https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0020-3129
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionNovember 1, 2023 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-23-33931Association between intimate partner violence and postpartum contraceptive use in the United States– Evidence from PRAMS, 2016-2020PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ijdi, 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. Thank you for this important submission that evaluates experiences of physical IPV from the PRAMS data. Both reviewers have provided extensive feedback that should be incorporated prior to resubmission. With your resubmission, please include a table that highlights each review, how the review was addressed, and the corresponding page number/line number. We look forward to receiving your revision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 06 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, Michelle L. Munro-Kramer, PhD, CNM, FNP-BC, FAAN 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 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 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: Partly 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: No 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: 1. Suggest clarifying that this paper is about physical IPV in the title, as PRAMS also measures emotional and sexual IPV: “Association between intimate partner violence and postpartum contraceptive use in the United States– Evidence from PRAMS, 2016-2020” Abstract 2. Please be very clear on what type of IPV is the focus of this paper and please be consistent throughout with terminology. There is switching from IPV to physical IPV. I suggest also using the term physical IPV. 3. PRAMS uses the terminology phases, rather than rounds. It should be PRAMS Phase 8. 4. Why was 2021 data not included? That was released in April 2023. 5. “Our sample included women who answered questions about the experience of physical IPV during and/or 12 months prior to their most recent pregnancy” – it’s not actually the most recent pregnancy. It’s the index birth from which the birth certificate was sampled. Someone could have had a pregnancy between the last birth and the timing of the survey. 6. “modern or natural method” how are you defining these categories? Why not just say use of any method? 7. This paper did not look at screening for physical IPV during pregnancy and/or its relationship to postpartum contraceptive use. The authors, however, suggest that “it is crucial to prioritize meeting unmet contraceptive needs as well as conducting universal screening for IPV among pregnant women.” Please align conclusions with the actual findings from this paper. Introduction 8. “Research in the 1990s found that between 3% to 62 9% of pregnant women were estimated to have experienced IPV during pregnancy in the US, though the 63 real number could have been much higher than reported [13].” Why did the authors use this citation? These numbers were recently updated using PRAMS data… a. Please see: D'Angelo DV, Bombard JM, Lee RD, Kortsmit K, Kapaya M, Fasula A. Prevalence of Experiencing Physical, Emotional, and Sexual Violence by a Current Intimate Partner during Pregnancy: Population-based Estimates from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. J Fam Violence. 2022 Jan 14;38(1):117-126. doi: 10.1007/s10896-022-00356-y. PMID: 37205924; PMCID: PMC10193455. 9. “Mistimed or unwanted pregnancies can lead to induced abortion; an estimated 40% of unintended pregnancies end in abortion in the US [17]. Increases in correct and consistent contraceptive use, especially among populations at increased risk of having an unmet need for contraception, are therefore likely to lead to a decline in induced abortions.” Perhaps… but is this really a concern/goal? Induced abortion is not an adverse outcome and having an induced abortion could represent someone exerting their autonomy to do so and their reproductive preferences. Further, contraceptive use, alone, is not the solution to preventing unintended pregnancy. It is one tool that people can use to prevent pregnancy if that is their desire. I think this paper could use a good review of the framing to use more health equity/person centered language. 10. “However, to our knowledge, no recent studies have aimed at understanding the extent of the relationship of IPV on women’s contraceptive use in the US.” This is not true. The PRAMS team published an almost identical paper with data from Phase 7. a. Stevenson AA, Bauman BL, Zapata LB, Ahluwalia IB, Tepper NK. Intimate Partner Violence around the Time of Pregnancy and Postpartum Contraceptive Use. Womens Health Issues. 2020 Mar-Apr;30(2):98-105. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2019.11.006. Epub 2020 Jan 5. PMID: 31911042. Methods 11. PRAMS is implemented in collaboration with state and local health departments 12. PRAMS isn’t always state level. NYC, DC and Puerto Rico are also included in Phase 8. 13. “These are the most recent available data containing information on IPV and contraceptive use behavior for women of reproductive age in the US” Why wasn’t 2021 data incorporated into this analysis? Then this sentence would be true. 14. Again, please use the terminology that PRAMS prefer – Phase 8 15. To clarify, PRAMS does not collect data on gender identity. Many PRAMS publications use the term “women”, so I think it’s okay. However, a limitation is that we don’t actually know the gender identity of people included in this analysis, only that they were listed as the birthing parent on the birth certificate. So it is possible that people who do not identify as cisgender women were included and they are being misgendered by the terms used in this paper. 16. It’s actually 2 – 6 months after delivery that people were mailed a survey. 17. The introduction and justification for the study focuses heavily on use of contraception as a means to avoid unintended pregnancy. However, the authors did not restrict the study sample to only people who wanted to avoid a next pregnancy. I suggest that the authors either do this, or add additional justification on why we would want people who want to achieve pregnancy use contraception. I think the authors are assuming this is the case, as the sample is people who gave birth in the prior 2-6 months, but many people in the US (30%) have interpregnancy intervals shorter than the recommended 18 months (although, 6 months is really the most adverse). I would suggest reframing in terms of why it is important women avoid short interpregnancy intervals. 18. PRAMS requires a minimum overall response rate threshold for the release of data for each year. Did all sites have data for all years included in this study? This should be specified. Some states only have data released for specific years, or even no years. So not all sites are included for every year available. 19. Why was “other” contraceptive methods recoded? There are responses that do actually fit within the other categories because of data collection errors. I suggest recoding as many as possible. 20. A huge limitation of using the method question is that lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) is not included. LAM does afford a good amount protection from pregnancy. You will find some responses like this in the “other” response category. 21. “This study does not have the scope to measure IPV beyond physical IPV as this information was not collected by the PRAMS core questions.” This is a study limitation; please move to discussion. Data is included on sexual and emotional IPV before, during, and after pregnancy, as well as physical IPV after pregnancy, but these are in the standard question set. You could have included this if you wanted to look at these associations. 22. What was the justification for grouping together AI/AN, Asian, etc in “other”? From Table 1, 25,242 people were included in this group. A best practice is to maintain a minimum set of categories (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White), except when the sample size is so small that estimates would be unreliable. 23. How were people classified if they selected more than one race? 24. “The variable ‘state of residence’ was aggregated into four geographic 148 regions according to US Census divisions: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West [25].” Why? This likely absolves any association we would see between state of residence and access to contraception in the postpartum period. 25. Why wasn’t insurance status included as a covariate? Results 26. “This contraceptive method-mix was calculated according to the efficacy of the last used method reported during the survey as described in the methods section.” This doesn’t need to be repeated. 27. Typo in this sentence: For the long-acting-reversible and permanent methods (LARC-PM) IUD and vasectomy use were hinger among IVP non-exposed group,” 28. “we found that women who had exposure to physical IPV in the last twelve months had 42% lower odds” This phrasing is incorrect. It’s people who experienced IPV in the 12 months prior to pregnancy and during pregnancy. It’s not the last 12 months. 29. “The association between IPV and contraceptive use remained the same for modern contraceptive use only which was tested separately (results not shown).” I think a better comparison would be methods that require prescription/interaction with a facility/provider/etc and those that don’t. A likely explanation is that people who experience violence may not seek healthcare from a provider (either due to fears of confidentiality, lack of trauma informed/high quality care, barriers to getting care, etc), and so they might use methods that don’t require a prescription or interaction with the healthcare system. HOWEVER, some of the methods that the authors classified as “natural” require partner support… periodic abstinence, withdrawal, etc. But people using these methods might not use consistently or might not be as exposed to sex as people not experiencing violence. I assume that breastfeeding and sexual frequency might also differed between the groups, and these are factors for pregnancy… and these were not controlled for. 30. Table 2: “Natural contraceptive methods are rhythm, withdrawal, abstinence, other etc.” Please clarify what is “etc”. 31. Authors should clarify all abbreviations in tables with a note (e.g., IUD) 32. “A main difference between women exposed to IPV and women who weren’t was in the use of birth control pills (14.4% vs. 7.7%, respectively) and condoms (18.8% vs. 9.0%, respectively).” But the authors did not test if these differences were statistically significant. Please rephrase or test each category. Discussion 33. “Our study findings suggest that physical IPV during and around the time of pregnancy may impact postpartum contraceptive usage.” During and 12 months prior to pregnancy. The authors did not look at the postpartum period. Please clarify. 34. “Women who experienced physical IPV at the time of pregnancy” Please be consistent with terms. 35. “This is a significant issue, since IPV is associated with the risk of unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other reproductive health concerns.” Yes, however, for these outcomes to occur you have to have exposure to sex. We see in Table 2 that ¼ of people who reported physical IPV are abstinent. Another 10% are sterilized/with a partner who is sterilized. It’s very difficult to know from this analysis if any of these people are actually at risk of unintended pregnancy and STDs. 36. “Comparable findings have been documented in earlier studies, such as in an analysis of PRAMS data from 2004 to 2008 found that women reporting IPV were significantly less likely to use postpartum contraception than women who did not (cOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61-0.71) [31].” a. Please see: Stevenson AA, Bauman BL, Zapata LB, Ahluwalia IB, Tepper NK. Intimate Partner Violence around the Time of Pregnancy and Postpartum Contraceptive Use. Womens Health Issues. 2020 Mar-Apr;30(2):98-105. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2019.11.006. Epub 2020 Jan 5. PMID: 31911042. b. This is the most up-to-date analysis with PRAMS data on this topic and should be incorporated. 37. “Our analyses indicated that women who experienced IPV had significantly lower usage rates for partner-dependent contraceptive methods such as condoms, natural family planning (including rhythm), 272 and vasectomy compared to their counterparts” . Where are these findings? The authors did not test if these different were statistically different from each other (Table 2). 38. “Our study found that women who have experienced physical IPV are more likely to rely on natural contraceptive methods-which is concerning as natural methods are less reliable and can be more difficult to use effectively, thus increasing exposure to unplanned pregnancy.” So in the previous sentence, the authors just said that there analysis indicated that IPV exposed women has less usage of partner dependent methods (rhythm, withdrawal, abstinence). Thus, this sentence contradicts that. This is also misleading because most of these women were using abstinence – meaning they do not have sex and thus cannot get pregnant. If you aren’t having sex, then you can’t be exposed to unplanned pregnancy. a. Also, withdrawal is 78% effective. Fertility awareness methods range in effectiveness anywhere from low 70% to high 90%. Abstinence is 100% effective. The pill/condom/ring/etc. can also be difficult to use correctly, which is why, for example, typical effectiveness of condoms is only 87%. This is much higher than withdrawal, but withdrawal is still better than “nothing” and it’s great if it fits someone’s values and preferences at that point in time. 39. “The fact that nonuse of postpartum contraception is higher, and possibly increasing, among women who have experienced physical IPV...” The Stevenson et al. (2020) paper found that 21% of women exposed to IPV were not using contraception. This study found that 9% of women exposed to IPV were not using contraception. In terms of trends, it looks like postpartum contraceptive use has improved among women exposed to physical IPV. 40. Even among women not exposed to IPV, 94% is high. Last year, an analysis of Phase 8 PRAMS data was published on postpartum contraceptive use. They found that about 15% of people did not use contraception. So this study found an even smaller percentage of nonuse. a. Bruce K, Stefanescu A, Romero L, Okoroh E, Cox S, Kieltyka L, Kroelinger C. Trends in Postpartum Contraceptive Use in 20 U.S. States and Jurisdictions: The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, 2015-2018. Womens Health Issues. 2023 Mar-Apr;33(2):133-141. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2022.10.002. Epub 2022 Dec 1. PMID: 36464580. 41. “To address this issue, healthcare providers should adhere to recommended screening guidelines for IPV during pregnancy, and provide family planning, education, and resources to all patients, regardless of their disclosure.” Screening, alone, would likely not eliminate the effect of physical IPV on PPFP. However, preventing violence from occurring in the first place possibly could. 42. “In conclusion, our study underscores the importance of assessing IPV with the need of contraceptive methods as an important reproductive health outcome.” But this analysis didn’t consider whether women were actually screened and if that screening made a difference in contraceptive use. It doesn’t underscore the importance, it just shows that there is a relationship between IPV exposure and PPFP. There are many different interventions; screening could be one of them. Although, screening alone is not recommended by ACOG, USPSTF, or the CDC. These organizations recommend that IPV screening should always be coupled with referral and on-going support. It is likely that the referral and ongoing support make the difference, not screening alone. 43. “For example, those who participated in PRAMS were asked only a few general questions about IPV.” They asked exactly 2 questions. 44. “In addition, the term “abused” used in this survey, may be regarded as demeaning or judgmental”. The term “abused” is not used in the survey. The survey questions are: a. “In the 12 months before you got pregnant with your new baby, did any of the following people push, hit, slap, kick, choke, or physically hurt you in any other way?” b. “During your most recent pregnancy, did any of the following people push, hit, slap, kick, choke, or physically hurt you in any other way? “ 45. Conclusion: again, screening alone will likely not impact reduced exposure to physical IPV or mediate this relationship with PPFP. There are a number of interventions that CDC, ACOG, and other organizations recommend to prevent violence before it occurs, especially for people who are pregnancy and postpartum. a. Suggest reading: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv-technicalpackages.pdf Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled, "Association between intimate partner violence and postpartum contraceptive use in the United States– Evidence from PRAMS, 2016-2020” is an important update on a topic that remains relevant. There are several aspects that commend this manuscript, including a generally clear writing style, and importance of topic. There are few minor typographical errors and some less than accurate phrasing. There are other considerations that should be examined prior to acceptance for publication. These are summarized below. Lines 16-17 & 91: The PRAMS surveillance system is comprised of different “Phases” of the survey – not “rounds” as the authors state. As such, they utilized data from Phase 8 of the survey, not “round 8”. Line 59: In the phrase “In the US 1 in 5… it should be a numeral 1 and not the letter I. Lines 61-63: The authors cite research from the 90s. This discussion could have benefited from an examination of and comparison with more recent studies of a similar vein including the following. 1. Prevalence of Experiencing Physical, Emotional, and Sexual Violence by a Current Intimate Partner during Pregnancy: Population-based Estimates from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. D'Angelo DV, Bombard JM, Lee RD, Kortsmit K, Kapaya M, Fasula A. J Fam Violence. 2022 Jan 14;38(1):117-126. 2. Intimate Partner Violence Before and During Pregnancy, and Prenatal Counseling Among Women with a Recent Live Birth, United States, 2009-2015. Kapaya M, Boulet SL, Warner L, Harrison L, Fowler D. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019 Nov;28(11):1476-1486. Lines 76-77: The authors state that to their “knowledge, no recent studies have aimed at understanding the extent of the relationship of IPV on women’s contraceptive use in the US.” This is incorrect. There are a few fairly recent studies that have done just that including the reference below which is only cited in the discussion portion of this paper. The authors could have introduced Stevenson et al, 2020 here and used it to describe if or how their work differs and how it adds to prevailing literature. "Intimate Partner Violence around the Time of Pregnancy and Postpartum Contraceptive Use. Stevenson AA, Bauman BL, Zapata LB, Ahluwalia IB, Tepper NK. Womens Health Issues. 2020 Mar-Apr;30(2):98-105. Line 84: PRAMS is not an observational study. Please correct this. Line 96: The word “survey” is missing after PRAMS. Lines 96--97: This sentence is inaccurately stated. PRAMS was not “designed to collect a stratified sample of mothers who recently gave birth at participating sites using data from birth certificates” rather, PRAMS utilizes a stratified sample pulled from birth certificate records of women with a recent live birth in participating sites, to collect data on their experiences and behaviors before, during, and shortly after pregnancy. Lines 124-125: The wording used here does not accurately reflect the PRAMS question cited which in fact reads "Are you or your husband or partner doing anything now to keep from getting pregnant? " If the authors choose to paraphrase the question, quotation marks should not be used as though citing directly. Line 129: Please correct the typo in spelling of Mirena which is spelled “Minera” Lines 134-135: The authors refence birth control methods here not previously listed in the methods they include in their outcome variable (lines 127-134), namely, tubectomy, vasectomy and abstinence. Lines 138-140: The PRAMS survey has emotional and sexual abuse questions on the standard questions list. Why did the authors not request these standard questions? As reported in D'Angelo et al 2022, emotional IPV was the most frequently reported form of IPV, more prevalent than physical violence. It would have been beneficial to see if the patterns of contraceptive use differed by type of IPV. Results Line 178: Add the word ‘live’ before birth here (and anywhere else in the manuscript when describing the sample used. Table 2, Lines 201-210: Again, the authors have included on the table and in the description of results, methods not referenced in the initial write up of the BC methods to be analyzed. They are reporting on tubectomy, vasectomy and abstinence which were never referenced in lines 127-134. Further, the authors introduce new terms in Table 2 “coil” and “loop” (types of IUD) not previously mentioned elsewhere. If these refer to the trade names of BC methods cited previously, they should either use coil and loop in parentheses against each respective trade name or remove the terms from the table and retain only the collective term “IUD” as used in their methods section. Discussion Line 264: Authors cite a “worsening trend” in view of results from data from 2004-2008. How do their results compare against more recently published similar studies such as Stevenson AA et al 2020? Also, it would be interesting for the authors to give their thoughts around the higher prevalence of abstinence reported among those with IPV exposure compared to those without which is driving the higher prevalence of natural contraceptive methods in this group compared to modern methods. Particularly given it is a partner-dependent method. General comment: Finally, I would suggest clarifying throughout the paper that the variable under question is PHYSICAL IPV. This is explained in the methods quite nicely, but the results, discussion and tables should clearly indicate that this study applies to physical IPV only. ********** 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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-23-33931R1Association between intimate partner violence and postpartum contraceptive use in the United States– Evidence from PRAMS 2016-2020PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ijdi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The Revised manuscript has been re-reviewed by two reviewers and their comments are available below and in the attached document. Reviewer 1 has raised concerns that some of the points in your rebuttal from the previous round of review have not been included in the revised manuscript main text. They have also provided some recommendations around framing of the manuscript to improve its quality. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 29 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, Emma Campbell, Ph.D Staff 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: I have no additional comments to make. The authors have provided responses to all observations made in the original manuscript. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
|
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-23-33931R2Association between physical intimate partner violence and postpartum contraceptive use in the United States – Evidence from PRAMS 2016-2021PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rashida-E Ijdi, 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: Minor amendments Required Thanks for conducting such a good research. I am concerned that under the conclusions more detailed recommendations are needed with greater specificity. Since IPV is the current burning question and the study affects reproductive rights of women, it requires more recommendations to solve the problem. I would be interested to know whether you are linked to the international human right to reproductive rights. Otherwise, this manuscript written in good English and adds value to the existing science. Please share with us the ethical approval you have used to conduct this research if it has not been done before. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 16 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, Kahsay Zenebe Gebreslasie, MSc 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: Minor amendments Required Thanks for conducting such a good research. I am concerned that under the conclusions more detailed recommendations are needed with greater specificity. Since IPV is the current burning question and the study affects reproductive rights of women, it requires more recommendations to solve the problem. I would be interested to know whether you are linked to the international human right to reproductive rights. Otherwise, this manuscript written in good English and adds value to the existing science. Please share with us the ethical approval you have used to conduct this research if it has not been done before. [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 |
|
Association between physical intimate partner violence and postpartum contraceptive use in the United States – Evidence from PRAMS 2016-2021 PONE-D-23-33931R3 Dear Dr. Rashida-E Ijdi, 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, Kahsay Zenebe Gebreslasie, MSc Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-23-33931R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ijdi, 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 Mr. Kahsay Zenebe Gebreslasie 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 .