Determinants of acceptability of schistosomiasis mass drug administration among primary school children in Busega District, Northwestern Tanzania

Irene Yunzu Edward; Patricia Maritim; Choolwe Jacobs; Adam Silumbwe; Hussein Mohamed; Joseph Mumba Zulu; Hikabasa Halwiindi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327737

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 12, 2025
Decision Letter - Kenneth Bentum Otabil, Editor Dear Dr. Edward, 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: The two reviewers have made some suggestions for improvement of the manuscript. Overall, these are minor edits and should help to improve the manuscript. The manuscript has merit and is well written. I suggest a minor edit under the Methods on theoretical framework with respect to the definition of intervention coherence- check the grammar and revise. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 12 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, Kenneth Bentum Otabil, PhD 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. Additional Editor Comments: The study is titled 'Determinants of acceptability of schistosomiasis mass drug administration among primary school children in Busega District, Northwestern Tanzania' and sought to establish factors associated with acceptability of schistosomiasis mass drug administration among primary school children in Busega District. The objectives, methods, results and discussions are sufficiently done but kindly take care to revise the the manuscript based on the comments of the reviewers. One other very minor correction: Under the theoretical framework, the sentence 'Intervention coherence related to the extent to which the participant understands the purposes of MDA' seems incomplete. Kindly revise. Consider 'Intervention coherence is.................................... [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: This is an interesting social study on Praziquantel MDA. I recommend authors to add more details on how the children consented, whether it was individually or not. Additionally, since MDA is done to all SAC i.e. 5 years and above (till end of Primary school), there is a need to explain why authors chose to include only those in grade V-VII in the study. Add when MDA (year) in reference was conducted? I just see that data collection time March- May 2023.The gap between the two timelines could contribute to some variables in question. Reviewer #2: Review of Manuscript Title: Determinants of acceptability of schistosomiasis mass drug administration among primary school children in Busega District, Northwestern Tanzania. Introduction: Kindly rephrase this statement for clarity “Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which receiving an intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention” 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and does the data support the conclusions? Answer: The study ‘Determinants of acceptability of schistosomiasis mass drug administration among primary school children in Busega District, Northwestern Tanzania’aimed at assessing factors associated with acceptability of schistosomiasis MDA among school children in Busega District, North-western Tanzania was technically sound. And the data obtained supports the conclusions of the study. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Answer: Statistical analysis was appropriately and rigorously done as primary data collected were imported, cleaned, coded and analyzed using the statistical software STATA version 15 (STATA corp. college station, Taxes, US). The Cronbach Alpha which measures the internal consistency (the extent to which the items in a test measure the same component) of a scale was used. The analysis performed was appropriate and rigorous which produced good results. 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? Answer: All data were provided in relations to this work. And the ethical consideration was taken which was necessary for the study to be conducted. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Answer: The manuscript follows the format for PLOS ONE with the language written well which is easy to understand. I recommend this manuscript for publication however, correction should be done for the introduction part for clarity. ****** 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: Anabel Acheampong ******** [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.0327737.r001
Revision 1
13 Jun 2025 Author Response ACADEMIC EDITOR 1. The two reviewers have made some suggestions for improvement of the manuscript. Overall, these are minor edits and should help to improve the manuscript. Thanks for taking time to read the manuscript and sharing your valuable comments. 2. The manuscript has merit and is well written. I suggest a minor edit under the Methods on theoretical framework with respect to the definition of intervention coherence- check the grammar and revise. Thank you for the comment. We have revised the definition for clarity. It now reads: Intervention coherence is defined as the extent to which participants understand the purpose of the intervention (MDA) and how it works (Page 5, lines 130–132). Additional Editor Comments The study is titled 'Determinants of acceptability of schistosomiasis mass drug administration among primary school children in Busega District, Northwestern Tanzania' and sought to establish factors associated with acceptability of schistosomiasis mass drug administration among primary school children in Busega District. The objectives, methods, results and discussions are sufficiently done but kindly take care to revise the the manuscript based on the comments of the reviewers. Thanks for taking time to read the manuscript and sharing your valuable comments One other very minor correction: Under the theoretical framework, the sentence 'Intervention coherence related to the extent to which the participant understands the purposes of MDA' seems incomplete. Kindly revise. Consider 'Intervention coherence is.................................... Thank you for the comment. We have revised the definition for clarity. It now reads: Intervention coherence is defined as the extent to which participants understand the purpose of the intervention (MDA) and how it works (Page 5, lines 130–132). REVIEWERS' COMMENTS: REVIEWER REPORTS Reviewer #1: 1.This is an interesting social study on Praziquantel MDA. I recommend authors to add more details on how the children consented, whether it was individually or not. Thank you for the comment. We have added this information in the ethical considerations section (Pages 9, lines 258–260). Assent forms were provided to eligible primary school children. The consent process was conducted individually, whereby each child who agreed to participate signed an assent form. 2. Additionally, since MDA is done to all SAC i.e. 5 years and above (till end of Primary school), there is a need to explain why authors chose to include only those in grade V-VII in the study. Thank you for the comment. Although MDA targets all school-age children (SAC) aged 5 years and above, this study focused on students in grades V–VII for several considerations. First, these students had the full benefit of two to three rounds of MDA (2018, 2019, and 2021), providing sufficient exposure to evaluate their experiences. In addition, older students are more likely to comprehend and articulate their experiences, perceptions, and concerns regarding the intervention, which is critical in assessing acceptability. This approach also aligns with similar studies on MDA, which have prioritized upper primary students (26,27). We have explained this in detail in study population section (Page 6, lines 166-175). 3. Add when MDA (year) in reference was conducted? I just see that data collection time March- May 2023.The gap between the two timelines could contribute to some variables in question. Thank you for the comment. The last round, which MDA was conducted in this district was 2021. No mass praziquantel treatment was administered in 2022, a year before data collection for this study was done (Page 5, lines 147-148). Reviewer #2: 1. Title: Determinants of acceptability of schistosomiasis mass drug administration among primary school children in Busega District, Northwestern Tanzania. Introduction: Kindly rephrase this statement for clarity “Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which receiving an intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention. Thank you for the comment. We have revised the definition to make it clearer. It now reads: Acceptability is the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory (Page 4, lines 105-107). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327737.r002
Decision Letter - Kenneth Bentum Otabil, Editor Determinants of acceptability of schistosomiasis mass drug administration among primary school children in Busega District, Northwestern Tanzania PONE-D-25-05835R1 Dear Dr. Edward, 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, Kenneth Bentum Otabil, PhD, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327737.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kenneth Bentum Otabil, Editor PONE-D-25-05835R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Edward, 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. 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. Kenneth Bentum Otabil Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327737.r004

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 .