Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in the workplace in the Middle East and North Africa: A scoping review protocol

Malak Ghezzawi; Sasha Fahme; Reem Al Sabbagh; Salpy Naalbandian; Jocelyn DeJong; WOMENA Study Group

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312037

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 23, 2024
13 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Olushayo Oluseun Olu, Editor PONE-D-24-14479Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Women in the Workplace in the Middle East and North Africa: A Scoping Review ProtocolPLOS ONE Dear Dr. DeJong, 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 Sep 27 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, Olushayo Oluseun Olu 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: “This study is supported by a two-year grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in Canada under the reference number 110025.” 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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. 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. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: There is no explanation for data sets as this is a scoping review. My Comments have been uploaded in the attached document. Reviewer #2: The manuscript does not effectively convey a clear protocol and and what its relevance and contribution to knowledge will be. Reviewer #3: This manuscript titled “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Women in the Workplace in the Middle East and North Africa: A Scoping Review Protocol “ is well written and its methodology well detailed. It should prove useful for policy in the MENA region and add useful data and insight to research in a much needed area. I however ,have listed few points that the writers need to resolve below. 1)Notably, women constitute an sizable share of the healthcare and education sectors in MENA, two sectors disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (5, 6). What is this share? -elaborate with numbers and statistics for better clarity. Grammar correction for the underlined highlighted words above- a sizeable share 2)The review will consider studies conducted in all MENA countries which meet World Bank criteria as low- or middle-income, including Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen. List out all the countries eligible for the study expressly= do not use including… 3)Ethical consideration. Ethical approval is not required for this review of the published, peer-reviewed literature. Submission to ethic review is important and gives confidence that a local oversight role is available and applied . I would suggest submission for ethics consideration; an official documented waiver can then be granted . This waiver is quoted in lieu of ethical approval. ****** 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 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Peer Review of the Manuscript.docx Attachment Submitted filename: Comment.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312037.r001
Revision 1
23 Sep 2024 Author Response Journal: PLOS One PONE-D-24-14479 23-09-2024 Re: Manuscript entitled “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Women in the Workplace in the Middle East and North Africa: A Scoping Review Protocol Dear Editor, On behalf of all co-authors, we would like to thank you and the reviewers for the time spent on reviewing our work, as well as the valuable comments that helped us improve the quality of our manuscript”. All comments have been addressed, as can be seen in the point-by-point response to the comments by reviewers below. Following each of the reviewers’ comments we have responded to each point that the reviewer makes that requires revision. All authors confirm that the manuscript is not under consideration in any other journal and that no conflict of interest exists. All authors have read and approved the submission of this manuscript. Yours sincerely, Jocelyn DeJong, PhD Associate Provost and Professor at the Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon Email: Jd16@aub.edu.lb Reviewer #1 We would like to thank the Reviewer for the time spent on our work and the valuable comments. Summary Of review: The protocol is describing the study design for a study that the authors intend to undertake synthesizing the evidence on occupational health outcomes for women workers in the MENA region and their impact on the health (mental and physical) of the women. This is a very important research question that will enable the identification of regional priorities for occupational health for women in MENA, an important barrier to participation in the workforce. Background and context: The general context of the study is well explained, outlining the global and regional evidence on women occupational health and the related challenges arising from COVID 19 at a global level. It also presents the general landscape of female participation in the workforce and the related health challenges. Given the fact that COVID 19 in general exacerbated many health-related aspects, the decision to conduct the scoping review is indeed valid. In terms of objectives of the study: The primary outcome of the study is the mental and physical health wellbeing of women workers. The objectives could be nuanced a bit given that it is informing the research methods of a larger project. It would be good to include an objective on the state of evidence itself. The types of studies that have been done and the quality therein. It should also identify the gaps in evidence if any. The authors state in the inclusion criteria that “Studies conducted among populations within the countries of interest on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or country of origin will not be excluded, as the review aims to examine experiences of diverse populations of women workers, including migrant workers and refugees. This kind of nuance should be brought formally upfront as part of the specific objectives and secondary outcomes of interest in the review. The exclusion criteria are well spelt out and comprehensive enough to establish the state of the evidence relevant to the primary objectives and secondary objectives including the impact on the diversity in the population. The time range on the study: Since some cases of post COVID syndrome/Long COVID have been known to appear months after the case, it might be prudent to have a longer period to capture any study that highlights cases of mental and physical health challenges that arose after the pandemic ended. The methods adopted for study selection, data extraction and process are aligned with PRISMA guidelines. The use of COVIDENCE is appropriate for dealing with duplicates. The Data analysis plan is also clear and concise. Overall Recommendation: Consider for publication with minor changes summarized below. I need not review. • Elaborate the objectives of the study and nuance them to reflect the entire scope of what the study intends to achieve as highlighted above. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the objectives of our scoping review to include a focus on the state of evidence, historical context, and identification of evidence gaps. The manuscript has been edited accordingly to reflect these updates. • Reconsider the time limits of the study to reflect the possibility of post Covid syndrome and studies that have documented these outcomes. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your observation regarding the timeframe for including studies related to the pandemic. We had chosen this cut-off date because it was 3 months after the official end of the pandemic, as declared by WHO. In response to your comment, we agree that extending the search period would provide a more comprehensive inclusion of relevant studies, particularly those with longitudinal and comparative data that may have been published after the pandemic's official end. We will therefore revise our search strategy to include studies published up until August 2024. This extension will ensure that our review captures the most recent and relevant research related to the pandemic and its impacts. For practical reasons due to research funding, we are not able to extend the period beyond that. The manuscript has been edited accordingly. Reviewer #2 We would like to thank the Reviewer for the time spent on our work and the valuable comments. The manuscript does not effectively convey a clear protocol and what its relevance and contribution to knowledge will be. Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your concerns and would like to clarify the contributions of this protocol. This protocol is designed to systematically explore the impact of COVID-19 on the health and well-being of women workers in the MENA region. By adhering to established methodological guidelines such as PRISMA-ScR and PRISMA-P, the review ensures rigor and transparency throughout the process, which is crucial for generating reliable and actionable insights. There is a notable lack of comprehensive data on women workers' health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), especially within low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). The available scoping and systematic reviews either exclude the MENA region from global analyses or fail to provide an in-depth exploration of the diverse experiences of women workers across different occupational strata. This omission may be due, in part, to the fact that research from the MENA region is often published in non-English languages, making it less likely to be included in global reviews. Additionally, existing studies often lack a focus on the specific socioeconomic and cultural challenges that uniquely impact women workers in the region. This scoping review aims to fill these gaps by centering on the distinct contexts of women workers in the MENA region. The findings from this review are expected to provide valuable evidence that can inform policies and interventions aimed at improving the health and well-being of women workers in the MENA region. By addressing the challenges these women face, the review will support efforts to attract and retain women in the workforce, ultimately improving the health and well-being of women in the region. The manuscript has been revised accordingly to better reflect these points. Reviewer #3 We would like to thank the Reviewer for the time spent on our work and the valuable comments. This manuscript titled “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Women in the Workplace in the Middle East and North Africa: A Scoping Review Protocol “ is well written and its methodology well detailed. It should prove useful for policy in the MENA region and add useful data and insight to research in a much-needed area. I, however, have listed few points that the writers need to resolve below. 1) Notably, women constitute an sizable share of the healthcare and education sectors in MENA, two sectors disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (5, 6). What is this share? -elaborate with numbers and statistics for better clarity. Thank you for your feedback. We have added specific statistics on the share of women in the healthcare and education sectors in the MENA region to clarify their significant representation. Grammar correction for the underlined highlighted words above- a sizeable share Thank you for your comment. The grammar has been corrected for the underlined word. 2)The review will consider studies conducted in all MENA countries which meet World Bank criteria as low- or middle income, including Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen. List out all the countries eligible for the study expressly= do not use including… Thank you for your comment. The protocol has been edited accordingly to explicitly list all eligible countries for the study. The review will consider studies conducted in the MENA countries that meet the World Bank criteria as low- or middle-income: Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen. Additionally, we have now included Djibouti, Somalia, and Syria to ensure that all low- and middle-income countries in the region are covered. 3)Ethical consideration. Ethical approval is not required for this review of the published, peer-reviewed literature. Submission to ethic review is important and gives confidence that a local oversight role is available and applied. I would suggest submission for ethics consideration; an official documented waiver can then be granted. This waiver is quoted in lieu of ethical approval. Thank you for your comment regarding the ethical considerations for our scoping review protocol. As this review involves the synthesis and presentation of existing, publicly available resources from peer-reviewed literature, it does not require ethics approval. The nature of the study does not involve new data collection, interaction with human participants, or any procedures that typically necessitate ethical oversight. The Ethical Considerations section has been edited accordingly. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: R1 - Protocol_Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312037.r002
30 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Olushayo Oluseun Olu, Editor Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Women in the Workplace in the Middle East and North Africa: A Scoping Review Protocol PONE-D-24-14479R1 Dear Dr. DeJong, 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, Olushayo Oluseun Olu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312037.r003
Formally Accepted
18 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Olushayo Oluseun Olu, Editor PONE-D-24-14479R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. DeJong, 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. Olushayo Oluseun Olu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312037.r004

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 .