Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 7, 2024
Decision Letter - Jonah Musa, Editor

PONE-D-24-25387Factors Associated with Uptake of Human Papilloma virus Vaccine among Adolescent girls: A cross sectional survey on insights into HPV Infection Prevention in Kabarole District -Western UgandaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mugisa,

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. Address the specific comments related to study design, data analysis, interpretation of statistical outputs, and inconsistency in the results and discussions.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 30 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,

Jonah Musa, MBBS, MSCI,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. 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.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

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: No

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: No

**********

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: Very Respected Authors,

After carefully reading your paper I have few suggestions. Keywords are usually listed below the abstract. The objective of the study is clear. It is necessary to specify the methodology. Between December 18/10/2021 to 18/10/2022 we conducted a A cross-sectional study design line 21. I do not understand. I see that the study was done in October. Could you please, explain the sample size and the exact timing of when the study was conducted? The date of the Ethics Committee's decision and its reference number are required lines 103-105.

Reviewer #2: The research talks about a very important and topical issue especially in the aspect of elimination of cervical cancer.

But I have some major concerns with the manuscript

1. Data analysis: The values of the AOR 4.06 does not fall within the CI of (0.69-0.087), also OR of 0.4 does not fall within the CI of (1.43-8.09) all this are written under the abstract.

2. Under the results section: Even though the AOR and OR seem to fall within the CI but now it makes the whole results inconsistent. Kindly address that, because this ultimately affects interpretation and discussion of results.

3. The references are not serially numbered example under introduction from number 1, the next reference was (42), and it also seem to be inconsistent having a mix of both APA and Vancouver styles. Please address that.

4. Data collection: what's the rationale of using 10 for pretesting.

4. Other minor issues include the typographical errors.

**********

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:  Maryam Jamila Ali

**********

[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.

Revision 1

Dear Reviewer,,

Response to reviewers on the Manuscript “ Factors Associated with Uptake of Human Papilloma virus Vaccine among Adolescent girls: A cross sectional survey on insights into HPV Infection Prevention in Kabarole District -Western Uganda”

Reference is made to the comments by email on the required changes to make in the manuscript “ Factors Associated with Uptake of Human Papilloma virus Vaccine among Adolescent girls: A cross sectional survey on insights into HPV Infection Prevention in Kabarole District -Western Uganda”

The comments have been addressed by the author as guided and a re-submission is made to that effect.

I appreciate the very educative guidance provided in the comments

Details and pages of the responses

Comment Response

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The manuscript has been checked against the PLOS ONE guide for authors and now meets the requirements

2. 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. I confirm that all all relevant data are with in the manuscript and its supporting information files

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. A complete Ethics statement has been included in the Methods section and included the Full name of the ethics committee who approved the study as well as the statement on how consent was obtained.

Page 10 - 11

4. Reviewer #1: Very Respected Authors,After carefully reading your paper I have few suggestions. Keywords are usually listed below the abstract. Correction has been made, Key words have been transferred to below the abstract.

Page 2

5. The objective of the study is clear. It is necessary to specify the methodology. Between December 18/10/2021 to 18/10/2022 we conducted a A cross-sectional study design line 21. I do not understand. I see that the study was done in October. Could you please, explain the sample size and the exact timing of when the study was conducted? The date of the Ethics Committee's decision and its reference number are required lines 103-105.

The Methodology of the study have been revised. It clarifies that the study was conducted between December 18/10/2021 to 18/10/2022 we conducted a study in western Uganda. Actual data collection was done from 01/09/2022 to 18/10/2022. I have included on all the steps taken to arrive at the sample size. I have also included the Date and number of the Ethical committees decision [16/10/2021 under REC decision Number MUST-2021-73].

Page 10 &11

6.Reviewer #2: The research talks about a very important and topical issue especially in the aspect of elimination of cervical cancer.

But I have some major concerns with the manuscript I have addressed all the concerns suggested by the Reviewer

1.Data analysis: The values of the AOR 4.06 does not fall within the CI of (0.69-0.087), also OR of 0.4 does not fall within the CI of (1.43-8.09) all this are written under the abstract.

The value of AOR 4.06 has been corrected from the data and now falls with in the CI [(AOR=4.06; 95%CI (1.69 - 6.87); p=0.004)]. the OR of 0.4 has also been corrected and now show (OR=0.4; 95%CI (0.34 – 0.89) ; p=0.006)

Page 1, 2 and 11

2.Under the results section: Even though the AOR and OR seem to fall within the CI but now it makes the whole results inconsistent. Kindly address that, because this ultimately affects interpretation and discussion of results. The AOR and OR in the abstract and the results have been corrected and how falls in line. These were addressed by re-analyzing the data

Page 1, 2 and 11

3.The references are not serially numbered example under introduction from number 1, the next reference was (42), and it also seem to be inconsistent having a mix of both APA and Vancouver styles. Please address that. The references have been addressed and are all numbered serially and only in Vancouver style

4.Data collection: what's the rationale of using 10 for pretesting.

To achieve validity and reliability, consideration was made for diversity of respondents, number of questions in the tool, and the nature of the questions. A 5-10 people are acceptable. We went for the upper end of 10 people

5.Other minor issues include the typographical errors. Typographic errors have been corrected

Hoping for your consideration for approval of the manuscript,

I remain Yours Faithfully

Mr. Mugisa Tony

Assistant Lecturer- Public Health Department - Mountains of the Moon University

Corresponding Author

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc
Decision Letter - Jonah Musa, Editor

Factors Associated with Uptake of Human Papilloma virus Vaccine among Adolescent girls: A cross sectional survey on insights into HPV Infection Prevention in Kabarole District -Western Uganda

PONE-D-24-25387R1

Dear Dr. Mugisa,

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,

Jonah Musa, MBBS, MSCI,PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Jonah Musa, Editor

PONE-D-24-25387R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mugisa,

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. Jonah Musa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .