https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0243-5601
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionOctober 11, 2022 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-22-28042PrEP preference among adolescent boys and young men in three sub-Saharan African countriesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kakande, 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 Jan 20 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:
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, Joseph KB Matovu, 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 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 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. 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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary). [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: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** 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: 1. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Why was the consent not sought for the younger boys? Was assent sought? 2. The authors can give slightly more contextual background information about the adolescents from the 3 different countries...to give more insight in the study findings 3. Purposive community-based sampling data collection methodology worked well for the study but replication of the study design is limited. Reviewer #2: This manuscript explores preferences for on-demand vs. daily PrEP among adolescent boys and young men in SSA, a group at high risk of HIV infection. Overall, I found the qualitative data compelling and interesting. I think there are several issues regarding framing of on-demand PrEP and the quantitative analysis that need to be addressed. First, to the best of my knowledge, on-demand PrEP has been formally recommended by public health organizations for heterosexual males. This may not be true, but the authors do not provide citations supporting on-demand PrEP for heterosexual males. This is not a major limitation, but I think their study needs to be better contextualized in the Intro and Discussion as on-demand PrEP would be “off-label” for most participants, and has only been studied with TDF-FTC, not TAF-FTC. Unless on-demand PrEP has been formally recommended for heterosexual men, I think conclusions from this study need to be better contextualized. Second, I think the multivariable model needs to be clarified, which variables were included in the final adjusted model? The quantitative results are confusing as well, when the one group found to be significantly associated with preferring on-demand PrEP is “prefer not to answer,” I don’t know what to make of this finding. Third, I think greater detail to the mixed methods strategy is needed: was this a primarily explanatory model vs exploratory? It seems the data were obtained sequentially but analyzed simultaneously, but it is not clear. 1.Title: After reading the abstract, it becomes clear that the focus of the research is on-demand vs. daily PrEP. I would suggest including this focus in the title, since “PrEP preference” is a bit vague. 2.Abstract: Authors should specify mixed methods methodology briefly in abstract: was the process sequential (first quantitative, then qualitative?) or simultaneous? Exploratory vs. explanatory? I would also mention that these data came from a larger study… did the social science study precede the RCT? 3.Abstract: The factor “advanced planning of sex” needs to be clarified in the Results. This is confusing since the group is “prefer not to answer.” 4.Introduction, third paragraph: Since long acting injectable PrEP is now available in many regions, the authors should clarify PrEP as oral PrEP. The IPERGAY study also only considered TDF/FTC. 5.Introduction, third paragraph, last sentence: this sentence and the citations are misleading. On-demand PrEP is not recommended in that citation provided (from 2015); I believe it was not recommended by the WHO formally until 2019, and even so, was done with caveats: only for men who have sex with men. While I don’t think this is a major weakness of the paper, this caveat needs to be recognized earlier (the authors do mention in the third paragraph, but I think it needs to be earlier), particularly since the focus of this paper is on heterosexual adolescent boys and young men. 6.Methods, Data collection: Would re phrase “reasons for the uptake of PrEP uptake.” 7.Methods: Did the authors collect data on number of partners? Or if they had a regular partner? 8.Methods, Data Analysis: The authors state that the main outcome was analyzed as a binary variable. Was it also collected as binary, or were participants given a Likert scale of preference for on-demand vs. daily PrEP? 9.Methods: Additional detail on study measures would be helpful. For instance, how was the measure of “hours of premeditation before sex” phrased? 10.Methods: The authors should include more details on the type of mixed methodology used, e.g., sequential vs. simultaneous? Exploratory? 11.Methods/Results: The authors chose a backward elimination model, yet the results in Table 2 are a little confusing. Some factors in the bivariate model (frequency of sex, heads household, number of people in the household) appear significant at the bivariate model, but are not included in the final model. It is also unclear whether age was significant in the adjusted model, since the 95% Cis cross 1, but the p-value is 0.002. 12.Results: The authors state that “odds of preference for on-demand PrEP increased with increased hours of premeditation about sex” … this is only true in the unadjusted model, correct? In addition, the relationship does not appear linear. I also do not know what to make of the “prefer not to answer” being significant… since this could be very little time, or a lot of time. 13.Results, Qualitative (page 15-16) I would suggest retitling point 3) since many of the quotes deal with tablet fatigue, rather than side effects. These are related but not quite the same. 14.Results: Would suggest moving Table 3 higher up in the Results, in the beginning of the qualitative themes. 15.Discussion: Some mention of long acting injectables deserves mention, perhaps as a limitation of the study if not discussed. 16.Conclusions: the authors state “following WHO support for on-demand PrEP for all men, not just MSM…” I am not sure this is correct, and the authors have not cited WHO literature supporting on-demand PrEP for heterosexual men. ********** 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: Yes: dr lydia atambo 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-22-28042R1PrEP preference among adolescent boys and young men in three sub-Saharan African countriesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kakande, 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 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:
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, Joseph KB Matovu, Ph.D. 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: The authors should attend to the minor comments raised by one of the reviewers before a final decision is made on this manuscript. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) ********** 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: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ********** 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: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 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 feedback has been received and reviewed. The feedback is satisfactory. I acknowledge and appreciate the other comments that were shared by the other reviewer. Once they have been addressed, the publication can be published. Reviewer #2: I appreciate the author’s response and believe the manuscript has been strengthened. However, there are still issues that remain unaddressed in the revision, including, I believe significantly, a clarification in the title of the manuscript. Given the large literature on different PrEP preferences, further specificity would serve the authors and manuscript well that would increase the impact of this manuscript. All of these comments should be easily addressable. Title: While I appreciate the author’s comment on why they retained the title, perhaps I need to clarify why I think “PrEP preference” is too vague. This reviewer believes it is imperative to clarify in the title what the authors are investigating, given the large literature on PrEP preferences. PrEP preference could mean mode of delivery (e.g., oral vs. injectable vs. implantable), rather than oral dosing schedule. Even if injectable is not approved yet in this region, since this manuscript only assesses “preferences” (and not use), it is reasonable to assume that the authors intend to study injectable PrEP from the title alone. Another alternative “preference” would be site of delivery, e.g., clinic based, home delivery, pharmacy delivery, however, the authors do not investigate this. I believe further clarity in the title is needed, as both a reviewer and a potential reader of the manuscript would desire further clarification of WHAT is exactly being studied. A suggested title revision that would address my concern would be “Preferences for on-demand oral PrEP among…” or “Preferences for oral PrEP dosing” Introduction, line 83: suggest clarifying in this sentence “Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis” Introduction, line 93 (and elsewhere): suggest changing “regime” to “regimen” Results: If the number of partners was measured, I would include it in Table 1 as a descriptive characteristic. Reasonable to leave out of analysis. Data Analysis: Include the primary outcome in the data analysis section. I’m not sure why this was not included in the revision. Prior point about multivariable model building: The reviewer appreciates the authors explanation of how they chose to build the multivariable model, but is again confused why this explanation is not included in the revised manuscript. Table 3: Does the column reading “Less tables mean fewer side effects” need to also be revised to “fewer tables mean lower pill burden or less pill fatigue?” as revised elsewhere in the manuscript? ********** 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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
Preferences for oral PrEP dosing among adolescent boys and young men in three sub-Saharan African countries PONE-D-22-28042R2 Dear Dr. Kakande, 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, Joseph KB Matovu, Ph.D. Academic 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 #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 #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 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 #2: 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 #2: Yes ********** 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 #2: This reviewer thanks the authors for addressing their concerns and comments in this current revision. I have no further comments. ********** 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 #2: No ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-22-28042R2 Preferences for oral PrEP dosing among adolescent boys and young men in three sub-Saharan African countries Dear Dr. Kakande: 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. Joseph KB Matovu 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 .