Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among high-risk urban populations in Southern Thailand using the COM-B model

Charuai Suwanbamrung; Benchawan Srinam; Pakawan Promkool; Warissara Suwannakarn; Sangchom Siripanich; Md. Siddikur Rahman; Muhammad Haroon Stanikzai

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300509

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 12, 2023
12 Aug 2023 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300509.r001
2 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Kittisak Jermsittiparsert, Editor PONE-D-23-22650Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among high-risk urban populations in Southern Thailand using the COM-B ModelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Stanikzai, 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 17 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, Kittisak Jermsittiparsert, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 5. 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. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload 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 6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ Additional Editor Comments: Overall, this manuscript was written quite well and received very positive feedback from reviewers. If this manuscript is submitted for consideration at the end of 2021 or early 2022, it will need to be accepted and published quickly as it is a study to face the urgent situation at that time. However, now that the COVID-19 situation has passed and interest in vaccination has decreased a lot because it is not something that people still don't know even a little bit about it that might be helpful. Looking at the details of this manuscript, I found that these are issues that many studies have already addressed. This is especially true when considering the population of this study that is not unique or may provide new, deeper or more interesting answers. To make this manuscript interesting and useful for publication at this time, the authors need to improve this manuscript in at least two parts. 1) Point out how important and interesting the southern region of Thailand is within a context of a developing country. However, there should also be strong empirical data to support it. 2) If it is not possible to change the independent variables used in the study, the authors should not only point out what variables are present but also explain the interesting points from the discovery of the relationship between those variables. This is not only to answer questions about COVID-19, but also to deal with future outbreaks in this type of area. This means that the authors need to be more explicit about the issues being studied and how they are more important or interesting than in many previous studies. Moreover, it is a discussion and expansion to show how the results of this research can be further developed to obtain answers that are more useful than existing research. [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: Yes 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: I have no concerns about the issue of republishing. This research is a new research study in the context of the southern region of Thailand. and have research ethics standards certified by the host university In addition, this research also writes useful research results that will lead to future public health guidelines in Thailand and countries with similar contexts. Reviewer #2: The study is ethically sound, receiving approval from Walailak University's Ethics Committee and obtaining informed consent from participants. The research demonstrates exceptional originality, as confirmed by a favorable plagiarism assessment. It appropriately references current literature, covering a wide range of topics related to COVID-19 and vaccination. The study design, a web-based cross-sectional approach in a high-risk urban area, aligns with its objectives and uses academically sound measures. Statistical analysis and interpretation are generally appropriate, though presenting confidence intervals for percentages and means and providing more detailed interpretation of logistic regression results could enhance clarity. Overall, the conclusions are well-supported by data and analyses, highlighting a 59.5% vaccine uptake rate and identifying demographic factors and the influence of the COM-B model on vaccine acceptance. The study suggests further research and provides valuable insights for evidence-based interventions. For the full details of my reviews, please refer to the attached MS WORD file, named "SRIRATH-SENT1112023.docx." ****** 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: Naksit Sakdapat Reviewer #2: Yes: Srirath Gohwong, Ph.D. ******** [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: SRIRATH-SENT1112023.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300509.r002
Revision 1
21 Dec 2023 Author Response Dear Editor, We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among high-risk urban populations in Southern Thailand using the COM-B Model”. Please find our revised manuscript along with tracked changes file (yellow highlighted), which we believe is substantially strengthened now that we have incorporated reviewers’ recommendations. Journal requirements: We made amendments according to the journal requirements. Additional Editor Comments: Overall, this manuscript was written quite well and received very positive feedback from reviewers. If this manuscript is submitted for consideration at the end of 2021 or early 2022, it will need to be accepted and published quickly as it is a study to face the urgent situation at that time. However, now that the COVID-19 situation has passed and interest in vaccination has decreased a lot because it is not something that people still don't know even a little bit about it that might be helpful. Looking at the details of this manuscript, I found that these are issues that many studies have already addressed. This is especially true when considering the population of this study that is not unique or may provide new, deeper or more interesting answers. Response: Thank you so much for your positive comments. We would like to add the findings of this study could be of significant importance in adopting a new behavior through application of the COM-B model in any given disaster. We have provided more details for the practical implications of our key findings (yellow highlighted in the manuscript). To make this manuscript interesting and useful for publication at this time, the authors need to improve this manuscript in at least two parts. 1. Point out how important and interesting the southern region of Thailand is within a context of a developing country. However, there should also be strong empirical data to support it. Response: Thank you so much. We agree with your comment and added details in the introductions section and methodology, and pointed out this point through out the discussion of our revised manuscript (Please see lines 95-102, lines 106-112, please see full discussion). 2. If it is not possible to change the independent variables used in the study, the authors should not only point out what variables are present but also explain the interesting points from the discovery of the relationship between those variables. This is not only to answer questions about COVID-19, but also to deal with future outbreaks in this type of area. This means that the authors need to be more explicit about the issues being studied and how they are more important or interesting than in many previous studies. Moreover, it is a discussion and expansion to show how the results of this research can be further developed to obtain answers that are more useful than existing research. Response: Thank you so much. We are indeed very thankful for this feedback. We have revised most sections of our manuscript and addressed this important issue of how our findings can be important in future events like COVID-19 disease. Moreover, we have expanded our discussion of how our findings can be useful (Please see lines 338-340, lines 343-345, lines 364-369, lines 372-375, lines 380-383, lines 394-397, and lines 411-415). We have also highlighted key findings for policy consideration. Thank you once again and we really hope that our manuscript would be acceptable to you. Response to Reviewers’ comments Response to Reviewer 1 comments I have no concerns about the issue of republishing. This research is a new research study in the context of the southern region of Thailand, and as research ethics standards certified by the host university. In addition, this research also writes useful research results that will lead to future public health guidelines in Thailand and countries with similar contexts. Response: Thank you so much for recommending the publication of our manuscript. Response to Reviewer 2 comments 1. The study is ethically sound, receiving approval from Walailak University's Ethics Committee and obtaining informed consent from participants. The research demonstrates exceptional originality, as confirmed by a favorable plagiarism assessment. It appropriately references current literature, covering a wide range of topics related to COVID-19 and vaccination. The study design, a web-based cross-sectional approach in a high-risk urban area, aligns with its objectives and uses academically sound measures. Response: Thank you so much for constructive and positive feedback. 2. Statistical analysis and interpretation are generally appropriate, though presenting confidence intervals for percentages and means and providing more detailed interpretation of logistic regression results could enhance clarity. Response: Thank you so much for this feedback. We have added 95% CI for COVID-19 vaccines percentages, added means for COM-B constructs, and added p-value to the logistic regression results (Please see the results). 3. Overall, the conclusions are well supported by data and analyses, highlighting a 59.5% vaccine uptake rate and identifying demographic factors and the influence of the COM-B model on vaccine acceptance. The study suggests further research and provides valuable insights for evidence-based interventions. Response: Thank you so much. Responses to reviewer 2 detailed feedback. 1. The research complies with ethical standards for experimentation and research integrity, as it was granted approval by Walailak University's Ethics Committee (reference number WUEC-21-214-01, dated August 16, 2021). Informed consent was diligently secured from all participants through an official online consent form, as provided by the committee. This form transparently communicated the study's goals, objectives, and the participants' entitlement to withdraw at any point. Furthermore, the study steadfastly adhered to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, which stands as one of its outstanding strengths. Response: Thank you so much. 2. The title of this study, "Enhancing COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in High-Risk Urban Populations in Southern Thailand through the Application of the COM-B Model," boldly showcases its unique and innovative approach. The assessment for potential plagiarism conducted by Chulalongkorn University resulted in a favorable outcome, revealing a similarity index of 0.00% (Source: [http://plag.grad.chula.ac.th], [http://www.chula.ac.th/en/]). This academic research demonstrates exceptional originality and quality, and the plagiarism assessment findings reinforce my confidence in its academic integrity. Response: Thank you so much for positive feedback. 3. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? The work does cite a range of current literature relevant to the research topic. The references included in the provided text encompass a variety of sources, including academic journals, international organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), and primary research studies. The references cover a wide range of topics related to the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccination, and factors influencing vaccine acceptance. Response: Thank you so much. 4. Is the study design appropriate and does the work have academic merit? Are Experiments, statistics, and other analyses performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail? a. The study design is well-suited to the research objectives, involving a web-based cross-sectional study conducted in Hat Yai district, an urban area in southern Thailand significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The study's focus on COVID-19 vaccine uptake among high-risk urban populations is justified. The measures, including socio-demographic characteristics and the adapted Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) model, are academically sound. The data collection process is well documented, with pretesting and reliability checks. The statistical analysis using SPSS, descriptive statistics, and multivariable logistic regression aligns with the study's objectives. The use of a significance level (P < .05) is appropriately stated. Response: Thank you so much. b. However, providing more detail on specific statistical tests, control variables, and effect sizes would enhance the analysis, especially multivariable logistic regression. Logistic multiple regression is a statistical approach employed when analyzing a binary outcome variable, such as yes/no or 1/0, in relation to multiple independent variables (predictors or covariates). The author should reveal the specific conditions and assumptions of Logistic multiple regression: the outcome must be binary, observations should be independent, a linear relationship between predictors and log-odds is assumed, multicollinearity should be avoided, a sufficient sample size is needed, outliers need attention, perfect separation can pose challenges, model fit must be evaluated, odds ratios should be appropriately interpreted, and causal relationships should be established through experimental designs or advanced statistical methods. Adhering to these considerations is vital for ensuring the robustness and reliability of results. Collaboration with a statistician or data analyst is recommended for addressing complex modeling issues and assessing potential assumption violations. Response: Thank you so much. We agree with your comments and have added the suggested details. In our methods, we have declared that all assumptions for multivariable logistic regression analysis were met (Please see line 177-178). c. The limitations of the study are well-acknowledged, including the smaller sample size, potential under-representation of certain demographic groups, and the fact that the study focused on a particular period of the pandemic. The study's recognition of these limitations demonstrates a thorough understanding of the research's scope and potential constraints. Response: Thank you so much for the positive feedback. 5. If applicable, are the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? a. The statistical analysis and interpretation of the data are generally appropriate. The study presents a comprehensive analysis of the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants, their capability, opportunity, motivation, and the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The use of descriptive statistics, such as percentages and means, is suitable for presenting the data. The logistic regression analysis effectively identifies factors associated with the vaccine uptake. Response: Thank you so much. b. However, there is room for minor improvements. While the results are well presented, it would be beneficial to include the confidence intervals for the percentages and means to indicate the precision of the estimates. Moreover, the interpretation of the logistic regression results could be more detailed, explaining the adjusted odds ratios and their implications more explicitly. In conclusion, the study's analysis and interpretation are sound, but enhancing clarity and precision in presenting results and their implications would further strengthen the paper. Response: Thank you so much for the constructive feedback. We have added the suggested points to the results (please see the results section). Moreover, we have detailed the implications of our findings in the discussion section (Please see lines 338-340, lines 343-345, lines 364-369, lines 372-375, lines 380-383, lines 394-397, and lines 411-415). 6. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? [Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.] The study's conclusions find robust support in the data and analyses. It reports a COVID-19 vaccine uptake rate of 59.5% among participants, backed by the data's clear portrayal of vaccination status and construct scores for capability, opportunity, and motivation. Furthermore, the study uncovers various demographic factors linked to vaccine acceptance, such as marital status, education, and employment, as indicated by the odds ratios derived from multivariable logistic regression analysis. Notably, the study underscores the effectiveness of the COM-B model's opportunity and motivation constructs in driving vaccine uptake, leveraging comprehensive data from Tables 2, 3, and 4. It wisely calls for future research encompassing larger and more diverse populations to validate these findings and offers guidance on evidence-based interventions for enhancing COVID-19 vaccine uptake based on the identified factors and COM-B constructs. Response: Thank you so much for clarifying these important findings and providing positive feedback to our manuscript. At last, we would like to thank respected editor and respected reviewers for the overall positive feedback on our manuscript and hope that it will be acceptable to them. Sincerely, Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300509.r003
22 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Pei Boon Ooi, Editor PONE-D-23-22650R1Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among high-risk urban populations in Southern Thailand using the COM-B ModelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Stanikzai, 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. ============================== Dear author: Thank you for the revision and taking the efforts to address all comments. To further improve the manuscript's readability, we would like to invite you to address the below. 1. Abstract" Add in the total number of sample size after the word the word Participant= Results: In this study, females constituted 54.7% of the total participants (n=XX)... 2. Given these findings, vaccination polices and strategies specific to populations with single/separated marital status for future pandemics are crucial, particularly considering the likelihood of lower social support in such cases. This is not clear in term of what do you meant by likelihood of lower social support and how is it related to the single/separated marital status? 3. Please format the tables according to PLOS ONE requirement. 4. Please attached a letter of proofread of the entire revised manuscript. 5. Please help to provide at short 1 line on "HATY AIZ"- what is HATY AIZ? 6. In the procedure section, please state the right to withdraw as well as token of appreciation- if applicable. 7. Please change all p-value in upper case e.g., in here "statistical significance at P < 0.05" (line 178, abstract) to lower case and italic "p <0.05" 8. Seeking your elaboration on Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior. In line 145, you mentioned that "In each scale, a score of >10 was used to signify a high level of capability' but in line 204 and 205, it was also stated that "The mean score of the capability construct was 9.53 (± 1.55 SD) with a range of 3-12 points, and 205 nearly two-thirds (249; 69.6%) of them showed a high level of capability". 9.53 certainly is not >10. Hence, I am not sure how did you arrive at the conclusion that "205 nearly two-thirds (249; 69.6%) of them showed a high level of capability". Same concern on "Opportunity to receive COVID-19 vaccine". Can you please clarify this for better readability? 9. Please include this article in your in text citation - line 78 to support the claim on "trust in healthcare professionals" - https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-022-12632-z (citation requests are optional) ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 07 2024 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, Pei Boon Ooi, 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: Dear author: Thank you for the revision and taking the efforts to address all comments. To further improve the manuscript's readability, we would like to invite you to address the below. 1. Abstract" Add in the total number of sample size after the word the word Participant= Results: In this study, females constituted 54.7% of the total participants (n=XX)... 2. Given these findings, vaccination polices and strategies specific to populations with single/separated marital status for future pandemics are crucial, particularly considering the likelihood of lower social support in such cases. This is not clear in term of what do you meant by likelihood of lower social support and how is it related to the single/separated marital status? 3. Please format the tables according to PLOS ONE requirement. 4. Please attached a letter of proofread of the entire revised manuscript. 5. Please help to provide at short 1 line on "HATY AIZ"- what is HATY AIZ? 6. In the procedure section, please state the right to withdraw as well as token of appreciation- if applicable. 7. Please change all p-value in upper case e.g., in here "statistical significance at P < 0.05" (line 178, abstract) to lower case and italic "p" 8. Seeking your elaboration on Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior. In line 145, you mentioned that "In each scale, a score of >10 was used to signify a high level of capability' but in line 204 and 205, it was also stated that "The mean score of the capability construct was 9.53 (± 1.55 SD) with a range of 3-12 points, and 205 nearly two-thirds (249; 69.6%) of them showed a high level of capability". 9.53 certainly is not >10. Hence, I am not sure how did you arrive at the conclusion that "205 nearly two-thirds (249; 69.6%) of them showed a high level of capability". Same concern on "Opportunity to receive COVID-19 vaccine". 9. Please include this article in your in text citation - line 78 to support the claim on "trust in healthcare professionals" - https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-022-12632-z [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: 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 #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: It is a particularly interesting study that studies the use of COVID-19 vaccines. In groups High-risk urban populations in southern Thailand. The model is integrated opportunity, motivation, and behavior (COM-B Model). The findings are detailed comprehensive and beneficial to Thailand's public health in the future. It can be used to plan policy measures on intervention measures in the event of an outbreak similar to COVID-19. Reviewer #2: The study, titled "Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among high-risk urban populations in Southern Thailand using the COM-B Model," provided a clear and accurate presentation, utilizing a web-based cross-sectional approach in the Hat Yai district, Southern Thailand. It strengthened its findings by drawing on a diverse array of contemporary literature, encompassing socio-economic implications, global vaccine acceptance rates, and factors influencing vaccine acceptance. Through an extensive citation of current literature, the research established a robust contextual foundation, weaving insights from reviews on socio-economic impacts, paradigms of vaccine development, and studies on vaccine acceptance rates into its analytical framework. The comprehensive and up-to-date engagement with relevant sources enhanced the study's credibility, providing a well-supported backdrop for its research findings. "I am honored to have the opportunity to read this paper." ****** 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: Yes: Srirath G., Ph.D. ******** [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: GOIINC18022024.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300509.r004
Revision 2
24 Feb 2024 Author Response Dear Editor, We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their positive evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among high-risk urban populations in Southern Thailand using the COM-B Model”. Please find our revised manuscript along with tracked changes file (yellow highlighted), which we believe is substantially strengthened now that we have incorporated editorial recommendations. Journal requirements: We made amendments according to the journal requirements. Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for the revision and taking the efforts to address all comments. To further improve the manuscript's readability, we would like to invite you to address the below. Response: We also would like to thank the respected editor and reviewers for their approval of our responses and revision. Each point was very helpful for making our paper better and suitable for publication in your prestigious journal. As such, we have tried to amend the manuscript in light of all your and reviewers’ comments and the journal guideline. Please find our responses to the editorial requests. 1. Abstract" Add in the total number of sample size after the word the word Participant= Results: In this study, females constituted 54.7% of the total participants (n=XX)... Response: Thank you so much for you’re your constructive feedback. We have added the sample size (please see page: 2, line: 29). 2. Given these findings, vaccination polices and strategies specific to populations with single/separated marital status for future pandemics are crucial, particularly considering the likelihood of lower social support in such cases. This is not clear in term of what do you meant by likelihood of lower social support and how is it related to the single/separated marital status? Response: Thank you. We agree with you that this section was not clear and revised as suggested (please see lines 295 and 296). 3. Please format the tables according to PLOS ONE requirement. Response: Thank you. We formatted our tables according to PLOS ONE requirement. 4. Please attached a letter of proofread of the entire revised manuscript. Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. All authors re-edited the manuscript to remove the grammatical errors and improve the manuscript. Besides, we have sent the manuscript to English language expert in US (our colleague) and she has proofread it. Please let us know if any error remains. 5. Please help to provide at short 1 line on "HATY AIZ"- what is HATY AIZ? Response: Thank you so much. We agree with your suggestion and have added a line on HATY AIZ group (please see line 113). 6. In the procedure section, please state the right to withdraw as well as token of appreciation- if applicable. Response: Thank you. In our research, participants had the right to withdraw at any stage and we have added these details into the procedure section (please see lines 163 and 185). 7. Please change all p-value in upper case e.g., in here "statistical significance at P < 0.05" (line 178, abstract) to lower case and italic "p <0.05" Response: Thank you so much. We made changes as suggested (please see line 26, line 175, and Table 5 heading). 8. Seeking your elaboration on Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior. In line 145, you mentioned that "In each scale, a score of >10 was used to signify a high level of capability' but in line 204 and 205, it was also stated that "The mean score of the capability construct was 9.53 (± 1.55 SD) with a range of 3-12 points, and 205 nearly two-thirds (249; 69.6%) of them showed a high level of capability". 9.53 certainly is not >10. Hence, I am not sure how did you arrive at the conclusion that "205 nearly two-thirds (249; 69.6%) of them showed a high level of capability". Same concern on "Opportunity to receive COVID-19 vaccine". Can you please clarify this for better readability? Response: Thank you so much for your meticulous observation. We checked our descriptive statistics again and found that there was some error in typing and the mean scores have been corrected now. We have also checked our other analyses and the findings were correctly typed in other cases, except this section which was highlighted by the editor. Additionally the cut-off score should have been written ≥ 10 (typo mistake). We have made these corrections too. Please see the changes on lines 143, 208, 217, and 231. 9. Please include this article in your in text citation - line 78 to support the claim on "trust in healthcare professionals" - https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-022-12632-z (citation requests are optional) Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We have added this relevant citation into our manuscript. Response to Reviewers’ comments Response to Reviewer 1 comments Comment: It is a particularly interesting study that studies the use of COVID-19 vaccines. In groups High-risk urban populations in southern Thailand. The model is integrated opportunity, motivation, and behavior (COM-B Model). The findings are detailed comprehensive and beneficial to Thailand's public health in the future. It can be used to plan policy measures on intervention measures in the event of an outbreak similar to COVID-19. Response: Thank you so much for your constructive feedback and recommendation on the publication of our manuscript. Response to Reviewer 2 comments Comment: The study, titled "Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among high-risk urban populations in Southern Thailand using the COM-B Model," provided a clear and accurate presentation, utilizing a web-based cross-sectional approach in the Hat Yai district, Southern Thailand. It strengthened its findings by drawing on a diverse array of contemporary literature, encompassing socio-economic implications, global vaccine acceptance rates, and factors influencing vaccine acceptance. Through an extensive citation of current literature, the research established a robust contextual foundation, weaving insights from reviews on socio-economic impacts, paradigms of vaccine development, and studies on vaccine acceptance rates into its analytical framework. The comprehensive and up-to-date engagement with relevant sources enhanced the study's credibility, providing a well-supported backdrop for its research findings. "I am honored to have the opportunity to read this paper." Response: Thank you so much for your suggestions and comments. Your suggestion and comments have significantly improved our manuscript. At last, we would like to thank respected editor and respected reviewers for the overall positive feedback and help on the improvement of our manuscript and hope that it will be acceptable to them. Sincerely, Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300509.r005
29 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Pei Boon Ooi, Editor Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among high-risk urban populations in Southern Thailand using the COM-B Model PONE-D-23-22650R2 Dear Dr. Stanikzai, 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, Pei Boon Ooi, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300509.r006
Formally Accepted
5 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Pei Boon Ooi, Editor PONE-D-23-22650R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Stanikzai, 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. Pei Boon Ooi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300509.r007

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 .