HIV seropositive disclosure and associated factors among adult HIV positive clients in public health facilities in East Wollega Zone, Oromia Regional State, Western Ethiopia

Worku Fikadu; Chala Dechassa; Zelalem Desalegn; Adisu Ewunetu; Matiyos Lema; Adisu Tekle

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305389

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 15, 2024
12 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Moses Katbi, Editor Transfer Alert This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present. PONE-D-23-42840HIV SERO POSITIVE DISCLOSURE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS AMONG ADULT HIV POSITIVE CLIENTS IN PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITIES IN EAST WOLLEGA ZONE, OROMIA REGIONAL STATE, WESTERN ETHIOPIA.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. FIKADU, 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. ============================== The article contains a lot of grammatical error which should be corrected. Ensure to consider comments from both reviewers. For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by May 27 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, Moses Katbi MD, MPH, MBA, DrPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: 10.11694/pamj.supp.2014.18.1.3551 file:///home/nkw-ld22-090/Downloads/PONE-D-23-42840.pdf In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. 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. 4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 5. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: No 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: 1. How can the authors assure the nobility of this study? 2. Since the study involved more than one health facility, the sampling method should pass at least two stages and authors have to use design effect for computing sample size 3. the structure of manuscript should follow the authors instruction of this journal 4. the discussion section should be complied in detail rather than comparison of findings 5. grammatical errors have to checked and reviewed by native speakers or approved grammar checkers Reviewer #2: The study is very interesting with historical significance. It is very informative and relevant to the advancement of blended learning method. However, the use of data and statistics to support the conclusions is sparse. This study uses qualitative research method, but there was so many missing information about the data collection method, process and analysis. The study stated that eighty-two students were recruited, but the selection criteria were not clearly stated. Also, the demography of the participants was not included. These are important piece of information that can help the understanding of the dynamics of the participants and the effect on the finding and conclusions. The data analysis was inadequately presented, and it is difficult to see how the conclusions were data driven. The use of tables and charts to present the results will improve the quality of the result. It will also be very helpful to organize the study under the main sections (introduction, methodology, result and discussion. The ethical statement shows that the consents were taken verbally, and these verbal consents were documented. how were they documented? It will be a significant additional information to the ethical section. Finally, the team should review the grammar and the structure of the writing to improve the readability of the article. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305389.r001
Revision 1
24 May 2024 Author Response Author’s response to the reviewers and editor Title: HIV seropositive disclosure and associated factors among adult HIV positive clients in public health facilities in East Wollega Zone,Oromia Regional State, Western Ethiopia. Authors: Worku Fikadu (wfikadu2@gmail.com) Chala Dechasa (chala124dechasa@gmail.com) Zelalem Desalegn (zolad09@gmail.com) Adisu Desisa (adisuewunetu2019@gmail.com) Matiyos Lema (maatii3399@gmail.com) Adisu Tekle (adisnuro7@gmail.com) Date: April 18, 2024 Author’s response to the reviewers: Firstly, authors express their appreciation to the reviewer. We believe that their vital comments and suggestions have substantially improved the presentation of our study, as well as its overall quality and the manuscript. Following, we offer a point-by-point response to the issues and points the reviewers raised regarding the original manuscript. Reviewer #1 Comment#1. How can the authors assure the nobility of this study? Authors response:This study is noble due to the difference in sociodemographic and behavioural characteristics of the current study population. Even though HIV positive disclosure status has increased in Ethiopia, the disclosure status of the east wollega zone is unknown, and the magnitude of the HIV transmission is high. The authors hypothesise that the HIV transmission rate might be due to low disclosure of HIV positive status, as HIV seropositive people run the danger of spreading the virus to their intimate partner and other family members who come into contact with them by hiding their positive status. Hence, the authors were interested in knowing the magnitude of HIV seropositive status disclosure and the factors associated with disclosure. 2. Since the study involved more than one health facility, the sampling method should pass at least two stages and authors have to use design effect for computing sample size Author’s response: we appreciate the comment. The authors identified 10 ART-provider clinics in East Wollega and then selected 50% of the clinics randomly. Finally, the authors allocated study units proportionally to the selected health facilities. We initially considered the design effect, but after discussion, the authors believed that increasing the sample size did not improve the precision of the population estimate. We know that the design effect quantifies the extent to which the expected sampling error in a survey departs from the sampling error that can be expected under simple random sampling. Since we took the adult HIV patient population attending in 50% of clinics, we believed the sampling error in our selected population would not be large. However, we are happy that you suggested the right thing. 3. the structure of manuscript should follow the authors instruction of this journal Authors-Response: We revised the manuscript according to the journal instructions following (IMRAD); the figures and tables were removed from the original manuscript and submitted in TIFF format separately. We also followed the font size recommendation of the journal. 4. the discussion section should be complied in detail rather than comparison of findings Authors response: The discussion part was revised was revised by authors in four different paragraph � The authors provided essential interpretation to the key findings. � secondly the authors compare and contrast to previous studies � We discussed unexpected(contradictory findings) � Thirdly we highlighted the significance of the findings � lastly we discussed unanswered questions and potential future research 5. grammatical errors have to checked and reviewed by native speakers or approved grammar checkers Authors response: We have gone through the manuscript and found typographic and grammatical errors, and we have revised the manuscript extensively to improve its readability. Comments by reviwer#2 Reviewer #2: The study is very interesting with historical significance. It is very informative and relevant to the advancement of blended learning method. However, the use of data and statistics to support the conclusions is sparse. This study uses qualitative research method, but there was so many missing information about the data collection method, process and analysis. The study stated that eighty-two students were recruited, but the selection criteria were not clearly stated. Also, the demography of the participants was not included. These are important piece of information that can help the understanding of the dynamics of the participants and the effect on the finding and conclusions. The data analysis was inadequately presented, and it is difficult to see how the conclusions were data driven. The use of tables and charts to present the results will improve the quality of the result.It will also be very helpful to organize the study under the main sections (introduction, methodology, result and discussion. Author response: we appreciate the comment; We prepared the manuscript using IMRAD format However we doubt that the comments seems for other manuscript than ours. Possible justifications 1:A. The Authors didn’t use qualitative research method 2; The study stated that eighty-two students were recruited, but the selection criteria were not clearly stated, However we didn’t recruit students our sample was from HIV positive patients. Hence dear reviewer, please make sure that you have reviewed that our manuscript, then we will use to improve the presentation The ethical statement shows that the consents were taken verbally, and these verbal consents were documented. how were they documented? It will be a significant additional information to the ethical section. Author’s response: we appreciate the comment and it has been included as follows. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study was conducted by the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by Wallaga University's Institutional Review Board (Protocol number WU/RO/553/2014) and permission to conduct the study in health facilities was secured from zonal health department and respective health facilities. Detailed explanation to the study participants on the fact that data collection procedure has no any harm to them and other communities and it was used only for research purposes. The participants provided written consent, and Confidentiality was maintained. The findings were presented as aggregate and would not reveal respondents' identities. Finally, the team should review the grammar and the structure of the writing to improve the readability of the article. Author’s response: We have gone through the manuscript and found typographic and grammatical errors, and we have revised the manuscript extensively to improve its readability. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305389.r002
29 May 2024 Decision Letter - Moses Katbi, Editor HIV seropositive disclosure and associated factors among adult HIV positive clients in public health facilities in East Wollega Zone,Oromia Regional State, Western Ethiopia. PONE-D-23-42840R1 Dear Fikadu Worku, 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, Moses Katbi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305389.r003

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 .