Awareness of obstetric fistula and its associated factors among reproductive-aged women: Demographic and health survey data from Gambia

Rabbi Tweneboah; Eugene Budu; Patience Dzigbordi Asiam; Stephen Aguadze; Franklin Acheampong

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283666

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 6, 2022
8 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Sidrah Nausheen, Editor PONE-D-22-16318AWARENESS OF OBSTETRIC FISTULA AND ITS ASSOCIATED FACTORS AMONG REPRODUCTIVE-AGED WOMEN: DEMOGRAPHIC AND HEALTH SURVEY DATA FROM GAMBIAPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rabbi Tweneboah, 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 10th March 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://aje.com/go/plos) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: ● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript ● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) ● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file). 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. 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: I Don't Know 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: The research in this manuscript is done on the wrong population.It is obvious that women do not have knowledge of fistula as its an obstetrical complication.The research question of awareness should have been posed to the care giver (lady health visitor, midwife,obstetrician). The purpose statement is not complete what benefit would it be for doing this research on the community? If the awareness of women is required than they support it with evidence as to why? and how the awareness of women would decrease the incidence in this population Reviewer #2: the paper is well written and with all the required details in statistical analysis. The manuscript is a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. it has been conducted adequately with appropriate sample size. The conclusions have been drawn appropriately based on the data presented in standard english. ****** 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: fistula in gambia.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283666.r001
Revision 1
10 Mar 2023 Author Response Reviewer 1 General comments: The research in this manuscript is done on the wrong population. It is obvious that women do not have knowledge of obstetric fistula. The purpose statement is not complete. Response: Thank you for your constructive review, the reviewer’s comments have improved our manuscript. Specific comments: Comment 1. The research is done on the wrong population. It is obvious women do not have knowledge of fistula because it is an obstetric complication. Response: Thank you for your comment. We appreciate the feedback. However, we respectively disagree with the notion that the study is done on the wrong population. We believe women are the ones that are primarily affected by obstetric fistula, and they are the ones that face the physical and emotional burden of the condition. As such, it is essential to investigate their awareness level of the condition as it is the first step in addressing it (early detection and reporting). Moreover, the focus of the study is not on the awareness of the condition among women, but rather the factors that influence their awareness level, as several studies have documented its importance to addressing obstetric fistula. Comment 2. The research question of awareness should have been posed to the caregivers (lady health visitor, midwife, obstetrician). Response: The authors acknowledge that awareness of obstetric fistula among health workers is important and should be subjected to future research. However, the emphasis and gap identified in the study is on the community, particularly, among women. This comment has helped us to improve the strength and weakness section of the study. Comment 3. The purpose of the study is not complete, what benefit would it be for doing this research on the community. Response: Thank you. We have improve the purpose statement of the study. Comment 4. If the awareness of women is required, then they have to provide evidence to support as to why. Response:We agree that our initial submission did not stress on empirical evidence of the importance of women awareness of obstetric fistula. Improvements have been made regarding this. Thank you. Comment 5. How would women’s awareness decrease the incidence of obstetric fistula in the population? Response: Since the emphasis of the study is on increasing the awareness of women regarding obstetric fistula and its associated risk factors, we believe it is likely to decrease the prevalence of the condition among the population. This is because, increased knowledge of fistula among women will likely lead to seeking timely and appropriate medical care. Also, improved knowledge of fistula will alter the health-related behaviours among women, thereby reducing the incidence of the condition. Reviewer 2 General comments: The paper is well written and with all the required details in statistical analysis. The manuscript is a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. It has been conducted adequately with appropriate sample size. The conclusions have been drawn appropriately based on the data presented in standard English. Response: We appreciate and thank you for your review and comments. Academic Editor General comments: Both the reviewers and academic editor feel that the study has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Response: We appreciates the academic editor’s and reviewer’s comments; we have made a revised version of the manuscript that addresses each point raised during the review process. Specific comments: Comment 1. Please ensure that the manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements. Response: The revised version of the manuscript has been restructured to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirement. Comment 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit the manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. Response: Thank you. We made changes throughout the manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. Comment 3. Your ethics should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in another section besides the Methods, please delete it. Response: Thank you for your comment. The ethics statement has been deleted from other sections of the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283666.r002
14 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Sidrah Nausheen, Editor AWARENESS OF OBSTETRIC FISTULA AND ITS ASSOCIATED FACTORS AMONG REPRODUCTIVE-AGED WOMEN: DEMOGRAPHIC AND HEALTH SURVEY DATA FROM GAMBIA PONE-D-22-16318R1 Dear Dr. Rabbi Tweneboah, 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.0283666.r003
Formally Accepted
30 Mar 2023 Acceptance Letter - Sidrah Nausheen, Editor PONE-D-22-16318R1 Awareness of Obstetric Fistula and its Associated Factors among Reproductive-Aged Women: Demographic and Health Survey Data from Gambia Dear Dr. Tweneboah: 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.0283666.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 .