Health promotion interventions for the control of hypertension in Africa, a systematic scoping review from 2011 to 2021

Jinhee Shin; Kennedy Diema Konlan; Eugenia Mensah

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260411

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 3, 2021
8 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-21-28474Health promotion interventions for the control of hypertension in Africa, a systematic scoping review from 2011 to 2021.PLOS ONE Dear, 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 21st November 2021. 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D 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 ONE requires systematic reviews to include a detailed analysis of the quality of each study included in the review. Please attach a Supplemental file of the results of the quality assessment for each individual study assessed, broken down into individual quality assessment measures. Please also discuss how results can be interpreted given the quality of the included studies. 3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should remain as separate "supporting information" files. 4. 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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: Yes 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: Thank your for your efforts in contributing to literature on health promotion interventions on hypertension. However, some general concerns need to some explanations. 1) Why the choice of convergent sythesis analysis? 2) Could you please explain how the convergent synthesis analysis method allowed for the findings into descriptive sentences? 3) Was there a sequence in the synthesis of the evidence? 4) Where did the integration of quantitative and or qualitative/ mixed-method evdence occur? 5) How did you appraise the quality of retained studies to check the trusthworthiness of included studies? 6) Was there a sequence in the synthesis of the evidence? 7) Strengths and limitations: "This study provides a complete overview of the health promotions interventions that are used for the control of hypertension in Africa." This is an overstatement, as only papers in English were included in the study. This is too much of a generalisation. Please edit this sentence. Reviewer #2: This manuscript addresses a very important public health issues globally and particularly the surge in hypertension prevalence in developing countries and Africa. The scoping review is thoroughly done with the search methodology and screening processes and the manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion. There are, however, some issues that I recommend you address to help make the manuscript more understandable and meaningful to the lay readers outside of health promotion. 1. There are some grammatical issues that I think you need to address and this calls for editing of the entire manuscript. Use can use Grammarly to edit the manuscript and that will help greatly. 2. In the results section, you have integrated the various health promotion interventions in the presentation. I suggest that you itemized the ten papers that were included in the final review and analysis and what of interventions they were and in what settings. This will make it clearer for the reader. 3. You have made some statements facts in the manuscript that you need to provide references for. 'The contents of most health education programs in developing countries are often difficult to read and understand by most people because of relatively low educational levels.' This is an example. Please, ensure these kinds of statements have references or put them in the form of probable statements. 4. In the strength and weakness section, you made a statement that I think is sweeping and I urge you to be cautious about such statements. 'This study provides a complete overview of the health promotions interventions that are used for the control of hypertension in Africa". Yo can state that you have made a comprehensive review but not a complete review. Overall, this manuscript is very important and will help health promotion program developers and implement evidence-based interventions with greater chances of success. ****** 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.0260411.r001
Revision 1
26 Oct 2021 Author Response Department of Public Health Nursing School of Nursing and Midwifery University of Health and Allied Sciences Ho. Volta Region October 2021 Dear Sir, Authors’ response to the manuscript review (PONE-D-21-28474) We are most grateful to the editor and the reviewers for spending your precious time evaluating our manuscript (PONE-D-21-28474). In this cover letter, we have provided a point-by-point response to the comments made by the reviewer. We generally agree with most of the comments and observations made by the reviewers and have made substantial revisions to the entire manuscript. POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO THE SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE REVIEWERS Here we provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer's comments. Reviewer #1 Reviewers’ comments: Thank you for your efforts in contributing to the literature on health promotion interventions on hypertension. However, some general concerns need some explanations. Authors’ Response: We are particularly grateful for the valuable time you spent reviewing and helping to improve this manuscript. Reviewers’ comments: 1) Why the choice of convergent synthesis analysis? Authors’ Response: The authors have provided the basis for the choice and use of the convergent synthesis design. We have also provided references that influence this choice to include those of evidence articles (Hong et al., 2017; Noyes et al., 2019). Reviewers’ comments: 2) Could you please explain how the convergent synthesis analysis method allowed for the findings into descriptive sentences? Authors’ Response: With the inspiration of what was described by (Hong et al., 2017; Noyes et al., 2019). We have included how the convergent synthesis design was adopted. Reviewers’ comments: 3) Was there a sequence in the synthesis of the evidence? Authors’ Response: There was a sequence in the synthesis of the evidence. To do this the authors were mainly influenced by the views of Hong et al., 2017; Noyes et al., 2019; Pluye & Hong, 2014. The three authors above encourage first the development of codes, coalesce into subthemes, and then the main themes developed from it. Reviewers’ comments: 4) Where did the integration of quantitative and or qualitative/ mixed-method evidence occur? Authors’ Response: All the findings were first of all translated into descriptive findings, then coded, similar codes coalesced into subthemes, and related subthemes integrated into the main themes that we presented. the integration of the data from various designs were conducted primarily in the coding stage and through the development of the subthemes. Reviewers’ comments: 5) How did you appraise the quality of retained studies to check the trustworthiness of included studies? Authors’ Response: The include studies that were appraised using the MMAT quality appraisal tool as described by Hong et a., 2018. In the methodology section, we provided a summary of the appraisal results under the subheadings quality appraisal. We have also attached the full appraisal results as a supplementary file to this reviewer. Reviewers’ comments: 6) Was there a sequence in the synthesis of the evidence? Authors’ Response: This comment has been addressed in number three above. Reviewers’ comments: 7) Strengths and limitations: "This study provides a complete overview of the health promotions interventions that are used for the control of hypertension in Africa." This is an overstatement, as only papers in English were included in the study. This is too much of a generalization. Please edit this sentence. Authors’ Response: The authors have made a revision of this statement to show that a comprehensive review was made and not a complete review. As we agree with the reviewer that only English-based studies were included in this review and hence cannot be described as a complete review of the findings in Africa. In line with this, we have made a substantial review of the statement. Reviewer #2 Reviewers’ comments: This manuscript addresses a very important public health issue globally and particularly the surge in hypertension prevalence in developing countries and Africa. The scoping review is thoroughly done with the search methodology and screening processes, and the manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion. There are, however, some issues that I recommend you address to help make the manuscript more understandable and meaningful to the lay readers outside of health promotion. Authors’ Response: We are particularly grateful for the valuable time you spent reading and making reviews of this manuscript. We do agree that given the nature of the trend of hypertension in Africa, it is important to identify and institute health promotion interventions in earnest to truncate the trend. Reviewers’ comments: 1. There are some grammatical issues that I think you need to address, and this calls for editing of the entire manuscript. You can use Grammarly to edit the manuscript, and that will help greatly. Authors’ Response: The entire manuscript was reviewed for grammatical errors and substantial corrections made. Reviewers’ comments: 2. In the results section, you have integrated the various health promotion interventions in the presentation. I suggest that you itemized the ten papers that were included in the final review and analysis and what interventions they were, and in what settings. This will make it clearer for the reader. Authors’ Response: We submitted the summary table as supplementary. Following your comment, we have integrated the findings in the main manuscript. Reviewers’ comments: 3. You have made some statements in the manuscript that you need to provide references for. 'The contents of most health education programs in developing countries are often difficult to read and understand by most people because of relatively low educational levels.' This is an example. Please, ensure these kinds of statements have references or put them in the form of probable statements. Authors’ Response: The researchers have taken note of this comment and have made revisions in the manuscript to reflect this view. Reviewers’ comments: 4. In the strength and weakness section, you made a statement that I think is sweeping and I urge you to be cautious about such statements. ``This study provides a complete overview of the health promotions interventions that are used for the control of hypertension in Africa". You can state that you have made a comprehensive review but not a complete review. Authors’ Response: The authors agree with the reviewers and have therefore made substantial revisions to the statement. CONCLUSION We generally believe that we appropriately incorporated the changes and suggestions made by the reviewers and are positive that this manuscript will meet the criteria for publication in your esteemed journal. Yours faithfully, Kennedy Diema Konlan Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260411.r002
10 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor Health promotion interventions for the control of hypertension in Africa, a systematic scoping review from 2011 to 2021. PONE-D-21-28474R1 Dear, 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #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: Yes 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: I would like commend you for addressing all the issues I raised in my first review. I believe this manuscript will be an important guide for health promotion professionals in designing and implementing culturally appropriate interventions to reduce hypertension and its effects on individual, community, and public health. ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260411.r003
Formally Accepted
15 Nov 2021 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-21-28474R1 Health promotion interventions for the control of hypertension in Africa, a systematic scoping review from 2011 to 2021. Dear Dr. Konlan: 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. Muhammad Shahzad Aslam Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260411.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 .