PONE-D-24-28827Behavioral insights during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina: the role of trust, health literacy, risk and fairness perceptions in compliance with public health and social measuresPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Eitze,

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.

I would like to see your paper published but I really need you to go thoroughly through all the comments reviewers gave you. Especially the very detailed observations that Reviewer 1 is giving you. Further, I need you to answer each of reviewers' comments and to address the changes made following the comments in the manuscript.

I strongly recommend to comply with Reviewer 1 provided solutions or to answer in details why something is not possible to accept.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 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,

Iskra Alexandra Nola

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 

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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Please upload a new copy of Figure 5 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/"

[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: No

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: No

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:  Dear Authors:

kindly address the follwoing:

Abstarct:The transition between sections could be smoother.

- Consider reordering phrases like: "The present study provides behavioral insights about self-reported compliance with PHSM" could be simplified to "This study examines self-reported compliance with PHSM," reducing wordiness.

- The description of the sample size ("1000 people representative of FBIH...") could mention how the representativeness was ensured. Did you use specific quotas for age, sex, and education level?

- You might also want to clarify what "cross-sectional studies" means in this context. Was data collection repeated in different periods (longitudinal cross-sectional design), or was it one cross-sectional study with waves?

- Avoid ambiguous terms like "key drivers" unless they are defined explicitly.

-It would help to specify which variables were strongest in the regression model and provide some context for the strength of associations (e.g., R-squared values)

- The suggestion to support health literacy in specific groups could benefit from specifying what groups were most vulnerable or poorly informed based on the findings.

Introduction:

- The opening sentence could be clearer and more engaging. Instead of starting with “Behavioral insights during the COVID-19 pandemic 60 in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” consider starting with a broader statement about the importance of understanding population behaviors during health crises.

-Clarity in Purpose:

The introduction could benefit from explicitly stating early on why understanding these behaviors matters for the success of PHSM, tying this more closely to the study being introduced.

Suggested revision: This study aimed to assess the behavioral determinants that influence compliance with PHSM in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBIH) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

- The transition from the general discussion of PHSM to Bosnia’s specific context could be made smoother.

- The mention of the WHO PHSM recommendations and the survey tool implementation in Bosnia appears twice. It could be streamlined to avoid repetition.

Methods:

The sentence starting with "Time of data collection" (lines 96-98) is a bit awkward and can be restructured for better readability. It might flow better if the dates for each wave are listed in a tabular format or set apart as bullet points.

-The response rate section (lines 102-105) is informative but could be made clearer with some rewording. The phrasing feels slightly redundant and could use more precision in presenting the varying rates.

- The sentence "Dropout rate for all five waves were 8%" (line 109) should have more context on what this means for the study. Does this reflect a good retention rate? Additionally, "were" should be corrected to "was."

- It would help to clarify why there was such a variation in the number of people invited to each wave and the response rates. It might indicate something about the survey methodology or external factors.

- Remove unnecessary details: For example, in the "Health literacy" section, you mention internal consistency in both waves, but this could be summarized without repeating the Cronbach's alpha scores twice.

- Avoid over-explaining Likert scales: In multiple instances, the explanation of Likert scales (1 to 7) could be simplified. After the first explanation, the reader should understand how the scale works, so reiterating it for every variable is unnecessary.

- Separate statistical analysis section more clearly: While you do have a statistical analysis section (line 161), the explanations of statistical tests used, like ANOVA and multiple regression, are a bit disjointed. It might help to structure this as a formal, separate subsection that outlines the methodology in a clearer step-by-step manner.

- Explain variable selection more clearly: You mention why certain items were excluded from certain scales (e.g., in the Emotional Response section). This could be more explicit, explaining the reasoning behind why a low correlation or Cronbach's alpha led to their removal. Additionally, why you chose to only focus on these specific seven variables should be justified more thoroughly in the introduction to this section.

- Explain the statistical tests more clearly: While you describe using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests, it could be helpful to include brief reasoning on why these tests were chosen (i.e., for comparing means across multiple groups) and how they were applied in the context of the study.

-Discussion:

-The paragraph discussing health literacy (lines 412-423) could benefit from a more explicit connection between the data and its implications. You mention it was not a significant antecedent, but then delve into the details without clearly tying back to this point. A stronger conclusion for this section would enhance the overall coherence.

-Some sections, like the one on emotional response (lines 367-372), could use more precise connections between your data and the broader literature. You cite multiple studies, but a clearer explanation of how your results align or diverge from these findings could strengthen the analysis. For example, expand on how the spike in emotional response in the fourth wave specifically impacted protective behaviors in comparison to other waves.

- While you effectively reference several studies, you could integrate them more dynamically into your discussion. Rather than listing studies as standalone facts, try weaving their conclusions into your argument.

- The limitations section is well-acknowledged, but you could go deeper into how these limitations might have influenced your results. For instance, what specific elements of trust or health literacy might have been underrepresented due to sampling bias (lines 424-428)? Offering suggestions for future research or alternative methodologies could enhance the critical depth of this section.

- The discussion of policy acceptance and trust (lines 397-411) is insightful, but could benefit from more elaboration on the “complex mediating role” of trust. How does this complexity play out in your findings? Could more specific examples be provided from the survey data?

Reviewer #2:  The author used very simple English and the narrative of the paper is explicit with facts.

The methodology was appropriate for the study.

The statistical analyses helped in controlling for some cofounders and biases that could have arisen from dropout of

some study participants.

The author stated limitations to the study and this guides in interpretation of the results with caution especially in relation to age and access to internet.

**********

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.

Behavioral insights during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina: the role of trust, health literacy, risk and fairness perceptions in compliance with public health and social measures

PONE-D-24-28827R1

Dear Dr. Eitze,

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,

Iskra Alexandra Nola

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear dr Eitze,

Thank you for revised paper. I would like to ask you one more thing - please change the cover letter, you uploaded in the system with revised version of your paper, with the correct Journal name in first paragraph.

Kind regards,

Iskra A. Nola

Reviewers' comments: