Health professionals’ knowledge on vaccine cold chain management and associated factors in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Abebaw Wasie Kasahun; Amare Zewdie; Ayenew Mose; Haimanot Abebe Adane

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293122

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 3, 2023
14 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Demeke Mesfin Belay, Editor PONE-D-23-03134Health professionals’ Knowledge on Vaccine cold chain management and associated factors in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kasahun, 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 Jul 29 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, Demeke Mesfin Belay, MSc 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. Please upload a new copy of Figure 2 and 4 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics 4. 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. Additional Editor Comments: It needs Major Revision [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No 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: No 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: Dear authors thanks for this interesting review. In general, this review is well written. However, I have some comments and questions 1.Your review needs major language edition 2.Please incorporate your review Prospero registration number in abstract section 3.Please put the citation for the PRISMA guideline you used under method section. Is that PRISMA guideline 2020 or not? 4.If you used the PRSMA guideline 2020, some components were missed for example Certainty assessment 5.Please avoid the term data analysis and process in method section rather use Synthesis methods and Reporting bias assessment 6.Avoid a paragraph ‘’Fixed effect model would have been used 187 if studies were homogeneous’’ 7.What were the limitations of your review? 8.Lastly, please use PRISMA 2020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33782057/ guideline and rewrite your review and meta-analysis Thank you Reviewer #2: Your manuscript is full of self-plagiarism from your previous published work (Kasahun AW, Zewdie A, Shitu S, Alemayehu G. Vaccine cold chain management practice and associated factors among health professionals in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice. 2023 Dec;16(1):1-0.). You used a mnemonic PICO (population, intervention, control, outcome), wrongly. Since your review is on prevalence studies, you need to use CoCoPop (condition, context, population). I have doubt on your inclusion criteria since you use PICO. I need to see your search strategies and search terms that you use for each database. On methods part line 118 needs citation. You use Joanna Briggs Institute for data extraction, why not for quality assessment and analysis too? ****** 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: Bekahegn Girma 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review.docx Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer comment.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293122.r001
Revision 1
4 Jul 2023 Author Response Dear Academic editor of PLOS ONE and the reviewers, we are highly indebted to your important comments and queries of clarifications for enriching our manuscript. The following statements are tailored to address all of your reflections point by point in their order of appearance from the forwarded comments. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements A: we revised the manuscript in accordance with PLOS ONE style requirements 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, A: Our manuscript solely depends on the previous research works; as a result, we have not primary data set for it. But as additional information file, we will upload the extracted data set that we used for estimating the pooled prevalence of the outcome variable. 3. Please upload a new copy of Figure 2 and 4 as the detail is not clear. A: we have uploaded clearer version of fig.2 and fig.4 4. 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: A: ORCID iD of the corresponding author is updated and linked to to the Editorial Manager. R1: Please incorporate your review Prospero registration number in abstract section A; Thanks, we incorporated the PROSPERO registration number on the abstract section of the revised manuscript R1: Please put the citation for the PRISMA guideline you used under method section. Is that PRISMA guideline 2020 or not? A: Yes, we have used PRISMA 2020 guideline, and appropriate reference is cited on the revised version. R1: If you used the PRSMA guideline 2020, some components were missed for example Certainty assessment A: Thank you; we have included certainty assessment methods and its findings on the method and result section of the manuscript respectively. R1: Please avoid the term data analysis and process in method section rather use Synthesis methods and Reporting bias assessment A: thanks, Corrected accordingly R1: Avoid a paragraph ‘’Fixed effect model would have been used 187 if studies were homogeneous’’ A: Thanks, removed on the revised version R1: What were the limitations of your review? A: We included the limitations of our review at the end of the discussion on the revised version of the manuscript. The result of this systematic review and meta-analysis is based on few studies; as a result it may not show the true magnitude of the outcome variable. It may possibly different if many more studies were done and included in this meta-analysis and review. Above all, this result is solely depends on the already available data from previous studies, as a result the limitation and quality of the previous researches have an impact on our findings. R1: Lastly, please use PRISMA 2020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33782057/ guideline and rewrite your review and meta-analysis A: thank you, we have revised in accordance with the referred guideline (PRISMA2020) R2: I have seen self-plagiarism from your previous published work (Kasahun AW, Zewdie A, Shitu S, Alemayehu G. Vaccine cold chain management practice and associated factors among health professionals in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice. 2023 Dec;16(1):1-0.). A: Thanks, There was some text overlap from the previously published article on vaccine cold chain management practices as the condition understudy is closely related. We have made a meticulous revision on those issues on the revised version. R2: You used a mnemonic PICO (population, intervention, control, outcome), we use it for effectiveness studies to develop question, instead of using CoCoPop (condition, context, population) for prevalence studies. I have doubt on your inclusion criteria since you use PICO. I need to see your search strategies and search terms that you use for each database. A: Thank you, we actually used CoCoPop/PEO, though it is wrongly mentioned as PICO in the submitted manuscript, unfortunately we retained the template that we have used for the other review. We have corrected it on the revised version of the manuscript. The objectives of our review are: to determine the pooled magnitude of health professionals’ knowledge on vaccine cold chain management and to identify its associated factors. As the review has prevalence and risk assessment objectives we have used CoCoPop/PEO guide. Condition: Knowledge on vaccine cold chain management Population: Health professionals Context: Ethiopia Exposure: Are socio-demographic, health facility and other factors that negatively or positively affect health professionals’ knowledge on vaccine cold chain management; it includes level of training, professional category, on job training, supervision and others. Outcome: Health professionals’ knowledge on vaccine cold chain management which is determined using a composite of items R2:. I need to see your search strategies and search terms that you use for each database. A: Kindly find some of the search terms that we used in each data base. Furthermore, a hand search was made on references of retrieved studies using the mentioned search terms. Pubmed (((((((((((vaccine cold chain management) OR (vaccine cold chain[MeSH Terms])) OR (vaccine cold chain[Title/Abstract])) AND (knowledge[MeSH Terms])) OR (knowledge[Title/Abstract])) AND (health professionals[Title/Abstract])) OR (health professionals[MeSH Terms])) OR (vaccine handlers[MeSH Terms])) OR (vaccine handlers[Title/Abstract]))) AND (Ethiopia[Title/Abstract])) OR (Ethiopia[MeSH Terms]) Google scholar All in title: health professionals’ knowledge on vaccine cold chain management AND associated factors in Ethiopia. All in title: "cold chain management" AND "health professionals" Ethiopia All in title: "health professionals’ knowledge on vaccine cold chain management” AND Ethiopia All in title: "vaccine cold chain management" AND Ethiopia All in title: "vaccine cold chain" AND "health professionals knowledge" All in title: "vaccine handlers’ knowledge on vaccine cold chain management" AND Ethiopia African Journals online “Health professionals’ knowledge on vaccine cold chain management and associated factors in Ethiopia” “Determinants of health professionals’ knowledge on vaccine cold chain management in Ethiopia” Web of science (((((((((((vaccine cold chain management) OR (vaccine cold chain[all fields])) OR (vaccine cold chain[all fields])) AND (knowledge[topic])) OR (knowledge[all fields])) AND (health professionals[all fields])) OR (health professionals[topic])) OR (vaccine handlers[all fields])) OR (vaccine handlers[topic]))) AND (Ethiopia[title])) OR (all fields]) R2: On methods part line 118 needs citation. A: thank you, appropriate reference cited on the revised version R2: You use Joanna Briggs Institute for data extraction, why not for quality assessment and analysis too? A: We are familiar with the tools that we have used for assessing quality and synthesizing the data rather than JBI tools which we do not know much about. We have no other reason not to use JBI tools for quality assessment and analysis if any, we opt tools that we know better for managing and measuring variables. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: point by point response to comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293122.r002
6 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Demeke Mesfin Belay, Editor Health professionals’ Knowledge on Vaccine cold chain management and associated factors in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analysis PONE-D-23-03134R1 Dear Dr. Abebawe, 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, Demeke Mesfin Belay, Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Congratulations on your acceptance with minor revisions! Please take into account the following constructive feedback to enhance the quality of your manuscript. It would be beneficial to include the quality assessment result as a supplementary file. Additionally, please address the potential reasons for publication bias and provide the findings of the subgroup analysis in your discussion. 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: (No Response) ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293122.r003
Formally Accepted
14 Nov 2023 Acceptance Letter - Demeke Mesfin Belay, Editor PONE-D-23-03134R1 Health professionals’ Knowledge on Vaccine cold chain management and associated factors in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analysis Dear Dr. Kasahun: 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 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 Mr. Demeke Mesfin Belay Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293122.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 .