Health Kiosks in Market: A qualitative study of factors influencing the transferability of the program to a target context in Kenya

O. Jarim; K. Lydia; M. Grace; M. Anselimo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0321357

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 5, 2025
26 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha, Editor Dear Dr. Omogi, 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 Aug 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. 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 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, Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha 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. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 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. [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 Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #3: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: 1. The abstract lacks specificity in key findings. What exact factors (beyond generalities like "perceived usefulness") influenced transferability? Rewrite the results section of the abstract. 2. The introduction is overloaded with general background on NCDs; it could be summarized and added to with more Kenya-specific context and the rationale for choosing HEKIMA. 3. The flow between global issues and local intervention is not coherent. 4. In line 111, "Error! Reference source not found" suggests a missing figure or citation, indicating poor proofreading or reference management. 5. Lines 133–153 repeat participants in multiple ways and have too much redundancy in the sampling strategy. 6. Line 181 states that "inductive content analysis" (ICA) was used, yet the coding process seems highly structured and deductive, given the PIET-T framework guidance. Clarify whether it was inductive or deductive. 7. Lack of sufficient discussion on why certain elements supported or hindered transferability. For example, why did decision-makers support it in one county but have reservations in another? 8. There are numerous grammatical errors, run-on sentences, and awkward phrasings throughout the manuscript. There are inconsistent references and punctuation (e.g., missing full stops and misplaced commas). The manuscript should be proofread thoroughly. Reviewer #2: Recommendations for Authors Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “Health Kiosks in market: A qualitative study of factors influencing the transferability of the program to a target context in Kenya”. While the topic is relevant and timely, I have several concerns regarding the manuscript’s current form. Below, I outline specific areas where the manuscript could be strengthened to improve its clarity, coherence, and overall contribution. Abstract - Please include the data collection period and the total number of participants. - Kindly add 3-5 relevant keywords to support indexing and improve discoverability. Introduction - When referring to the disease burden or epidemiological situation, please specify the year to provide a clear temporal context. Also, consider updating the data if more recent statistics are available. - The phrase “in Error! Reference source not found” appears to be a referencing error. Please review and correct the citation accordingly. Research Methods and Design Setting - When stating the population size, please indicate the year the data refers to in order to ensure clarity and relevance. - Including a map of the study area would enhance the reader’s understanding of the geographical context. Study Population and Sampling Strategy - Please specify the exclusion criteria. Results - Please provide the characteristics of participants for FGDs and IDIs to offer context for the findings. Discussion - Please include recommendations for further research to guide future work in this area. - Kindly expand the discussion to provide deeper analysis or reflection on key findings and their implications for program transferability. Acknowledgment - Please include a note of appreciation to the study participants for their time and valuable contributions. Figure - Please ensure that Figure 1 is properly cited within the main text to maintain consistency and guide the reader. - Figure 1 appears unclear and lacks sharpness. Please consider enhancing the resolution or quality to improve readability. Reviewer #3: I am not sure, the researchers use the methodology of content analysis will help answer the question of factors influencing the transferability of the program to a target context in Kenya because the researcher used focus group and in-depth interviews. The study of factors should use quantitative methods, which should make the researcher's explanation more reliable. Researchers should elaborate on what Health Kiosks in Market (HEKIMA) can provide. Is it specific to NCDs, what is the scope? ****** 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: Uma Langkulsen Reviewer #3: 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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321357.r002
Revision 1
7 Jul 2025 Author Response Recommendations for Authors Authors comment page Additional Requirements Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The document has been redone and currently meets PLOS ONE’s style Across the whole document We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see • The author has sent the data to Qualitative Data Repository 22 If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. 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. I have added two references, among them Nos 5 and 21 having updated the literature and the type of analysis used. 20 & 21 Reviewer #1 The abstract lacks specificity in key findings. What exact factors (beyond generalities like "perceived usefulness") influenced transferability? Rewrite the results section of the abstract. The results have been rewritten and the findings made specific 2 The introduction is overloaded with general background on NCDs; it could be summarized and added to with more Kenya-specific context and the rationale for choosing HEKIMA. More Kenya specific has been added into the introduction section. 3 The flow between global issues and local intervention is not coherent Inconsistencies redone on the instruction section. In line 111, "Error! Reference source not found" suggests a missing figure or citation, indicating poor proofreading or reference management. This is done Lines 133–153 repeat participants in multiple ways and have too much redundancy in the sampling strategy The study population and sampling strategy has been rewritten and the redundancy sorted 6 & 7 Line 181 states that "inductive content analysis" (ICA) was used, yet the coding process seems highly structured and deductive, given the PIET-T framework guidance. Clarify whether it was inductive or deductive The has been revised as per the advice given 8 Lack of sufficient discussion on why certain elements supported or hindered transferability. For example, why did decision-makers support it in one county but have reservations in another This is done There are numerous grammatical errors, run-on sentences, and awkward phrasings throughout the manuscript. There are inconsistent references and punctuation (e.g., missing full stops and misplaced commas). The manuscript should be proofread thoroughly. The manuscript has been proofread and is now okay for publication Reviewer #2 Abstract Please include the data collection period and the total number of participants. This has been indicated on the abstract 1 Kindly add 3-5 relevant keywords to support indexing and improve discoverability. This has been added 1 Introduction When referring to the disease burden or epidemiological situation, please specify the year to provide a clear temporal context. Also, consider updating the data if more recent statistics are available This is done The phrase “in Error! Reference source not found” appears to be a referencing error. Please review and correct the citation accordingly. This has been corrected Research Methods and Design When stating the population size, please indicate the year the data refers to in order to ensure clarity and relevance. This has been stated 6 Including a map of the study area would enhance the reader’s understanding of the geographical context. A map has been done Please specify the exclusion criteria Exclusion criteria has been added Results Please provide the characteristics of participants for FGDs and IDIs to offer context for the findings. This has been provided in the biggening of the finding section 9 Discussion Please include recommendations for further research to guide future work in this area. This has been included as advised 19 Kindly expand the discussion to provide deeper analysis or reflection on key findings and their implications for program transferability. This is done Acknowledgment Please include a note of appreciation to the study participants for their time and valuable contributions. A note of appreciation to the participants added 20 Figure Please ensure that Figure 1 is properly cited within the main text to maintain consistency and guide the reader. This has been clearly cited Figure 1 appears unclear and lacks sharpness. Please consider enhancing the resolution or quality to improve readability. I have tried to enhance the resolution and sharpness of the figure Figures Reviewer #2 I am not sure, the researchers use the methodology of content analysis will help answer the question of factors influencing the transferability of the program to a target context in Kenya because the researcher used focus group and in-depth interviews. The study of factors should use quantitative methods, which should make the researcher's explanation more reliable. This has been done as advised. 6 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321357.r003
27 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha, Editor Dear Dr. Omogi, Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 11 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. 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 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, Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 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 Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The manuscript is much improved and suitable for publication after addressing the issues stated. While the authors mention developing 264 codes and merging them into 13 sub-themes, a brief mention of intercoder reliability will be beneficial. Even though optional, a table summarizing the final themes/sub-themes under the PIET-T framework would aid readers' understanding and strengthen the presentation of results. Reviewer #2: Thank you for revising the section on participant characteristics. While the current description offers helpful qualitative details, it would be more informative to also include basic quantitative information, such as the number of participants in each group (e.g., how many FGD and IDI participants, by role or gender) to better contextualize the findings. ****** 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: Uma Langkulsen ******** [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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321357.r004
Revision 2
1 Sep 2025 Author Response Reviewer #1: The manuscript is much improved and suitable for publication after addressing the issues stated. While the authors mention developing 264 codes and merging them into 13 sub-themes, a brief mention of intercoder reliability will be beneficial. While intercoder reliability is key in measuring consistency and replicability among others, it can only be applied when qualitative has been analyzed by more than one coder. This being a PhD, the researcher did not engage the services of other analysts hence it may not be possible to develop the reliability test. Even though optional, a table summarizing the final themes/sub-themes under the PIET-T framework would aid readers' understanding and strengthen the presentation of results. A table summarizing the thirteen themes have been added in page 8. Reviewer #2: Thank you for revising the section on participant characteristics. While the current description offers helpful qualitative details, it would be more informative to also include basic quantitative information, such as the number of participants in each group (e.g., how many FGD and IDI participants, by role or gender) to better contextualize the findings. This information has been captured in the study population section. I have also added more information in the results section that is found in page 9 and 10. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321357.r005
11 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha, Editor Health Kiosks in Market: A qualitative study of factors influencing the transferability of the program to a target context in Kenya. PONE-D-25-11656R2 Dear Dr. Omogi, 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. 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, Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewer #2: Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “Health Kiosks in Market: A qualitative study of factors influencing the transferability of the program to a target context in Kenya”. The authors have addressed the reviewer’s comment. I wish them the best of luck with the manuscript. ****** 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 #2: Yes: Uma Langkulsen ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321357.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha, Editor PONE-D-25-11656R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Omogi, 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. Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321357.r007

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 .