Factors affecting online health information-seeking behavior in young and middle-aged patients with stroke

Ge Shi; Jiajia Yu; Jiaming Zhang; Jun Zhao; Zhen Peng; Li Shang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0321791

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 23, 2024
23 Aug 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321791.r001
8 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Ali Garavand, Editor PONE-D-24-34419Factors affecting online health information seeking behaviour in young and middle-aged stroke patientsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shang, 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 Nov 22 2024 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, Ali Garavand 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 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? 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: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 author, this article contributes valuable knowledge to the field of health information behavior, particularly in the context of stroke patients, and offers practical insights for enhancing online health information literacy and patient engagement. The comments provided will help improve your article. Abbreviations should not be used in the abstract and the methodology should be presented in more detail. Include keywords related to research. The introduction is very long and needs to be presented more densely. The methodology should be presented in more detail. The sample volume formula should be provided. Mention the inclusion and exclusion criteria exactly. Discussion emphasizes positive findings and practical implications, while potential negative aspects or challenges are less explored. Some references appear to be cited multiple times (e.g., Deng Chaohua's studies). There are inconsistencies in the citation style. Ensure proper spacing and punctuation. Improve sentence structure for clarity. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors of interesting manuscript. I appreciate an opportunity to review your paper. Please find my comments and suggestions below. 1. In line 1 abstract, you must state the complete phrase with its abbreviation, and later you can use only the abbreviation. You must write online health information seeking behavior (OHISB) for the first time. 2. In introduction section, the statistics used are not up to date. (references 4 and 5) 3. In Theoretical development and hypotheses section, paragraph about “the second Wilson model” has no reference. 4. The methodology section lacks detailed explanations of the data collection and statistical analysis methods. Provide more comprehensive details about the sampling process, data collection instruments, and specific statistical methods used. 5. In discussion section, some sentences haven’t any references for example in Social influence you say: Studies have shown that social influence can significantly improve OHISB in stroke patients. Which studies? Also, in this section, you include more comparisons with previous studies, highlighting how your findings align or contrast with them. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321791.r002
Revision 1
18 Oct 2024 Author Response Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: 1.Abbreviations should not be used in the abstract and the methodology should be presented in more detail. Include keywords related to research. Thanks to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable suggestions. Modifications have been made as suggested. In the modification, we removed the abbreviation "OHISB" and fully supplemented it as "online health information seeking behaviour". We supplemented the methodology (lines10-15), including the sampling method, the experimental time period, and the basis for including the dimensions of influencing factors. Keywords were added below the abstract. 2.The introduction is very long and needs to be presented more densely. Thanks to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable suggestions. Modifications have been made as suggested. We have revised the logic and language of the introduction. The data on stroke epidemiology(lines31-33) and online health information seeking behavior(lines45-50) have been replaced with data from other countries that are more representative. 3.The methodology should be presented in more detail. The sample volume formula should be provided. Mention the inclusion and exclusion criteria exactly. Thanks to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable suggestions. Modifications have been made as suggested. We have supplemented the method section in detail, including the sampling method(lines196-199), the sample volume formula(lines199-203), inclusion and exclusion criteria(lines203-209), data collection(lines244-246), and statistical analysis(lines246-250). 4.Discussion emphasizes positive findings and practical implications, while potential negative aspects or challenges are less explored. Thanks to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable suggestions. Modifications have been made as suggested. We have supplemented the negative impacts and current challenges faced in the parts of stroke course(lines368-371), number of combined chronic diseases(lines391-394), and perceived risk(lines407-413). 5.Some references appear to be cited multiple times.There are inconsistencies in the citation style.Ensure proper spacing and punctuation.Improve sentence structure for clarity. Thanks to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable suggestions. Modifications have been made as suggested.We have removed duplicate citations, such as Deng Chaohua(lines146-147),Zhao YC(lines140-141) and Lee(lines456-457). Additionally, we have checked the full-text citations and sentences. Reviewer #2: 1.In line 1 abstract, you must state the complete phrase with its abbreviation, and later you can use only the abbreviation. You must write online health information seeking behavior (OHISB) for the first time. Thanks to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable suggestions. Modifications have been made as suggested. In the modification, we removed the abbreviation "OHISB" and fully supplemented it as "online health information seeking behaviour". 2.In introduction section, the statistics used are not up to date. (references 4 and 5) Thanks to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable suggestions. Modifications have been made as suggested. We have updated the data of stroke patients(lines31-33) and young and middle-aged stroke patients(lines34-36). 3.In Theoretical development and hypotheses section, paragraph about “the second Wilson model” has no reference. Thanks to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable suggestions. Modifications have been made as suggested. We have supplemented the references of the second Wilson model, which are Reference 13 and Reference 14 respectively. 4.The methodology section lacks detailed explanations of the data collection and statistical analysis methods. Provide more comprehensive details about the sampling process, data collection instruments, and specific statistical methods used. Thanks to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable suggestions. Modifications have been made as suggested. We have supplemented the content of data collection and statistical analysis methods, including the sampling process(lines196-209), data collection tools(lines244-246) and statistical methods(lines246-250). 5.In discussion section, some sentences haven’t any references for example in Social influence you say: Studies have shown that social influence can significantly improve OHISB in stroke patients. Which studies?Also, in this section, you include more comparisons with previous studies, highlighting how your findings align or contrast with them. Thanks to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable suggestions. Modifications have been made as suggested. We have supplemented the citation of references in the discussion section. Moreover, in the discussion section, we have comprehensively added the comparison between the research results of this study and previous studies, such as in the perception of perceived risk(lines407-418). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321791.r003
3 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Nicola Diviani, Editor PONE-D-24-34419R1Factors affecting online health information seeking behavior in young and middle-aged stroke patientsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shang, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear authors, As you will see below, both reviewers are satisfied with the revisions and feel that you have addressed their concerns and suggestions appropriately. However, one reviewer noted that the manuscript requires extensive language polishing before it can be accepted for publication. I therefore ask you to have the entire manuscript reviewed by a native English speaker. I look forward to receiving the revised version. Best wishes Nicola Diviani ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 17 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, Nicola Diviani Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. 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? 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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 ****** 5. 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 ****** 6. 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, The reviewers' comments have been incorporated into the manuscript. However, the article requires significant revisions to improve the language and grammar. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321791.r004
Revision 2
9 Mar 2025 Author Response Thanks to the reviewers for their meticulous review and valuable suggestions. We have had the manuscript professionally edited for language by Editageto ensure clarity and adherence to academic writing standards. A certificate of editing has been attached for your reference. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321791.r005
11 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Nicola Diviani, Editor Factors affecting online health information-seeking behavior in young and middle-aged patients with stroke PONE-D-24-34419R2 Dear Dr. Shang, 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, Nicola Diviani Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321791.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Nicola Diviani, Editor PONE-D-24-34419R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shang, 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. Nicola Diviani Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321791.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 .