PONE-D-23-05657Effectiveness of education intervention, with regards to physical activity level and a healthy diet, among Middle Eastern adolescents in Malaysia: a study protocol for a randomized control trial, based on a health belief modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Al-Haroni,

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.

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

A

The manuscript discuss very important topic “ obesity among adolescent”. Your paper needs to revised to meet the following comments:

1. You need to extended more details about CONSORT. See: Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials.
2. Do the authors have access to further baseline data such as, e.g highest education level for parents, or ethnicity, as this might also play a role in confounding with outcome.
3. As the program was 6 weeks, was compliance measured in any way?
4. There are more similar studies therefore this is not the first intervention study. So the claim is false and should be changed after review.
5. It is good that HBM model is being used. But there seems that only one model has been reviewed for developing intervention. The suggestion is that to read more models, look for advantages and disadvantages and then select. Even a multi-model strategy has been used for developing intervention. For example, WHO has suggested one TMT, BCW is another one. You need to review all the models and choose the model/s that are more appropriate in your context.
6. Must read about issues and problems of using HBM before rejecting it or using it along with other models.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 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,

Fadwa Alhalaiqa

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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. We note that the original protocol that you have uploaded as a Supporting Information file contains an institutional logo. As this logo is likely copyrighted, we ask that you please remove it from this file and upload an updated version upon resubmission.

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

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

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. Please note that authors, including Corresponding Authors, are not permitted to be the sole point of contact for data requests.

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

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

5. 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 manuscript discuss very important topic “ obesity among adolescent”. Your paper needs to revised to meet the following comments:

1. You need to extended more details about CONSORT. See: Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials.

2. Do the authors have access to further baseline data such as, e.g highest education level for parents, or ethnicity, as this might also play a role in confounding with outcome.

3. As the program was 6 weeks, was compliance measured in any way?

4. There are more similar studies therefore this is not the first intervention study. So the claim is false and should be changed after review.

5. It is good that HBM model is being used. But there seems that only one model has been reviewed for developing intervention. The suggestion is that to read more models, look for advantages and disadvantages and then select. Even a multi-model strategy has been used for developing intervention. For example, WHO has suggested one TMT, BCW is another one. You need to review all the models and choose the model/s that are more appropriate in your context.

6. Must read about issues and problems of using HBM before rejecting it or using it along with other models.

For further details see the reviewers feedback:

Reviewer 1: This is an interesting study addressing a very important worldwide concern re obesity in adolescents. This study delves into the effect of an Health belief Model -based education program, on the physical activity and eating behaviour, among Middle Eastern adolescents in Malaysia

-The authors have mentioned following the CONSORT. Can this be extended to look at the Research Methods & Reporting, Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials.

- In addition do the authors have access to further baseline data such as, e.g highest education level for parents, or ethnicity, as this might also play a role in confounding with outcome.

-As the program was 6 weeks, was compliance measured in any way?

Reviewer 2:

I appreciate the effort and the clarity with which the study has been designed. Methodology is presented nicely and is clear. To improve the protocol, I have following suggestions:

1. There are more similar studies therefore this is not the first intervention study. So the claim is false and should be changed after review.

2. It is good that HBM model is being used. But there seems that only one model has been reviewed for developing intervention. I would suggest that read more models, look for advantages and disadvantages and then select. Even a multi-model strategy has been used for developing intervention. For example, WHO has suggested one TMT, BCW is another one, but I would encourage you to review all the models and choose the model/s that are more appropriate in your context.

Must read about issues and problems of using HBM before rejecting it or using it along with other models.

Best wishes

[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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: No

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 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: This is an interesting study addressing a very important worldwide concern re obesity in adolescents. This study delves into the effect of an Health belief Model -based education program, on the physical activity and eating behaviour, among Middle Eastern adolescents in Malaysia

the authors have mentioned following the CONSORT. Can this be extended to look at the Research Methods & Reporting

Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials.

In addition do the authors have access to further baseline data such as, e.g highest education level for parents, or ethnicity, as this might also play a role in confounding with outcome.

As the program was 6 weeks, was compliance measured in any way?

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the effort and the clarity with which the study has been designed. Methodology is presented nicely and is clear. To improve the protocol, I have following suggestions:

1. There are more similar studies therefore this is not the first intervention study. So the claim is false and should be changed after review.

2. It is good that HBM model is being used. But there seems that only one model has been reviewed for developing intervention. I would suggest that read more models, look for advantages and disadvantages and then select. Even a multi-model strategy has been used for developing intervention. For example, WHO has suggested one TMT, BCW is another one, but I would encourage you to review all the models and choose the model/s that are more appropriate in your context.

Must read about issues and problems of using HBM before rejecting it or using it along with other models.

Best wishes

********** 

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.

PONE-D-23-05657R1Effectiveness of education intervention, with regards to physical activity level and a healthy diet, among Middle Eastern adolescents in Malaysia: a study protocol for a randomized control trial, based on a health belief modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nik Daliana Nik Farid,

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.

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

1. The CONSORT  why you choose this guideline not others.?
2. You need to answer the question: Do the authors have access to further baseline data such as, e.g highest education level for parents, or ethnicity, as this might also play a role in confounding with outcome? By saying whether the authors have access or not and what are these data.

=========================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 31 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,

Fadwa Alhalaiqa

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:

Dear Dr Nik Daliana Nik Farid,

The paper is improved however, You need to :

1- The CONSORT why you choose this guideline not others.?

2- You need to answer the question: Do the authors have access to further baseline data such as, e.g highest education level for parents, or ethnicity, as this might also play a role in confounding with outcome? By saying whether the authors have access or not and what are these data.

3- . 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

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.

Effectiveness of education intervention, with regards to physical activity level and a healthy diet, among Middle Eastern adolescents in Malaysia: a study protocol for a randomized control trial, based on a health belief model

PONE-D-23-05657R2

Dear Dr. Nik,

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,

Fadwa Alhalaiqa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: