COVID-19 and self-reported health of the Norwegian adult general population: A longitudinal study 3 months before and 9 months into the pandemic

Andrew M. Garratt; Knut Stavem

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312201

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 31, 2024
23 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Esteban Ortiz-Prado, Editor PONE-D-24-18493COVID-19 and self-reported health of the Norwegian adult general population: a longitudinal study 3 months before and 9 months into the pandemicPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Garratt, 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 Oct 07 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, Esteban Ortiz-Prado Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council (Project Number 262673). Andrew Garratt sought funding and was principal investigator.” 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 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. Additional Editor Comments: I hope you are doing well. I am writing to inform you that your manuscript titled "COVID-19 and self-reported health of the Norwegian adult general population: a longitudinal study 3 months before and 9 months into the pandemic" (PONE-D-24-18493) has been reviewed and is now accepted for publication in PLOS ONE, pending minor revisions. Two of the reviewers have provided positive feedback, recommending the acceptance of your manuscript in its current form. They appreciated the comprehensive nature of your study and the rigorous methods employed. Reviewer 1 has suggested a few minor revisions to enhance the clarity and contextual depth of your manuscript. These suggestions are intended to further strengthen the presentation of your findings. Please review the comments provided by Reviewer 1 and make the necessary revisions to your manuscript. Once you have addressed these points, kindly resubmit your revised manuscript along with a detailed response letter outlining how each comment has been addressed. We are excited to see your work published and look forward to receiving the final version of your manuscript. Thank you for your valuable contribution to the journal. Best regards, Esteban Ortiz-Prado, PhD Guest Editor PLOS ONE [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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: The title of the study focuses on an important societal issue that deserves further scholarly attention. As noted in the separate review template, this essay would benefit from adding more context and evidence to fully support its core argument. Reviewer #2: I liked the attempt by the authors to obtain a sample which is representative of the Norwegian general adult population to track the self-reported health and Covid-19 outcomes. I also appreciated the author's use of validated data collection and analysis methods in this study. Reviewer #3: The study presents a comprehensive summary of the health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Norwegian general population. It is well-structured and provides key details on the methodology, findings, and conclusions. ****** 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: Yes: Kenneth Kudzai Maeka Reviewer #3: Yes: Kawalpreet Kaur ******** [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: 4. PONE-D-24-18493.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312201.r001
Revision 1
20 Sep 2024 Author Response Review report on paper titled “COVID-19 and self-reported health of the Norwegian adult general population: a longitudinal study 3 months before and 9 months into the pandemic” Editor’s Comments Abstract 1. What is the motivation behind investigating this specific area? The first sentence of the abstract now explicitly states that the study aim was to assess the impact of the pandemic on broader aspects of health in the general population (Abstract, lines 17-18). 2. Which sampling method was utilized? We have now stated that sampling for the baseline study followed the results of similar Norwegian surveys designed for the collection of general population norms. We have given the sample size and stated that they were randomly selected (Abstract, lines 20-21). 3. What are the key conclusions drawn? We have included a final sentence in the abstract which concludes that based on the study findings, there was no evidence for a decline in important aspects of general population health (Abstract, lines 39-41). 4. Can you provide some keywords that encapsulate the essence of the study? Keywords now include COVID-19, EQ-5D-5L, general population, PROMIS-29, survey (line 43). Introduction 5. The duration of the Covid-19 pandemic in Norway and its impact on the Norwegian adult population are important topics to explore. To effectively engage readers, it is vital to present compelling evidence that showcases the duration of the pandemic in the area. Does it really spanned over duration of 9-months? We have now included information on the duration of the first and second waves of the pandemic in Norway which are most relevant to the article. We have also included information on the government response including lockdown measures, together with references (page 5, lines 93-96; additional references 12-14). We have also stated that the follow-up survey coincided with the second wave (page 6, lines 98-99). 6. Rephrase “In November 2020, 3200 respondents to a representative general population survey in Norway in December 2019 received a follow-up postal questionnaire including the EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29 instruments, and questions about respondents having or having had COVID-19” This has been rephrased following further information being given about sampling in response to the point above (Abstract, lines 21-24). Materials and methods 7. Statistical Power for sample size? We have now stated the sample size for the published baseline component of the study was based on a review of existing Norwegian studies that had similar aims. The reference used is already included in the reference list (page 6 lines 104-106). 8. Is there a difference in the content of the questionnaires used in baseline and follow-up studies? Clarity is needed regarding whether the questionnaire content should remain consistent or be varied. We have explicitly stated that the EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29 and SCQ were included at baseline. We have also stated that the SCQ was not included and that the COVID-19 related questions were included at follow-up (pages 6-7, lines 123-127). 9. What particular strategies did the authors utilize to control the influence of variables that could impact the minimal important change (MIC) and age-related changes? Or how could you specifically relate health outcomes with COVID-19 only? Given that this was a general population cohort study, it was only possible to control for the variables collected by means of the two questionnaires including baseline health and respondent characteristics, including age, as independent variables in the multivariate regression analyses (page 8, lines 165-167; Tables 3-4). The minimal important change (MIC) is the is the smallest change above which individuals themselves perceive as important (reference 24). This follows from the measurement properties of the instruments as well as the study population, although there is no universal method for deriving MICs. This study was not designed to determine the MIC, as we had no external anchors to determine whether changes were meaningful or not. We therefore used available MIC from other studies, as reported in the Methods (references 19-24). In the Discussion, we have added that we compare with previously reported MIC estimates for these instruments (page 14, lines 224-225). 10. Were there any specific methods employed by the authors to follow the participants throughout the study? Or to overcome the challenges due to participants dropping out over time, which can affect the validity of the results. Reminders were not used at baseline or follow-up but may have helped increase the response rates slightly. We used a lottery incentive at baseline and continued with this at follow-up. We have extended the strengths and limitations section of the discussion accordingly (page 17, lines 300-301). 11. How could authors overcome or capture short-term health outcomes? We might have assessed short-term health outcomes by means of an additional questionnaire during the first wave of the pandemic. We have now stated this in the discussion (page 16, lines 291-292). Discussion 12. The discussion fails to provide an explanation for the potential factors influencing the results; rather, it simply compares them to previous findings, emphasizing the need for a revision. We have added a new paragraph to the discussion which gives and explanation of factors which may have influenced the results. The findings are in line with a report commissioned by the Norwegian government. We have included a reference [14] along with consideration to when vaccination against COVID-19 started in Norway (page 14, lines 229-240) with an additional reference [27]. Strengths and limitations 13. Too long This section was shortened without loss of specific study strengths and limitations. We have shortened the strengths component relating to aspects of data collection (page 16, lines 274-288). We have shortened the limitations component relating to generic and specific patient-reported outcome measures (page 17, lines 302-304). Recommendation 14. Needed. At the close of the conclusions, we have stated that interventions are needed for potentially vulnerable groups (page 17, lines 315-316). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_PONE_D_24_18493.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312201.r002
3 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Esteban Ortiz-Prado, Editor COVID-19 and self-reported health of the Norwegian adult general population: a longitudinal study 3 months before and 9 months into the pandemic PONE-D-24-18493R1 Dear Dr. Garratt, 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, Esteban Ortiz-Prado Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Authors, Thank you for your revised submission. After reviewing the manuscript, I believe the study is well-constructed and adds valuable insights into the health of the Norwegian general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The reviewers' comments have been adequately addressed, and the manuscript has significantly improved. However, there are still minor revisions that need to be addressed before final acceptance. I encourage the authors to make sure that all suggested changes by the reviewers are carefully incorporated into the manuscript. Once these are completed, I am confident the manuscript will be ready for acceptance. Thank you for your efforts, and I look forward to receiving the final version. Best regards, Esteban Ortiz Prado Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312201.r003
Formally Accepted
15 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Esteban Ortiz-Prado, Editor PONE-D-24-18493R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Garratt, 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. Esteban Ortiz-Prado Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312201.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 .