Designing tuberculosis elimination framework through participatory processes in Ethiopia: Results from stakeholders’ discussions

Mulatu Biru; Daniel G. Datiko; Degu Jerene; Asfawesen G. Yohannes; Yohannes Molla; Pedro Suarez; Wondmiu Gebrekiros; Anteneh Kassa; Yewulsew Kassie; Zewdu G. Dememew

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318209

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 8, 2024
8 Jul 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318209.r001
29 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Mohammed Badeso, Editor PONE-D-24-24730Designing Tuberculosis elimination framework through participatory processes in Ethiopia: results from stakeholders’ discussionsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dememew, 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 13 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, Mohammed Hasen Badeso, Epidemiologist 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 ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB. 3. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include authors Asfawesen G.Yohannes, Wondmiu G. Kirstos, Anteneh K, and Yewulsew K. 4. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Degu Gilmore Jeren. 5. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A 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: No ****** 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: No ****** 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: Date 20 September 2024 PLOS ONE Journal Dear Editors Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript in title “Designing Tuberculosis elimination framework through participatory processes in Ethiopia: results from stakeholders’ discussions.” The study has strength and limitations. strength Background : defined the problem and principles Methods: presented detailed information on data acquisition and analysis Results: Themes and subthemes with summary of finding and verbatims depicted. Discussion: findings were controlled with relevant literatures. Conclusions: proposed in line with results. Limitation Methods: statement describing quasi- experimental nature of this study should be removed. Here is no intervention and control groups. Data saturation: the researcher dealt with three groups in three region, statement stating data saturation cannot be reached with a single group. Ethical Consideration: the annexed certificate was issued by PSI not by JSI. But in the body of the manuscript you reported that John Snow Inc and AHRI ethics review boards. Thank you so much. Reviewer #2: Introduction • Global TB report data pertains to 2022, so the statement may be modified accordingly • Many of the determinants mentioned are not primarily related to treatment outcomes, but to TB incidence. The interventions for improving treatment outcomes may be kept separate from all the determinants of TB Results • “five main themes” in table 3 mentioned in the manuscript is mentioned in the previous paragraph as “sub-themes” • “approval from regional research approving bodies in addition to the national IRB, can be stopped” Obtaining clearance from regional and national IRBs can’t be equated to community involvement Discussion • “The study team learnt that engaging health care workers from the study district and the community is cost effective and eases the implementation of the study” – based on what evidence? • Results do not have data to substantiate the statement that “study highlights the valuable insights gained from the MRC tailored protocol development.” • Again the results and the quotes presented in the results do not substantiate the statement that “the study emphasizes the significance of the MRC tailored feasibility and piloting, which provided valuable information on the practicality and viability of implementing the proposed interventions” Abstract • Abstract does not convey what the study involves and the conclusions overreach the findings of the study ****** 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: Yes: Dr Mesele Damte Argaw 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.0318209.r002
Revision 1
8 Jan 2025 Author Response A rebuttal letter Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the editor and reviewers' comments on our manuscript titled " Designing Tuberculosis elimination framework through participatory processes in Ethiopia: results from stakeholders’ discussions” Manuscript ID: [PONE-D-24-24730]. We appreciate the reviewers’ constructive feedback, which has helped us to improve the clarity and quality of our work. Below, we provide a detailed response to each comment. We have carefully considered all suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly. For clarity, the editor and reviewers' comments are presented in bold italics, followed by our point-by-point responses. A. Response to Editor: Journal requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed and revised our manuscript to ensure full compliance with PLOS ONE's style requirements, including the appropriate file naming conventions. 2. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB. Response: Thank you for your comment. Verbal consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. The consent process was documented by the research team through written records indicating the participant's agreement, which weas signed by both the interviewer and a witness during the consent process. This procedure was part of the study Demonstrating Multipronged and Optimized Novel Strategies to Reinforce Actions Targeted at Eliminating Tuberculosis (DeMONSTRATE-TB): A Sequential Exploratory Mixed Method Study in Ethiopia (REB# 37.2022) and was reviewed and approved through the human subjects expedited review process on December 16, 2022, and modification request approval in May 31, 2023. 3. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include authors Asfawesen G.Yohannes, Wondmiu G. Kirstos, Anteneh K, and Yewulsew K. Response: Thank you for your comment. The manuscript submission data has been updated to include authors Asfawesen G. Yohannes, Wondmiu G. Kirstos, Anteneh K., and Yewulsew K. 4. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Degu Gilmore Jeren. Response: The author's name has been amended to Degu Jerene. 5. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission Response: Thank you for your comment. This figure was created by us using QGIS (https://qgis.org/), which is open-source software. Please note that the boundaries in this map do not represent official boundaries. We have also included this information in the figure caption 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Response: Thank you for this information. We do not have any additional supporting documents for Figure 2. 7. 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 include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed the reference list to ensure completeness and accuracy. No retracted papers were cited. Please let us know if further adjustments are required B. Response From Reviewers Response to Reviewer 1: Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript in title “Designing Tuberculosis elimination framework through participatory processes in Ethiopia: results from stakeholders’ discussions.” The study has strength and limitations. 1.0 strength Background : defined the problem and principles Methods: presented detailed information on data acquisition and analysis Results: Themes and subthemes with summary of finding and verbatims depicted. Discussion: findings were controlled with relevant literatures. Conclusions: proposed in line with results. Response: We thank you the reviewer for the constructive comments 2.0 Limitation Methods: statement describing quasi- experimental nature of this study should be removed. Here is no intervention and control groups. Response: Thank you removed, line 135 Data saturation: the researcher dealt with three groups in three regions, statement stating data saturation cannot be reached with a single group. Response: Thank you. This saturation is for context specific or districts-based information. However, for cross-cutting information, discussion in all the districts were used-line 200-201. Ethical Consideration: the annexed certificate was issued by PSI not by JSI. But in the body of the manuscript, you reported that John Snow Inc and AHRI ethics review boards. Response: Thank you it is corrected to Population Services International (PSI), line 222-223 Response to Reviewer 2: Introduction 1.0 Global TB report data pertain to 2022, so the statement may be modified accordingly Response: Corrected in Line 66 2.0 Many of the determinants mentioned are not primarily related to treatment outcomes, but to TB incidence. The interventions for improving treatment outcomes may be kept separate from all the determinants of TB Response: This is acritical comment and addressed in line #67-77. Results 1.0 “five main themes” in table 3 mentioned in the manuscript is mentioned in the previous paragraph as “sub-themes” Response: Thank you, and this is corrected as 'five sub-themes' in figure 3. Line# 296 2.0 “approval from regional research approving bodies in addition to the national IRB, can be stopped” Obtaining clearance from regional and national IRBs can’t be equated to community involvement Response: Thank you very much. New supporting quates added to deal with the importance of community engagement. Line 347-350 Discussion 1. The study team learnt that engaging health care workers from the study district and the community is cost effective and eases the implementation of the study” – based on what evidence? Response: Thank you for this critical observation. We have revised the statement in line #353 to clarify that the study team learned that engaging healthcare workers from the study district and the community facilitated and streamlined the implementation of the study. 2. Results do not have data to substantiate the statement that “study highlights the valuable insights gained from the MRC tailored protocol development.” Response: Thank you again for this crucial comment regarding the connection between evidence and data. We have revised the statement in line #478-480 to: "The study reflects the insights gained from the MRC tailored protocol development, though we acknowledge the need for further data to fully support this observation." 3. Again, the results and the quotes presented in the results do not substantiate the statement that “the study emphasizes the significance of the MRC tailored feasibility and piloting, which provided valuable information on the practicality and viability of implementing the proposed interventions. Response: We greatly appreciate this comment and have made a minor change, replacing "significance" with "importance" in line # 483. However, based on the evidence presented in the results—such as the MRC tailored protocol development process, which enhanced the rigor of the protocol, and the feasibility discussions—it is evident that community engagement at various levels played a crucial role in facilitating the commencement of the study. 4. Abstract does not convey what the study involves, and the conclusions overreach the findings of the study Response: Thank you once again. The conclusion of the abstract has been revised to encompass the key findings of the study, as reflected in lines #49-54. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318209.r003
12 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Mohammed Badeso, Editor Designing Tuberculosis elimination framework through participatory processes in Ethiopia: results from stakeholders’ discussions PONE-D-24-24730R1 Dear Dr. Zewdu 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, Mohammed Hasen Badeso, Epidemiologist Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318209.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mohammed Badeso, Editor PONE-D-24-24730R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dememew, 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 Mohammed Hasen Badeso Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318209.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .