Behavioral determinants for glycemic control among type 2 diabetic patients in Hosanna town; institution based unmatched case control study

Belay Bancha; Begidu Bashe; Hana Seyfu; Abraham Samuel

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314536

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 16, 2024
16 Sep 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314536.r001
25 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Bedilu Endalifer, Editor PONE-D-24-40268Behavioral determinants for glycemic control among type 2 diabetic patients in Hosanna town; institution based unmatched case control studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bancha, 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. ACADEMIC EDITOR: : Introduction Line 59. The burden is very significant in resource-limited settings. Rewrite it Methodology The authors include only three months and above. Does this mean that patient behavioral change needs at least three months to occur? The authors include AS A LAB. Reference FBS. Why Hgba1c, since it is more useful for glucose monitoring in the last three to four months. Operational definition Adherence to medication is defined as patients taking all his/her anti-diabetic medication in the last seven days. is it the standard definition? The patient may be non adherent before seven days but he/she might be adherent for the next seven days. How do the authors define self-efficacy in diabetic control Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 09 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Bedilu Linger Endalifer Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. 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. 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 4. Please upload a copy of Figures 1 and 2, to which you refer in your text on pages 4 and 12. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: - How is the complex relationship shown in Fig. 1 represented in your model? Did you include BMI/diet and BMI/exercise as interaction terms? These will likely share variance and should therefore be included separately and as interaction. In general, there should be more information on the model specification. - line 229: Is it really "p-value of <0.25"? If you set a p-threshold of <0.05 as you stated, you should report only those results as significant that are below that (and report the exact p-values). - line 230: "After adjusting for others" => for what exactly? - The Discussion speaks of diabetic patients overall, but it would be more in line with the rest of the paper to discuss differences (and similarities) between those with poor and good glycaemic control. This would also tie in this paragraph with the one following. - I recommend not using 3D bar charts as they visually distort the height proportion without adding any information. Use 2D bar charts instead. - There are some typos and grammatical errors (often with regard to the use of singular/plural). Reviewer #2: 1. Has this clinical trial been registered on the registration platform? 2. Blood glucose monitoring is also part of the usual care of type 2 diabetes, and whether the data you collect can conduct the analysis of this habit? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314536.r002
Revision 1
1 Nov 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers Dear editor/reviewers, We acknowledge the concerns raised by our dear editors and reviewers, and we learnt extraordinary lesson during the revision of our manuscript. The following are point-by-point responses to the concerns. 1. Line 59: Re-written 2. Three months as a reference: We included patients under follow up at least for three months. This is to measure the outcome variable from FBS mean score. In settings where HgbA1c is not feasible for follow-up care, mean FBS used to evaluate the status of glycemic control. We cited this in our case and control identification section 3. Use of FBS over HgbA1c: The hospital does not have the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) test for monitoring the glycemic status; instead, FBS is in use as a part of standard of care. We used this data from patients’ record for this study after guaranteeing due ethical clearance and consequently permission. 4. Operational definition a. Adherence: Adherence was measured from last seven days status to minimize the risk of recall bias, and this definition was in line with others and we recognized the previous evidences as a reference (cited). b. Self-efficacy: it was based on 15 items with 5-point Likert scale and this was cited. 5. We made an extensive revision in the current version to comply with PLOS ONE's style requirements. 6. We sincerely regret any technical error that may have occurred in the submission form with regard to data sharing. Actually we said, “All relevant data are within the paper and its supporting information files” under the data sharing sections. The constructed PDF which we downloaded during submission likewise shows this. We shared the data set from our initial submission, and freely shared it in this submission. No restrictions were made on dataset 7. The Ethical statement only appears as a subheading under the Methods section. 8. In response to our esteemed editors, we revised figure 1 and uploaded as a supporting information. 9. We have reviewed our references, and did not come up with retracted papers. Very few of our references are WHO guidelines, Demographic and health survey reports of Ethiopia. 10. The supporting file, S4 SPSS data set.sav (In the current version S4_Data set.sav) is based on IBM SPSS version 23 software. We have re-checked it and faced no difficulty. Even we tried the file from the built pdf link, which was downloaded during submission, it works well. Additionally we shared it again. Reviewer #1_Fig 1. We appreciate our esteemed reviewers’ comment on the issue. However, we recognize an issue as a limitation. Reviewer #1_Fig 2. Thanks, it was shifted to 2D bar chart. Reviewer #1_Line 229, p value 0.25 We have described this under the data analysis section of the methodology. Bivariate analysis was done to identify potential variables for multivariable logistic regression. Variables with p-value of <0.25 in bivariate analysis were entered into multivariate analysis. In adjusted model, the level of statistical significance was declared at a p-value of <0.05. Despite that an SPSS output gives us p value of 0, such figures are not real 0. P may approach to 0, but never be 0 in reality. In such cases we used p<0.001. Reviewer #1_Line 230 The adjustment (multivariable logistic regression analysis) used all variables, which we identified in bivariate analysis. Theses variables were listed in the preceding paragraph. Additionally, we have paraphrased the statement in the revised version. Reviewer #1_Discussion Concerning issues related to discussion, we were focusing on our objective, behavioral determinant for glycemic control. However if a given factor is either inversely or directly associated with poor glycemic control, we feel that it is also associated with good glycemic control. Reviewer 2_ “Has this clinical trial been registered on the registration platform?” This is an observational study, which we believe that does not require registration. It has gone through necessary ethical review process. We have submitted the ethical clearance and all relevant files pertaining the paper. Reviewer 2_ “Blood glucose monitoring issue: We have described this in under the section of “Identification of cases and controls” and “Data collection tools and procedures”. Sincerely thanks for consideration Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Respnse to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314536.r003
13 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Bedilu Endalifer, Editor Behavioral determinants for glycemic control among type 2 diabetic patients in Hosanna town; institution based unmatched case control study PONE-D-24-40268R1 Dear Dr. Belay Bancha 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, Bedilu Linger Endalifer Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): All my concerns are addressed 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Thanks for addressing my comments! Very minor: Page 9, line 184: "Variables" is still in upper-case despite "The" being added in front. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314536.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Bedilu Endalifer, Editor PONE-D-24-40268R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bancha, 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. Bedilu Linger Endalifer Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314536.r005

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 .