Lived experiences of disabled individuals living in Bahir Dar City, North West Ethiopia, a phenomenological study

Lijalem Jemberu; Yosef Wasihun; Tadele Fentabil Anagaw; Eyob Ketema Bogale

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284860

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 10, 2023
9 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Arsyad Subu, Editor PONE-D-23-03819Lived Experiences of Disabled Individuals Living in Bahir Dar City, North West Ethiopia, A Phenomenological studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bogale, 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 Apr 23 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, Muhammad Arsyad Subu, Ph.D 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 describe in your methods section how capacity to provide consent was determined for the participants in this study. Please also state whether your ethics committee or IRB approved this consent procedure. If you did not assess capacity to consent please briefly outline why this was not necessary in this case. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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: No ****** 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: Reviewers comment Date 6 March 2023 Title: Lived Experiences of Disabled Individuals Living in Bahir Dar City, North West Ethiopia, A Phenomenological study Manuscript number: PONE-D-23-03819 Summary of the research and the overall impression Title: A very impressive area of research that emphasized a special population group(disabled people) is a sound and good research area. A manuscript is also structured and written very well. Also, the article is presented in an intelligible fashion; however, the English language has to be edited further by a native English speaker. Abstract: Exceeds 300-word counts and it may be beyond the journal requirement. No recommendations were made in the conclusion section of the abstract. I advise the author to include pertinent recommendations in the abstract section. 2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement Minors issues Introduction: The last paragraph says “Even the research done here in Bahir Dar recommends further study so that this study aimed to gain an understanding of the essence of the experience of living with disability”. Does it mean other research previously conducted on the same topic at Bahir Dar? If, what additional finding can the current study address to the scholarly community?? In the introduction or background section, the author needs to include a paragraph that shows problems related to the study phenomenon at Bahirdar, then he has to indicate the justification or aim for this study. Method section In the sentence “Then we got o all sub-city social affairs offices….” You have to remove “o” ? from the Population and sample heading in the fourth paragraph? In the method section under scientific rigor, the author missed ensuring the reflexivity of the study. Reflexivity is essential in qualitative research because this field is heavily dependent upon the information that participants provide. Since questionnaires, discussions, and interviews are all led by researchers, the information gathered during qualitative studies may be influenced by underlying beliefs. So, make sure you’re actively reflecting on yourself and understand how your personal experiences impact every decision you make in your research. Do you have to explain how you maintained it? In analysis section Colaizzi's phenomenological analysis can be used reliably to understand people's experiences in descriptive phenomenology. Why did you use thematic over Colaizzi's phenomenological analysis for this research? Result section Sociodemographic table, I advise the author to remove the source of income column, it may expose the participants. It is better to anonymize the participant for ethical reasons? Themes and subthemes Under this section, tables of theme and sub-theme including a list of codes under each theme or codebook have to be uploaded as supporting information. Discussion This section could be started after indicating the brief objectives of the research followed by indicating the main finding of the study. Under the conclusion section, this research has no recommendations. I advise the author needs to include the recommendation. Generally, this paper is written very well and structured scientifically sound. It will add good pieces of evidence to the body of already available studies. ****** 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 ******** [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: Reviwers comements to the auther_PONE-D-23-03819.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284860.r001
Revision 1
16 Mar 2023 Author Response RESPONSE TO EDITOR AND REVIEWERS RESPONSE TO EDITOR RESPONSE: Thank you for coordinating the review process and fruitful comments. We have revised the manuscript and addressed Reviewer’s comments. COMMENT: -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 RESPONSE: Thank you for your fruitful comments. We have ensured for you that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements. COMMENT:- 2. Please describe in your methods section how capacity to provide consent was determined for the participants in this study. Please also state whether your ethics committee or IRB approved this consent procedure. If you did not assess capacity to consent please briefly outline why this was not necessary in this case. RESPONSE: Thank you for your fruitful comments. We have ensured for you that IRB of Bahir Dar university approved this consent procedure and we state how consent was determined during recruitment of the participant as:- The IRB of Bahir Dar University allowed us to collect the data from people living with disability without collecting personal identifiers including name and they approved this consent procedure. COMMENT:- 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. RESPONSE: Thank you for your fruitful comments. We have revised our data availability statement as:- All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files COMMENT: -- 4. 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. RESPONSE: Thank you for your fruitful comments. We have reviewed our reference list and we ensured for you that they are complete and correct. RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1: RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words and fruitful suggestion. We have addressed all comments as described below: - Summary of the research and the overall impression REVIEWER COMMENT: - Title: A very impressive area of research that emphasized a special population group(disabled people) is a sound and good research area. A manuscript is also structured and written very well. Also, the article is presented in an intelligible fashion; however, the English language has to be edited further by a native English speaker. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words and fruitful comments. We have revised it by editing English language errors. REVIEWER COMMENT: -Abstract: Exceeds 300-word counts and it may be beyond the journal requirement. No recommendations were made in the conclusion section of the abstract. I advise the author to include pertinent recommendations in the abstract section. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words and fruitful comments. We have revised our abstract section by fitting word count limit and by including pertinent recommendations in the abstract section. 2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement Minors issues REVIEWER COMMENT: -Introduction: The last paragraph says “Even the research done here in Bahir Dar recommends further study so that this study aimed to gain an understanding of the essence of the experience of living with disability”. Does it mean other research previously conducted on the same topic at Bahir Dar? If, what additional finding can the current study address to the scholarly community?? RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words and fruitful comments. We previous research is not on the same topic and we have revised it to increase the clarity of the research. REVIEWER COMMENT: -In the introduction or background section, the author needs to include a paragraph that shows problems related to the study phenomenon at Bahir Dar, then he has to indicate the justification or aim for this study. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words and fruitful comments. We have revised by showing problems related to the study phenomenon at Bahir Dar and , by indicating the j aim for the study. Method section REVIEWER COMMENT: - In the sentence “Then we got o all sub-city social affairs offices….” You have to remove “o” ? from the Population and sample heading in the fourth paragraph? RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words and fruitful comments. We have removed “o” from the Population and sample heading in the fourth paragraph. REVIEWER COMMENT: -In the method section under scientific rigor, the author missed ensuring the reflexivity of the study. Reflexivity is essential in qualitative research because this field is heavily dependent upon the information that participants provide. Since questionnaires, discussions, and interviews are all led by researchers, the information gathered during qualitative studies may be influenced by underlying beliefs. So, make sure you’re actively reflecting on yourself and understand how your personal experiences impact every decision you make in your research. Do you have to explain how you maintained it? RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words and fruitful comments. We have revised it as Also, to reduce the investigator's bias and the possibility of participant reactivity, the investigator's preconceptions were bracketed at the start of the study. REVIEWER COMMENT: -In analysis section, Colaizzi's phenomenological analysis can be used reliably to understand people's experiences in descriptive phenomenology. Why did you use thematic over Colaizzi's phenomenological analysis for this research? RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words and fruitful comments. We have rwvised it based on your suggestion. Result section REVIEWER COMMENT: -Sociodemographic table, I advise the author to remove the source of income column, it may expose the participants. It is better to anonymize the participant for ethical reasons? RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words and fruitful comments. We have removed source of income column from Sociodemographic table. Themes and subthemes REVIEWER COMMENT: -Under this section, tables of theme and sub-theme including a list of codes under each theme or codebook have to be uploaded as supporting information. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words and fruitful comments. We have uploaded codebook as supporting information. Discussion REVIEWER COMMENT: - This section could be started after indicating the brief objectives of the research followed by indicating the main finding of the study. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words. We have revised it by restating the objective of study and main finding of the study. REVIEWER COMMENT: - Under the conclusion section, this research has no recommendations. I advise the author needs to include the recommendation. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words. We have revised our conclusion section by adding recommendation under the conclusion section. REVIEWER COMMENT: - Generally, this paper is written very well and structured scientifically sound. It will add good pieces of evidence to the body of already available studies. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for kind words. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284860.r002
10 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Arsyad Subu, Editor L ived Experiences of Disabled Individuals Living in Bahir Dar City, North West Ethiopia, A Phenomenological study PONE-D-23-03819R1 Dear Dr. Bogale, 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, Muhammad Arsyad Subu, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284860.r003
Formally Accepted
9 May 2023 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Arsyad Subu, Editor PONE-D-23-03819R1 Lived Experiences of Disabled Individuals Living in Bahir Dar City, North West Ethiopia, A Phenomenological study Dear Dr. Bogale: 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. Muhammad Arsyad Subu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284860.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 .