Morbidity transition at the national and sub-national level and their determinants over the past and contemporary period in India

Mahadev Bramhankar; Murali Dhar

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304492

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 28, 2024
8 May 2024 Decision Letter - Arun Kumar Sharma, Editor PONE-D-24-11744Morbidity transition at the national and sub-national level and their determinants over the past and contemporary period in India PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bramhankar, 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. Reviewer 1 1TpBetter to use the full form when it first appears in the text like NSSO, ID etc. in the abstract.2. Table 2: Mention years in age group3. Table 2: Education: Middle school is taken in two consecutive rows4. Table 4: Middle school is omitted here5. Better to provide the complete output of logistic regression model like model fitness, variance explained by independent variables etc.6. Whether all the disease entities were included in each NSSO surveys starting from 1995 till 2018? Otherwise, the diseases that were not recorded in the earlier surveys will come in a big way in the next subsequent surveys. It needs to be discussed in discussion section. Moreover, please mention throughout the surveys the operational definition of the disease category also remained same.7. Mention the name of the statistical software used in the study8. Objective: "........exploring the socio-demographic factors that play a crucial role in shaping these patterns over the past three decades" - better not to use the action verb 'explore' in this study. Reviewer 2:Among limitations it may be added that being a secondary data analysis, an inherent flaw of the representation of the age group wise and education status wise may not be exactly similar in proportional distribution. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 22 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, Arun Kumar Sharma 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 include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Authors may please revise as suggested by the Reviewers. [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: The manuscript needs few clarifications: The manuscript is nicely written. 1. Better to use the full form when it first appears in the text like NSSO, ID etc. in the abstract. 2. Table 2: Mention years in age group 3. Table 2: Education: Middle school is taken in two consecutive rows 4. Table 4: Middle school is omitted here 5. Better to provide the complete output of logistic regression model like model fitness, variance explained by independent variables etc. 6. Whether all the disease entities were included in each NSSO surveys starting from 1995 till 2018? Otherwise, the diseases that were not recorded in the earlier surveys will come in a big way in the next subsequent surveys. It needs to be discussed in discussion section. Moreover, please mention throughout the surveys the operational definition of the disease category also remained same. 7. Mention the name of the statistical software used in the study 8. Objective: "........exploring the socio-demographic factors that play a crucial role in shaping these patterns over the past three decades" - better not to use the action verb 'explore' in this study. Reviewer #2: Reviewer comments: Overall, well written research with due appreciation of limitation and strengths given it’s a cross sectional nature. Comment: Among limitations it may be added that being a secondary data analysis, an inherent flaw of the representation of the age group wise and education status wise may not be exactly similar in proportional distribution. ****** 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: Indranil Saha Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304492.r001
Revision 1
9 May 2024 Author Response Thank you to both the reviewer and handling academic editor for the valuable comments and suggestions for the betterment of our study. We have responded and incorporated in the revised manuscript as entire points raised by the reviewers as given below. Editor: Comment: Authors may please revise as suggested by the Reviewers. Response: Thank you so much for the handling and assigned the manuscript to better knowledgeable reviewer from the same domain. As per your comment, we have responded all queries and clarification raised by the reviewer. Reviewer 1: Overall Comment: The manuscript needs few clarifications: Response: Thank you for your valuable time to reviewing our manuscript. We have responded to all your queries and clarifications as given below. Query 1: Better to use the full form when it first appears in the text like NSSO, ID etc. in the abstract. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have made the changes as you suggested in the revised manuscript. Query 2: Table 2: Mention years in age group. Response: Thank you for your notice. We have made the changes as you suggested in the revised manuscript. Query 3: Table 2: Education: Middle school is taken in two consecutive rows Response: Thank you for your remark. It was a typo mistake; we have rechecked our coding and analysis, and it was a typo mistake in the tables. We have made changes to the tables accordingly. Query 4: Table 4: Middle school is omitted here. Response: It was missed to write the “middle” in the education variable category. The entire variable and subcategory used throughout the analysis were the same for all the respective tables. We have checked and corrected it in the revised manuscript. Thank you for your important remark. Query 5: Better to provide the complete output of logistic regression model like model fitness, variance explained by independent variables etc. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Your suggestion is essential, as the other model parameter should be disclosed with the regression model; however, our table size was already big and lengthy; therefore, we have excluded that part and provided the main result of the model. But as per your suggestion, we have provided all the remaining results and other parameters at the end of the regression table in the revised manuscript. Query 6: Whether all the disease entities were included in each NSSO surveys starting from 1995 till 2018? Otherwise, the diseases that were not recorded in the earlier surveys will come in a big way in the next subsequent surveys. It needs to be discussed in discussion section. Moreover, please mention throughout the surveys the operational definition of the disease category also remained same. Response: Thank you for asking an important query. For comparability in all-around NSSO, they have collected and followed almost all standard diseases in each round, which were prevalent in that respective time and other major diseases. All disease entities were nearly similar. We checked all disease categorisation in all four round of NSSO survey and major disease classification was done as per the standard ICD-10 classification. It was a very hectic and mental exercise for us. For the comparisons approach, we have also referred to the NSSO health round comparison guidelines from their reports and earlier published literature, which has already been cited in the manuscript's main text. Query 7: Mention the name of the statistical software used in the study. Response: Thank you for the notice about it. We have used the STATA 16 for statistical analysis purposes. We have mentioned the same in the statistical methodology section. Query 8: Objective: "........exploring the socio-demographic factors that play a crucial role in shaping these patterns over the past three decades" - better not to use the action verb 'explore' in this study. Response: Thank you for the comment. You have noticed rightly that for this study “Explore” word will be unsuitable as per the study type. We have changed instead of well suitable word instead of it in the aim and objective part of the manuscript. Thank You! Reviewer 2: Overall Comment: Overall, well written research with due appreciation of limitation and strengths given it’s a cross sectional nature. Response: Thank you for the valuable comment and time for review. We have tried to answer all your comments as given below. Comment: 1: Among limitations it may be added that being a secondary data analysis, an inherent flaw of the representation of the age group wise and education status wise may not be exactly similar in proportional distribution. It is of a value to consider that the increasing life expectancy, urbanization and increasing access to social media via digital platforms, might have impacted, the awareness levels among the participants reporting the information, which may differ considerably, over the years from 1995 till 2018. This may, also contribute to an over estimation in the reported responses for morbidity. Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment and keen observation. The comment you raise was absolutely in line with our study with transition phenomenon from 1995 to 2018 and at four points of cross sectional data. As a result, through the lens of Age distribution and education, comparing study participants across different time frames and developmental stages may impact their awareness levels, thus, this may somehow affect the overall comparison process. We have incorporated this as a limitation by summarising it in the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304492.r002
14 May 2024 Decision Letter - Arun Kumar Sharma, Editor Morbidity transition at the national and sub-national level and their determinants over the past and contemporary period in India PONE-D-24-11744R1 Dear Dr. Brahmankar, 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, Arun Kumar Sharma Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): None Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304492.r003
Formally Accepted
30 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Arun Kumar Sharma, Editor PONE-D-24-11744R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bramhankar, 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 Professor Arun Kumar Sharma Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304492.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 .