PONE-D-24-17804Examination of Factors that Impact Mask or Respirator Purchase and Usage During the COVID-19 PandemicPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sousan,

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 pay attention on following points also :

• Refine introduction
• Mention sample size and elaborate methodology section for more clear understanding
• Clearly define the basis on which participants were selected.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 16 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,

Sadia Ilyas, Ph.D.

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 financial disclosure: 

 [The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P30ES025128.].  

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. In the online submission form, you indicated that [All data are availble upon request from the authors]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

4. 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. 

5. 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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

I had the opportunity to review your manuscript titled 'Examination of Factors that Impact Mask or Respirator Purchase and Usage During

the COVID-19 Pandemic,' and I commend you on your thorough investigation and reporting. I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on your work."

However, I have provided some feedback on other aspects of the manuscript, particularly the methodology and discussion sections. Please find my comments and suggestions outlined below:

Methodology:

1. As you already mentioned the exclusion criteria in lines 111-112 “Sample selection excluded individuals below the age of 18 and non-English speakers” mentioning it again as the inclusion criteria is not needed in line 116 “were only 116 English speakers and adults older than 18”

2. Please rewrite the Table 1 title as Variables Analyzed instead of “Dependent Variables Analyzed”

3. In “Table 1: Dependent Variables Analyzed”what is the basis of categorizing the income of the respondent into two groups “Under $ 35,000 annually” and “Over $35,000 annually”

4. Please mention how the participants were recruited.

5. Please mention if the survey questionnaire was pretested or validated prior to the data collection.

6. Please clearly mention the study design at the start of the Methods section to help readers quickly understand the approach.

7. Kind describe shortly regarding the sample size was calculation. Although some information was mentioned in the Limitations sections, it would be best to include a concise description in the methodology as well.

Discussion:

1. In line 214 it is mentioned that “These results are interesting because females have been previously associated with a higher frequency of mask-wearing behavior” and the following paper was cited “McMahon E, Wada K, Dufresne A. Implementing fit testing for N95 filtering facepiece respirators: practical information from a large cohort of hospital workers. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36(4):298-300. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2007.10.014”. However, this article does not contain any supporting findings. Please cite reference number 31 “Looi, K.H. Explicating gender disparity in wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health 22, 2273 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14630-7” which has relevant findings.

2. In line 224-226 it is mentioned that “Previous studies have associated headaches, itching, increased facial temperatures, and humidity with the 195 N95 and could be contributing to some choosing looser fitting masks over respirators” followed by in text citation of reference number 30 and 32. However, reference number 30 does not have any supporting findings. Please remove reference number 30 [“Christopher L, Rohr-Kirchgraber T, & Mark S.. The PPE pandemic: Sex-related discrepancies of N95 mask fit. European Medical Journal. https://www.emjreviews.com/microbiology-infectious-diseases/article/the-ppe 428 pandemic-sex-related-discrepancies-of-n95-mask-fit-j100121/. Published 2021 Dec. 22. Accessed 2023 Aug. 15”] and keep only 32 [“Scheid JL, Lupien SP, Ford GS, West SL. Commentary: Physiological and sychological Impact of Face Mask Usage during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18):6655. Published 2020 Sep 12. doi:10.3390/ijerph17186655”] here, or if needed add other relevant references.

Your manuscript demonstrates considerable promise, and I am confident that addressing these points will enhance the robustness of your research.

Reviewer #2: The article is on impact of various motivational factors on individual choice of masks or respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic. The article is important to scientific community, however lacks many important details and analysis. It can be improved by heeding my comments, suggestion, and queries.

1) The 1st sentence of the introduction mentions the place from where the pandemic emerged. There is still lack of proof of source of COVID-19, and mentioning a certain city as source may not be appropriate. The source is considered to be from a non-human species which could be native to any country. Instead of direct reference, use words like 'may have', or 'most probably have emerged'

2) The requirement and selection of masks and respirators cannot be generalised to USA only. different nations have been using masks on daily basis even pre COVID-19. The current study is only valid for the 619 English speaking participants and their country.

3) Air flow resistance has less to do with masks then with respiratory disease. The term 'airflow resistance' should be removed. Stick only with 'breathability'.

4) The exclusion criteria is already mentioned in lines 111-112 “Sample selection excluded individuals below the age of 18 and non-English speakers” mentioning it again as the inclusion criteria is not needed in line 116 “were only 116 English speakers and adults older than 18”

5) There is no clarity on how the participants were recruited. please clarify this.

6) Please give explanation on the validation of data collection.

7) The methodology is not defined clearly, which creates confusion to go through the manuscript. also, mention the sample size to show the reliability of the study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-17804R1Examination of Factors that Impact Mask or Respirator Purchase and Usage During the COVID-19 PandemicPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sinan Sousan,

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.

1. Additionally, please provide explanation of data validation.2. Please compact abstract and conclusion part.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 06 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,

Sadia Ilyas, Ph.D.

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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.

Examination of Factors that Impact Mask or Respirator Purchase and Usage During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PONE-D-24-17804R2

Dear Dr. Author,

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,

Sadia Ilyas, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: