PONE-D-24-10409Drowning Prevention challenges and opportunities: Perspectives of delegates from ASEAN nationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Peden,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript relating to a much needed field of research 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 Jun 05 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,

Jasmin C Lawes, 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. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

3. 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.

[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: N/A

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: This study identified the barriers to implementing the United Nations General Assembly resolution on global drowning prevention, as well as opportunities for cross-seeding drowning prevention ideas and opportunities in ASEAN nations. I have some minor suggestions for further improvement.

1. The authors should articulate the design of this study, e.g., the mixed method study, co-design study or other.

2. Why the number of participants in the pre-survey was less than that in the post-survey?

3. The affiliation, professional title or research direction should be supplemented in Table 1.

4. How about the reliability of self-reported data about government involvement, water safety or drowning prevention plans?

5. The discussion and limitation sections were good.

6. The figure was not clear.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for this scholarship in a space of great need.

Title: no comment

Abstract:

Line 41 consider removing the word "grouping"

Line 50 consider removing the word "thus"

Introduction: well done

Methods:

a) As the level of scholarship in drowning prevention elevates, consenting by completion or submission of a questionnaire will become non-ideal. When these research methods are combined (in this case, the research consenting and the completion/submitting the questionnaire), it becomes unclear if the non-completion is due to non-consent, conflicts of interest or just did not complete it.

b) If I understand correctly - there were 30 people sent a pre-workshop questionnaire and that same 30 people were sent the post-workshop questionnaire. If this is not the correct interpretation, please provide clarification.

c) If the demographic information was attached to both survey submissions - due to the small number of participants from each country the data manager is likely to be able to identify the responders by country. I understand the statement in line 165 in Data Analysis about "combining to preserve anonymity" but it was unlikely that the data was anonymous to the data manager. I would agree that the data responses are anonymous to the reader of the paper. Consider making a clarifying comment about the challenges of anonymous response in a survey of this small cohort of country based participants.

Results:

a) Line 176/177 - consider sharing the more full survey response data - if I have understood the method correctly- 30 participants got sent a pre and post workshop survey = 60 surveys sent. 9 participants responded to the pre-workshop survey = 9/30 = 30% response rate. 13 participants responded to the post-workshop survey = 13/30 = 43% response rate. A total of 22 responses were received from 60 surveys sent out = 37% response rate. This may not be a weakness of the study if the method was to get a response from the each country (that did happen assuming that 2 nations did not attend).

b) The 22 responses included 2 or more participant from each of 8 of the 10 ASEAN nations.

c) A comment on the non-responses may be helpful - Did some countries delegate 2 participants to respond on behalf of the country (government and NGO) and therefore the non-responders were redundancies??

Current Activities: well done

Government Involvement:

Line 200 - consider adding heath to this list in the first paragraph.

Lone 201 - remove the comma, after ministry,

Line 203-206 - consider clarifying reworking to indicate that in Lao PDR, where drowning is an emerging issue, the Ministry of Health is identified as the aspirational lead agency, rescue volunteer agencies are active in the provision of interventions currently.

Figure 1 - I presume is the nations flag chart at the end of the paper that is not labeled as Figure 1. I found this chart helpful. The words in the circles that represent government ministries are a bit unclear in graphic. I found it interesting that there are 7/10 ASEAN nations on this chart and the one workshop participant missing is Malaysia who were workshop hosts and survey responders - the participants from Malaysia may not have identified the government engagement??

Water Safety or drowning prevention plans:

Drowning Data:

At line 241 there is a transition from drowning data to challenges to drowning prevention - consider a new subheading at this line; Challenges to Drowning Prevention:

Discussion:

Line 258 - consider the words "has resulted" instead of "necessitates"

Line 261 - consider removing the word "However" and starting with As a multi-sectoral ----

Strengths and Limitations:

Consider a comment on the wide scope or degree of engagement in drowning within the survey and workshop participant group. Some may have been assigned their participation and others have active action for a long time and have participated in the growth of global drowning prevention awareness and activities.

Conclusion: well done

Thank you for this opportunity to review your good work.

**********

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: Pengpeng Ye

Reviewer #2: Yes: Stephen B Beerman

**********

[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.

Drowning Prevention challenges and opportunities: An exploratory study of perspectives of delegates from ASEAN nations

PONE-D-24-10409R1

Dear Dr. Peden,

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,

Jasmin C Lawes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: