Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 21, 2022

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Rebuttal_Letter.docx
Decision Letter - Kehinde S. Okunade, Editor

PONE-D-22-19181Clients’ perspectives on the utilization  of reproductive, maternal, neonatal, and child health services in primary health centers during COVID-19 pandemic in 10 States of Nigeria: A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Okonofua,

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 May 11 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,

Kehinde S. Okunade

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 whether: 1) whether the ethics committee approved the verbal/oral consent procedure, 2) why written consent could not be obtained, and 3) how verbal/oral consent was recorded.

[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: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

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: 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: -What was the basis or criteria of selection of the 10 communities in each LGA used as study sites?

-Was ethical approval for the study obtained from any Health Research and Ethics Committee (HREC)? Ethical approval is different from permission from health ministries and centers to perform a study. State clearly the HREC that approved the work with the approval number.

As regards the inclusion of women who registered as having received clinical services in the clinics per state before and after the pandemic started. It is important to state the range of years before the pandemic that was targeted in this study? Were women who had accessed these services 10years ago also identified and recruited?

-Table 2 claims to describe “the pattern of utilization of RMNCH services pre- and post-covid”. How did you make up for/exclude women who did not need some of these services before or after the pandemic? It is important to differentiate women who did not require the service from those who needed it but couldn’t access it. Reasons why some women in the study may not have needed antenatal care before the pandemic could be because they were not pregnant before the pandemic. A woman who utilized post-natal services before the pandemic may not have needed it after the pandemic because she had no delivery after the pandemic. How did you ascertain that “no-need for a service” has not influenced the pattern depicted in Table 2?

-Clearly state what confounders were adjusted for in Table 3?

- A copy of the study questionnaire should be included as a supplementary file to the reviewer to help assess the work better.

**********

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.

Revision 1

May 10, 2023

Dear Editor,

Thank you for considering our manuscript PONE-D-22-19181 titled “Clients’ perspectives on the utilization of reproductive, maternal, neonatal, and child health services in primary health centers during COVID-19 pandemic in 10 States of Nigeria: A cross-sectional study” for publication.

Please, see below our point-by-point response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments.

Sincerely,

Professor Friday E. Okonofua

Response to Editor’s comments

Journal 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

Response: The PLOS ONE style has been followed.

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 whether: 1) whether the ethics committee approved the verbal/oral consent procedure, 2) why written consent could not be obtained, and 3) how verbal/oral consent was recorded.

Response: Verbal consent was obtained since the data collection was by computer-assisted personal interviewing, and a statement of information and consent was a part of the questionnaire. This has been explained in the ethical approval section.

Response to Reviewer’s Comments

Reviewer #1: -What was the basis or criteria of selection of the 10 communities in each LGA used as study sites?

Response: The ten communities were selected purposively based on location of a PHC in the community.

-Was ethical approval for the study obtained from any Health Research and Ethics Committee (HREC)? Ethical approval is different from permission from health ministries and centers to perform a study. State clearly the HREC that approved the work with the approval number.

Response: Approval to conduct this study was obtained from the various Ministries of Health in each State, and from the Research Ethics Committee, College of Medical Sciences, University of Benin, Nigeria #CMS/REC/2020/092 dated October 4, 2020.

As regards the inclusion of women who registered as having received clinical services in the clinics per state before and after the pandemic started. It is important to state the range of years before the pandemic that was targeted in this study? Were women who had accessed these services 10years ago also identified and recruited?

Response: There are three selection criteria. The second one is women receiving RMNCH and family planning services in the PHCs indicating that they were also using these services at the time of interview.

-Table 2 claims to describe “the pattern of utilization of RMNCH services pre- and post-covid”. How did you make up for/exclude women who did not need some of these services before or after the pandemic? It is important to differentiate women who did not require the service from those who needed it but couldn’t access it. Reasons why some women in the study may not have needed antenatal care before the pandemic could be because they were not pregnant before the pandemic. A woman who utilized post-natal services before the pandemic may not have needed it after the pandemic because she had no delivery after the pandemic. How did you ascertain that “no-need for a service” has not influenced the pattern depicted in Table 2?

Response: The study population were women who were using a PHC in their community for any of RMNCH services. It excludes women who had no need of the RMNCH services.

-Clearly state what confounders were adjusted for in Table 3?

Response: The confounders adjusted in the regression presented in Table 3 were listed in the methods section under variables and measures. They are respondents’ age, marital status, the highest level of education, religion, number of previous pregnancies, number of living children, knowledge of COVID-19, place of residence, and State of residence.

- A copy of the study questionnaire should be included as a supplementary file to the reviewer to help assess the work better.

Response: A copy of the questionnaire has been included as a supplementary material.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Kehinde S. Okunade, Editor

Clients’ perspectives on the utilization  of reproductive, maternal, neonatal, and child health services in primary health centers during COVID-19 pandemic in 10 States of Nigeria: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-22-19181R1

Dear Dr. Okonofua,

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,

Kehinde S. Okunade

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kehinde S. Okunade, Editor

PONE-D-22-19181R1

Clients’ perspectives on the utilization of reproductive, maternal, neonatal, and child health services in primary health centers during COVID-19 pandemic in 10 States of Nigeria: A cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Okonofua:

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. Kehinde S. Okunade

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 .