https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9809-3326
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionAugust 14, 2023 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Fikrie, 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 Dec 17 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:
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, Yitagesu Habtu Aweke, 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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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 If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.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.] 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: 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: 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: I) Unfortunately, neither the pages nor the lines are numbered. So for better understanding the first page will be the title page of the article (auxiliary table must be skipped) and lines will be numbered from the top of each pages, including empty. page2 line12 Epi-data version 3.1 On page 6 line 22 text «Epi-data version 4.6» is given, please, bring this into compliance page6 line 22 Epi-data version 4.6 On page 2 line 12 text «Epi-data version 3.1» is given, please, bring this into compliance page 6 chapter Study variables and operational definitions Information about variables “Knowledge” and “Attitude” is given, please, add information about variable “Practice of Telemedicine” page 7 line 17 83.05% On the Figure 1 is 78.13%, please, bring this into compliance page 7 line 19 33% On the Figure 1 is 35.63%, please, bring this into compliance page 7 line 26 (69.0%) On the Figure 2 is 89.9%, please, bring this into compliance page 7 line 27 (67.3%) On the Figure 2 is 89.2%, please, bring this into compliance page 8 line 25 (1.09-5.82)) 1.00 in the table, please, bring this into compliance Fig.2 3D graph It’s not necessary to use 3 dimensional picture to show two variables, be better if you use 2dimensional picture. Fig.2 Legend or “Do you know the types or classification of telemedicine?” It's possible the colors are mixed up, please, bring this into compliance page 14 line 7 Triangulate Could you, please, explain this II) Some grammatical notes page 8 line 22 After controlling the potential confounding variables by a multivariable analysis; Age≥36 years (AOR 2.99, 95%CI=1.18-7.60),being medical doctor (AOR 3.91 95% CI=1.15-13.25), Having good knowledge (AOR 2.75 95%CI (1.54-4.89)), Presence of information sharing culture (AOR 3.95, 95%CI (1.16-13.45)), presence of practicing platform (AOR 3.01, 95%CI (1.06-8.53)) and presence of government commitment (AOR 2.52, 95%CI (1.09-5.82)) were found to be significantly associated with telemedicine service utilization After controlling the potential confounding variables by a multivariable analysis the following were found to be significantly associated with telemedicine service utilization: age≥36 years (AOR 2.99, 95%CI=1.18-7.60),being medical doctor (AOR 3.91 95% CI=1.15-13.25), Having good knowledge (AOR 2.75 95%CI (1.54-4.89)), Presence of information sharing culture (AOR 3.95, 95%CI (1.16-13.45)), presence of practicing platform (AOR 3.01, 95%CI (1.06-8.53)) and presence of government commitment (AOR 2.52, 95%CI (1.09-5.82)). page 9 line 12 counter parts counteparts page 13 line 15 counter parts counterparts page 10 line 1 governmentcommitment government commitment page 9 line 11 governmentalcommitted governmental committed page 9 line 2 Health professionals who are age ≥36 years were nearly 3 times more likely of utilizing telemedicine services than those health professions with younger of age groupof age Health professionals who are age ≥36 years were nearly 3 times more likely of utilizing telemedicine services than those health professions from younger of age group (of age <25 years). page 8 line 10 mmore more page 5 line 28 scale scales page 11 line provider Specialist, person page 11 line 18 provider Specialist, person page 12 line 14 providers Specialist, person III) Some technical notes page 3 line 8 Telehealth[2,3].Telehealth space page 3 line 18 involvedthe space page 3 line 26 long-termas space page 3 line 29 effectivenessduring space page 3 line 30 recognized[10,11, 13].The space page 4 line 1 [11,12].Different space page 4 line 5 [18].In space page 4 line 6 [5].Although space page 5 line 11 407.A space page 5 line 19 techniquesand space page 7 line 12 profession,nearly space page 9 line 2 groupof space page 9 line 18 30-39.6%],54.1% space page 9 line 19 [95%CI: 21.6-30.2%]of space page 10 line 6 andBangladesh space page 10 line 8 a [23],and space page 10 line 16 [24],Karachi, space page 10 line 16 [14].However space page 13 line 14 governmentalcommitted space page 13 line 15 hospitalshave space page 14 line 1 knowledgeregarding space page 8 line 16 respondentused space page 9 line 10 (1.54-4.89)].On space page 3 line 28 patients[6].and dot page 4 line 11 [20]. were dot page 12 line 4 [18]. and Libya dot See reviewer attachment Reviewer #2: The effort of authors to highlight the factors affecting telemedicine usage in Public hospitals is welcoming and would help to improve quality of care. Please clarify the data in Table 23, the total no. of participants in each group (n) along with proportions(%), which will help in interpreting results clearly ********** 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: Lukianova Elena 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 |
|
PONE-D-23-25592R1Telemedicine Service Utilization and associated factors among Health Professionals Working at Selected Public Hospitals in Southern Ethiopia: A Facility Based Cross Sectional StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fikrie, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 19 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 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, Mohammed Hasen Badeso, MPH in Field Epidemiology 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.] 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 Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: (No Response) ********** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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 Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: 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 is accepted Dear authors, please, preparing final version of manuscript for publication pay attention on Figure 2 and text "184<...>. Only 47(11.5%) of the respondent know about the types or 185 classification of telemedicine (Figure: 2)." It means that 11,5% must be blue color, and 88,5% must be orange color. Reviewer #2: The comments have been suitably addressed, and the article is presented in a manner that maintains a smooth and coherent flow. Reviewer #3: General comments - It would have been good if the draft manuscript could have line number. - The paper needs substantial editorial and grammar issues Specific comments and suggestions 1. Title: - Since authors didn’t use any special study design, I suggest to remove ‘A Facility Based Cross-sectional Study’ 2. Authors list: - Give space between the middle and last name for the author ‘Wako GolichaWako’ - Put the sign ‘*’ to depict the first author (Anteneh Fikrie) after the supperscript1 3. Authors Affiliation - For author 2 and 5: what does ‘Pharma College Hawassa Campus’ do you mean College of Pharmacy, Hawasa Compus’? What does South Ethiopia mean? If it is the name of the region, please add the country name Ethiopia after comma? - For author 3: Could you make the initial letter of the words ‘program focal person’ to uppercase? - For author 4: Could you make the initial letter of the words ‘airborn force level’ to uppercase? - In general, I suggest to critical review the affiliation section 4. Abstract part - In the conclusion section, how can you say ‘overall attitude of these healthcare professionals towards telemedicine was highly positive’? (As compared to what cutoff point is your finding 54.1% ‘highly positive’???) - Your recommendation should be based on your finding? Have you assessed the user-friendliness of the platforms and obtained that it was a concern for the health professionals? 5. Introduction part - Make your citation style consistent (citation 1 &2). - Insert the citation after space (3rd and 6th lines) - Better to start by intruding your area of interest ‘telemedicine’. As to me the first 10 lines are not relevant for readers. - Needs substantial editing as there are various editorial issues such as space before citation and after full stop (Pages 8, 9, 10…..) and punctuation marks (page 10, unnecessary full stop mark after the reference [20]). - In page 10 (5th and 6th lines) you stated ‘In Ethiopia Telemedicine services are increasingly ……..[5]’, however your reference is about telehealth guideline ‘Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH). Tele health guideline practical tips.2020’. Could you check it out again??? - In general your introduction section is not well articulated. I suggest reorganize it again using the following structure? Background of the study (what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic) � importance / main motivation of the study (why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds) � properly formulate the research question and be specific on research objective � prospective contribution and �finally, the introduction will finish with the "structure of the manuscript". 6. Methods part Study design, setting, and period section � In this section you missed the setting. Please add background information about the study settings (population, number of health facilities/hospitals (of which how many of them are pilot hospitals for telemedicine implementation), the number of health professionals specifically those who are expected to be involved in telemedicine implementation…..?) � How the five hospitals were selected? And why? Population, sample size determination, and sampling procedure section � In this section, I suggest to remove the exclusion criteria ‘Health professionals who were seriously ill’, unless you came across individuals who were serious ill during your data collection. However, if you encountered individuals who were seriously ill it is better to report it. � In sample size calculation you used unpublished paper for the proportion (ref: 23) why??? � You missed to introduce the very important part the sampling procedure. How do you approach the final 407 study participants? Data collection tools techniques and quality assurance � In this section, you missed the number of items used to measure telemedicine service utilization/practice. 7. Result part � Since you didn’t operationalize telemedicine utilization, how do you come across with the overall prevalence (proportion) of the service to be 26%???? � Needs revision 8. Discussion part � In page 16, ‘The possible explanation could be due to that the studies were conducted with smaller sample size and -------- high level professional or health tier system’, however the explanation contradicts your finding. This because according to your explanation, the current study was conducted with larger sample size compared to the other studies. If so how?? � How ‘sociodemographic characteristics and geographical distribution of the study participants’ affect the attitude of telemedicine utilization, so long as you are comparing health professionals working in hospitals??? � Since some of the references used for the explanation part not comparable, your explanations are not convincing. � The discussion section is very shallow and needs extensive revision Reviewer #4: The authors measure latent variables with simple Yes/No questions that cannot be directly observed but is estimated based on a series of observed variables. For example presence of an information sharing culture, presence of a practicing platform, and presence of government commitment.... what criterias need to met to say ''Yes'' (i.e presence of an information sharing culture, presence of a practicing platform, and presence of government commitment). Either you use established questions that have been validated in prior studies. Then you also have to weigh them together in roughly the same way that was validated before (Need to be operationalized). Reviewer #5: 1. The title, objective and dependent variables are not in correspondence. 2. The study population has to be operationalized or you should show the difference of utilization by cadre, if possible 3. serious clarification and permission of RHBs is mandatory to made the study ethically sounding, because the study was conducted in pilot area and it seems program evaluation. 4. line number 44-46 should be revised or omitted. 5. conclusion and recommendation should comprehensive and specific to the result of findings 6. line 59-60 is not as such essential 7. some of references were miscited that you have go through them. 8. line number 85-90 is not clear (negative conjunction simultaneously) 9. selection criteria of health facilities have to clearly stated 10. p-value used for sample size calculation was smaller than the result of some other articles (57.4% of the published article conducted in Northwest Ethiopia) 11. for which variable you calculated Cronbach's alpha? make it clear 12. since, the response of participants is 100%, why non-response rate, was used?? 13. How could you compute the availability of practicing platform to become 78.13%? From the table of factors we find that the sum total of participants who responded yes for availability of platform were 99+230=329 that give us 329/407%=80.83. 14. in discussion section, no evidence that support the significance of the above variables with knowledge, attitude and practice/utilization of telemedicine. Please, be specific and evidence based. ********** 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: Lukianova Elena Reviewer #2: Yes: Mandula Phani Priya Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: 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 2 |
|
PONE-D-23-25592R2Telemedicine Service Utilization and associated factors among Health Professionals Working at Selected Public Hospitals in Southern Ethiopia: A Facility Based Cross Sectional StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fikrie, 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 manuscript has been evaluated by three reviewers, and their comments are available below. Although reviewers 1 and 2 are now satisfied with the revised manuscript, reviewer 3 still has some concerns (see comments below). Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised? Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 19 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 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, Steve Zimmerman, PhD Senior 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.] 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 Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 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 Reviewer #3: (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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The article may be accepted as the comments have been appropriately addressed. There are no additional comments Reviewer #3: I am grateful for the opportunity to review the revised version of this manuscript. I appreciate that authors have tried to respond on the comments point-by-point. However, still there are some issues to be addressed as mentioned below to increase the visibility of the paper. Good luck! 1. Introduction part - Still I am not sure that you have used an appropriate citation style? What kind of citation style you have used? [1, & 2] 2. Methods part � How the five hospitals (Leku Primary hospital, Shone Primary Hospital, Shinshicho Primary Hospital and Wacha Primary Hospitals) were selected? And why? Are they the only hospitals and you included all? Data collection tools techniques and quality assurance � In this section, you missed the number of items used to measure telemedicine service utilization/practice. I am not clear with your response; do you mean that you measured utilization using a single “Yes” or “No” question? Or more…… Please try to state clearly in this section. 3. Result part � Since you didn’t operationalize telemedicine utilization, how do you come across with the overall prevalence (proportion) of the service to be 26%???? � This comment is similar to the comment given above ********** 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: Elena Lukianova Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
|
| Revision 3 |
|
PONE-D-23-25592R3Telemedicine Service Utilization and associated factors among Health Professionals Working at Selected Public Hospitals in Southern Ethiopia: A Facility Based Cross Sectional StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fikrie, 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 revise based on my comments below to focus revisions on the most pressing revision concerns. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 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, Amanuel Yoseph, MPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: I critically reviewed your article entitled “Telemedicine Service Utilization and associated factors among Health Professionals Working at Selected Public Hospitals in Southern Ethiopia: A Facility Based Cross Sectional Study” which has the potential to add to the existing body of scientific knowledge, particularly in developing countries. However, there are some limitations in your article that need addressing before publication. 1. There are several grammatical and typological errors that authors need to carefully review. 2. Authors should extensively format manuscripts based on PLOS ONE journal style, including file naming. Avoid unnecessary italicizing and capitalization throughout the manuscript. 3. Make sure that your reference contains all the necessary details and PLOS ONE style. 4. Authors should be focusing only on the most recent comments from the 4 reviewers (Reviewers 8, 10, 12, and 14 comments) at this time to revise the manuscript. 5. Decision: Major revision [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 #6: (No Response) Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #8: (No Response) Reviewer #9: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #10: (No Response) Reviewer #11: (No Response) Reviewer #12: (No Response) Reviewer #13: (No Response) Reviewer #14: (No Response) ********** 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 #6: (No Response) Reviewer #7: Yes Reviewer #8: Partly Reviewer #9: Partly Reviewer #10: Yes Reviewer #11: Yes Reviewer #12: Partly Reviewer #13: Yes Reviewer #14: (No Response) ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #6: (No Response) Reviewer #7: Yes Reviewer #8: No Reviewer #9: Yes Reviewer #10: Yes Reviewer #11: Yes Reviewer #12: Yes Reviewer #13: Yes Reviewer #14: (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 #6: (No Response) Reviewer #7: Yes Reviewer #8: No Reviewer #9: Yes Reviewer #10: Yes Reviewer #11: Yes Reviewer #12: Yes Reviewer #13: Yes Reviewer #14: (No Response) ********** 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 #6: (No Response) Reviewer #7: Yes Reviewer #8: Yes Reviewer #9: Yes Reviewer #10: Yes Reviewer #11: Yes Reviewer #12: No Reviewer #13: Yes Reviewer #14: No ********** 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 #6: Dear Editor, Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript titled “Telemedicine Service Utilization and Associated Factors Among Health Professionals Working at Selected Public Hospitals in Southern Ethiopia." I have carefully reviewed the manuscript and the authors’ responses to the previous reviewers’ comments. While the authors have addressed most of the initial concerns, several areas require further clarification. Specifically, I recommend the following revisions: • Consistency: Ensure consistency in terminology between the title, objectives, and dependent variable, particularly regarding "telemedicine service utilization" and "telemedicine service practice." • Clarity: Revise the statements on line 31, 42-44, and 92. • Keyword Optimization: Refine keywords based on the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) for improved discoverability. • Data Collection Tool Transparency: Include a detailed description of the tool used to measure knowledge, attitudes, and practices, including any cited references. Consider attaching the questionnaire as supplementary material. • Regarding the data availability statement, I recommend making the dataset publicly accessible through a reputable repository. Alternatively, providing it as a supplementary document upon manuscript submission would be beneficial to the research community. Addressing these points will significantly enhance the manuscript's quality and its contribution to the scientific discourse on telemedicine service utilization among healthcare professionals. Sincerely, Jenenu Getu Bekele (MSc, MPH) Wolaita Sodo University Reviewer #7: As I have already attached my comments in the document I suggest that better to add limitation and implication of the study. Reviewer #8: Title: The term "Telemedicine Service Utilization" is not properly addressed in your study. Please revise it or incorporate the comments below. Method: The question you used to measure practice is not only very limited but also inaccurate. Asking about the presence of a practicing platform cannot determine actual practice. Furthermore, how can you draw conclusions from a single question? Similarly, the questions regarding the presence of an information-sharing culture and government commitment are insufficient for making conclusions. Why did you use only a quantitative data collection method? I recommend conducting qualitative research to triangulate your findings. Please develop a new data collection tool that includes questions related to actual practice, conduct a qualitative study, and revise the entire paper accordingly. Results and Discussion: All results and discussions should be revised based on the changes made in the methods section. Reviewer #9: the previous reviewers have elicited important points and the authors have replied clearly to the comments. the write up is clear and has good flow for readers. the topic is interesting nd highlights that despite the pilot programs present in the heath facilities, staffs are not aware of it. there is gap that needs to be worked on. the authors have disclosed the financial and ethicl issues clearly. Reviewer #10: On topic : it should be specific and more sounding if it is in line with the aim/rationale of the study, so i would suggest that the topic be modified to reflect the magnitude of telemedicine utilisation and associated factors among health professionals Working at Selected Public Hospitals in Southern Ethiopia on the abstract part: Specify the collected data and its presentation for the reader (what type of data was collected (socio-demographic, clinical, or medical) and how these collected data were presented (by figures, tables, and frequencies) since the abstract is the whole summary of your document/work. On the introduction part:on line 80, add the bracket and correct, as more than half (56%) of health professionals had good health knowledge of telemedicine On the method part, avoid naming the same place or region differently.eg Sidama on line 98 and sideman on line 101 on eligibility criteria: Why exclude healthy professionals with less than six months of experience in clinical practice? Would you encounter these healthy professionals during actual data collection, or what is the connection between telemedicine utilisation and duration of employment???????? would you mean six years or six months since your work experience categories were 6-10 years 11–15 years and >15 years on discussion part: The discussion in general seems to be a comparison of studies conducted on the same or related topic previously rather than justifications of your finding! I suggest being justified, and please justify your findings in relation to other studies conducted on similar topics or related topics. Limitations of study: how will the cross-sectional nature of the study be a limitation of the study???????? from the beginning, your study design could plan to carry out the cross-sectional study design. I suggest it is better to avoid or omit it Reviewer #11: Very interesting publication. The authors provide a clear explanation of methods and results. The discussion highlights their findings and places ii in the context of previous studies while providing explanation for any variations seen. I have the following comments: 1. Line 42. The sentence “Furthermore, factors such as age ≥ 36 years, being a medical doctor, having good knowledge, 43 presence of an information sharing culture, availability of a practicing platform, and government 44 commitment. “ doesn’t have an end 2. Line 129 “none-response rate” -> nonresponse rate 3. Line 184: “p-value <0.25” There is a very high significance value set. Can the authors please justify this choice. 4. AOR was used by the authors did not mention for which factors the adjustment was undertaken. 5. Paragraph 1 of the discussion is a repetion of the results. Can the authors please summarize in a few sentences and provide a general overview of their results instead.? Reviewer #12: Title: Telemedicine Service Utilization and associated factors among Health Professionals Working at Selected Public Hospitals in Southern Ethiopia: A Facility Based Cross Sectional Study Abstract The abstract has several strengths but also areas that could be improved for clarity, conciseness, and adherence to standard academic practices. Here are some suggestions for modifications: 1. Objectives: does not align with the title 2. Results: the study identified several factors associated with knowledge, attitude and practice of Telemedicine in the study area. However, only factors associated with telemedicine utilization was presented. Why this happened? 3. Use of Abbreviations: Ensure that all abbreviations are defined upon first use. For instance, AOR should be defined as "Adjusted Odds Ratio" when it first appears. Same for CI and others if any. 4. Keywords: Consider including more specific keywords that reflect the study's unique aspects, such as "healthcare professionals," "Ethiopia," and "telemedicine utilization." How pilot hospital? 5. Conclusion Clarity: The conclusion could be more impactful by summarizing the implications of the findings. For example, "The study highlights a significant gap in knowledge and practice regarding telemedicine among health professionals, despite a positive attitude towards it. This suggests the need for targeted educational interventions and supportive policies. Introduction The introduction presents a comprehensive overview of telemedicine and its context in Ethiopia. However, there are several areas that could benefit from modifications to enhance clarity, coherence, and academic rigor. Here are some comments and suggestions for improvement: 1. Redundancy: Some points are repeated, such as the definition of telemedicine and its benefits. Streamlining these sections will make the introduction more concise. For example, you can combine sentences that discuss the definition and benefits of telemedicine into a single, clear statement. 2. Avoid Colloquialisms: Phrases like "healing at a distance" may be too informal for an academic paper. Consider using a more formal equivalent, such as "remote medical care." 3. Grammatical Corrections: There are several grammatical issues, such as missing spaces after punctuation and inconsistent use of terms (e.g., "Telemedicine" vs. "telemedicine"). Proofreading for grammar and consistency will enhance the professionalism of the writing. 4. Research Gap: Clearly articulate the research gap that this study aims to address. While the introduction mentions low utilization rates, it could explicitly state how this study will contribute to filling that gap, perhaps by focusing on specific factors influencing telemedicine utilization among health professionals. Methods 1. The section on population, sample size determination, and sampling procedure appears to be well-designed and comprehensive. However, there are a few areas that could be improved for clarity and consistency: a. Specify the reason for excluding health professionals with less than six months of working experience. Is it because they may not have adequate knowledge of telemedicine services? b. Describe the process of simple random sampling in more detail. For example, mention if a random number generator or a lottery method was used to select participants. c. Clearly describe source and study population 2. The section on data collection tools, techniques, and quality assurance contains valuable information but could benefit from several modifications a. Knowledge Assessment: Clarify how the knowledge questions were selected and validated. For instance, mention whether the questions were derived from existing literature or developed specifically for this study. b. Scoring System: Explain the rationale behind the scoring system for knowledge assessment. Why was a 2-point scale chosen, and how does it align with the study's objectives? Same for attitude and practice. c. Proofreading for Grammar and Punctuation: Review the text for grammatical errors and punctuation issues. For example, "Twenty three five point Likert scale" should be corrected to "Twenty-three items using a five-point Likert scale." d. Quality Assurance Measures: Include specific quality assurance measures that were implemented during data collection. For example, describe any steps taken to ensure the reliability and validity of the data, such as pilot testing the questionnaire or conducting inter-rater reliability checks. 3. Data processing and analysis a. Clearer Description of Data Cleaning: Elaborate on the data cleaning process. For example, specify what types of errors were checked for during cleaning (e.g., missing values, outliers). b. Statistical Analysis Details: Provide more details on the statistical methods used. For example, clarify how the bivariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were performed, including any specific criteria for variable selection beyond the p-value threshold. c. Handling of Non-Response: Discuss how non-responses were handled in the analysis. Were any adjustments made to account for this in the statistical analysis? d. Grammar and Punctuation issues Discussion The discussion section of the manuscript presents several areas that could benefit from modifications to enhance clarity, coherence, and overall quality. Here are key suggestions for improvement: a. Organization: The discussion should be organized thematically. Consider structuring it into subsections such as "Knowledge of Telemedicine," "Attitudes Towards Telemedicine," and "Utilization of Telemedicine." This will help readers follow the arguments more easily. b. Statistical Reporting: Ensure that all statistical data are presented consistently. For example, use a uniform format for confidence intervals and percentages throughout the section. c. Comparative Analysis: When discussing findings in relation to other studies, provide a clearer context for comparisons. Explain why certain studies may show different results and discuss potential reasons for discrepancies in findings more thoroughly. d. Limitations: The limitations section should be more explicit. While some limitations are mentioned, such as the reliance on quantitative data, it would be beneficial to elaborate on how these limitations might affect the interpretation of the results. e. Grammar and Syntax: Review the text for grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. f. Conciseness: Some sentences are overly long and complex. Aim for brevity and clarity. For example, instead of "This might be because, as the age of the provider increases their experience, skills, and knowledge towards specific profession became immense as they are continuously working on it," consider simplifying to "As providers age, their experience and skills typically increase due to continuous practice." g. Avoid Redundancy: Eliminate repetitive statements. For example, the discussion on the relationship between age and knowledge is mentioned multiple times. Consolidate these points to strengthen the argument. h. Concluding Remarks: The conclusion should succinctly summarize the implications of the findings and suggest practical recommendations for policy and practice based on the results. Reviewer #13: The manuscript was relevant and well written. But it will be more enhanced if it incorporated the following points METHODS 1. It is better to describe the number of health care available at the region and describe the method you used to select the two health cares 2. It sounds good if the researchers describe why they choose cross sectional design over others. 3. As described in the paper they used simple random sampling for the selection of participants. It would be much better if they describe sampling frame and the way participants selected randomly. 4. Give some description on how the self-administered question validated? 5. Discussion on why you use bi-variable and multivariable binary logistic regression over other statistical methods 6. It is better to use published paper for your sample size determination ON RESULT SECTION 1. Government commitment association with telemedicineutilization give some details if specific action or policies influenced this outcome. 2. You mentioned the consistency of your result with other findings. Just give more detailed comparison with those studies and give if there is any fallacy 3. Discuss the limitation of your study and how it affect your result interpretation 4. What further research are you going suggest based on your present result? Reviewer #14: (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 #6: Yes: Jenenu Getu Bekele Reviewer #7: No Reviewer #8: Yes: Robel Sahilu Bekele Reviewer #9: No Reviewer #10: No Reviewer #11: No Reviewer #12: Yes: Gemechu Gelan Bekele Reviewer #13: No Reviewer #14: 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 4 |
|
Magnitude of telemedicine utilization and associated factors among health professionals working at Selected Public Hospitals in Southern Ethiopia PONE-D-23-25592R4 Dear Dr. Anteneh, 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, Amanuel Yoseph, MPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear authors I feel so sorry to invite several reviewers for this manuscript, which was already reviewed and decided acceptance by two reviewers during the first and second revisions. Besides, one reviewer made an acceptance decision for this manuscript during the third revision. Now I critically reviewed responses to reviewers regarding the article entitled “Magnitude of telemedicine utilization and associated factors among health professionals working at Selected Public Hospitals in Southern Ethiopia,” which has the potential to add to the existing body of scientific knowledge, particularly in developing countries. All the issues raised during the review processes were well addressed. To avoid unnecessary further delay, I decided this manuscript was formal accepted for publication in its current form. Decision: Accept Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-23-25592R4 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fikrie, 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. Amanuel Yoseph 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 .