Family support and prayer are invaluable coping strategies for our recovery: Experiences of persons living with cardiovascular diseases

Ivy Selorm Tsedze; Frank Edwin; Bennett Owusu; Victor Kwasi Dumahasi; Nkosi Nkosi Botha; Nancy Innocentia Ebu Enyan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0317314

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 26, 2024
26 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Engelbert Adamwaba Nonterah, Editor PONE-D-24-37089Family support and prayer are invaluable coping strategies for our recovery: Experiences of persons living with cardiovascular diseasesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Botha, 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 Jan 10 2025 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, Engelbert A. Nonterah, MD, PhD 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) 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. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 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 delete it from any other section. 4. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: This is a well written manuscript and timely given the increasing prevalence of CVD in Ghana as well as other parts of the world. See below specific comments: Methodology: - Sample size: can the authors clarify their sample size? Do they mean that only 56 people living with CVDs were attending the cardiothoracic centre at the time of the study? or is the 56 a fixed figure i.e., the maximum capacity of the centre. - Can the authors be specific about the changes made after pretesting the semi-structured interview guide? - Did the authors obtain written or verbal consent or both? - Can the authors provide more details on the positionality of the interviewer and their qualitative research experience? Were the interviews conducted in English or the local language? - The limitations of the DPD and how they were mitigated can be moved to the limitation section - Can the authors list the steps involved in their thematic analysis and reference the thematic analysis approach used. - I strongly recommend that the authors use the COREQ checklist to frame the information presented in the methodology. This would help fill in the gaps and strengthen the study methodology. Discussion: - I suggest that the authors include a paragraph providing an overview of all the study findings in relation to the current evidence before delving into discussion of the separate themes. -Limitations: the authors should further reflect on the limitations of their study and the possible influence of the population selected. For example it is expected and not surprising for people living with CVDs to have better knowledge of risk factors. - What are the implications of the study findings? What do they mean for future research, policy and practice? This needs to be strengthened. Conclusion: - The conclusion does not align with the findings presented in the paper, e.g., family support and prayer. The authors concluding statement emphasises the role of social media, what about working closely with faith-based centres and faith leaders to promote CVD risk awareness and psychosocial support during treatment? Data availability: - Please review the data availability statement. The statement "All data underpinning the study are fully captured in the manuscript" is not deemed adequate as the data availability statement is referring to the transcripts/complete data and not the extracts included in the manuscript. General: - Review the manuscript thoroughly for grammar and correct use of tenses Reviewer #2: In addition, the participants were given opportunity to verify the transcript and expatiate on the thoughts and meanings attributed to them. Thus, data inconsistencies, repetitions, and omissions were resolved. There is no information concerning how the transcripts were given to the participants to verify the transcripts. There is no information about who did the data coding No information about the data collectors ****** 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.0317314.r001
Revision 1
4 Dec 2024 Author Response December 4, 2024 Dear Academic Editor, POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS We submit for your consideration point-by-point response to review comments on “Family support and prayer are invaluable coping strategies for our recovery: Experiences of persons living with cardiovascular diseases”. We appreciate the time and effort of the reviewers in going through the manuscript and making such meaningful remarks. Most especially, we consider the remarks very useful in improving the quality of the paper for global audience. Included in this new submission are a marked-up copy of manuscript labelled “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” and an unmarked version of manuscript labelled “Manuscript”. Our specific responses to the review comments are reported below, please. Journal requirements: We very much appreciate the efforts and time of the editor for the academic observations made which have actually helped in improving the quality of the paper. Our specific responses are as follow. Requirement 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: Thank you. We have done our best to format the manuscript to conform to PLOS ONE's author guideline. Requirement 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 (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). Response: Thank you. We have provided further and better details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, we specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type we obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). Please, refer to the track changes copy for details on the revision. Requirement 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 delete it from any other section. Response: Thank you. The ethics statement appeared in the Methods section only of the manuscript. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details on the revision. Requirement 4: Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files Response: Thank you. We have included the tables as part of the main manuscript and removed the individual files from the system. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details on the revision. Reviewer 1 We cannot thank the reviewer enough for these splendid comments made which have helped in improving the quality of the paper. Our specific responses to the suggestions are as follows, please. Comment 1: This is a well written manuscript and timely given the increasing prevalence of CVD in Ghana as well as other parts of the world. Response: We are very honoured to have you review our paper. Comment 2: Sample size: can the authors clarify their sample size? Do they mean that only 56 people living with CVDs were attending the cardiothoracic centre at the time of the study? or is the 56 a fixed figure i.e., the maximum capacity of the centre. Response: Thank you. We have revised the sub-section to ensure clarity on the sampling technique. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details on the revision. Comment 3: Can the authors be specific about the changes made after pretesting the semi-structured interview guide? Response: Thank you. We have revised the sub-section to specifically indicate what changes we made to the instrument following the pre-testing. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details on the revision. Comment 4: Did the authors obtain written or verbal consent or both? Response: We have provided further and better details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, we specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type we obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). Please, refer to the track changes copy for details on the revision. Comment 5: Can the authors provide more details on the positionality of the interviewer and their qualitative research experience? Were the interviews conducted in English or the local language? Response: Thank you. We have provided details on the positionality of the interviewers and their qualitative research experience in the competed COREQ checklist. Please, refer to the attached copy for details. On the issue of the language used for the interview, we have provided further details under the sub-section, “Data collection procedures”. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details. Comment 6: The limitations of the DPD and how they were mitigated can be moved to the limitation section. Response: Thank you. We have moved the limitations of the DPD and how they were mitigated the limitations section, as suggested. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details. Comment 7: Can the authors list the steps involved in their thematic analysis and reference the thematic analysis approach used. Response: Thank you. Data processing and analysis were conducted through a 4-step descriptive phenomenological design (DPD). That is, step one involved data organisation and familiarisation, step two involved data synthesis and developing relevant codes, step three involved developing and review of relevant themes, and step four involved defining and organising themes using the qualitative computerised data software, NVivo version 14. Therefore, data processing and analysis were conducted through a 4-step “descriptive phenomenological design (DPD)” and not “thematic analysis” as captured under the data analysis in the manuscript. The error has accordingly been corrected in-text. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details. Comment 8: I strongly recommend that the authors use the COREQ checklist to frame the information presented in the methodology. This would help fill in the gaps and strengthen the study methodology. Response: Thank you. Completed copy of COREQ checklist submitted. Comment 9: I suggest that the authors include a paragraph providing an overview of all the study findings in relation to the current evidence before delving into discussion of the separate themes. Response: Thank you. A paragraph providing an overview of all the study findings in relation to the current evidence provided as suggested. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details. Comment 10: Reflect on the limitations of their study and the possible influence of the population selected. For example it is expected and not surprising for people living with CVDs to have better knowledge of risk factors. Response: Thank you. The limitations of the study was accordingly revised to reflect the suggestions made. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details. Comment 11: What are the implications of the study findings? What do they mean for future research, policy and practice? This needs to be strengthened. Response: Thank you. The contribution to body of knowledge, policy, and practice was accordingly revised to reflect the suggestions made. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details. Comment 12: The conclusion does not align with the findings presented in the paper, e.g., family support and prayer. The authors concluding statement emphasises the role of social media, what about working closely with faith-based centres and faith leaders to promote CVD risk awareness and psychosocial support during treatment? Response: Thank you. The section has been revised to ensure it embraces and aligns with all key findings of the study. Additionally, the concluding statement was revised to capture collaboration with faith-based centres and faith leaders to promote CVD risk awareness and psychosocial support during treatment. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details. Comment 13: Please review the data availability statement. The statement "All data underpinning the study are fully captured in the manuscript" is not deemed adequate as the data availability statement is referring to the transcripts/complete data and not the extracts included in the manuscript. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. However, the raw transcripts you request for contained participant information that is deemed confidential and cannot be disclosed to third parties. We wish to reiterate that every data required for the purpose of this articles is dully presented in text, tables, and figures, please. Comment 14: Review the manuscript thoroughly for grammar and correct use of tenses Response: Thank you. The manuscript is thoroughly revised for grammar and correct use of tenses. Reviewer 2 We cannot thank the reviewer enough for these great comments. We believe these will help in improving the quality of the paper. Our specific responses are as follows. Comment 1: In addition, the participants were given opportunity to verify the transcript and expatiate on the thoughts and meanings attributed to them. Thus, data inconsistencies, repetitions, and omissions were resolved. There is no information concerning how the transcripts were given to the participants to verify the transcripts. Response: Thank you. The sub-section has been revised to reflect the suggestions made. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details. Comment 2: There is no information about who did the data coding. Response: Thank you. We have provided details on the authors who conducted the data coding. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details. Comment 3: No information about the data collectors Response: We have provided details on the authors who conducted the data collection. Please, refer to the track changes copy for details. Yours sincerely, … SIGNED.… BOTHA NKOSI NKOSI Corresponding Author Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317314.r002
26 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Engelbert Adamwaba Nonterah, Editor Family support and prayer are invaluable coping strategies for our recovery: Experiences of persons living with cardiovascular diseases PONE-D-24-37089R1 Dear Dr. Nkosi Nkosi Botha, 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, Engelbert Adamwaba Nonterah, MD, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317314.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Engelbert Adamwaba Nonterah, Editor PONE-D-24-37089R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Botha, 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. Engelbert Adamwaba Nonterah Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317314.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 .