PONE-D-23-42687SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC AND CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PEOPLE WITH OSTOMY AND THE ADAPTIVE DOMAINS OF ROY'S THEORY: A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Costa, 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 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,

Marco Clementi, Assistant Professor

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"Funding by CNPq, process number 442895/2019-4 PCD 2019"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please expand the acronym “CNPq” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

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. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

Additional Editor Comments:

The paper requires major revision to be re-evaluated

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: 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: Yes

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: The association of sociodemographic and clinical factors with the measured adaptive modes provides important information for the planning of nursing care and other care providers, since it directs actions to the aspects that give greater adaptive difficulty to people with stomas and which are the focus of care nursing to this clientele.

The manuscript demonstrates creativity and novelty. However, there are several suggestions for improvement:

1. Please specify the version of SPSS used for statistical analysis.

2. How was the sample size for the survey calculated? Increasing the sample size can strengthen the evidence supporting the conclusions.

Reviewer #2: The authors are to be congratulated on performing this study in a neglected area of healthcare. Although much is written about surgical aspects of stoma creation and its physical complications, much less is known about the social and personal effects of living with a stoma. The paper reports a single centre series of patients with stomas who were interviewed regarding their level of adaption to life with a stoma across a range of sociodemographic domains.

In general, the paper is quite easy to understand. However, there are multiple grammatical and typographical errors which should be corrected. A list is given at the end of this peer review report and should all be addressed prior to publication if the paper is accepted by the editor.

Issues for consideration-

1 – This is a single centre study – a tertiary care centre. It is therefore difficult to know how applicable these results would be to patients in different health settings.

2 – The authors do not explain how they chose the 200 participants for the study. They state that 410 patients were registered with the centre at this time period and then mention a sample of 199 eligible patients. I am not sure if they mean that 199 patients were required to obtain statistical significance, or whether there were only 199/410 patients who were eligible. Furthermore, it is not clear if selected patients were consecutive, or randomly chosen, or selectively chosen. This needs to be clarified, so that the results can be interpreted in the light of the included patients.

3 – In the section on “instruments and variables” – last paragraph. The final two sentences do not make sense. The penultimate sentence on the scoring system is very confusing and makes no sense. This needs to be either rewritten completely or a table with the scoring system should be inserted.

4- Results section – this needs to be improved with the addition of a new Table 1 which gives the demographic data on the included patients. This would be the baseline against which the following results could be analysed. It is essential to set out how many male/female patients, ages, etc. If a new Table 1 is inserted, then the numbers of the other tables will all be moved on and this should be altered in the text as well as on the legends.

5- In the discussion the authors state that lack of family support links with poor scores across several domains. However, the results are only for lack of a partner, rather than all family support. This is a subtle difference as many family members/friends can provide support whether the patient has a partner or not.

6- the sentence on Study Limitations does not make sense. There are many limitations to this study and at least one paragraph should be devoted to describing them in more detail.

TYPOGRAPHICAL AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS

Page 1 TITLE – There are two : after “Theory” – please delete one of them.

ABSTRACT -In the sentence regarding Results- Please change from “significant associations in the male sex” to “significant associations with male sex”

INTRODUCTION

Page 2 – paragraph 2 – there is a line ____________ before the first word in this paragraph. Please delete.

Page 2 - Paragraph 3 – line 3 – change “for eliminations” to “for elimination”

Page 2 – Paragraph 3 – line 5 – change “elimination” to “evacuation”

Page 2 – Paragraph 3 – line 5 – remove the commas after “bag” and after “social events”

Page 2 – Paragraph 4 – Line 1 – should start with “A study” not just “Study”

Page 2 – Paragraph 5 – line 3 – Pleas delete “for” before “health professionals”

Page 2 – Paragraph 5 – line 5 – please change “this characteristics” to “the characteristics”

Page 2 – Paragraph 5 – line 7 – please change “support assistance” to “provide assistance”

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Page 3 – The title of the section should be “Materials and Methods” not “Material and Methods”

Ethical Considerations – second paragraph – please change “clarifications” to “information”

Ethical Considerations – second paragraph – line 2 – please change “the written signature of the term” to “a written signature”

Population and Sample section – line 2 please put a : rather than ; after “stoma”

Statistical analysis section – last paragraph – line 2 – change “are independent” to “of the independent”

Statistical analysis section – last paragraph – line 4 - change "by the absence” to “because of the absence”

RESULTS

Tabel 1 – there is a spelling mistake in the left column – It should be “Age Range” not “Age ranger”

In the results section – the penultimate paragraph – should be changed from-

“all of them.. they following stood out” to-

“all of them. The following stood out”

DISUCSSION

Paragraph 1 - Line 1 – change “male” to “males”

Paragraph 2 – Line 4 – change “because lack of” to “because of lack of “

Paragraph 6 – Line 1 – please change “see if elderly people have better results” to “elderly people had better results”

Paragraph 7- Line 2 – please delete Wince”

Paragraph 7 – Line 3 – please change “give importance” to “give due consideration”

Paragraph 8 – Line 2 – please change “the stoma construction. Colostomy people fear” to “stoma construction. People with an ostomy fear”

Paragraph 8 – Line 3 – please change “you’re” to “they are”

Paragraph 8 – Line 4 – please change “he fear of leaks” to “the fear of leaks”

Paragraph 9 – Line 3 – please change “favors” to “supports”

Paragraph 9 – Line 4 - please change “with ostomy” to “with an ostomy”

Paragraph 11 – Line 2 – please change “ as they do not work and have pensions” to “as those who do not work or have pensions”

Paragraph 11 – Line 3 – please change “but that become” to “but that is”

Paragraph 12 – Line 4 - please change “population, however many of them are unaware” to “However, many of the population are unaware of these opportunities”

Paragraph 14 – Last line – please change “those aged three years or older” to “those persisting for three years or more”

Paragraph 18 - line 1 – please change “scholarship” to “device”

Paragraph 19 – Line 2 – please change "inputs” to “devices” and change “scholarship” to “device

Paragraph 20 – Line 1 – please change “presented” to “developed”

Paragraph 20 – line 2 - please change “all of them, in addition” to “all of them. In addition”

Paragraph 22 – line 2 - please change “concluded, as people” to “concluded that people”

Paragraph 22- line 4 – please change “presented” to “developed”

Paragraph 22 – line 4-5 - please change “many were not attended to or received guidance for the care of injuries” to “many did not receive care or support with these problems”

Paragraph 24 – Line 4 – please change “not acceptable, but” to “unchangeable and”

Paragraph 24 – the last sentence does not make sense. It should either be explain clearly or removed.

Paragraph 25 – Line 1 – please delete “the” before “younger”

Paragraph 26 – the first sentence does not make sense - do the authors mean that the length of time that a stoma has been present does not affect self-care?

Last paragraph of results section – please change – “between characteristics sociodemographic and clinical and the adaptation” to “between sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and adaptation”

CONCLUSION-

Paragraph 1 – Line 4- please change “one year had” to “one year also had”

Paragraph 1 – Line 4 - please change "associations to” to “associations with”

Paragraph 1 – last line - please change “with all” to “across all”

Paragraph 2 – line 2 – please change “subsidies” to “information”

Paragraph 3 – Line 1 - please change “The study” to “This study”

**********

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.

PONE-D-23-42687R1SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC AND CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PEOPLE WITH OSTOMY AND THE ADAPTIVE DOMAINS OF ROY'S THEORY: A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Costa,

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 Apr 20 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,

Marco Clementi, Assistant Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: The authors are to be congratulated on performing this study in a neglected area of healthcare. Although much is written about surgical aspects of stoma creation and its physical complications, much less is known about the social and personal effects of living with a stoma. The paper reports a single centre series of patients with stomas who were interviewed regarding their level of adaption to life with a stoma across a range of sociodemographic domains.

In general, the paper is quite easy to understand. However, there are multiple grammatical and typographical errors which should be corrected. A list is given at the end of this peer review report and should all be addressed prior to publication if the paper is accepted by the editor.

Issues for consideration-

1 – This is a single centre study – a tertiary care centre. It is therefore difficult to know how applicable these results would be to patients in different health settings.

2 – The authors do not explain how they chose the 200 participants for the study. They state that 410 patients were registered with the centre at this time period and then mention a sample of 199 eligible patients. I am not sure if they mean that 199 patients were required to obtain statistical significance, or whether there were only 199/410 patients who were eligible. Furthermore, it is not clear if selected patients were consecutive, or randomly chosen, or selectively chosen. This needs to be clarified, so that the results can be interpreted in the light of the included patients.

3 – In the section on “instruments and variables” – last paragraph. The final two sentences do not make sense. The penultimate sentence on the scoring system is very confusing and makes no sense. This needs to be either rewritten completely or a table with the scoring system should be inserted.

4- Results section – this needs to be improved with the addition of a new Table 1 which gives the demographic data on the included patients. This would be the baseline against which the following results could be analysed. It is essential to set out how many male/female patients, ages, etc. If a new Table 1 is inserted, then the numbers of the other tables will all be moved on and this should be altered in the text as well as on the legends.

5- In the discussion the authors state that lack of family support links with poor scores across several domains. However, the results are only for lack of a partner, rather than all family support. This is a subtle difference as many family members/friends can provide support whether the patient has a partner or not.

6- the sentence on Study Limitations does not make sense. There are many limitations to this study and at least one paragraph should be devoted to describing them in more detail.

TYPOGRAPHICAL AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS

Page 1 TITLE – There are two : after “Theory” – please delete one of them.

ABSTRACT -In the sentence regarding Results- Please change from “significant associations in the male sex” to “significant associations with male sex”

INTRODUCTION

Page 2 – paragraph 2 – there is a line ____________ before the first word in this paragraph. Please delete.

Page 2 - Paragraph 3 – line 3 – change “for eliminations” to “for elimination”

Page 2 – Paragraph 3 – line 5 – change “elimination” to “evacuation”

Page 2 – Paragraph 3 – line 5 – remove the commas after “bag” and after “social events”

Page 2 – Paragraph 4 – Line 1 – should start with “A study” not just “Study”

Page 2 – Paragraph 5 – line 3 – Pleas delete “for” before “health professionals”

Page 2 – Paragraph 5 – line 5 – please change “this characteristics” to “the characteristics”

Page 2 – Paragraph 5 – line 7 – please change “support assistance” to “provide assistance”

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Page 3 – The title of the section should be “Materials and Methods” not “Material and Methods”

Ethical Considerations – second paragraph – please change “clarifications” to “information”

Ethical Considerations – second paragraph – line 2 – please change “the written signature of the term” to “a written signature”

Population and Sample section – line 2 please put a : rather than ; after “stoma”

Statistical analysis section – last paragraph – line 2 – change “are independent” to “of the independent”

Statistical analysis section – last paragraph – line 4 - change "by the absence” to “because of the absence”

RESULTS

Tabel 1 – there is a spelling mistake in the left column – It should be “Age Range” not “Age ranger”

In the results section – the penultimate paragraph – should be changed from-

“all of them.. they following stood out” to-

“all of them. The following stood out”

DISUCSSION

Paragraph 1 - Line 1 – change “male” to “males”

Paragraph 2 – Line 4 – change “because lack of” to “because of lack of “

Paragraph 6 – Line 1 – please change “see if elderly people have better results” to “elderly people had better results”

Paragraph 7- Line 2 – please delete Wince”

Paragraph 7 – Line 3 – please change “give importance” to “give due consideration”

Paragraph 8 – Line 2 – please change “the stoma construction. Colostomy people fear” to “stoma construction. People with an ostomy fear”

Paragraph 8 – Line 3 – please change “you’re” to “they are”

Paragraph 8 – Line 4 – please change “he fear of leaks” to “the fear of leaks”

Paragraph 9 – Line 3 – please change “favors” to “supports”

Paragraph 9 – Line 4 - please change “with ostomy” to “with an ostomy”

Paragraph 11 – Line 2 – please change “ as they do not work and have pensions” to “as those who do not work or have pensions”

Paragraph 11 – Line 3 – please change “but that become” to “but that is”

Paragraph 12 – Line 4 - please change “population, however many of them are unaware” to “However, many of the population are unaware of these opportunities”

Paragraph 14 – Last line – please change “those aged three years or older” to “those persisting for three years or more”

Paragraph 18 - line 1 – please change “scholarship” to “device”

Paragraph 19 – Line 2 – please change "inputs” to “devices” and change “scholarship” to “device

Paragraph 20 – Line 1 – please change “presented” to “developed”

Paragraph 20 – line 2 - please change “all of them, in addition” to “all of them. In addition”

Paragraph 22 – line 2 - please change “concluded, as people” to “concluded that people”

Paragraph 22- line 4 – please change “presented” to “developed”

Paragraph 22 – line 4-5 - please change “many were not attended to or received guidance for the care of injuries” to “many did not receive care or support with these problems”

Paragraph 24 – Line 4 – please change “not acceptable, but” to “unchangeable and”

Paragraph 24 – the last sentence does not make sense. It should either be explain clearly or removed.

Paragraph 25 – Line 1 – please delete “the” before “younger”

Pragraph 26 – the first sentence does not make sense - do the authors mean that the length of time that a stoma has been present does not affect self-care?

Last paragraph of results section – please change – “between characteristics sociodemographic and clinical and the adaptation” to “between sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and adaptation”

CONCLUSION-

Paragraph 1 – Line 4- please change “one year had” to “one year also had”

Paragraph 1 – Line 4 - please change "associations to” to “associations with”

Paragraph 1 – last line - please change “with all” to “across all”

Paragraph 2 – line 2 – please change “subsidies” to “information”

Paragraph 3 – Line 1 - please change “The study” to “This study”

**********

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.

SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC AND CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PEOPLE WITH OSTOMY AND THE ADAPTIVE DOMAINS OF ROY'S THEORY: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-23-42687R2

Dear Dr. Isabelle Katherinne Fernandes Costa,

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 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 Editorial Manager® 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,

Marco Clementi, Assistant Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

All the comments were solved. No further changes are required. Thanks to the authors for their hard work.