PONE-D-23-18592Perception and coping mechanisms among diabetes mellitus patients at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria, during the COVID-19 pandemicPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bolarinwa,

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 Nov 09 2023 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,

Livhuwani Muthelo

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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) 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.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authour

Thank you for submitting the paper titled: Perception and coping mechanisms among diabetes mellitus patients at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria, during the COVID-19 pandemic to Plos one Journal

We are pleased to let you know that your manuscript has now passed through the review stage and is ready for major revision. Many manuscripts require a round of revisions, so this is a normal but important stage of the editorial process. The manuscript has the potentialto be published but may not be accepted if the authors do not address substantive issues

REVIEWER 1:

I reviewed an article entitled “Perception and coping mechanisms among diabetes mellitus patients at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria, during the COVID-19 pandemic”. It was interesting to read. A few changes were required to improve the general structure of the work.

The abstract is relatively long and may exceed the maximum number of words permitted. It might be enhanced by condensing the introductory and conclusion sections. The results should clearly state the themes and subthemes that emerged from the investigation in the first place and please provide a brief explanation for each subtheme.

Overall, you have justified your research nicely in the introduction. However, the method needs to be modified so that it answers the research's objectives and title.

The study's title clearly states that the research mostly featured Dm patients, and you are interested in learning about their perceptions and coping mechanisms while dealing with the management of DM and pandemic covid-19. However, you did include two professional healthcare workers as respondents in your method. Please explain why they were added.

How did you select participants for the qualitative study? Please give a citation for your response.

How did you assure the respondents' diversity?

Please omit the word “only” in your description of study criteria. Restructure your statement to make the grammar more readable.Restructure your statement to make the grammar more readable.

Who developed the questions for data collection? How do the questions appear? Please give an example of the questions that were asked. Who verifies each of the questions before they are used? How many times did the verification procedure occur?

What if the appointment was cancelled or the participant was unable to keep to the schedule because the interview was held in a hospital setting? How many times did the interview take place in total? How did you conduct the interview? Did you use a local language or English? Please provide specifics.

In terms of data analysis, please describe in detail the thematic process that you used in the study. Who checked the interview verbatim and was it shown to the respondents before it was processed further?

The four requirements to grow trustworthiness and establish rigors were credibility (internal validity), transferability (external validity/generalizability), dependability (reliability), and confirmability (objectivity), how did you confirm all of these aspects?

Because the involvement of two healthcare personnel did not connect well with the title of the study, the study's results require significant restructure. You may incorporate their feedback into another research project. As a result, all of the themes and subthemes must be readjusted.

Please offer specific demographic information about respondents using a qualitative method. This is necessary to see the variability of the individuals selected for the study.

I will go over the discussion after I have the amended version of the work, especially if the results have been corrected.

REVIEWER 2

This is an important study. The quality of the manuscript can be improved Several grammatical and spelling errors noted. Inconsistencies in the use of DM patients/ diabetes patients and sampling method noted. The recruitment, inclusion criteria for the health care professionals is not included. The findings section needs to be reworked. It is lengthy with repetition and no flow. Reporting the healthcare professionals and the patients' quotes under one theme without a clear description together with lack of introductory sentences before direct quotes distorted the findings section. Please revise. Please consider rewording the conclusion to make the statements shorter, clearer and more impactful to the reader. Kindly see an annotated copy with the comments and suggestions.

[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: No

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: No

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: I reviewed an article entitled “Perception and coping mechanisms among diabetes mellitus patients at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria, during the COVID-19 pandemic”. It was interesting to read. A few changes were required to improve the general structure of the work.

The abstract is relatively long and may exceed the maximum number of words permitted. It might be enhanced by condensing the introductory and conclusion sections. The results should clearly state the themes and subthemes that emerged from the investigation in the first place and please provide a brief explanation for each subtheme.

Overall, you have justified your research nicely in the introduction. However, the method needs to be modified so that it answers the research's objectives and title.

The study's title clearly states that the research mostly featured Dm patients, and you are interested in learning about their perceptions and coping mechanisms while dealing with the management of DM and pandemic covid-19. However, you did include two professional healthcare workers as respondents in your method. Please explain why they were added.

How did you select participants for the qualitative study? Please give a citation for your response.

How did you assure the respondents' diversity?

Please omit the word “only” in your description of study criteria. Restructure your statement to make the grammar more readable.Restructure your statement to make the grammar more readable.

Who developed the questions for data collection? How do the questions appear? Please give an example of the questions that were asked. Who verifies each of the questions before they are used? How many times did the verification procedure occur?

What if the appointment was cancelled or the participant was unable to keep to the schedule because the interview was held in a hospital setting? How many times did the interview take place in total? How did you conduct the interview? Did you use a local language or English? Please provide specifics.

In terms of data analysis, please describe in detail the thematic process that you used in the study. Who checked the interview verbatim and was it shown to the respondents before it was processed further?

The four requirements to grow trustworthiness and establish rigors were credibility (internal validity), transferability (external validity/generalizability), dependability (reliability), and confirmability (objectivity), how did you confirm all of these aspects?

Because the involvement of two healthcare personnel did not connect well with the title of the study, the study's results require significant restructure. You may incorporate their feedback into another research project. As a result, all of the themes and subthemes must be readjusted.

Please offer specific demographic information about respondents using a qualitative method. This is necessary to see the variability of the individuals selected for the study.

I will go over the discussion after I have the amended version of the work, especially if the results have been corrected.

Reviewer #2: This is an important study. The quality of the manuscript can be improved Several grammatical and spelling errors noted. Inconsistencies in the use of DM patients/ diabetes patients and sampling method noted. The recruitment, inclusion criteria for the health care professionals is not included. The findings section needs to be reworked. It is lengthy with repetition and no flow. Reporting the healthcare professionals and the patients' quotes under one theme without a clear description together with lack of introductory sentences before direct quotes distorted the findings section. Please revise. Please consider rewording the conclusion to make the statements shorter, clearer and more impactful to the reader. Kindly see an annotated copy with the comments and suggestions.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-18592_Reviewer comments.doc

PONE-D-23-18592R1Perception and coping mechanisms of patients with diabetes mellitus during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ibadan, NigeriaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bolarinwa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The Revised manuscript has been re-reviewed by two reviewers and their comments are available below. Reviewer 2 has requested additional details on the recruitment strategies, interview guides and the roles of the researchers to be reported in the methodology.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 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,

Emma Campbell, Ph.D

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

[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 #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: N/A

**********

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: No

**********

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: I am satisfied with the corrections made. The manuscript looks better and is easier to comprehend. Thank you so much for taking all the comments into consideration. Well done!

Reviewer #2: Methods= study design: reference this information.

Data collection: It is not clear how the participants were recruited. please elaborate. Was there compensation associated with participation in the study? The roles of the researcher/s and research assistants are not clearly outlined. There 4 research assistants, so what were their roles? When was the interview guide pretested? On how many participants? What were the findings of the pretest? Were they included in the main study?

Data analysis: Repetition noted, please proofread and revise. Reference information on thematic data analysis.

Rigour and trustworthiness: The information stated under rigour contradicts a statement made earlier that research assistants were trained anthropologist. Please ensure consistency.

Demographic data and characteristics: Line 237-239: Include the duration in years to avoid confusion and inconsistency. Repetition noted.

Line 362, 392, 472 and 479: typo= please correct.

Include an introductory sentence under telehealth.

Table 2: write the themes in full

**********

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: 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.

Perception and coping mechanisms of patients with diabetes mellitus during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ibadan, Nigeria

PONE-D-23-18592R2

Dear Dr. Bolanrinwa

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,

Sylla Thiam, M.D, MPH

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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: I have made my decision to accept this work and will not change it. The manuscript was well written after the revisions, and all concerns have been addressed appropriately. Well done.

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********