Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 12, 2024
Decision Letter - Blessing Onyinye Ukoha-kalu, Editor

PONE-D-24-13630Self-Care Practice And Associated Factors Among Hypertensive Patients Who Have Follow-Ups In Public Hospitals Of Bahir-Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia, A Mixed StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yigezu,

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 24 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,

Blessing Onyinye Ukoha-kalu, B.Pharm, M.Pharm, Ph.D

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. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data will be available upon request from the corresponding author.]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

3. 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 (if provided):

[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: Yes

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: Title: Self-Care Practice and Associated Factors among Hypertensive Patients Who Have

Follow-Ups In Public Hospitals Of Bahir-Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia, A Mixed Study

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-24-13630

Comment for authors

General comment

Overall the research is good but has some sort of grammatical errors specially at the abstract and discussion section

Specific comments

Method section

Eligibility criteria

It is not correct please clearly specify your inclusion criteria

Sampling method

The sampling method for qualitative part is purposive but the samples were selected by considering some factors but it seems qota sampling

Please rethink over it because reader understand that it is qota sampling

Data collection

Have you checked the reliability of your data collection tool? If so how you checked?

Data analysis

The statistical significance of associations between variables was determined using odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-values below 0.05

This statement is repeated please delete one of the two

Result

Instead of using tables as reference at each of statements please write in one paragraph and then use the table as reference and put it once

Discussion

The qualitative part of your finding is not discussed well please raise key issues and discuss with literatures

Declaration

Ethical consideration

Informed voluntary written and signed consent was obtained from all study participants prior to start data collection

why you choose written consent?

Reviewer #2: This manuscript is well-written, it could make a valuable contribution to literature on self-care practices of hypertension.

In result, it would be better if minimum and maximum age is also included along with average age of the participants

Thank you once again for your contributions.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Santoshi Adhikari

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Comment for author1.docx
Revision 1

Author response to reviewers

Submission ID PONE-D-24-13630

MANUSCRIPT Title: Self-Care Practice And Associated Factors Among Hypertensive Patients Who Have Follow-Ups In Public Hospitals Of Bahir-Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia, A Mixed Study

Reviewer 1 comment:

1.Comment for authors

General comment

Overall the research is good but has some sort of grammatical errors specially at the abstract and discussion section

�Thanks for your constructive comments: we have revised based on your comments

2.Specific comments

Method section

Eligibility criteria

It is not correct please clearly specify your inclusion criteria

�Thanks for your constructive comments: we have revised based on your comments.

All hypertensive patients aged 18 and older who had follow-ups at public hospitals in Bahir Dar city were included in this study. However, patients who were critically ill or had cognitive impairments during the data collection period were excluded. Additionally, patients with follow-up periods of less than six months were excluded, as a certain activity or behavior is assumed to be established only if it is practiced repeatedly for at least six months.

3.Sampling method

The sampling method for qualitative part is purposive but the samples were selected by considering some factors but it seems qota sampling

Please rethink over it because reader understand that it is qota sampling

�Thanks for your constructive comments: we have revised based on your comments.

Participants in the qualitative study was selected purposively on a quota basis.

4.Data collection

Have you checked the reliability of your data collection tool? If so how you checked?

Thank you for your insightful comment.

�We have checked reliability test for our tool, to assess reliability of the items individual Cronbach's Alpha was computed for individual latent variables and overall items of the tool. The overall Cronbach's Alpha consisting of 70 items was 0.902. The Cronbach's Alpha for the latent variables is also presented in table 6.

5.Data analysis

The statistical significance of associations between variables was determined using odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-values below 0.05

This statement is repeated please delete one of the two

�Thanks for your constructive comments: we have revised based on your comments.

6.Result

Instead of using tables as reference at each of statements please write in one paragraph and then use the table as reference and put it once

�Thanks for your constructive comments: we have revised based on your comments.

7.Discussion

The qualitative part of your finding is not discussed well please raise key issues and discuss with literatures

�Thanks for your constructive comments: we have revised based on your comments.

8. Declaration

Ethical consideration

Informed voluntary written and signed consent was obtained from all study participants prior to start data collection

why you choose written consent?

�Thank you for your insightful comment.

The preference for informed voluntary written and signed consent from study participants over oral consent is based on several key reasons:

1. Documentation: Written consent provides a clear record of the participant's agreement, serving as legal and ethical evidence that they were informed and willingly participated.

2. Clarity and Understanding: It allows researchers to communicate study details clearly, ensuring participants fully understand what they are agreeing to, which is essential for informed consent.

3. Legal Protection: Written consent includes language that safeguards participants' rights, including their ability to withdraw, confidentiality, and potential compensation.

4. Accountability: Requiring written consent encourages participants to engage actively and make conscious decisions about their involvement, enhancing the quality of research outcomes.

5. Ethical Considerations: Obtaining written consent aligns with ethical research principles by ensuring participants are fully informed and voluntarily consenting, thus maintaining research integrity.

While oral consent may be appropriate in emergencies, written consent is generally preferred to adequately inform participants and protect their rights.

Reviewer 2:

1.This manuscript is well-written, it could make a valuable contribution to literature on self-care practices of hypertension.

In result, it would be better if minimum and maximum age is also included along with average age of the participants

Thank you once again for your contributions.

�Thanks for your constructive comments: we have revised based on your comments. The participants in the study ranged in age from a minimum of 25 years to a maximum of 89 years, with a mean age of 53.52 ± 13.7 years (standard deviation).

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: point by point response Selfcare practice1111.docx
Decision Letter - Blessing Onyinye Ukoha-kalu, Editor

Self-Care Practice And Associated Factors Among Hypertensive Patients Who Have Follow-Ups In Public Hospitals Of Bahir-Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia, A Mixed Study

PONE-D-24-13630R1

Dear Dr. Yigezu,

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,

Blessing Onyinye Ukoha-kalu, B.Pharm, M.Pharm, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for taking the time to address the reviewers' concerns.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Blessing Onyinye Ukoha-kalu, Editor

PONE-D-24-13630R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yigezu,

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 Blessing Onyinye Ukoha-kalu

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 .