Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 7, 2022
Decision Letter - Mobolanle Balogun, Editor

PONE-D-22-33565Assessing spatiotemporal variability in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk for hospital workers using routinely-collected dataPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Manley,

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: The study describes the association between healthcare workers COVID-19 test results and behavioral markers derived from routinely collected hospital data. Congratulations on a detailed and generally well-written paper. The reviewers have provided useful comments to consider before the paper can be accepted for publication. In addition, please pay attention to the typographical errors that exist in the manuscript e.g. line 70 (environment), line 72 (variations).

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 13 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,

Mobolanle Balogun

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 (1) whether consent was informed and (2) 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.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This study was supported by the UCLH/UCL NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and funding from the UKRI MRC (grant ref: MC_PC_19082), and UCLH Charity. For their support we thank the UCLH medical directors Charles House and Gill Gaskin, Pushpsen Joshi at the Joint Research Office, Nathan Lea from the UCLH information governance department, Leila Hail from the UCLH infection control department, Wai Keong Wong, Chris Liddington, Simon Knight, Richard Clarke, David Ramlakhan, David Thompson and Gareth Adams at the UCLH digital services department, Patricia Miralhes and Emily Martyn and all involved with the SAFER research programme."

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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:

"EN, CH and EM were awarded funding from the UCLH/UCL NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and the UKRI MRC (grant ref: MC_PC_19082). Additional funds were awarded to EN from the UCLH Charity, and to EM from the Alan Turing Institute. "

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please expand the acronym “UKRI MRC, UCLH/UCL NIHR, UCLH” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

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

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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

6. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.   

8. 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.  

9. 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: I'd like to thank for asking me to review this interesting paper which aims to estimate the degree to which different factors affect the probability of HCWs testing positive for COVID-19 during each of the three identified stages of the pandemic and to demonstrate the epidemiological relevance of deriving markers of staff behaviour from electronic records.

The authors should consider these published papers to deep discuss their results:

doi: 10.3390/ijerph182413053

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.15699

doi: 10.3390/vaccines10122058

Reviewer #2: General comments

1. Congratulations to authors for this very important study that sought to describe the risk of SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers in terms of spatiotemporal variability.

2. Well conducted study with sound methodology

3. Though limited by the retrospective nature of the data, authors used well the data for the study

Specific comments

1. A few typographical errors noted and authors should proofread thoroughly before resubmission eg line 90. Check the spelling of storey

2. As the availability and use of PPEs happens to be a major factor in infection spread, authors should let readers know how healthcare workers use PPE and follow the safety protocols. Would have expected others to include that in the model as an important confounder. Authors can also reference if any studies of the use of PPE.

3. A comment on the presence or otherwise of vaccines during the second wave would also enhance the study.

4. A documentation of the kind of patient contact would also be key. Are they seeing general patients or patients with SARS-COV-2? Will the analysis of that dichotomy enhance the study?

**********

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: PlosOne review_COVID.docx
Revision 1

We would like to thank the editor and two reviewers for taking the time to read and comment on our manuscript. Reference to line numbers are for the revised manuscript with tracked changes. Our response is in bold.

ACADEMIC EDITOR

The study describes the association between healthcare workers COVID-19 test results and behavioral markers derived from routinely collected hospital data. Congratulations on a detailed and generally well-written paper. The reviewers have provided useful comments to consider before the paper can be accepted for publication. In addition, please pay attention to the typographical errors that exist in the manuscript e.g. line 70 (environment), line 72 (variations).

Thank you for the kind words. We have addressed any typographic errors that we have identified.

Reviewer #1

I'd like to thank for asking me to review this interesting paper which aims to estimate the degree to which different factors affect the probability of HCWs testing positive for COVID-19 during each of the three identified stages of the pandemic and to demonstrate the epidemiological relevance of deriving markers of staff behaviour from electronic records.

The authors should consider these published papers to deep discuss their results:

doi: 10.3390/ijerph182413053

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.15699

doi: 10.3390/vaccines10122058

Thank you for these additional references, we have incorporated the first two into the manuscript.

Reviewer #2

General comments

1. Congratulations to authors for this very important study that sought to describe the risk of SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers in terms of spatiotemporal variability.

2. Well conducted study with sound methodology

3. Though limited by the retrospective nature of the data, authors used well the data for the study

Thank you to the reviewer for the kind comments and for taking the time to review our manuscript.

Specific comments

1. A few typographical errors noted and authors should proofread thoroughly before resubmission eg line 90. Check the spelling of storey

We have now proof read the manuscript and made changes to any identified typographic errors.

2. As the availability and use of PPEs happens to be a major factor in infection spread, authors should let readers know how healthcare workers use PPE and follow the safety protocols. Would have expected others to include that in the model as an important confounder. Authors can also reference if any studies of the use of PPE.

We have added a sentence in the discussion (L392) to say ‘Future studies should consider expanding our DAG and, where possible, include data on variables that were not observed in this investigation e.g. PPE use and supply.’

3. A comment on the presence or otherwise of vaccines during the second wave would also enhance the study.

We detail in the methods (L102) that a ‘mass-vaccination programme began (December 8th 2020)’. We have added a brief sentence in the discussion (L388) to acknowledge the potential bias created from the vaccinations.

4. A documentation of the kind of patient contact would also be key. Are they seeing general patients or patients with SARS-COV-2? Will the analysis of that dichotomy enhance the study?

We agree that the type of patient contact is important. In our analysis we included models to investigate the effect of patient contacts in the context of COVID-19 patients (see methods and results). More nuanced details of the interaction type (e.g. aerosol generating procedure, lines drains and airways etc.) would also be worth investigation as these are in the routine collected data. However, due to the need for further data processing, such an analysis was beyond the scope of the one presented here.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Mobolanle Balogun, Editor

Assessing spatiotemporal variability in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk for hospital workers using routinely-collected data

PONE-D-22-33565R1

Dear Dr. Manley,

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,

Mobolanle Balogun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mobolanle Balogun, Editor

PONE-D-22-33565R1

Assessing spatiotemporal variability in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk for hospital workers using routinely-collected data

Dear Dr. Manley:

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. Mobolanle Balogun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .