PONE-D-24-05191COVID-19 Recovered Patients' Physical and Mental Health Well-Being:  Phenomenological StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abuhammad,

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

Ensure that you use line numbering throughout the manuscript to ensure easy review of your manuscript. This will accord reviewers the ease of stating where corrections need to be effected. The whole manuscript needs to be reviewed for proper presentation.

Title: the title of the setting should contain the study area/ setting, what type of recovered patients were interviewed- hospital staff? Or a certain community? And the country of the study. Instead of phenomenological study, I suggest that the heading should be a qualitative study.

Abstract

The abstract should contain, Introduction, Methods, Results and Conclusion.

Introduction should have a statement on the subject matter before stating the aim/objective of the study.

Methods; unstructured interview protocol? Does it mean that you did not use an interview guide / a checklist / a semi-structured interview guide to guide the discussions? Didn’t you have questions which you used to aid in meeting the aim of your study? State your sampling method that was used – purposive? Snowball?

State the method you used in analyzing your data? Phenomenological method? Inductive method of coding? Reflexivity?

Introduction

The first paragraph should be on the global trend of the post COVID-19 traumatic experiences of patients that had moderate to severe COVID-19 infection. Followed by the continental post COVID-19 traumatic experiences of patients that had moderate to severe COVID-19 infection and finally the country where this study was conducted.

The statement below should be part of the last paragraph of the introduction as it relates to the relevance of why the study was conducted.

“The study of post-severe infection health is not merely an academic endeavor; it is an urgent call to understand, address, and alleviate the intricate and enduring challenges faced by survivors who have traversed the often arduous journey of severe COVID-19(2, 7).”

Please, ensure that the introduction is constructed in such a way that there is good flow of information, relevant information and concise.

Methods

Start with the study setting where the information was collected. We need the city or states were the information was collected and the country, not just stating that the interview was house-to-house or preferred setting suggested.

State clearly the eligibility criteria of your study.

What type of sampling method that was used in the selection of study participants?

How did you ensure that bias is minimal in your study and the validity and reliability of the study? Reflexivity? Inductive method of coding?

Did you try to enhance the interview by making statements like- tell us more about your experience or can you please throw more light or explain more on the statement you made? Please, do state how you circumvented your questions in the data collection section.

What was the approximate timing of each participant during the interview? Did you train researchers who conducted the interviews?

How many people were involved in the data collection processes?

Was there at any point you reached “data saturation point” during your interview? Kindly state it in the METHODS section and if you did not reach data saturation point, do ensure that you state it under the limitations of your study in the DISCUSSION section. Since “data saturation point” indicates that there was no new information that was generated during the interview.

Ensure that the interview guide questions are also stated under the methodology.

In what language was the interview conducted?

Who was responsible for the translation? Was he/she an expert in the language? Clearly state it in  the methodology.

Your data collection should be separated from ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS/APPROVAL.

Under ethical considerations you can state that written informed consent was obtained from participants that agreed to participate in the study after thorough explanation of what the study entails including stating of risk involved if any, the scope of the study and their ability to withdraw at any point of the study if the study was not convenient for them. The ethical approval of the study should also be stated under this section.

Results

The demographic characteristics also contained some analysed quantitative descriptive analysis of the participants’ experience of the symptoms of the COVID-19 infection. Should this be part of the demographic characteristics?

What about the age group of those that were interviewed (participants)? Do state the age range of the participants.

You need to insert a table that in this section that contains; the themes, subthemes, codes and the frequency of code generated by each participant

Under the theme generated for example PHYSICAL HEALTH; were respiratory problems, joint and muscle pain, changes in activity level, and worsening of previous health problems the subthemes that led to the formation of the afore mentioned theme? Please endeavor to state some of the statements from the interviews conducted that fell under this categories.

Which categories led to the formation of theme respiratory problems? Please, indicate and write the experiences of the participants under each category

Four themes were generated from the study but it seems like up to 12 themes were covered in the result section. Please ensure that you clearly state the themes and subthemes while at the same time directing the statements under each subtheme or categories generated as earlier stated.

Discussion

There is need for a more elaborative description of your findings in relation to other qualitative/quantitative studies that signified such experiences by patients that recovered from COVID-19.

It is expected that your discussion should follow the presentation of your result. Use a paragraph for each theme that was developed and discuss sequentially as presented in the result section.

Finally, you should high light the limitations of your study as the last paragraph

I suggest that you use other published qualitative articles as guide and also use the COREQ checklist for qualitative studies.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 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,

Ayi Vandi Kwaghe, D.V.M., M.V.Sc., P.G.D.E. Ph.D., MPH, FETP

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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data will be avaliable upon reasonable request. It is include recordings and sensitive data]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

[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: 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: 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: This study included useful information regarding post Covid syndrome which involved millions of people worldwide. familiarity with the finding of this study will help nurses to consider them during their nursing care

Reviewer #2: I have read the referred article with keen interest. The information is interesting and innovative; conclusion section is interesting and authors can improve it further. I am recommending authors to do a little more work and add latest literate to support the study. The authors need to improve results section. The level of English is good and smooth, e.g., the language standard, specifically the grammar, of sufficient quality to meet scientific merit for publication. However, I suggest authors to double check for language quality. Describe scientific contribution of the study to the existing body of knowledge. I endorse this manuscript after minor revision as suggested. The topic is interesting and worthy of attention. The methodology is adequate and the conclusions are consistent with the reported data. The manuscript can be improved by expanding the references and citing some recently published articles on this topic.

Authors should consider the following recommendations:

- I recommend further improving the references by citing some of these recent studies on the topic:

Naeem, B., Aqeel, M., & de Almeida Santos, Z. (2021). Marital conflict, self-silencing, dissociation, and depression in married madrassa and non-madrassa women: a multilevel mediating model. Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 1-11.

Naeem, B., & Chaman, A. The Association of Adverse Self-Silencing and Marital Conflict with Symptoms of Depression and Dissociation in Married Madrassa and Non-Madrassa Women: A Cross-sectional Study.

Naeem, B. Nurturing the Soul: A Psychometric Analysis of the Spiritual Intelligence Inventory in Married Madrassa and Non-Madrassa Women.

Saif, J., Rohail, D. I., & Aqeel, M. (2021). Quality of Life, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Distress in Women with Primary and Secondary Infertility; A Mediating Model . Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology, 1(1 SE-), 8–17.

Naeem, B., Aqeel, M., & de Almeida Santos, Z. (2021). Marital Conflict, Self-Silencing, Dissociation, and Depression in Married Madrassa and Non-Madrassa Women: A Multilevel Mediating Model. Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 1–11

Hafsa, S., Aqeel, M., & Shuja, K. H. (2021). The Moderating Role of Emotional Intelligence between Inter-Parental Conflicts and Loneliness in Male and Female Adolescents. Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology, 1(1 SE-), 38–48

Rashid, A., Aqeel, M., Malik, D. B., & Salim, D. S. (2021). The Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in Breast Cancer Patients; A Cross-Sectional Study of Breast Cancer Patients Experience in Pakistan. Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology, 1(1 SE-), 1–7. https://thenaturenurture.org/index.php/psychology/article/view/1

Sarfraz, R., Aqeel, M., Lactao, D. J., & Khan, D. S. (2021). Coping Strategies, Pain Severity, Pain Anxiety, Depression, Positive and Negative Affect in Osteoarthritis Patients; A Mediating and Moderating Model . Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology, 1(1 SE-), 18–28. https://thenaturenurture.org/index.php/psychology/article/view/8

Aqeel, M., Nisar, H. H., Rehna, T., & Ahmed, A. (2021). Self-harm behaviour, psychopathological distress and suicidal ideation in normal and deliberate self-harm outpatient’s adults. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 71(9), 2143-2147.

Aqeel, M., Rohail, I., Ahsan, S., Ahmed, A., & Saad, M. B. (2017). Moderating role of the forgiveness between vengeance and aggression in Pakistani murderers. Wulfenia Journal, 24(3), 269-283.

Aqeel, M., Jami, H., & Ahmed, A. (2017). Translation, adaptation, and cross-language validation of student: thinking about my homework scale (STP). International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, 10(5), 296-309.

**********

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: Alireza Nikbakht Nasrabadi

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr.Muhammad Aqeel

**********

[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.

PONE-D-24-05191R1COVID-19 Survivor Parents' Physical and Mental health well-being: A Qualitative Study from JordanPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abuhammad,

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 Apr 04 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,

Ayi Vandi Kwaghe, D.V.M., M.V.Sc., P.G.D.E. Ph.D., MPH, FETP

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 #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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 #3: Dear authors

Thank you for your efforts to do this research. Below are some comments and suggestions to help improve the clarity and impact of your study.

The authors discuss the COVID-19 Survivor Parents' Physical and Mental health well-being; however, there is no clear explanation as to why parents specifically were chosen as the focus of the study. Furthermore, simply considering parents as a group is insufficient. The term "parents" is broad and encompasses various subgroups. It is not clear what criteria were used to define parents in the study. For instance, the criteria of being hospitalized or receiving oxygen therapy are not distinguishing enough. The study could benefit from distinguishing among different types of parents, such as those with healthy children, those with children who have chronic conditions, those who lost a child to COVID-19, and those with children who require transplants. Each of these subgroups would likely have different experiences.

The study appears to treat all COVID-19 survivor parents as a homogeneous group, as if investigating the experiences of ordinary survivors without considering the diversity among them. Additionally, in the introduction, the authors state, "Many survivor parents of COVID-19 suffer from lingering physical symptoms, often referred to post-COVID-19(14, 15)". However, the references reviewed did not specifically address parents.

Reviewer #4: The paper presents the findings of an intriguing qualitative study on the experience of patients who have recovered from Coronavirus Disease 2019 with respect to their physical and psychological quality of life. The topic is both timely and of significant interest; however, it is recommended that responses address the methodology and the use of excessive diagnostic terminology, and that the paper be proofread by native speakers to enhance its scientific English.

Reviewer #5: Note: I reviewed the first manuscript in the submission. There was a “revised” manuscript at the end that was not reviewed or compared to the first.

This qualitative study examined the occurrence of persistent post-COVID-19 health issues using unstructured interviews in patients who had severe COVID-19.

The study was sufficiently methodically sound to ensure the results have low bias and are valid across raters.

The discussion/conclusion could be improved; please explicitly tell what you found, what you expected, any differences between the two and point out any new unexpected themes. These aspects are somewhat present, but please work on making them more explicit.

There are a large number of small grammatical and language issues that I suspect are a result of the authors not having English as their first language. These should be fixed in order to make the manuscript appear professional. There are so many, I stopped trying to note each one. I recommend hiring or otherwise utilizing a writer experienced scientific writing in English to do a full pass to fix these issues. Here is the incomplete list of items I identified before I stopped, use the search function to locate the problem areas I identified:

• Introduction of abstract. Break into 2 or more sentences. Opening sentence is not clear, I think you mean “Understanding Post-severe infection health…”. Revise.

• In the abstract results, the sentence, “The cognitive health subheading include subheadings such as loss of memory and diminish ability of focusing and changes in cognitive abilities.” should only mention subheadings once. Revise

• Do not use colloquial language. Here are some phrases that need to be replaced with precise scientific language.

o “sobering light” – being sober or not is irrelevant.

o “treacherous path”. --- they are not literally walking on a path.

o “grapples” / “grappling --- I don’t think wrestling is involved

o “illuminating”

o “forge a path”

o “Embark on a journey”

• Replace “This subject studying” with “This study”. Pg. 10

• In, “Many survivor parents of COVID-19 suffer from

• lingering physical symptoms, often referred to post-COVID-19(14, 15).” The last part of this sentence is not clear.

• “The impact of COVID-19 pandemic is profound…”. Should be “The impact of THE COVID-19”

• “and all survivors that includes parents showed suffering from mental health issues”. Remove “that includes parents” I’m not sure why this is in there.

My recommendation is that this study is suitable for publication if the above issues are addressed satisfactorily after revision.

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Silvia Costanzo, Psyhologist-Psychotherapist and Researcher

Reviewer #5: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: grant phemnology two modified_sc.docx

PONE-D-24-05191R2Physical and Mental Health Well-Being of COVID-19 Recovered Patients: A Phenomenological StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abuhammad,

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 ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 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,

Ayi Vandi Kwaghe, D.V.M., M.V.Sc., P.G.D.E. Ph.D., MPH, FETP

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 #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

**********

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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: N/A

**********

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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: 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 #4: The authors have correctly revised the paper in accordance with the reviewer's instructions. The text has undergone a thorough proofreading process, resulting in enhanced fluency.

Reviewer #5: The manuscript language is very much improved. Thanks for your excellent contribution and congratulations on publishing!

Reviewer #6: The study addresses an important topic. The aim of the study is clearly stated, and the focus on both physical and mental health aspects is crucial for understanding the holistic recovery of individuals post-infection.

The use of a qualitative approach, particularly unstructured interviews, is appropriate for exploring participants' experiences in-depth. This method allows for a nuanced understanding of the subjective experiences of individuals recovering from COVID-19, which is critical for informing both clinical practice and future research.

However, I have a few suggestions and questions regarding the study's methodology:

Subject Selection and Sampling:

Could the authors specify how many hospitals were selected for participant recruitment and how many patients were selected from each hospital? This detail will help readers understand the scope and diversity of the sample.

Sampling Method and Sample Size:

It would be beneficial if the authors could describe the sampling method in more detail. Additionally, it would be helpful to explain why a sample size of 30 participants was chosen.

Use of Qualitative Software:

If a qualitative software was used to analyze the data, the authors should provide more details on how it was utilized (e.g., for coding or data organization). Additionally, citing the software's references and giving a brief explanation of its role in the analysis would enhance the transparency of the research process.

Participant Compensation:

Were participants compensated for their participation in the study? If so, it would be helpful to mention this information to ensure transparency and address ethical considerations. If not, an explanation of the rationale for not compensating participants would be appreciated.

Conclusion:

The conclusion would benefit from a more detailed discussion of specific recommendations

**********

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 #4: Yes: Dr. Silvia Costanzo,

Psychologist-Psychotherapist and Researcher

IRCCS Istituto Tumori Giovanni Paolo II, Bari

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: 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.

Physical and Mental Health Well-Being of COVID-19 Recovered Patients: A Phenomenological Study

PONE-D-24-05191R3

Dear Dr. Abuhammad,

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,

Ayi Vandi Kwaghe, D.V.M., M.V.Sc., P.G.D.E. Ph.D., MPH, FETP

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: