https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1496-1801
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJanuary 13, 2024 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-23-43256Determinants of adult sedentary behavior for the primary prevention of diabetes in historically disadvantaged communities: a representative cross-sectional study from Reunion IslandPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fianu, 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 Jul 15 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:
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, Attila Csaba Nagy 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 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This research was funded by the European Regional Development Fund (PO IV 2014-2020), the Regional Council of La Reunion and the French State. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.]. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [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: Partly ********** 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: 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: 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: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-43256. Title: Determinants of adult sedentary behavior for the primary pre of diabetes in historically disadvantaged communities : a representative cross-sectional study from Reunion island. Article Type: Research article General comment Sedentary lifestyle is a key determinant of obesity and of its subsequent complications such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), blood hypertension, arterial stiffness, and beyond, cardiovascular ischemic diseases. Understanding the pathways between sedentary behavior risk factors, especially those that are modifiable, and T2D is therefore of paramount importance to prevent T2D and its related burden of morbimortality. In this framework, Fianu et al. have posited a holistic approach of health determinants for investigating both individual and socio-environmental (contextual) risk factors of adult sedentary behavior living in Reunion Island with the aim to pave the way for future public heath interventions in the primary prevention of T2D. The topic is of public health relevance given the global epidemic of obesity and T2D, whose incidences peak in vulnerable communities like those observed in the southwestern Indian ocean (SWIO) region. The team from which it comes seems to have mastered this type of intervention, which warrants interesting perspectives for the transformation process into future actions (Fianu et al, Sante Publique 2017; Fianu et al, PLoS One 2016; Debussche et al, Diabetes Metabolism 2012). The paper is thorough and well-written. It carries and spreads very interesting methodological options that it deserves publication to shed light on the intricate links between social inequalities in health (SIH), physical and sport activity (PSA) and sedentary behaviors in the setting of T2D prevention. This notably because literature still lacks well-designed population-based studies from high-risk regions, which face multiple challenges best known under the concept of epidemiological transition. However, before reaching this achievement, the authors should consider minor compulsory and minor discretionary revisions including clearer presentation of study findings, language simplifications, and discussion of strategies in analysis. With an appropriate revision, given the abovementioned, the paper could even be eligible to PLoS Global Public Health, a very promising new PLOS journal of Public Health/Global Health with a strong focus on social inequalities in health. Specific comments Minor compulsory revision (mandatory) Title and abstract 1(a). Indicate the study’s design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract. Add “population-based” to study as it is a strength of the study. The abstract is too narrative and should include quantitative results. 1(b). Page 2, line 31. Replace “territory” by department, which is more exact administratively. Page 2, line 38. The authors must define the categories of interest of their multinomial outcome. Page 2, lines 41 to 42. “… associated with sedentary or physical inactive behavior.” The formulation makes think the outcome is composite and binary while it is four categorial. Page 2, line 44. I am not sure a research perspective has to be placed in the abstract. Page 2, line49 to page 3, line 50. Rephrase the last sentence of the abstract as “reducing” may apply for lifestyle risk factors but not T2D primary prevention programs. Page 2, line 49. “may suggest.” Why “may” ? The authors should better trust themselves and write “suggest” or “may foster” or something stronger like that. Introduction 2. Background/rationale Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported. Page 3, lines 58 to 59. Rephrase the sentence to distinguish among the determinants of chronic diseases (such as T2D), risk factors from mediators. For instances, writing “that are intrinsically linked to both the development of sedentary lifestyle and excessive caloric intake through metabolic disturbances (insulin resistance).” Diabetes should not be placed at the end of the sentence as it is one of the chronic diseases to what the authors refer to. Page 3, lines 61.”is… and is…” Two times is for the same subject, T2D. Rephrase the sentence starting with Type 2 diabetes (T2D),…[4, 5].” Page 3, line 73 to page 4, line 74. Does the author use social inequalities for social inequalities of health? If yes, replace social inequalities by SIH to avoid the truism as it seems evident that differences in income and unfavorable living and working conditions define social inequalities. 3. Objectives State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses. The authors should be more explicit on their hypotheses. We guess they are presented in the long sentence preceding the objectives page 4, lines 82 to 84. They could use a formulation like “Given the abovementioned blablabla, we hypothesize … .” They should also mention and define physical and sport activities as physical activity/inactivity is included in their multinomial four- category outcome. For readers not familiar to the literature about physical activity and health, it may be difficult to distinguish sedentary behavior and absence of physical activity. Methods 4. Study design Present key elements of study design early in the paper 5. Setting Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection. Page 5, line 98. Define the acronym ERPPS in the text and makes clear that the study reports this study as it is published formerly in a study report for public health stakeholders, academics and funders but not as a scientific publication. Page 5, line 98. “was collected” is abrupt and let imagine it these are findings of a new study disconnected from the ERPPS study. Better use “had been” to let see, the data had been previously collected. Page 5, line 101. Write “aged 15 or over” as it is really “≥” and not “>”. Page 5, line 107. Define the acronym “Fideli” in French in italics. Acronym should be defined in French and English translations added when necessary. Page 5, line 112. Define the categories of the level of income to see how it was categorized. It will make more intelligible the number of possible strata in the random sampling. 7. Variables Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable Lifestyle behaviors outcomes. This important paragraph should be rephrased and start from the definition of the multinomial four-category outcome, followed by clearer definitions of each of its categories. The authors clearly have focused their hypothesis and objectives on sedentary behavior and not physical activity. This paragraph should explain why physical activity was integrated in the outcome definition and note taken as a potential effect-modifier (or even as a potential confounder). Page 6, line 134. Physical inactivity is a composite variable which combined four reported outcome variables. Page 6, line 137. Remove “reporting” as it has been specified previously that data were self-reported. Confounding factors. Page 7, lines 147 to 148. The sentence is confusing. How a health-related behavior like a sedentary behavior could confound sedentary behavior? Factors of exposure. Page 7, line 158. Replace “threshold” by “categories” as we need three thresholds or cut-off to define four categories. Page 7, line 160. I don’t think language spoken in the home may be defined as a psychosocial characteristic. Please explain. Page 7, lines 179 to 182. Define the referent category as zero category and the categorization 0 to 4. 8. Data sources/ measurement For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group. Page 6, line 124. Which ecological data were compiled? 9. Bias Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias 10. Study size Explain why this study did not require sample size pre-specification (instead of how the study size was arrived at). 11. Quantitative variables Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why? 12. Statistical methods 12 (a). Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding. 12 (b). Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions. It should be explained why physical activity was integrated into the multinomial four-category outcome as it precludes study physical activity as an effect-modifier or a confounder. 12 (c). Explain how missing data were addressed. This paragraph page 9, lines 205 to 215 is The paragraph page 9, lines 205 to 212 is difficult to read for non-statistician readers and has little impact on the understanding the article. I would shorten it and merely explain that there were multiple imputations. Page 9, line 200. “The working framework.” Working could be replaced by operating or something like that. Ethical considerations. Page 10, lines 234 to 235. Explain why minors 15 to 17 were not asked to provide their oral consent along with that of their parents. Results 13. Participants 13 (a).Page 11, line 241. Remove the “with” and reformulate using a formulation like “which represented” or something like that. 14. Descriptive data 14 (a). Give characteristics of study participants (eg demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders. Page 11, lines 247 to 251. Although, Table 1 is a descriptive table, were there some comparisons between the study sample and census data. When percentages differed it could have shed light on potential selection biases? (even though in this case differences are significant due to statistical power. Page 16, lines 273 to 274. Most participants possessed an educational degree. This could have been a source of selection bias. Explain and specify if there was or there wasn’t a selection bias and how it was accounted if it had an impact on study findings. Page 16, lines 274 to 275. Define a positive perception. Page 16, line 281. What for students?. 14 (b). Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest 15. Outcome data 15 (c). Cross-sectional study—Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures 16. Main results 16 (a). Unadjusted estimates could be placed as supporting information(supplemental online tables). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included. It is inappropriate and very confusing to report a single analysis on three different tables. Tables 2 to 4 should be merged into a single table presenting the M3 final model distinguishing each outcome category (Y1 in place of M1, Y2 in place of M2, as study findings that are interpreted are only those of M3 models. Results of nested models M1 and M2 models which are not interpreted or very simply in short sentences, should be presented as supporting information and supplemental online tables. Tables 2 to 4. With respect to the prespecified hypotheses, why not having taken “final secondary school diploma or above as referent category? 16 (b). Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized 16 (c). If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period 17 Other analyses Report other analyses done—eg analyses of subgroups and interactions, and sensitivity analyses. Page 16, lines 264 to 267. Explain why results have not been presented at least for some microregions that shaped or contrasted the overall study findings. Page 23, line 323. Present crude unadjusted analyses like the primary analysis: M1 with Y1,Y2 and Y3 in columns, M2 with Y1, Y2, and Y3 in columns. Page 23, line 319. “Fewer poor neighborhoods” means literally in French “Moins de pauvres voisinages.” I think the authors mean “Less poor” as specified in the Methods. Discussion 18. Key results Summarise key results with reference to study objectives. Why explaining only significant results? Please explain. Some expected findings may have not been found due to beta risk (lack of power), but this would interest researchers to know why. Page 23, lines 331 to 332. “associated to sedentary behavior, taking into account physical activity status.” This formulation would better apply with physical status taken as an effect-modifier (interaction term) or a confounder. Read above and if not done, explain theses options were not retained for the primary analysis. Page 24, lines 336 to 337. “Many studies reported the consequences on physical activity levels and sedentary.” The authors posit that sedentary behavior and physical inactivity are different things. Why amalgaming here? Please, detail other study findings here to support your statement. Page 24, line 349. “Consistent”. I am not sure this term is appropriate here. The socio-economic is the most consistent risk factor for what? Please, detail. Page 24, lines 357 to 358. Specify here that a “better integration of communication on physical activity content” is needed if physical activity may decrease the consequences of sedentary behaviors, which is not consistent across studies, as the authors pinpoint elsewhere. 19. Limitations Discuss both strengths and limitations of the study, taking into account sources of bias or imprecision, maybe strengths prior to limitations. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias. 20. Interpretation Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence. Page 25, line 342. There is a misinterpretation here. Write “less poor” neighborhoods as the protective effective effect discussed here applies for the fourth category of the variable which indicates a less disadvantaged neighborhood (the fifth category indicating the wealthier advantaged neighborhood). Page 25, line 368. If possible, provide here a reference and place it after areas. Page 25, lines 367 to 370. The sentence is not so clear. Explain what is an endogenous psychosociological mechanism. Page 25, lines 381 to 383. The authors state that the “inhibition of some protective health-related attitudes are found in the most deprived neighborhoods”. I guess this is an interpretation but where is the study finding on which it is based on? Page 26, line 387; I am not sure the term “intervention” is suitable here. The authors refer to multiple public health actions. Qualify the intervention as multifaceted or better use program, for instance. 21. Generalisability Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results. Page 27, line 421. “institutionalized accommodation.” Does the authors mean long-term care facility? Page 27, line 423. What represent the people placed in institutions on Reunion island? Are they different or representative of the general population? If not and if there are numerous, could they introduce a selection bias? Page 27, line 424. “The accelerometer gold standard”. Is a study in nuclear physics? Reformulate with a coma and a more appropriate designation of the gold standard method. Page 28, line 442. How a health risk could be refined? Give more precisions because it is not crystal clear. Other information 22. Funding Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based. References Translate the French references that are accessible in Pubmed into English and write them into brackets[] as done in PubMed. Minor discretionary corrections (request an author’s reply without obligation of edits) Title and abstract 1(b). Page 2, line 30. I am not sure that the prevalence is the target of primary prevention programs. Maybe incidence would be more appropriate. Prevalence decreases as a reduction of incidence. Page 2, line 34. “to highlight… in order to …. to alleviate…” Too much “to”in the same sentence. Replace some of these by grammatically correct formulations. “aiming at + -ing”. Page 2, line 47. “Strengthening individuals.” Does the authors mean enpowerment? Page 3, lines 50 to 51. Material exposures is vague. It could be detailed. Introduction 2. Background/rationale Page 3, line 66. The PIMA could be named in the text as it is well known reminiscent example of the concept of disadvantaged communities regarding T2D. Page 3, line 71. Add the acronym (SWIO) for southwestern Indian ocean and “region” after and specify it belongs to the WHO African region. This is important as Reunion island share social characteristics of both well developed and low-or-middle income countries. Page 3, line 76. Too many wars are waged in the world. Please use a peaceful vocabulary. I do not think a combat could be waged against a probability as there is no ethics in preemptive (or preventive) wars. Rephrase using more intelligible words. Page 3, line 81. I am not sure the results of reference #17 could be used for such generalization and the findings of a local study on Reunion island could be translated to all territories with aging populations. Complete the sentence stating this as an example with a formulation like “as a demographic study from Reunion island suggests”. Page 3, line 87. “Strengthening individuals.” Does the authors mean enpowerment? 3. Objectives State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses. Page 3, lines 91 to 92. “to highlight… in order to …. to alleviate…” Too much “to”in the same sentence. Replace some of these by grammatically correct formulations. “aiming at + -ing”. Methods 7. Variables Confounding factors. Page 7, line 145. Age categories have been categorized differently than for sampling. It could be explained why. 8. Data sources/ measurement Page 5, line 119. “during the study period” would be better placed upstream in the sentence, after “were gathered;” 12. Statistical methods 12 (a). Page 8, line 190. Remove the “the” before four categories. Ethical considerations. I see no concern to use “concerning” twice, however it not elegant. Results 14. Descriptive data. Page 16, line 273. People aged 15 to 44 years could be characterized as young adults here and further, the age ranged placed in parentheses. Discussion 19. Limitations 20. Interpretation Page 26, line 396. Fianu et al. Replace by “we” or by ”our group.“ 21. Generalisability Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results. Page 26, line 407. “The research perspective was.” A research perspective is sensed to occur in the future. Please replace “was” by the present, the future or the conditional (is, will be, or would be…). Page 27, line 409. “At the frontiers of…” Replace by “at the borderline” or “at the edge”, better appropriate here. Other information References should be placed at the end of the sentences. Page 9, line 199. Ref#23 should be placed at the end of the sentence. Page 9, line 211. Ref#26 should be placed at the end of the sentence. Page 24, line 349. Ref#25 should be placed at the end of the sentence. Page 27, line 413. Ref#22 should be placed at the end of the sentence. Page 28, line 446. Ref#23 should be placed at the end of the sentence. Reviewer #2: Review of the manuscript entitled „Determinants of adult sedentary behavior for the primary prevention of diabetes in historically disadvantaged communities: a representative cross-sectional study from Reunion Island” (PONE-D-23-43256) I read the manuscript offered for review with pleasure and interest. The study presents the results of original research, to the best of my knowledge the reported results have not been published elsewhere. The study is described by the authors with adequate statistical analysis and at a good technical level, in sufficient detail. The conclusions are well presented, the article is written in a comprehensible manner. English is generally sound, only minor revision. The research complied with all relevant standards for experimental ethics and research integrity. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability. I have the following questions and comments regarding the manuscript: Introduction: - The text discusses the impact of socio-economic changes on health behavior and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Although the connections are clear, the logical process of the text should be made clearer so that readers can follow the argument more easily. Showing the connections, for example how socio-economic changes lead to a higher prevalence of T2D, may require a more detailed explanation. - The information about the island of Réunion is detailed and relevant, but the history of the text does not make it clear why this specific location is important. It would be worthwhile to emphasize more why this particular community is being studied and how it differs from other communities in a similar socio-economic situation. - A more precise definition of terms such as "contextual influences" and "macro- or meso-economic and social factors" could help readers better understand the content of the text. The text mentions the island's historical context (slavery and indentured labor), but could also explain their effects on current health inequalities in more detail. Material and methods: - When using the phrase "Identical to the nationwide study of PSA (ENPPS-2020)", it would be useful to briefly summarize the purpose and methods of the ENPPS-2020 study so that readers can better understand the relationship between the two studies. - The details of the sampling methods are thorough, but the term "one-level systematic random sampling stratified by the micro-region" may require an explanation as to exactly how the sampling took place. - Mentioning the unequal sampling probability is important, but it would be helpful to provide further explanation of how this is handled in the analysis (e.g., by weighting). - Mention of “positive perception of personal and parental history of PSA” as a potential confounder is important, but it is unclear how this variable was measured and what effect it may have had on the results. Results: - Regarding the sentence "In total, 2,010 adults from Reunion Island participated in the study with a participation rate of 49%", the question is how can the participation rate affect the reliability of the results in the study? - During the presentation of the results, it would be good to provide a further explanation of the significance and interpretation of the confidence interval at the sentence "Over half the participants had a sedentary behavior (53.9%, 95%CI: [51.1 to 56.7])". - In the case of the results for administrative micro-regions ("inhabitants of the northern region had the highest prevalence estimate for both sedentary/inactive (15.0%) and sedentary/active (46.1%)"), the differences are significant, but what factors can influence them? - Regarding the generalizability of the results, it would be worthwhile to make further comments on how other regions can utilize the findings of the study. Discussion: - The transition from the effects of COVID-19 to the analysis of the socio-economic background is sudden. It would be worthwhile to provide a smoother transition, for example by connecting the two topics with how socio-economic background influenced individuals' responses during COVID-19. - In addition to the cited statistical data (e.g. "one adult out of two" and "one adult out of five"), it would be worthwhile to provide exact percentages so that the reader can interpret the ratios more easily. - The term "sedentary and active profile" needs clarification, since "sedentary" and "active" are opposite concepts. Perhaps the term "sedentary and physically active periods" would be more appropriate. - The relationship between higher health literacy and physical activity mentioned by Rey et al (2023) deserves a more detailed explanation. For example, how higher health literacy can improve the effectiveness of health communication and how it can help promote physical activity. - It is sometimes difficult to follow cause-and-effect relationships between the statements in the discussion. For example, the causes of physical activity inequalities and the mechanisms leading to them are not fully understood. The term "endogenous psychosocial mechanism on the stress perception" would require more explanation so that the reader can understand how this can lead to a sedentary lifestyle. - The distinction between "exogenous" and "endogenous" factors is useful, but the examples in the text are not always clear. For example, "abandoning physical activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic" is presented as a behavioral factor, but it is not clear how it fits into the exogenous category. - Among the intervention proposals is the strategy of "proportionate universalism", but it is not clear how this can be implemented in practice. More detailed explanations and concrete examples would be needed. - The sentence "The understanding of individual and socio-environmental determinants..." is too general and not specific enough. It would be worth clarifying what specific interventions are possible with such knowledge. - The "neighborhood deprivation level indicator" is specific to the island of Réunion, but it is not clear why and how it differs from indicators used elsewhere. A more detailed explanation would help the reader understand the differences. - After the comment "multivariate analyzes did not include all the environmental factors", it would be worthwhile to clarify what specific environmental factors are missing and how they may affect the results. ********** 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: PATRICK GERARDIN 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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
Determinants of adult sedentary behavior and physical inactivity for the primary prevention of diabetes in historically disadvantaged communities: a representative cross-sectional population-based study from Reunion Island PONE-D-23-43256R1 Dear Dr. Fianu, 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, Attila Csaba Nagy 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-43256-R1. Title: Determinants of adult sedentary behavior for the primary pre of diabetes in historically disadvantaged communities : a representative cross-sectional population-based study from Reunion island. Article Type: Research article General comment The authors have addressed all my remarks the best they can. I have no additional claim. Specific comments Abstract Page 2, line 39 and 40 Add percentages to the figures in 95% confidence intervals. Introduction Page 3, line 56. Write “have resulted in…2 Discussion The authors should reintroduce the quotation of their IJERP paper as it provide clues on SIH and behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic on the island of La Reunion Reviewer #2: (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 #1: Yes: Patrick Gérardin Reviewer #2: No ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-23-43256R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fianu, 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. Attila Csaba Nagy 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 .