Our perception may not be reality: A longitudinal study of the relationship between perceived and actual change in smoking behavior

Astrid Juhl Andersen; Solène Wallez; Maria Melchior; Murielle Mary-Krause

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301515

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 27, 2023
4 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Suzit Bhusal, Editor PONE-D-23-36304Our perception may not be reality: A longitudinal study of the relationship between perceived and actual change in smoking behaviorPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Andersen, 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 Feb 18 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, Suzit Bhusal 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 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. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Due to the personal questions asked in this study, research participants were guaranteed that all raw data will remain confidential. On reasonable request including standards for General Data Protection Regulation data can be accessed, please send an email to cohort.tempo@inserm.fr. Anonymized data can only be shared after explicit approval of the French national committee for data protection for approval (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés, CNIL).]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 4. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Abstract: The abstract provides a clear overview of the study, summarizing the research question, methodology, and key findings. It effectively communicates the main objectives and results of the research. However, it could benefit from a brief mention of the practical implications of the findings. Introduction: 1. The introduction sets the stage well by highlighting the importance of studying changes in lifestyle habits, particularly smoking, during the COVID-19 pandemic. It appropriately references existing literature, providing a comprehensive background. 2. The introduction effectively states the research gap regarding the varied results in previous studies and introduces the primary objective of comparing perceived and actual changes in smoking behavior. 3. Consider clarifying the term "pre-vaccination period" for better contextualization, as the study seems to focus on the early stages of the pandemic. Methods: 1. The methods section is comprehensive, detailing the study population, procedures, measures, and statistical analyses. 2. Clarify the rationale behind choosing the specific cut-off percentages (25%, 10%, and 50%) for defining changes in smoking behavior. Provide a brief justification for these choices. 3. The inclusion of sensitivity analyses enhances the robustness of the study. Discussion: 1. The discussion effectively interprets the findings, emphasizing the potential impact of measurement methods on the perception of changes in smoking behavior. 2. The study's limitations are appropriately acknowledged, adding transparency and credibility to the research. 3. Consider expanding on the practical implications of the findings for public health interventions or smoking cessation programs. General Comments: 1. The manuscript is well-written, and the language is clear and concise. 2. The article could benefit from a brief statement in the abstract or conclusion about the broader implications of the findings for public health or smoking cessation efforts. 3. Ensure consistency in terminology and abbreviations throughout the manuscript. Reviewer #2: General overview The study investigates the discrepancy between smokers' perceived changes in smoking habits and their actual change in the number of cigarettes smoked during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using longitudinal data from the French TEMPO cohort, the authors explore how smokers' perceptions align with their reported smoking behavior. Strengths: addresses an important gap by examining the variance between perceived and actual changes in smoking behavior during the pandemic, offering insights into measurement discrepancies. Longitudinal Approach The use of Generalized Estimation Equations (GEE) offers a robust statistical method to examine the association between perceived and actual changes in smoking habits. Proper discussions of limitations and strength Revisions I was not able to find the tables mentioned in the manuscript. Please ensure the tables are provided in the revision so I can properly review the manuscript. The authors could elaborate on the implications of the findings in future research and emphasize the significance of objective measures in evaluating smoking behavior further. In the Measures section in Material and Methods You mention that The cutoffs to define the change in smoking patterns were chosen based on the average number of daily cigarettes among the study population. Please clarify this statement. There were a few grammatical errors in the manuscript. Please conduct a thorough proofreading of the manuscript to rectify any errors. For example: 1. In the Second Paragraph of the Results section participants perceived an increased in their smoking behavior To Participants perceived an increase in their smoking behavior 2. In the second paragraph of the conclusion section actual change in smoking patterns may vary depending these characteristics. To actual change in smoking patterns may vary depending on these characteristics. 3. In the discussion As observed in our study, participants’ subjectivity might explain some of the differences across studied conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. To As observed in our study, participants’ subjectivity might explain some of the differences across studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. ****** 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: Ashlesha Chaudhary 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301515.r001
Revision 1
22 Feb 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1 Abstract: The abstract provides a clear overview of the study, summarizing the research question, methodology, and key findings. It effectively communicates the main objectives and results of the research. However, it could benefit from a brief mention of the practical implications of the findings. We thank the reviewer for her positive comments. To address the reviewer’s request, we revised the abstract to incorporate the practical implications of our findings as follows: «This highlights the risk of underestimating the actual changes in cigarette smoking during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also more generally when validating public health interventions or smoking cessation programs. Therefore, objective measures such as the actual consumption of psychoactive substances should be utilized, preferably on a longitudinal basis, to mitigate recall bias» (page 3, lines 52-54). Introduction: 1. The introduction sets the stage well by highlighting the importance of studying changes in lifestyle habits, particularly smoking, during the COVID-19 pandemic. It appropriately references existing literature, providing a comprehensive background. We thank the reviewer for her positive comment. 2. The introduction effectively states the research gap regarding the varied results in previous studies and introduces the primary objective of comparing perceived and actual changes in smoking behavior. We thank the reviewer for her positive comment. 3. Consider clarifying the term "pre-vaccination period" for better contextualization, as the study seems to focus on the early stages of the pandemic. We agree with the reviewer that the term «pre-vaccination period» is not clear. We have modified it with «the early stages of the pandemic» in the introduction of the abstract (page 2, line 30). Methods: 1. The methods section is comprehensive, detailing the study population, procedures, measures, and statistical analyses. We thank the reviewer for her positive comment. 2. Clarify the rationale behind choosing the specific cut-off percentages (25%, 10%, and 50%) for defining changes in smoking behavior. Provide a brief justification for these choices. There is no consensus in the literature on how to define a meaningful threshold in change in tobacco consumption. Since the average number of cigarettes smoked per day was 7 in our sample, a threshold of 25% (equivalent to 2 cigarettes) appeared reasonable to consider. However, we also tested other threshold values to ensure result consistency. We revised the Measures/Outcome section to provide a clearer explanation of this rationale, as follows: «To the best of our knowledge, there is no consensus in the scientific literature on a meaningful threshold to define changes in tobacco consumption. Given that the average number of cigarettes smoked per day was 7.0 (standard deviation=6.8) in our sample, we opted for a 25% change (equivalent to 2 cigarettes). Participants were considered to have altered their smoking levels if the number of cigarettes they smoked varied by at least 25%, resulting in one of the following classifications: 1) no change, 2) increase, or 3) decrease», (pages 6-7, lines 125-132). 3. The inclusion of sensitivity analyses enhances the robustness of the study. We thank the reviewer for her positive comment. Discussion: 1. The discussion effectively interprets the findings, emphasizing the potential impact of measurement methods on the perception of changes in smoking behavior. We thank the reviewer for her positive comment. 2. The study's limitations are appropriately acknowledged, adding transparency and credibility to the research. We thank the reviewer for her positive comment. 3. Consider expanding on the practical implications of the findings for public health interventions or smoking cessation programs. According to the reviewer’s comment, we revised the conclusion of our study to incorporate the practical implications of the findings for public health as follows: «Instead, objective measures such as the actual consumption of psychoactive substances before and after should be used, preferably on a longitudinal basis, to mitigate recall bias, especially when validating public health interventions or smoking cessation programs» (page 13, lines 260-263). General Comments: 1. The manuscript is well-written, and the language is clear and concise. We thank the reviewer for her positive comment. 2. The article could benefit from a brief statement in the abstract or conclusion about the broader implications of the findings for public health or smoking cessation efforts. According to the reviewer’s comment, we revised the abstract and the conclusion to incorporate the practical implications of the findings for public health (page 3, lines 50-54 and page 13, lines 260-263) 3. Ensure consistency in terminology and abbreviations throughout the manuscript. Following the reviewer's comment, the article was corrected by a native English speaker. Reviewer #2 General overview The study investigates the discrepancy between smokers' perceived changes in smoking habits and their actual change in the number of cigarettes smoked during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using longitudinal data from the French TEMPO cohort, the authors explore how smokers' perceptions align with their reported smoking behavior. Strengths: addresses an important gap by examining the variance between perceived and actual changes in smoking behavior during the pandemic, offering insights into measurement discrepancies. Longitudinal Approach: The use of Generalized Estimation Equations (GEE) offers a robust statistical method to examine the association between perceived and actual changes in smoking habits. Proper discussions of limitations and strength We thank the reviewer for his.her positive comment. Revisions I was not able to find the tables mentioned in the manuscript. Please ensure the tables are provided in the revision so I can properly review the manuscript. We apologize for the inconvenience caused by the reviewer's inability to locate the tables in the article. They were indeed included in the supplementary data. We have now included our tables as part of our main manuscript, immediately after the first paragraph in which they are cited (pages 9-10), and the supplementary data are provided as a separate file, in accordance with the recommendation from Plos One. The authors could elaborate on the implications of the findings in future research and emphasize the significance of objective measures in evaluating smoking behavior further. According to the reviewer’s comment, we revised the conclusion to incorporate the practical implications of the findings for public health as follows: «Instead, objective measures such as the actual consumption of psychoactive substances before and after should be used, preferably on a longitudinal basis, to mitigate recall bias, especially when validating public health interventions or smoking cessation programs» (page 13, lines 260-263). We also revised the abstract to incorporate the practical implications of the findings as follows: «This highlights the risk of underestimating the actual changes in cigarette smoking during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also more generally when validating public health interventions or smoking cessation programs. Therefore, objective measures such as the actual consumption of psychoactive substances should be utilized, preferably on a longitudinal basis, to mitigate recall bias» (page 3, lines 50-54). In the Measures section in Material and Methods: You mention that The cutoffs to define the change in smoking patterns were chosen based on the average number of daily cigarettes among the study population. Please clarify this statement. There is no consensus in the scientific literature on a meaningful threshold to define changes in tobacco consumption. Since the average number of cigarettes smoked per day was 7 in our sample, a threshold of 25% (equivalent to 2 cigarettes) appeared reasonable to consider. However, we also tested other threshold values to ensure result consistency. We revised the Measures/Outcome section to provide a clearer explanation of this rationale, as follows: «To the best of our knowledge, there is no consensus in the scientific literature on a meaningful threshold to define changes in tobacco consumption. Given that the average number of cigarettes smoked per day was 7.0 (standard deviation=6.8) in our sample, we opted for a 25% change (equivalent to 2 cigarettes). Participants were considered to have altered their smoking levels if the number of cigarettes smoked varied by at least 25%, resulting in one of the following classifications: 1) no change, 2) increase, or 3) decrease», (pages 6-7, lines 125-132). There were a few grammatical errors in the manuscript. Please conduct a thorough proofreading of the manuscript to rectify any errors. For example: 1. In the Second Paragraph of the Results section participants perceived an increased in their smoking behavior To Participants perceived an increase in their smoking behavior 2. In the second paragraph of the discussion section actual change in smoking patterns may vary depending these characteristics. To actual change in smoking patterns may vary depending on these characteristics. 3. In the discussion As observed in our study, participants’ subjectivity might explain some of the differences across studied conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. To As observed in our study, participants’ subjectivity might explain some of the differences across studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the reviewer's comment, the article was corrected by a native English speaker. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_v2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301515.r002
18 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Suzit Bhusal, Editor Our perception may not be reality: A longitudinal study of the relationship between perceived and actual change in smoking behavior PONE-D-23-36304R1 Dear Dr. Andersen, 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 email 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301515.r003
Formally Accepted
21 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Suzit Bhusal, Editor PONE-D-23-36304R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Andersen, 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. Suzit Bhusal Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301515.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 .