A cost analysis comparing seasonal malaria chemoprevention with and without Vitamin A supplementation among under-5 children in Nigeria

Olusola Bukola Oresanya; Olujide Arije; Jesujuwonlo Fadipe; Kunle Rotimi; Abimbola Phillips; Kolawole Maxwell; Emmanuel Shekarau; Nneka Onwu; Eva S. Bazant

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315655

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 28, 2024
30 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - José Luiz Fernandes Vieira, Editor Dear Dr. Bukola 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:publication criteria ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by February, 28 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. 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, José Luiz Fernandes Vieira 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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: “This work was supported, in whole or in part, by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Grant Number INV‐01076 to the Task Force for Global Health’s Health Campaign Effectiveness Program). Under the grant conditions of the Foundation, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic License has already been assigned to the Author Accepted Manuscript version that might arise from this submission" Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. [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? Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Dear authors Thanks for allowing me to review this interesting work. Overall I think this is important work and worth publishing. However, I think the authors need to reconsider their methods and focus as currently presented. They have compared costs for two different locations and timepoints and for 1 cycle of a 4 or 5 cycle intervention - SMC. I feel like there could be many potential confounders and that this is a very serious limitation. While the authors point this out in the limitations I wonder if they considered broadening their analysis to cover all cycles in the intervention and/or could adjust for any confounders in location or delivery model and timings in the analysis and present this? They compare to other cost studies which show a total intervention cost also so it would be better to reflect the same in their analysis if possible. Some other specific points: Layout and structure - the whole piece needs to be reviewed and ensure the correct elements are in the correct sections - e.g. currently elements of the discussion around the inclusion and rationale for specific costs are included in the results - there need to be moved to the correct sections Ethics - please add date and reference for approval Readability - please check the text for readability overall - there are a few instances where it doesn't make sense - for example in L209 - this is not a sentence. Formatting - the authors should check text formatting as the fonts etc are not uniform Happy to review again once these comments are addressed. ****** 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 ******** [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.0315655.r001
Revision 1
19 Jun 2025 Author Response Reviewer's comment 1: Overall, I think this is important work and worth publishing. However, I think the authors need to reconsider their methods and focus as currently presented. 1. They have compared costs for two different locations and timepoints and for 1 cycle of a 4 or 5 cycle intervention - SMC. I feel like there could be many potential confounders and that this is a very serious limitation. While the authors point this out in the limitations I wonder if they considered broadening their analysis to cover all cycles in the intervention and/or could adjust for any confounders in location or delivery model and timings in the analysis and present this? They compare to other cost studies which show a total intervention cost also so it would be better to reflect the same in their analysis if possible. Response to comment 1: We would like clarify that, in terms of locations, the cycles being compared for the cost analysis were carried out in the same locations. Based on the intervention design, there were 4 cycles of SMC in the study location as at the time of this study. Cycles 1 – 3 were designed to run the same way with the delivery of SMC-only from house-to-house, while cycle 4 was designed to deliver vitamin A in addition to SMC from house-to-house. We don’t have any indication that this was not so, therefore we believe that taking cost estimates for one of the three previous cycles for comparison with the cycle where SMC-VAS was delivered is rational. However, to rule out any possible confounding, we included a sensitivity analyses in our result focusing explicitly on critical cost components (distribution, SPAQ, labour, and supplies). These analyses evaluated the robustness of our findings by systematically varying costs within plausible ranges (±10% to ±20%) and assessed their impact on total costs per child. The findings, detailed in Annex 2 of our submission documents, showed moderate sensitivity to changes in distribution costs ($0.03–0.04 per child), low-to-moderate sensitivity to labour and SPAQ costs ($0.01–0.03 per child), and minimal sensitivity to supplies costs. Reviewer comment 2: Some other specific points: Layout and structure - the whole piece needs to be reviewed and ensure the correct elements are in the correct sections - e.g. currently elements of the discussion around the inclusion and rationale for specific costs are included in the results - there need to be moved to the correct sections. Response to comment 2: We have revised accordingly in tracked changes and moved discussion elements to the discussion section, where we have provided additional contextual information and interpretation to enhance clarity. Reviewer's comment 3: Ethics - please add date and reference for approval Response to comment 3: We have revised the ethical consideration section accordingly to reflect the data and approval reference number. Reviewer's comment 4: Readability - please check the text for readability overall - there are a few instances where it doesn't make sense - for example in L209 - this is not a sentence. Formatting - the authors should check text formatting as the fonts etc are not uniform Response to comment 4: We apologize for the typographical errors in the document. We have revised accordingly. Thank you for your useful feedback. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter_10042024.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315655.r002
1 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - José Luiz Fernandes Vieira, Editor A cost analysis comparing Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention with and without Vitamin A Supplementation among under-5 children in Nigeria PONE-D-24-52126R1 Dear Dr. Olusola 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. The reviewer accepts all changes made by the authors and recommends the manuscript for publication.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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, José Luiz Fernandes Vieira Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> 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 Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Thanks - all comments addressed and article looks good now. I don't have any further comments at this time and happy for this publications to now be published. ****** 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.0315655.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - José Luiz Fernandes Vieira, Editor PONE-D-24-52126R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Oresanya, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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. José Luiz Fernandes Vieira Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315655.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 .