Short-term health system responses to epidemics across hard to reach areas in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review protocol

Annette A. Murunga; Ben Ngoye; Francis P. Wafula; Gilbert O. Kokwaro

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285916

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 23, 2023
13 Sep 2023 Decision Letter - Anselme Shyaka, Editor PONE-D-23-13244Short-term health system responses to epidemics across hard-to-reach areas in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review protocolPLOS ONE Dear Ms. Murunga, 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. ============================== Thanks for submitting your protocol. After careful review, I recommend you address the comments provided by the reviewer. In addition, please make sure that you address the following questions: Review and discuss your choice to search only a few databases while leaving out other important sources for biomedical literature and research. Discuss any anticipated limitations to the method selected for your scoping review. Please include a section on the limitations and discuss any challenges that could limit a comprehensive retrieval of the literature (e.g., the review will consider manuscripts published in English only, only a few databases to be used for manuscript search, etc.) ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 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, Anselme Shyaka, 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 include a caption for figure 1. 3. 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. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 ****** 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 ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Overall, this scoping review protocol appears well-structured and comprehensive, and it provides a clear outline of how the study will be conducted. However, here some proposed areas for improvement: Major comment: P.7 - There should be an alignment between the title – main objective - and the methodology. The methodology outlines a clear and well-structured approach for conducting a scoping review and provides details on the research questions, search strategy, data selection, and data extraction. However, it is unclear how the search approach proposed will collect data on hard-to-reach areas specifically. Details on specific search for these areas should be defined. This is important since these areas may not necessarily be characterized as ‘hard - to- reach' in literature. Minor comments Abstract & P.3 - The use of the word ‘outbreak’ should be reviewed. This is a general term that englobes both ‘epidemic’ and ‘pandemic’. Ensure you use it appropriately and replace it epidemics and/or pandemics whenever applicable. Abstract - There is contradiction in this sentence. If the objective is to stop infection, the target is MANY people, not few. But this sentence can be better formulated. Suggestion: use the term 'minimize infections'. Abstract - Avoid starting sentences with 'And'. Abstract - This abstract should briefly mention the methodology. P.3 - Provide more details and clarification on how the manual search will be carried out. P. 4 - The use of 'short-term' two times in one sentence is redundant. Reformulate. P.5 - Capitalize ‘COVID-19’ P.5 - Explain the full meaning of abbreviations the first time they are used (eg: SSA, LMICs, SARS, etc). They can simply be used as abbreviations afterwards. P.6 - Reformulate this sentence ‘To contextualize the challenge better, though, it is important to realize that health systems in LMICs are barely able to handle those in high-access areas such as urban and more affluent Areas.’ It is unclear what ‘those’ is replacing. P.6 - 7. The rationale for scoping review as it is presented gives a broad definition of scoping review and a difference between scoping review and systematic review. Define the rationale specifically for this specific scoping review; the needs and expected outcomes. P.7- This part - as for others - should be aligned with the short-term aspect of your research project. Some of the outcomes mentioned here are long-term. Short-term health system responses include: -Surveillance and early detection -Rapid response teams -Treatment Centers - Public Health Messaging - Supplying Chain Management - Community Engagement - Contact Tracing - Data Collection and Analysis - Vaccination campaigns (if applicable) - Coordination between institutions and different organizations (national, International, NGOs). - Explore ways of incorporating these in the Process. P. 8- It is unclear what will be done in this step of screening the reference list. Provide more details. P.10 - Define inclusion and exclusion criteria. ****** 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 ******** [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: PONE-D-23-13244.pdf - revised.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285916.r001
Revision 1
8 Feb 2024 Author Response 1. Review and discuss your choice to search only a few databases while leaving out other important sources for biomedical literature and research. Ans: The study focused on three databases that is PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane. The databases were selected on the basis that 1) Google Scholar has a wide variety of articles and is also very comprehensive that is it includes literature that goes beyond biomedical research. The data base also provides provision for gray literature. PubMed on the other hand has a free search interface and provides access to more than 26million citations covering biomedical literature. The literature provided dates back from 1946 in MEDLINE AND PreMEDLINE. The database also includes publisher-supplied records (including electronic publications ahead of print) (1). 2. Discuss any anticipated limitations to the method selected for your scoping review. Please include a section on the limitations and discuss any challenges that could limit a comprehensive retrieval of the literature (e.g., the review will consider manuscripts published in English only, only a few databases to be used for manuscript search, etc.) Limitations in the use of scoping reviews includes, first developing search terms for a comprehensive search strategy may be difficult since the area of discussion is an emerging area with less well-known information, secondly some of the topical areas or terms such as hard to reach are ill defined and can lead to different definitions for the same topic, thirdly the terms used may not be indexed as Medical Subject Headings may be difficult to find in published literature. P.7 - There should be an alignment between the title – main objective - and the methodology. The methodology outlines a clear and well-structured approach for conducting a scoping review and provides details on the research questions, search strategy, data selection, and data extraction. However, it is unclear how the search approach proposed will collect data on hard-to-reach areas specifically. Details on specific search for these areas should be defined. This is important since these areas may not necessarily be characterized as ‘hard - to- reach' in literature. Ans: Thank you for taking note of this. The term hard to reach areas has now been defined are as places where it would be hardest or take the longest for someone to access basic humanitarian services (such as health clinics and hospitals). This access is further compounded by a lack of functioning transport links and infrastructure, as well as terrain difficulty. The countries to be included in this category include: Angola Ethiopia Rwanda Benin Gambia São Tomé and Príncipe Burkina Faso Guinea Senegal Burundi Guinea-Bissau Sierra Leone Central African Republic Lesotho Somalia Chad Liberia Sudan Comoros Madagascar Tanzania Democratic Republic of the Congo Malawi Togo Djibouti Mali Uganda Equatorial Guinea Mauritania Zambia Eritrea Mozambique Rwanda Niger São Tomé and Príncipe Abstract & P.3 - The use of the word ‘outbreak’ should be reviewed. This is a general term that englobes both ‘epidemic’ and ‘pandemic’. Ensure you use it appropriately and replace it epidemics and/or pandemics whenever applicable. Ans Replaced with Epidemic Abstract - There is contradiction in this sentence. If the objective is to stop infection, the target is MANY people, not few. But this sentence can be better formulated. Suggestion: use the term 'minimize infections'-this has been done. Abstract - Avoid starting sentences with 'And'-this has been corrected Abstract - This abstract should briefly mention the methodology-this has been corrected and added P.3 - Provide more details and clarification on how the manual search will be carried out. The third step will include a manual review of the reference list of all the studies for additional articles that may have been left out during the initial search. This will be done firstly by searching through the reference lists of all included articles, secondly citation tracking in which we shall track selected articles that cite each one of the included articles, and thirdly similar to the citation tracking, we will follow all “related to” or “similar” articles where data collected does not have the word hard to reach areas, data will be collected based on countries included in the study. P. 4 - The use of 'short-term' two times in one sentence is redundant. Reformulate this has been reformulated Our scoping review, therefore, aims to provide an overview of existing evidence on immediate health system responses to epidemics in hard to reach areas in SSA and attempt to answer: what is the context of the health system (Service Delivery, Health workforce, Leadership and Governance, Health financing, Medical products and technology, and Health Information Systems) with regards to pandemic preparedness and management in SSA? What is the diversity of approaches in terms of policies, protocols, communication, community participation, and surveillance that were used to manage disease ou tbreaks? And what were the outcomes of the various approaches and models in the early detection of diseases. P.5 - Capitalize ‘COVID-19-Done P.5 - Explain the full meaning of abbreviations the first time they are used (eg: SSA, LMICs, SARS, etc). They can simply be used as abbreviations afterwards. Done P.6 - Reformulate this sentence ‘To contextualize the challenge better, though, it is important to realize that health systems in LMICs are barely able to handle those in high-access areas such as urban and more affluent Areas.’ It is unclear what ‘those’ is replacing. To contextualize the epidemic challenge better, it is important to realize that health systems in Low-and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) are barely able to handle health systems challenges in high-access areas such as urban and more affluent areas. P.6 - 7. The rationale for scoping review as it is presented gives a broad definition of scoping review and a difference between scoping review and systematic review. Define the rationale specifically for this specific scoping review; the needs and expected outcomes. A scoping review utilizes a systematic and iterative approach to identify and synthesize existing literature or emerging literature on a given topic. For this study, a scoping review will be used to understand the scope of the existing literature on the topic, identify the concepts and definitions used, as well as identify gaps in literature for future areas of scholarship. P.7- This part - as for others - should be aligned with the short-term aspect of your research project. Some of the outcomes mentioned here are long-term. Short-term health system responses include: -Surveillance and early detection -Rapid response teams -Treatment Centers - Public Health Messaging - Supplying Chain Management - Community Engagement - Contact Tracing - Data Collection and Analysis - Vaccination campaigns (if applicable) - Coordination between institutions and different organizations (national, International, NGOs). - Explore ways of incorporating these in the Process This has been done. p.10-Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria The inclusion criteria will include empirical studies with either qualitative or quantitative data published in English as well as countries termed as less developed countries by the United Nations. Systematic and scoping reviews will also be considered. Full text English papers from between 2010 to 2024 will be considered. This period is critical because majority of the major disease outbreaks occurred during this period. Exclusion criteria The scoping review will exclude all types of reviews, protocols, book chapters and countries not identified as hard to reach areas in SSA Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285916.r002
30 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Raquel Inocencio da Luz, Editor Short-term health system responses to epidemics across hard to reach areas in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review protocol PONE-D-23-13244R1 Dear Authors 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Raquel Inocencio da Luz, Phd Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285916.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Raquel Inocencio da Luz, Editor PONE-D-23-13244R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Murunga, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Raquel Inocencio da Luz Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285916.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 .