under-five children in North Seberang Perai district, Penang: A mixed methods study protocol

PONE-D-20-40899R2

Dear Dr. Kadir Shahar,

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,

Thiago Machado Ardenghi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Generally, authors have improved the article by addressing all the important comments given by the reviewers. The limitation, justification also have been addressed and answered accordingly by the authors. However, I have a few technical errors that I noticed that may need to be corrected before this article get to be published.

At pg 9, for the last paragraph, comma (,) is missing after sentences" substandard safety measures in their low-income house,

Under section Data Analysis, symbol for chi square test need to be corrected. the X2, the 2 is supposed to be written as superscript form.

Under section Data Collection Method (for Phase II Qualitative study), at paragraph 5, which talks about Pilot study of Qualitative data. The last sentence that stated 'Moreover, by getting the result from Pilot test, items that show Cronbach Alpha value below 0.7, will be deleted from the questionnaire to achieve better internal consistency". I think CA value is not relevant here cause the paragraph talks about Qualitative study.

As a conclusion, I think this paper has fulfilled the reviewer's previous comments and shall be published once the technical/typo error are addressed.

**********

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

**********