Poor sleep quality and its associated factors among pregnant women in Northern Ethiopia, 2020: A cross sectional study

Tadeg Jemere; Berhanu Getahun; Fitalew Tadele; Belayneh Kefale; Gashaw Walle

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250985

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 3, 2020
12 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Nülüfer Erbil, Editor PONE-D-20-34586 Poor sleep quality and its associated factors among pregnant women in Northern Ethiopia, 2020. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jemere, 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 Mar 14 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Nülüfer Erbil, Ph.D, Prof. 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. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information." Furthermore, we note that you have reported significance probabilities of 0 in places. Since p=0 is not strictly possible, please correct this to a more appropriate limit, eg 'p<0.0001. 3. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form you have stated that IRB approval was obtained from ethical review Committee of Debre Tabor University, while data was collected from Wadila primary hospital. Please provide further clarification whether IRB of the participating institution also approved the study prior to data collection. 4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 5. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works. https://www.oatext.com/pdf/NPC-2-152.pdf https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-019-4531-6 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352721819300725?via%3Dihub https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S088421751533848X We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications. Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work. We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough. [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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: No ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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, I think it is a very nice and important subject. However, it would be appropriate to make some adjustments about the content. You can find my suggestions below: 1. The introduction should be rearranged, first the importance of sleep, sleep changes during pregnancy, the reasons and consequences of this should be written. 2. Subheadings should be rearranged according to the journal's writing rules, and published studies should be reviewed. 3. Confusion in the method section should be removed and written in more understandable expressions. 4. An explanation should be added that the permission to use was obtained from the owner of the scale of PSQI. 5. In the first paragraph, only the importance of sleep should be mentioned and sleep disorders should not be mentioned (subjective snoring) 6. Humans or pregnants should be mentioned rather than “mammals”. 7. 3. paragraphs should be 2. Paragraphs, so a change of location should be made. 8. First, the population, the sample, then the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be written separately in the methods section. 9. “Pregnant mothers who use any of the substances such as alcohol, khat, and cigarette smoking at least once in their life time were classified as ever user.” Because of this sampling, this sentence is not required. 10. Was the 5% sample tested before the study included in the study? It should be written. 11. It is written as Study Groups: 198 in Table 1. Isn't the sample size 411? 12. In the discussin section, “…The possible reason for this discrepancy may be the difference in PSQI cut of point, sample size, study setting and socioeconomic status of the populations.” a. Cut off point of PSQI must be constant. The fact that it differs according to the situation is not suitable for scale evaluation. This comment should be revised. b. Spelling mistakes should be corrected (for example: cut off point) 13. In the limitation of study section,“Despite these limitations, our study clearly showed the magnitude of poor sleep quality and its predictors in our country, which is not well investigated so far.” a. This is not a limitation statement. 14. After conclusion, a recommendation sentence for the study should be developed. 15. Sources dating back 10 years should not be used (like references 4 and 16). Reviewer #2: This paper studies the relationship between the quality of sleep and its associated factors among pregnant mothers in Ethiopia. 411 patients data are used for the study and the results are analyzed using SPSS. The results show that two-third of patients have poor sleep quality that needs further care such as health and education. The paper is easy to follow. The paper needs to consider the following concerns; 1. There are plenty of studies on the relationship between the quality of sleep and pregnancy. Therefore, the side effects of poor sleep quality could be better motivated. 2. The procedure of collecting and analyzing data could be better shown using a figure or flowchart. 3. The conclusion of the paper needs to include more detail regarding the study. 4. The sections should be numbered correctly in order to easily follow them. The paper organization can be added to the first section as well. 5. The paper needs a proofread for English problems. Reviewer #3: the manuscript is new and will add value to the body of knowledge edit conclusion to only include the findings in this study There is no data provided other than the findings presented in table and words. there is no fear of dual publication, however, references needs to be updated to less than 10 years old ****** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes:** Auma A G [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: reveiew report for plos one manuscript.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-34586_to be reviewed.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250985.r001
Revision 1
3 Mar 2021 Author Response Response to the editor Manuscript title: Poor sleep quality and its associated factors among pregnant women in Northern Ethiopia, 2020. Manuscript number: PONE-D-20-34586 Dear editor: Thank you for giving us the chance to revise the manuscript. Saying this we addressed all the concerns raised by the reviewers and incorporated the authors’ reflection in the revised manuscript. Editor’s comments 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Author response: Appropriate modification was done. See the revised manuscript. 2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information." Furthermore, we note that you have reported significance probabilities of 0 in places. Since p=0 is not strictly possible, please correct this to a more appropriate limit, eg 'p<0.0001. Author response: The questionnaire is attached as additional information both in original language and English. The other issues are corrected. See the revised manuscript. 3. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form you have stated that IRB approval was obtained from ethical review Committee of Debre Tabor University, while data was collected from Wadila primary hospital. Please provide further clarification whether IRB of the participating institution also approved the study prior to data collection. Author response: First Ethical review Committee of Debre Tabor University approved the study then Debre Tabor University write letter of cooperation to conduct the study in Wadila primary hospital. Latter Ethical review Committee of Wadila primary hospital also approved the study and the study was conduct after the permission was obtained from the Medical director of the Hospital. 4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 5. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works. https://www.oatext.com/pdf/NPC-2-152.pdf https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-019-4531-6 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352721819300725?via%3Dihub https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S088421751533848X We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications. Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. Point by point response for reviewers’ comments Manuscript title: Poor sleep quality and its associated factors among pregnant women in Northern Ethiopia, 2020. Manuscript number: PONE-D-20-34586 Dear reviewers: Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. Saying this we addressed all the concerns raised by the reviewers and incorporated the authors’ reflection in the revised manuscript. Reviewer one comments/questions I think it is a very nice and important subject. However, it would be appropriate to make some adjustments about the content. You can find my suggestions below: Authors’ Response: Thank you very much. We accept your comments and correct them all. See revised manuscript. 1. The introduction should be rearranged, first the importance of sleep, sleep changes during pregnancy, the reasons and consequences of this should be written. Author response: Appropriate modification was done. See the revised manuscript. 2. Subheadings should be rearranged according to the journal's writing rules, and published studies should be reviewed. Author response: Appropriate measure was taken. See the revised manuscript. 3. Confusion in the method section should be removed and written in more understandable expressions. Author response: Thank you. Appropriate measure was taken. See the revised manuscript. 4. An explanation should be added that the permission to use was obtained from the owner of the scale of PSQI. Author response: It is already adapted and widely used here in Ethiopia. 5. In the first paragraph, only the importance of sleep should be mentioned and sleep disorders should not be mentioned (subjective snoring) Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 6. Humans or pregnants should be mentioned rather than “mammals”. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 7. 3. Paragraphs should be 2. Paragraphs, so a change of location should be made. Author response: Appropriate modification was done. See the revised manuscript. 8. First, the population, the sample, and then the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be written separately in the methods section. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 9. “Pregnant mothers who use any of the substances such as alcohol, khat, and cigarette smoking at least once in their life time were classified as ever user.” Because of this sampling, this sentence is not required. Author response: Removed. See the revised manuscript. 10. Was the 5% sample tested before the study included in the study? It should be written. Author response: They were not included in the study. 11. It is written as Study Groups: 198 in Table 1. Isn't the sample size 411? Author response: Thank you very much! Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 12. In the discussion section, “…The possible reason for this discrepancy may be the difference in PSQI cut of point, sample size, study setting and socioeconomic status of the populations.” a. Cut off point of PSQI must be constant. The fact that it differs according to the situation is not suitable for scale evaluation. This comment should be revised. b. Spelling mistakes should be corrected (for example: cut off point) Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 13. In the limitation of study section, “Despite these limitations, our study clearly showed the magnitude of poor sleep quality and its predictors in our country, which is not well investigated so far.” a. This is not a limitation statement. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 14. After conclusion, a recommendation sentence for the study should be developed. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 15. Sources dating back 10 years should not be used (like references 4 and 16). Author response: Thank you very much! Reference 4 is replaced by recently published article, but we could not find updated article for reference 16. See the revised manuscript. Response to reviewer #2 comments Reviewer #2: This paper studies the relationship between the quality of sleep and its associated factors among pregnant mothers in Ethiopia. 411 patients data are used for the study and the results are analyzed using SPSS. The results show that two-third of patients have poor sleep quality that needs further care such as health and education. The paper is easy to follow. The paper needs to consider the following concerns; 1. There are plenty of studies on the relationship between the quality of sleep and pregnancy. Therefore, the side effects of poor sleep quality could be better motivated. Author response: Off course there are plenty of studies on the relationship between the quality of sleep and pregnancy worldwide. But to our knowledge this is the first study in Ethiopia. So our aim was first to know the magnitude of poor sleep quality among pregnant mothers in Ethiopia, then we will continue to investigate its impact on the outcome of pregnancy in our next project. 2. The procedure of collecting and analyzing data could be better shown using a figure or flowchart. Author response: It can be showed like that. But we choose this one due to the study design. 3. The conclusion of the paper needs to include more detail regarding the study. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 4. The sections should be numbered correctly in order to easily follow them. The paper organization can be added to the first section as well. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 5. The paper needs a proofread for English problems. Author response: Appropriate modification was done. See the revised manuscript. Response to Reviewer #3 comments The manuscript is new and will add value to the body of knowledge. Edit conclusion to only include the findings in this study. There is no data provided other than the findings presented in table and words. There is no fear of dual publication, however, references needs to be updated to less than 10 years old. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 1. General Comment: It is a new addition to the body of knowledge; it is not so much studied and there is a lot of gray area to be explored. However, the title could include the study design too. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 2. Abstract : In your conclusion, you indicated that the offspring are predisposed to various anxiety disorders and learning disabilities as a result of poor sleep quality, is this from the study result? If so, please indicate how you measured it. Wadila primary hospital is a study site and is not necessary in the list of the key words. Author response: It is not from the result of this study. Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 3. Introduction: Introduction is well stated, although will need to be aligned from global perspective, regional to the nation and the local back ground of the subject. Consider including relevant controversies around this field. Check if the aim of the study was achieved in this particular paper and include in the background statement. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 4. Methodology: Study method is well aligned, sample size adequate. Data collection procedure adequately explained. However, indicate how a systematic random sampling got you to 422 samples. Clearly state the statistical significance of the variables on the methodology. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 5. Discussion: The discussion is well brought out; however, it does don urge out what other studies have found, what it means to this study and why the similarities or differences. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 6. Conclusion/Recommendation: The conclusion suits the study findings, but stick to the findings only. Author response: Corrected. See the revised manuscript. 7. References: Update all references older than 10 years to a more recent study. Some of your references are very old, number 1, 4, 10 and 16. Author response: References 1 and 4 are replaced by recently published article, but we could not find updated article for reference 16. See the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviwers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250985.r002
19 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Nülüfer Erbil, Editor Poor sleep quality and its associated factors among pregnant women in Northern Ethiopia, 2020: A cross sectional study PONE-D-20-34586R1 Dear Dr. Jemere, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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, Nülüfer Erbil, Ph.D, Prof. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250985.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Apr 2021 Acceptance Letter - Nülüfer Erbil, Editor PONE-D-20-34586R1 Poor sleep quality and its associated factors among pregnant women in Northern Ethiopia, 2020: A cross sectional study Dear Dr. Jemere: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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 plosone@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. Nülüfer Erbil Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250985.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 .