Perceptions about COVID-19 preventive measures among Ghanaian women

Frank Kyei-Arthur; Martin Wiredu Agyekum; Grace Frempong Afrifa-Anane; Reuben Tete Larbi; Peter Kisaakye

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284362

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 6, 2022
16 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Ogochukwu Chinedum Okoye, Editor PONE-D-22-15561Perceptions about COVID-19 preventive measures among Ghanaian womenPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kyei-Arthur, 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. In addition, the methods section of the study requires review. This is a qualitative study however the design and method used for data analysis is not stated explicitly and not justified. 'Cross-sectional qualitative study' is not an appropriate name; method of sample selection needs to be clearly stated with justification. I recommend the authors use the COREQ check list to guide the reporting of this study. Please submit your revised manuscript within 15days. 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, Ogochukwu Chinedum Okoye Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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: The study is a valuable addition to scientific literature as it used qualitative design. Many studies are available on the subject but only a few utilize interview based approach and present data in that form which is a better reflection of actual barriers that are perceived by the population. Reviewer #2: Question 1. The manuscript is technically sound Question 2. Qualitative data analysis was done using Nvivo 10. software as reported by the authors. The data analysis process was well outlined. However authors should note the following: Page 7, line 153: report the standard deviation and not just the mean age of the respondents under the socio- demographic characteristics. Line 155: is there a reference to the categorisation scheme for occupations highlighted in this study or was it arbitrary. Page 11, line 177: is the term "dominance" synonymous with frequency of response or agreement Pages 11 and 12: the reporting of COVID 19 preventive measures as easy to follow versus COVID 19 preventive measures difficult to follow is confusing especially when noting that "wearing a facemask" features as number one in both categories. One would have better understood a spectrum of preventive measures from the easiest to the most difficult. The authors should clarify on this. Another approach recommended could be to take the individual COVID 19 preventive measures and express the relative ease or difficulty in application of each as reported by respondents. Page 14, Table 3. Quote 2 "As a frontline worker . . . (R11)" (Should a frontline ?Health worker, R11, be included in your sample for this study, knowing that her knowledge and job requirement would bias the level of knowledge and lived experience that would be elicited from her compared to other respondents? Can the authors justify her inclusion) Question 3. Yes, as disclosed by the authors in the "Data Availability" section. Question 4. Yes, the manuscript was reported in Standard English. However the manuscript will benefit from editing such as: Abstract Page 1, line 39: insert "should" e.g ' . . . measures should continue to be prioritised". Introduction Page 2, line 60, 61: rephrase ". . . SARS-CoV-2 virus can escape immunity causing infection . . ." Methods Page 5, line 109: The sampling procedure is not clearly explained by the authors. What is "convenient" and "snowballing" sampling procedure in the context of the current study? What was the study population and what was so peculiar in recruiting the subjects of the study necessitating the use of snowball sampling? ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284362.r001
Revision 1
20 Jan 2023 Author Response Academic editor 1. The methods section of the study requires review. This is a qualitative study however the design and method used for data analysis is not stated explicitly and not justified. 'Cross-sectional qualitative study' is not an appropriate name; method of sample selection needs to be clearly stated with justification. I recommend the authors use the COREQ check list to guide the reporting of this study. Response: We have revised the study design and sampling procedure to make study design and sampling procedure understandable. We have also defined convenient sampling procedure in the revised manuscript. See page 5 and 6, lines 108-122. The method of data analysis was clearly stated in the manuscript. See page 7, lines 153-154. “The data for the study were analysed thematically using NVivo 10 software following steps recommended by Braun and Clarke [52, 53].” We have justified why we followed Braun and Clarke recommended steps for analysing qualitative data in the revised manuscript. See page 8, lines 162-164. “Braun and Clarke recommended steps for analysing qualitative data were followed because it helps researchers to analyse qualitative data systematically and in a rigorous manner.” We have revised the entire methods section and used the COREQ checklist to revise the reporting of the study. Reviewer 1 1. Reviewer #1: The study is a valuable addition to scientific literature as it used qualitative design. Many studies are available on the subject but only a few utilize interview based approach and present data in that form which is a better reflection of actual barriers that are perceived by the population. Response: We thank the reviewer for the complimentary words. Reviewer 2 1. Page 7, line 153: report the standard deviation and not just the mean age of the respondents under the socio- demographic characteristics. Response: We have reported both the mean age and standard deviation of participants in the revised manuscript. See Table 1 on page 9. 2. Line 155: is there a reference to the categorisation scheme for occupations highlighted in this study or was it arbitrary. Response: The categorisation scheme for occupations was arbitrary based on occupations reported by participants. 3. Page 11, line 177: is the term "dominance" synonymous with frequency of response or agreement. Response: In this study, the term "dominance" is synonymous with frequency of response or agreement. 4. Pages 11 and 12: the reporting of COVID 19 preventive measures as easy to follow versus COVID 19 preventive measures difficult to follow is confusing especially when noting that "wearing a facemask" features as number one in both categories. One would have better understood a spectrum of preventive measures from the easiest to the most difficult. The authors should clarify on this. Another approach recommended could be to take the individual COVID 19 preventive measures and express the relative ease or difficulty in application of each as reported by respondents. Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestions. We have revised the results on the COVID-19 preventive measures by reporting the preventive measures by their relative difficulty. While reporting the relative difficulty of each preventive measure, we reported on their easiness where applicable. We have also revised the quotes in Table 2 since the quote numbers changed. See pages 12-14 lines 200-238, Table 2. 5. Page 14, Table 3. Quote 2 "As a frontline worker . . . (R11)" (Should a frontline ?Health worker, R11, be included in your sample for this study, knowing that her knowledge and job requirement would bias the level of knowledge and lived experience that would be elicited from her compared to other respondents? Can the authors justify her inclusion) Response: The knowledge and job requirement of health workers will bias their level of knowledge and lived experiences. Consequently, three participants were health workers, so we have excluded them from the study. We have changed the sample size in the revised manuscript from 30 to 27. Consequently, we have revised the characteristics of participants, and replaced the quotes of participants who were health workers with quotes of participants who are non-health workers. See page 8, lines 171-177 and Table 1, 2 and 3. 6. Question 4. Yes, the manuscript was reported in Standard English. However the manuscript will benefit from editing such as: Abstract Page 1, line 39: insert "should" e.g ' . . . measures should continue to be prioritised". Response: We have revised the phrase “measures continue to be prioritised” to “measures should continue to be prioritised”. See page 2, line 40. 7. Introduction Page 2, line 60, 61: rephrase ". . . SARS-CoV-2 virus can escape immunity causing infection . . ." Response: We have revised the sentence to “Also, studies have established that SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19-causing virus, can escape immunity, which can cause infection among people or reinfection among people who have already been vaccinated against COVID-19 or previously been infected with COVID-19 [6, 12-14]”. See 3, lines 60-63. In addition, we have edited the entire manuscript to address any grammatical error. 8. Methods: Page 5, line 109: The sampling procedure is not clearly explained by the authors. What is "convenient" and "snowballing" sampling procedure in the context of the current study? Response: We have revised the study design and sampling procedure to make sampling procedure understandable. We have also defined convenient sampling procedure in the revised manuscript. See page 5 - 6, lines 108-122. 9. What was the study population and what was so peculiar in recruiting the subjects of the study necessitating the use of snowball sampling? Response: The study population for the study are non-pregnant women aged 18 years or older in the Greater Accra and Ashanti Regions. We have indicated it in the revised manuscript on pages 5-6 lines 112-113. Also, this study used only convenient sampling rather than convenient and snowball sampling procedures. Therefore, we have deleted snowball sampling from the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284362.r002
29 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Dario Ummarino, PhD, Editor Perceptions about COVID-19 preventive measures among Ghanaian women PONE-D-22-15561R1 Dear Dr. Kyei-Arthur, 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, Dario Ummarino, PhD Senior Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 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 Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 Response) ****** 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: The manuscript can be accepted in it's present form . The authors have satisfactorily answered all the points raised by reviewer 2 in my humble opinion. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: Yes: Dr. Nyemike Simeon Awunor ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284362.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Dario Ummarino, PhD, Editor PONE-D-22-15561R1 Perceptions about COVID-19 preventive measures among Ghanaian women Dear Dr. Kyei-Arthur: 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 Dario Ummarino, PhD Staff Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284362.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 .