Assessment of the quality of life of COVID-19 recovered patients at the Ghana Infectious Disease Centre

Esinam Aku Amedewonu; Genevieve Cecilia Aryeetey; Anthony Godi; Josephine Sackeyfio; Alfred Dickson Dai-Kosi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306118

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 25, 2023
26 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Daniel Ahorsu, Editor PONE-D-23-33323Assessment of the Quality of Life of COVID-19 recovered patients at the Ghana Infectious Disease CentrePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aryeetey, 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 09 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, Daniel Ahorsu, PhD 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 in your Competing Interests section: "None" Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this article titled "Assessment of the Quality of life of COVID-19 recovered patients at the Ghana Infectious Diseases Centre". The researchers had a well-defined aim to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on Quality of life of recovered patients. The selected tool for assessing quality of life was also appropriate. Finally the use of linear regression adds dept to the study. However, I am unable to recommend this paper for publication due to the following reasons: 1. The introduction lacks dept and organization. Researchers should include relevant related literature on similar study done in other parts of the world and also introduce subheadings to improve readability. 2. The writing style will benefit from improvement in areas of conciseness and flow of ideas. 3. The researchers did not state any inclusion or exclusion criteria for the sample selected. Even though patients were all admitted for COVID-19 facility, their length of stay and COVID-19 related complications were not the same . 4. The researchers did not explain if any power analysis was done to arrive at the sample size. 5. Also the sample selected is skewed towards formally employed (71%) and individuals with tertiary level of education (83%) and thus not representative of the population. 6. The researchers mentioned recall bias but did not state explicitly the data collection process and timelines. 7. Finally they failed to mention limitations associated with the research design used and its impact on research results and conclusions Reviewer #2: 1.Title is reflective of study- objectives and rationale 2.Sample size of 150 adequate for a clinical sample 3.No reported Cronbach’s alpha for the (EQ-VA) visual analogue scale 4.No in text references for Discussion Lines 6,7 and 8 - global response by local governments and international bodies such as WHO, UNICEF, and IMF to provide support, financial relief, and public health assistance to curb the devastating nature of the disease. 5.Discussion Lines 29-30 Women may also be more worried when it comes to disease with a decreased ability of coping- This needs evidence to back it. Reference list: Rearrange 2, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 32, 33, 35. 36 Reviewer #3: This study addresses an important but often overlooked area in health research. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed before this paper can be published. Abstract • “Differences were not significantly observed for factors such as marital status, residence, ethnicity, and access to rehabilitative centres” does not read well. I suggest “Significant differences were not observed in quality of life for factors such as marital status, residence, ethnicity, and access to rehabilitative centres” Introduction • The introduction is fine with some edits. For example, the sentence in lines 79-82 is unclear in terms of comparison with NCDs and genetic diseases. • The background could touch on some of the potential predictors rooted in relevant literature and possibly a theory relevant to QOL and its predictors. • The specific objectives addressed in this study need to be stated. Materials and Methods Lines 154-156. “Linear regression models were used to assess the mean differences” Linear regression models are used to test relationships/predictions. Check and clarify. Results and Discussion • Authors need to justify the analysis in Table 5 as it is a repetition of analysis presented in Table 4. • The discussion needs to be rewritten to focus on the key findings that addressed the objectives of the study. • No contextual reasons were adduced for the high QOL scores among the study participants beyond global and local efforts (which were not duly discussed). What about possible roles of family and significant others in the Ghanaian context of care? • “This study found four main predictors of quality of life in the Ghanaian patient post-recovery from COVID-19. These were sex, persistent symptoms, worsening comorbidities, and development of complications post-COVID-19 infection”. This is not accurate as there are differences in QOL across several factors. • The discussion needs to be focused and structured according to the study objectives. ****** 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: Yes: Eric Howusu-Kumi Reviewer #3: 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.0306118.r001
Revision 1
29 Feb 2024 Author Response The Editor PLOS ONE Dear Editor, Response to Reviewers: Assessment of the Quality of Life of COVID-19 recovered patients at the Ghana Infectious Disease Centre We are grateful to the editor and reviewers for their feedback and helpful recommendations. We are glad to have the chance to resubmit an improved version of our paper for your further evaluation. In the following, we address the reviewers’ remarks and indicate the relevant modifications we applied to the paper. The line numbers we refer to are from the revised manuscript with the track changes off. Reviewer #1: 1. The introduction lacks dept and organization. Researchers should include relevant related literature on similar study done in other parts of the world and also introduce subheadings to improve readability. Response: The introduction has been revised to reflect the depth and inclusion of relevant studies. We however used paragraphs to introduce issues instead of the sub-headings. 2. The writing style will benefit from improvement in areas of conciseness and flow of ideas. Response: This has carefully been looked at and improved. 3. The researchers did not state any inclusion or exclusion criteria for the sample selected. Even though patients were all admitted for COVID-19 facility, their length of stay and COVID-19 related complications were not the same. Response: The inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria employed has been indicated in lines 143-151 of the revised manuscript (without track changes). 4. The researchers did not explain if any power analysis was done to arrive at the sample size. Response: We have provided an explanation on the sample size determination in lines 153-157. 5. Also, the sample selected is skewed towards formally employed (71%) and individuals with tertiary level of education (83%) and thus not representative of the population. Response: Most of the cases that showed up the GIDC which is a (tertiary level facility) were referrals from other facilities typically used by populations with higher socio-economic status and they are more likely to have higher levels of education. 6. The researchers mentioned recall bias but did not state explicitly the data collection process and timelines. 7. Response: The data collection process, particularly for the administration of the EuroQoL tools was to recovered patients who have been attending the post-recovery clinic from one month and above. This has been indicated in the inclusion criteria. 8. Finally, they failed to mention limitations associated with the research design used and its impact on research results and conclusions. Response: The study’s limitations have been included in lines 453-463 of the revised manuscript. Reviewer #2: 1. Title is reflective of study- objectives and rationale. 2. Sample size of 150 adequate for a clinical sample. 3. No reported Cronbach’s alpha for the (EQ-VAS) visual analogue scale. Response: The EQ-VAS is a single measure of quality of life from a self-reported scale and so the use of the Cronbach’s alpha was not applicable unlike the EQ-5D-5L which was derived from multi-dimensional Likert scale measures. 4. No in text references for Discussion Lines 6,7 and 8 - global response by local governments and international bodies such as WHO, UNICEF, and IMF to provide support, financial relief, and public health assistance to curb the devastating nature of the disease. Response: This has been resolved. (Ref to line numbers 326 – 328) 5. Discussion Lines 29-30 Women may also be more worried when it comes to disease with a decreased ability of coping- This needs evidence to back it. Response: This statement has been deleted from the manuscript. 6. Reference list: Rearrange 2, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 32, 33, 35. 36 Response: The list of references has been revised. Reviewer #3: Abstract 1. “Differences were not significantly observed for factors such as marital status, residence, ethnicity, and access to rehabilitative centres” does not read well. I suggest “Significant differences were not observed in quality of life for factors such as marital status, residence, ethnicity, and access to rehabilitative centres”. Response: The statement being referred to has been taken out of the abstract Introduction 2. The introduction is fine with some edits. For example, the sentence in lines 79-82 is unclear in terms of comparison with NCDs and genetic diseases. Response: The Introduction has been extensively revised. 3. The background could touch on some of the potential predictors rooted in relevant literature and possibly a theory relevant to QOL and its predictors. Response: The Background of the Introduction has been revised with additional literature to that effect. 4. The specific objectives addressed in this study need to be stated. Response: This has been included in the introduction (Ref to line numbers 125 – 127) Materials and Methods 5. Lines 154-156. “Linear regression models were used to assess the mean differences” Linear regression models are used to test relationships/predictions. Check and clarify. Response: This statement has been deleted from the manuscript. The regression methods used have also changed and explained accordingly. Results and Discussion 6. Authors need to justify the analysis in Table 5 as it is a repetition of analysis presented in Table 4. Response: The analysis in Table 4 shows the mean QoL scores and compares them by subdomains of EQ-5D-5L as well as overall with Kruskal-Wallis tests for each independent factor. Table 5 in its current form is from adjusted quantile regression using the overall median QoL scores and the reason for this has been explained in line numbers 265-266. 7. The discussion needs to be rewritten to focus on the key findings that addressed the objectives of the study. Response: The discussions have been revised accordingly. 8. No contextual reasons were adduced for the high QOL scores among the study participants beyond global and local efforts (which were not duly discussed). What about possible roles of family and significant others in the Ghanaian context of care? Response: We believe the revised discussions will resolve this. 9. “This study found four main predictors of quality of life in the Ghanaian patient post-recovery from COVID-19. These were sex, persistent symptoms, worsening comorbidities, and development of complications post-COVID-19 infection”. This is not accurate as there are differences in QOL across several factors. Response: There were multiple factors independently associated with QoL from Table 4, but the analysis shown in Table 5 which takes care of confounding effects using the medians provides a more robust determination of these significant factors. 10. The discussion needs to be focused and structured according to the study objectives. Response: The discussions have been revised accordingly. Thank you Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306118.r002
3 May 2024 Decision Letter - Daniel Ahorsu, Editor PONE-D-23-33323R1Assessment of the Quality of Life of COVID-19 recovered patients at the Ghana Infectious Disease CentrePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aryeetey, 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 Jun 17 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, Daniel Ahorsu, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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: The authors have significantly revised the manuscript. However, the reviewers have indicated further minor comments. I believe that responding to the comments will further enhance the quality of the manuscript. In addition to the other comments, the authors should further address this comment by adding a sentence in the limitation section. "5. Also, the sample selected is skewed towards formally employed (71%) and individuals with tertiary level of education (83%) and thus not representative of the population. Response: Most of the cases that showed up the GIDC which is a (tertiary level facility) were referrals from other facilities typically used by populations with higher socio-economic status and they are more likely to have higher levels of education." [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions 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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: In my opinion, I think the revision I requested for were met. Specifically, issues on Cronbach’s alpha for the (EQ-VAS) visual analogue scale was resolved. The in text references for Discussion Lines 6,7 and 8 has also been resolved. Discussion Lines 29-30 has been deleted. The authors also rearranged the Reference list: 2, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 32, 33, 35 and 36 Reviewer #3: Lines 32-33: The sentence does not read well. Line 42: the beta value should be checked (9.40 [-14.19, -4.61]) because the 95%Cis are all in the negative. ****** 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 #2: Yes: Eric Howusu-Kumi Reviewer #3: 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.0306118.r003
Revision 2
15 May 2024 Author Response The Editor PLOS ONE Dear Editor, Response to Reviewers: Assessment of the Quality of Life of COVID-19 recovered patients at the Ghana Infectious Disease Centre We are grateful to the editor and reviewers for their feedback and helpful recommendations. We are glad to have the chance to resubmit an improved version of our paper for your further evaluation. In the following, we address the reviewers’ remarks and indicate the relevant modifications we applied to the paper. Additional editor comments In addition to the other comments, the authors should further address this comment by adding a sentence in the limitation section. "5. Also, the sample selected is skewed towards formally employed (71%) and individuals with tertiary level of education (83%) and thus not representative of the population. Response: Most of the cases that showed up the GIDC which is a (tertiary level facility) were referrals from other facilities typically used by populations with higher socio-economic status and they are more likely to have higher levels of education." Response: We thank the editor for the suggestion. The limitations section has been updated accordingly. Lines 448-452 Reviewer 3 Reviewer #3: Lines 32-33: The sentence does not read well. Line 42: the beta value should be checked (9.40 [-14.19, -4.61]) because the 95%CIs are all in the negative. Response: We thank the reviewer for noticing these errors. Lines 32-33 and 42 have been revised. The beta value is -9.40. Authors additional revisions We also included additional information on the sampling section to improve clarity. Lines 148-152 Thank you Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306118.r004
11 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Daniel Ahorsu, Editor Assessment of the Quality of Life of COVID-19 recovered patients at the Ghana Infectious Disease Centre PONE-D-23-33323R2 Dear Dr. Aryeetey, 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, Daniel Ahorsu, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: (No Response) ****** 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 #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306118.r005
Formally Accepted
9 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Daniel Ahorsu, Editor PONE-D-23-33323R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aryeetey, 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. Daniel Ahorsu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306118.r006

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 .