https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6805-5011
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJanuary 27, 2022 |
|---|
|
PGPH-D-22-00130 Knowledge of Modifiable Cardiovascular Diseases Risk Factors and Its Primary Prevention Practices among Diabetic Patients at Jimma University Medical Centre: A cross-sectional study PLOS Global Public Health Dear Dr. Workina, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’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 26 2022 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 globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Guglielmo Campus, Ph.D DDS Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health Journal Requirements: 1. Please amend your Financial Disclosure statement. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” 2. Please update your Competing Interests statement. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state: “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.” 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that “The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to these data were used under license for the current study but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.”. 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 by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues. 4. Please ensure that the Title in your manuscript file and the Title provided in your online submission form are the same. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 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 (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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: No ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS Global Public Health 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: A good study but the conclusion needs to be re-worded. The second paragraph of the discussion reads "...This study shows that more than half, 198(62.3%), of the study participants had good Knowledge of modifiable CVDs risk factors..."; therefore the conclusion that "-----The study participants' knowledge of modifiable cardiovascular disease risk factors was insufficient", does not seem congruent since majority (over half) of respondents have good knowledge Rephrase the last paragraph of the conclusion (typographical errors too). Reviewer #2: Study analysis of care for modifiable cardiovascular disease risk factors and their primary prevention practices among diabetic patients at Jimma University Medical Center: Cross-sectional study, the authors present after a relevant and current topic. By following the reading in the Summary and Introduction Sections as a manuscript of some elements, which I missed in these, reading in the comments of the file as suggestions for changes. In general, as the study presents, some are mentioned in the title “primary prevention”, with many important examples of reference, as well as important in introduction in this aspect, both in the discussion sections. The study also needs to be more detailed and described in the methodological part, as well as better developed in the Discussion section. In the end, the Discussion was not carried out, there is information and results that must be discussed, studied and justified at the end of the conclusion that does not present the fact, it is proposed in the initial and objective hypothesis. In fact, the objective can be revised, as I believe that knowledge and practices cannot be solved in a single study and carried out in such a short time with a not so substantial sample. The Conclusion of the study is presented as a part that can be developed in the Discussion of the same, in my opinion. It is important to pay attention to the ability of individuals to seek, understand, evaluate and make sense of health information, that is, health literacy and its dimensions. In this sense, ignoring sociodemographic and economic factors for sample selection may, in this case, bias the final result in terms of the responses acquired in the study. Without distinction of relative or absolute population, how to affirm results without having the same perspective of comparison? Suggestion: review, analyze, clarify... In the Discussion section, several important topics can and should be addressed as the fundamental aspect that relates the health professional/services offered and their commitment to the development of skills and competences for self-care in health. After all, who is responsible for non-good health practices? And what are the factors that influence these practices and/or absences from them and why? Finally, the article should show readers what was the purpose of showing the knowledge of such practices and the importance of this for the health area and those directly involved (individuals with heart disease/family members, health professionals and services) in the cardiovascular diseases theme. Below are comments and suggestions for revision and corrections. I congratulate the authors once again for choosing the topic and for the work carried out. I recommend publishing after making the suggested adjustments and corrections. I would like to have access to the article after pre-publication authors' adjustment. Thank you for the opportunity to learn and exchange knowledge. Cordially, good work and success to all! Comments/Suggestions Page 4 Suggestion: insert the period in which the survey took place, as well as the variables Page 5 This study shows that more than half, 198(62.3%), of the study participants had good Knowledge of modifiable CVDs risk factors and in Results, 175(55.0%) of the patients had a good CVD prevention practice, and if 55.5%, that is, more than half of the population studied had good practices, it is risky to state in the conclusion that "practices are insufficient"... Bias!? Suggestion: review! Page 6 Suggestion: relocate this paragraph as first. Page 7 Little study time. Why? Suggestion: look for other similar studies to verify the research time issue. Justify! Page 8 What are the issues? How many? Page 9 Suggestion: information must be in the Abstract Page 11 If this study shows that more than half, 198(62.3%), of the study participants had good Knowledge of modifiable CVDs risk factors and 55.5%, that is, more than half of the population studied had good practices, it is risky to state in the conclusion that "practices are insufficient"... Bias!? Suggestion: review! Page 12 Why this value and not 0.5? Suggestion: justify! Page 15 Suggestion: discuss the results found and compared studies. Discuss the main points justifying and giving perspectives... It lacked to justify the importance and the reason of the study carried out as a whole. Page 16 And what is the conclusion of this? Suggestion: develop what has been compared...discuss such facts! Remove data, percentages. Page 17 Suggestion: I would also add the study time as a limiting factor, as well as the calculation of the listed population. ********** 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. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
Knowledge of Modifiable Cardiovascular Diseases Risk Factors and Its Primary Prevention Practices among Diabetic Patients at Jimma University Medical Centre: A cross-sectional study PGPH-D-22-00130R1 Dear Mr Workina, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Knowledge of Modifiable Cardiovascular Diseases Risk Factors and Its Primary Prevention Practices among Diabetic Patients at Jimma University Medical Centre: A cross-sectional study' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests. Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated. IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. 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 globalpubhealth@plos.org. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health. Best regards, Maurizio Trevisan, M.D., MS Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health *********************************************************** Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): |
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 .