Healthcare providers’ perception towards utilization of health information applications and its associated factors in healthcare delivery in health facilities in Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana

Richard Okyere Boadu; Godwin Adzakpah; Nathan Kumasenu Mensah; Kwame Adu Okyere Boadu; Jonathan Kissi; Christiana Dziyaba; Rosemary Bermaa Abrefa

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297388

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 15, 2023
14 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Gifty Dufie Ampofo, Editor PONE-D-23-07152Healthcare Provider’s Perception towards Utilisation of Health Information Applications in Healthcare Delivery in Cape Coast Metropolis, GhanaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Okyere Boadu, 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. Authors should kindly consider the comments of both reviewers when revising the manuscript. In particular, attention should be paid to the study design so stated. Testing for hypotheses and determining associations between variables does not make the study a descriptive one. Authors should also ensure that all data for the study are presented. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 28 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, Gifty Dufie Ampofo, M.D., 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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: - https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5547544 - http://erl.ucc.edu.gh:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/3843/NUKUNU%2c%202018.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1 - https://www.coursehero.com/file/71560624/CloudeMR-A-Cloud-Based-Electronic-Medicapdf/ - https://www.science.gov/topicpages/p/patient+information+sheet.html - https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1031&context=auchs In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. [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: 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: 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: COMMENTS TO AUTHORS Let me congratulate authors for taking time to research into such an important phenomenon. I find the following comments useful for enriching the content of the manuscript. Abstract The first appearance of the phrase healthcare provider must be in full, and immediately afterwards the acronym HCP follows in a bracket. It is only when this has been done that subsequent sentences can simply use the acronym HCP. I see an acronym HP under methods – this has not been defined in earlier sentences. “We conclude that HPs appear to have a positive perception…” – What precisely do you mean by a positive perception? Introduction “Many IT initiatives have sprung up including the 78 DHIMS and MoTeCH and NHIA initiatives..” Be precise about which NHIA initiatives are IT initiatives? ” Waema [11] and Knuth et al. [12], all bid to improve…” Check this sentence again and correct the construction error. Research Methods I. The design should rather be stated as Descriptive Cross-sectional and not cross-sectional descriptive. II. You obtained an 88% response rate; what are the implications of this on your statistical power? Why was a power analysis not performed and your statistical power reported? III. Check sentence construction errors under heading “selection of facilities” IV. You have indicated the use of a simple random sampling technique – my question is, how were you able to interview staff who were selected through your mobile app generator but were either on annual leave, indisposed, etc.? V. You mention the use of a Cronbach Alpha test to check for internal reliability among items – My question is, can you state examples of some of the precise variables which were being measured by the items? And also state the precise alpha scores obtained from the Cronbach test? And the interpretation of those scores? VI. Can authors explain why they avoided a qualitative study for a phenomenon like this, and what the possible implications of this will be. Discussion Can you also discuss the potential limitations of your study; of course, this cannot be a perfect study! Reviewer #2: "The study seeks to provide relevant information for policy decisions on the use of health information technology to improve patients’ outcomes. However, there are some issues with it that must be addressed by authors: 1. Title: The title could be revised as follows; Healthcare providers’ perception towards utilization of health information applications in healthcare delivery in health facilities in Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana 2. Abstract: this must be improved as there are some grammatical errors that must be corrected. The background to the study should be brief- two or three sentences with the problem well projected will help a lot. Under the study conclusions, the implications of the findings should stand out clearly. 3. Introduction: An explanation of ICT and Health Information Technology and it/their forms should be projected. Both global level related evidence and evidence from developing countries including Ghana should be extensively used. Authors should also include the rationale for introducing ICT in the health sector. Previously what were the challenges with the use of paper-based records in the health facilities in the Cape Coast Metropolis? Has the introduction of ICT solved those problems? A description of related studies and their gaps will be required to give a solid foundation for the study. 4. Research methodology: This was not rigorously explained. The strobe approach/checklist should be used to present the findings. Authors should provide detailed information on why the study is a descriptive cross-sectional one. A description of the study site will be helpful. A subheading should be created as a study site and the rationale for doing the study in the three health facilities well described. Also, lines 110 to 120 should be put together and labelled sampling procedures. 5. Results: Both descriptive and inferential results should be presented. Demographic information of the participants should be accompanied by a table. Data analysis should be properly described. Inferential results should be presented. 6. Discussion should be strengthened with related works and implications of the findings extensively described. The study limitations should also be described. 7. References: a lot of work has been done around the use of ICT and clients’ satisfaction in northern Ghana. Authors should look for such studies to strengthen the quality of the work." Further, please see attached file. ****** 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 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: COMMENTS TO AUTHORS_Plos One -28.05.23.docx Attachment Submitted filename: Feedback for authors plos one 26.06.23.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297388.r001
Revision 1
3 Aug 2023 Author Response 31 July 2023 Editor-in-Chief PLOS ONE Dear Sir/Madam, Re: Responses to Reviewers and Editor’s Comments On behalf of my colleagues, I am submitting responses to Reviewers and Editor’s comments raised in our article “Healthcare providers’ perception towards utilization of health information applications and its associated factors in healthcare delivery in health facilities in Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana”. The following areas of concern raised by the reviewers and Editor with responses (highlighted) as detailed below: Response to the 1st Reviewer COMMENTS TO AUTHORS Let me congratulate authors for taking time to research into such an important phenomenon. I find the following comments useful for enriching the content of the manuscript. � Thank you for your feedback. Abstract The first appearance of the phrase healthcare provider must be in full, and immediately afterwards the acronym HCP follows in a bracket. It is only when this has been done that subsequent sentences can simply use the acronym HCP. I see an acronym HP under methods – this has not been defined in earlier sentences. � Thank you for your feedback. We have provided the full meaning of HCP at the first instance (see line 28) “We conclude that HPs appear to have a positive perception…” – What precisely do you mean by a positive perception? Introduction “Many IT initiatives have sprung up including the 78 DHIMS and MoTeCH and NHIA initiatives..” Be precise about which NHIA initiatives are IT initiatives? � Thank you for your feedback. We revised the manuscript accordingly [see lines 79-92] ” Waema [11] and Knuth et al. [12], all bid to improve…” Check this sentence again and correct the construction error. � Thank you for your feedback. We revised the manuscript accordingly [see lines 96-98] Research Methods I. The design should rather be stated as Descriptive Cross-sectional and not cross-sectional descriptive. � Thank you for your feedback. We revised the manuscript accordingly [see lines 19 and 124] II. You obtained an 88% response rate; what are the implications of this on your statistical power? � Thank you for your feedback. We revised the manuscript accordingly to read to include the 80% power [see line 159]. The implication of the response rate on the power has been included in the manuscript [see lines 211-212] Why was a power analysis not performed and your statistical power reported? � Thank you for your feedback. We have corrected the omission [see line 159] III. Check sentence construction errors under heading “selection of facilities” � Thank you for your feedback. We have corrected the error [see line 165] IV. You have indicated the use of a simple random sampling technique – my question is, how were you able to interview staff who were selected through your mobile app generator but were either on annual leave, indisposed, etc.? � Thank you for your feedback. Staff who were available and selected; and voluntarily consented to participate were included in the study [see line 170] V. You mention the use of a Cronbach Alpha test to check for internal reliability among items – My question is, can you state examples of some of the precise variables which were being measured by the items? And also state the precise alpha scores obtained from the Cronbach test? And the interpretation of those scores?] � Thank you for your feedback. The manuscript has been revised to include some of the precise variables which were being measured by the items and how they were being measured (table 1). [See lines 187-197] VI. Can authors explain why they avoided a qualitative study for a phenomenon like this, and what the possible implications of this will be. � Thank you for your feedback. We were constraint with timelines to submit the project work and so could not include the qualitative aspect. Discussion Can you also discuss the potential limitations of your study; of course, this cannot be a perfect study! � Thank you for your feedback. We have included limitation to the study [see line 453-462] Response to the 2nd Reviewer The study seeks to provide relevant information for policy decisions on the use of health information technology to improve patients’ outcomes. However, there are some issues with it that must be addressed by authors: 1. Title: The title could be revise as follows; Healthcare providers’ perception towards utilization of health information applications in healthcare delivery in health facilities in Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana � Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the title accordingly [see lines 1-2] 2. Abstract: this must be improved as there are some grammatical errors that must be corrected. The background to the study should be brief- two or three sentences with the problem well projected will help a lot. Under the study conclusions, the implications of the findings should stand out clearly. � Thank you for your feedback. We have included the implication of findings [see lines 41, 469-472] 3. Introduction: Explanation of ICT and Health Information Technology and it/their forms should be projected. Both global level related evidence and evidence from developing countries including Ghana should be extensively used. Authors should also include the rationale for introducing ICT in the health sector. Previously what were the challenges with the use of the paper-based records in the health facilities in the Cape Coast Metropolis? Has the introduction of ICT solved those problems? A description of related studies and their gaps will be required to give a solid foundation for the study. � Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the manuscript to the challenges of the paper-based patients records management and the piloting of electronic health record etc. [see lines 93-105] 4. Research methodology: This was not rigorous explained. The strobe approach/checklist should be used to present the findings. Authors should provide detailed information on why the study is a descriptive cross sectional one. A description of the study site will be helpful. A sub heading should be created as study site and the rationale for doing the study in the three health facilities well described. Also, lines 110 to 120 should be put together and labelled sampling procedures. � Thank you for your feedback. We have included the study sites [see 129-149]. These facilities were selected and included in the study because they have deployed patients’ electronic health record systems to render healthcare delivery to their clients [see lines 164-166] 5. Results: Both descriptive and inferential results should be presented. Demographic information of the participants should be accompanied by a table. Data analysis should be properly described. Inferential results should be presented. � Thank you for your feedback. We have included both descriptive and inferential results [see lines [226-337] 6. Discussion should be strengthened with related works and implications of the findings extensively described. The study limitations should also be described. � Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly 7. References: a lot of works have been done around the use of ICT and clients’ satisfaction in northern Ghana. Authors should look for such studies to strengthen the quality of the work. Best wishes � Thank you for your feedback. We have including additional references to strengthen our work Thank you for your reconsideration and re-evaluation prior to consideration for publication. My colleagues and I appreciate your time and effort and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Richard Okyere Boadu (PhD) Department of Health Information Management School of Allied Health Sciences College of Health and Allied Health Sciences University of Cape Coast Cape Coast, Ghana richard.boadu@ucc.edu.gh Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response - COMMENTS TO AUTHORS_Plos One -01.08.23.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297388.r002
3 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Gifty Dufie Ampofo, Editor PONE-D-23-07152R1Healthcare providers’ perception towards utilization of health information applications and its associated factors in healthcare delivery in health facilities in Cape Coast Metropolis, GhanaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Okyere Boadu, 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 Dec 18 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, Gifty Dufie Ampofo, M.D., 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: Kindly address the comments of the second reviewer for another review. [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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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 #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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Please, find attached my feedback. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Feedback to authors ICT.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297388.r003
Revision 2
7 Nov 2023 Author Response 31 July 2023 Editor-in-Chief PLOS ONE Dear Sir/Madam, Re: Responses to Reviewers Comments On behalf of my colleagues, I am submitting responses to the Reviewers’ comments raised in our article “Healthcare providers’ perception towards utilization of health information applications and its associated factors in healthcare delivery in health facilities in Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana”. The following areas of concern were raised by the reviewers and Editor with responses (highlighted) as detailed below: INTRODUCTION It is important to describe briefly challenges associated with using ICT for healthcare delivery. � Thank you for the feedback. We have expanded the introduction section to include some challenges associated with using ICT for healthcare delivery [see lines 73-77]. METHODS Data collection tool Describe how interviews were done. What languages were used during the interview process, where were interviews done and how many interviews were conducted? The authors can rename the heading as DATA COLLECTION TOOLS AND PROCEDURES. � Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly [see lines 177, 185-188]. RESULTS Line 210, please start with a capital letter; Table 2. Results should be reported in the past. For example, the study revealed that… � Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly [see lines 218]. Discussion Some typographical errors require redress. Line 360, the word DELIVER should be ‘DELIVERY’. � Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly [see line 368]. Thank you for your reconsideration and re-evaluation prior to consideration for publication. My colleagues and I appreciate your time and effort and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Richard Okyere Boadu (PhD) Department of Health Information Management School of Allied Health Sciences College of Health and Allied Health Sciences University of Cape Coast Cape Coast, Ghana richard.boadu@ucc.edu.gh Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response - Comments to Authors_Plos One - 06.11.23.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297388.r004
4 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Gifty Dufie Ampofo, Editor Healthcare providers’ perception towards utilization of health information applications and its associated factors in healthcare delivery in health facilities in Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana PONE-D-23-07152R2 Dear Dr. Okyere Boadu, 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, Gifty Dufie Ampofo, M.D., Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297388.r005
Formally Accepted
24 Jan 2024 Acceptance Letter - Gifty Dufie Ampofo, Editor PONE-D-23-07152R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Okyere Boadu, 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. Gifty Dufie Ampofo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297388.r006

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 .