Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Mar 13;19(3):e0293047. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293047

Adherence and factors influencing adherence to glaucoma medications among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Kibruyisfaw Weldeab Abore 1,2,*, Estifanos Bekele Fole 3, Mahlet Tesfaye Abebe 3, Natnael Fikadu Tekle 4, Robel Bayou Tilahun 4, Fraol Daba Chinkey 5, Michael Teklehaimanot Abera 6
Editor: Osamudiamen Cyril Obasuyi7
PMCID: PMC10936902  PMID: 38478513

Abstract

Background

Intraocular pressure is the only modifiable risk factor for the development and progression of glaucoma. Raised intraocular pressure could cause progressive visual field loss and blindness if left uncontrolled. Adherence to ocular hypotensive medications is vital to prevent optic nerve damage and its consequences. This study was conducted to systematically summarize the magnitude of glaucoma medication adherence and factors influencing adherence to glaucoma medications among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia.

Methods

Database searches to identify research articles were conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, AJOL, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar without restriction on the date of publication. Data extraction was done using a data extraction Excel sheet. Analysis was performed using STATA version 16. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Pooled prevalence and pooled odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval using a random effect model were computed.

Result

We included six studies with a total of 2101 participants for meta-analysis. The magnitude of adherence to glaucoma medication was found to be 49.46% (95% CI [41.27–57.66]). Urban residents (OR = 1.89, 95% CI; 1.29–2.49) and those with normal visual acuity (OR = 2.82, 95% CI; 0.85–4.80) had higher odds of adherence to glaucoma medications. Patients who pay for the medications themselves (OR = 0.22, 95% CI; 0.09–0.34) were found to have 78% lower odds of adherence than their counterparts.

Conclusion

The magnitude of glaucoma medication adherence is lower than expected. Place of residence, visual acuity, and payment means had statistically significant associations with glaucoma medication adherence. Tailored health education on medication adherence and subsidization of glaucoma medication is recommended.

Introduction

Glaucoma is a progressive optic neuropathy, and it is one of the leading causes of preventable blindness [1]. Globally, it is estimated to affect around 76 million individuals and cause blindness in 7.7 million individuals [2]. Previous studies have shown that there are various risk factors to develop glaucoma. High intraocular pressure (IOP) is a modifiable risk factor that is a target of treatment among glaucoma patients [3]. Currently available treatment modalities that include medical, surgical, and laser therapy are all primarily designed to lower the IOP [4].

Successful medical treatment of patients with glaucoma is contingent upon the adherence of the patients to the prescribed medication [5, 6]. Adherence is the degree to which the patient takes the prescribed medication according to the prescription given by a health professional [5]. Adherence to glaucoma medication has been shown to decrease the progressive visual field loss and subsequent loss of vision among glaucoma patients [7, 8].

Although it is highly unreliable and prone to bias, self-reporting is the most commonly used method of assessing adherence [9, 10]. Previous studies done in different parts of the world have reported a highly variable level of non-adherence ranging from 5% to 80% [11]. Furthermore, studies done in Ethiopia have also reported levels of adherence ranging from 32.5% [12] to 61.4% [13]. Some of the factors associated with adherence to glaucoma medication include sociodemographic factors, poor understanding of the disease and its course, baseline clinical condition, and medication related factors such as dosing, side effects, and costs of medication [14–18].

In Ethiopia, few studies have assessed the magnitude of adherence and the factors influencing adherence to glaucoma medications among adult glaucoma patients. Furthermore, the findings reported in various studies conducted in Ethiopia vary greatly. This necessitates pooling of available research findings to make evidence based recommendations. Therefore, this study aims to synthesize the pooled overall magnitude of glaucoma medication adherence and factors influencing adherence to glaucoma medication among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia.

Methods and materials

Study design and study setting

A systematic review and meta-analysis were done to assess the magnitude of glaucoma medication adherence and factors influencing adherence to glaucoma medications among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia. The protocol for the systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42023449004).

Search strategy

A comprehensive and systematic search of articles from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, AJOL, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar databases was made using the search terms ((“anti-glaucoma” OR "glaucoma medication" OR "glaucoma drug" OR “topical anti-glaucoma”) AND (adherence OR compliance)) AND ("Ethiopia"). The full PubMed search was ("anti-glaucoma"[All Fields] OR "glaucoma medication"[All Fields] OR "glaucoma drug"[All Fields] OR "topical anti-glaucoma"[All Fields]) AND ("adherance"[All Fields] OR "adhere"[All Fields] OR "adhered"[All Fields] OR "adherence"[All Fields] OR "adherences"[All Fields] OR "adherent"[All Fields] OR "adherents"[All Fields] OR "adherer"[All Fields] OR "adherers"[All Fields] OR "adheres"[All Fields] OR "adhering"[All Fields] OR ("compliances"[All Fields] OR "patient compliance"[MeSH Terms] OR ("patient"[All Fields] AND "compliance"[All Fields]) OR "patient compliance"[All Fields] OR "compliance"[All Fields] OR "compliance"[MeSH Terms])) AND "Ethiopia"[All Fields]. The search was made up to September 2023, with restriction to only articles published in English. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline [19] was used to document and report the steps of study selection.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

This review included studies (cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies) that evaluated glaucoma medication adherence and/or factors influencing adherence to glaucoma medications among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia with no restriction on the year of publication of the study.

Exclusion criteria

Studies conducted outside of Ethiopia and studies that were not published in English were excluded from the study.

Quality appraisal

Quality assessment of the included studies was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) by three reviewers independently [20]. It assesses bias in three domains, namely selection, comparability, and outcome domains. Those with a grade of less than 7 were assessed as poor, and those with greater than or equal to 7 were assessed as having good quality. Disagreements in scoring between reviewers were settled through discussion with the help of a fourth reviewer.

Data extraction

Two reviewers searched databases and applied the eligibility criteria independently to select studies. Covidence was used to manage articles. Examination of the selected studies against the eligibility criteria was done by two reviewers. Data extraction from selected studies was done independently by two reviewers, and examination of the extracted data was done by a third reviewer. Differences between the reviewers were resolved through discussion, and when agreement was not reached, a third reviewer was involved to mediate. A pre-prepared EXCEL data extraction sheet was utilized to extract data from included studies, which included the name of the primary author, region of the country, year of publication, study design, sample size, magnitude of adherence to anti-glaucoma medication, and risk factors with the corresponding measure of effect.

Data analysis

Data was exported from Excel to STATA v.16 for analysis. The pooled magnitude of adherence and pooled odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval were computed using random effect model with the DerSimonian-Laird method and presented using a forest plot. To calculate the pooled odds ratio, we included variables that were reported as a statistically significant variable in at least two studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics, and meta-regression was done to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. Furthermore, subgroup analysis was conducted based on the method of adherence ascertainment used by the studies. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Eggers test.

Result

Search results

After searching various databases, we were able to retrieve a total of 172 articles. We removed 20 articles due to duplication, and 128 articles were excluded after reviewing the title and abstract. Subsequently, 24 articles were sought for full article retrieval and eligibility review. After a full article review, 6 studies reporting wrong outcomes, 1 study with a full article not retrievable, 10 studies done outside Ethiopia, and 1 study done in a similar hospital as the study included in the final review were excluded from the review. A total of six articles were included in the final review (Fig 1).

Fig 1. PRISMA study selection flow for systematic review and meta-analysis of adherence and factors influencing adherence to glaucoma medications among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Study characteristics

All of the included primary studies used a cross-sectional study design. Of the studies, 1 was done in Sidama region [21], 1 in Addis Ababa [22], 1 study was done in Oromia region [12], and 3 studies were done in Amhara region [13, 23, 24]. The studies were published between 2015 and 2023 and included a sample size ranging from 200 [12] to 410 [21] individuals. The total number of participants included in the review was 2101. Regarding the method of ascertainment of adherence, all of the included studies used self-reporting by the patient to declare adherence. Four studies used a tool designed by the authors for the study [12, 13, 21, 23] while two studies used the Morisky medication adherence scale-8 [22, 24]. All included studies had good quality based on the NOS score.

Magnitude of glaucoma medication adherence

We used 6 studies with a total of 2101 participants to estimate the pooled prevalence of magnitude of glaucoma medication adherence. There was a statistically significant high heterogeneity among studies based on I2 (I2 = 92.82%) and a random effect model with the DerSimonian-Laird method was used to determine the pooled magnitude. The magnitude of adherence among adult glaucoma patients was found to be 49.46% (95% CI; 41.27–57.66) (Fig 2). To explore potential sources of heterogeneity, meta-regression was done using sample size and publication year as covariates and both did not affect the heterogeneity (Table 1). Sub-group analysis was done based on the method used to classify adherence. The pooled magnitude of adherence for studies that used a tool prepared by the author was found to be 51.13% (95% CI; 38.83–63.43) and for studies that used the MMAS-8, it was found to be 46.08% (95% CI; 39.32–52.85) (Fig 3).

Fig 2. Forrest plot for the pooled magnitude of adherence to glaucoma medication among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Table 1. Meta-regression analysis of factors affecting between-study heterogeneity.

Source Coefficient Std. error p-value
Sample size .109635 0.076137 0.15
Publication year -0.04151 1.763183 0.981
Open in a new tab

Fig 3. Forrest plot for the pooled magnitude of adherence to glaucoma medication among adult glaucoma patients based on the method of adherence classification used.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Publication bias

Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Eggers test (p = 0.0596) which revealed there was no publication bias (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Funnel plot assessing publication bias of the magnitude of glaucoma medication adherence among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

Factors influencing adherence to glaucoma medications

We included variables that were significantly associated with adherence in at least two or more of the studies. Summary of factors influencing adherence identified from literatures and not included in the meta-analysis is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Study characteristics of included studies on adherence and factors influencing adherence to glaucoma medications among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia.

Authors/Year Region Study design SS NOS score Adherence (95% CI) Main findings
Melaku M. Et al, 2023 [21] Sidama Cross-sectional 410 7 53.9% (48.8–58.5) Factors favoring adherence: Urban residence, higher educational level, monthly follow-up frequency, and normal vision
Birhanie et al, 2022 [24] Amhara Cross-sectional 382 8 49.5% (44.4–54.5) Factors favoring adherence: good knowledge, favorable attitude, a short distance from homes to hospitals Factors favoring non-adherence: scheduling problems for glaucoma follow-up
Assem et al,2020 [23] Amhara Cross-sectional 390 7 56.2% (51–62) Factors favoring adherence: Early glaucoma, normal vision, urban residence, having family support, and receiving information from pharmacist
Anbesse et al, 2018 [13] Amhara Cross-sectional 360 7 61.4% (56.1–66.7) Factors favoring adherence: Male sex, urban residence, normal visual acuity, low visual acuity, and self-sponsor for medications
Mehari T. et al, 2016 [22] Addis Ababa Cross-sectional 359 7 42.6% (37.38–47.83) Factors favoring adherence: Higher educational level, being self–employed, and taking lesser frequency of drops Factors favoring non-adherence: low monthly family income and self—purchasing of medications
Tamrat et al, 2015 [12] Oromia Cross-sectional 200 7 32.5% (25.8–39.2) Older age, advanced stage of glaucoma, longer frequency of follow up, and financial problem are associated with non-adherence
Open in a new tab

SS; sample size, NOS; Newcastle Ottawa score

Association between place of residence and glaucoma medication adherence

We used three studies with 1160 participants [13, 21, 23] to assess the association between place of residence and adherence. The odds of adherence to glaucoma medication was found to be 1.89 times higher among urban residents than rural residents (OR = 1.89, 95% CI; 1.29–2.49) (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Association between place of residence and glaucoma medication adherence.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

Association between visual acuity and glaucoma medication adherence

We used three studies with 1160 participants [13, 21, 23] to assess the association between visual acuity and adherence. The odds of adherence to glaucoma medication was found to be 2.82 times higher among patients with normal visual acuity than those with affected visual acuity (OR = 2.82, 95% CI; 0.85–4.80, P = 0.01) (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Association between visual acuity and glaucoma medication adherence.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

Association between means of payment and glaucoma medication adherence

We used two studies to examine the association between means of payment for medication and adherence with a total of 719 study participants [13, 22]. It was found that those who pay for the glaucoma medication themselves had 78% lower odds of adherence to glaucoma medication than those who are sponsored (OR = 0.22, 95%CI; 0.09–0.34) (Fig 7). In addition, one study reported a statistically significant association between financial problems and non-adherence [12]. However, the study did not include the measure of effect, and thus it was not included in the meta-analysis.

Fig 7. Association between means of payment and glaucoma medication adherence.

Fig 7

Open in a new tab

Discussion

In this study, it was found that less than half of glaucoma patients (49.46%) adhered to the prescribed glaucoma medications. This finding is comparable with a study done in Ghana (48.5%) [25], Egypt (46.4%) [26], and higher than reported in Togo (10%) [27] and Iran (34.6%) [16]. However, it is lower than reported in studies conducted in Benin (53%) [28], Israel (71%) [29], Saudi Arabia (72.6%) [30], and Korea (72.6%) [31]. This variation could be due to differences in socioeconomic profiles, differences in the health systems and health insurance coverage of the countries, differences in the definition and method of ascertaining adherence, as well as variations in sample size.

In this study, it was found that those residing in urban areas had higher odds of adherence than those residing in rural areas. A study done in Iran in 2015 also reported a statistically significant association between place of residence and medication adherence [16]. This could be due to differences in awareness, access to health care and health-related information, and differences in access to health services like pharmacies for medication refill [32]. In Ethiopia, glaucoma related services are mainly concentrated in the major cities. Patients from rural areas travel long distances with limited transportation to get services [33]. The cost of transportation and accommodations would also increase the total expenses of patients [34]. This may cause the inaccessibility of glaucoma medications for those coming from rural areas and poor adherence.

Furthermore, those with normal vision had higher odds of adhering to glaucoma medication compared to those with affected vision. This could be related to the dissatisfaction with the lack of change in the disease among those with affected visual acuity [16, 29]. Additionally, those who have impaired visual acuity are highly likely to be dependent on others for their day to day activities including application of the medication, purchasing medication, and going to health facilities for follow-up visits. This could prevent patients from adhering to glaucoma medication. This finding is supported by a study done in Israel that showed a statistically significant association between functional dependence and glaucoma medication adherence (p = 0.005) [29].

Those who paid for the medication by themselves had lower odds of adherence than those who were sponsored for their medication. This finding is in comparative agreement with studies done in Nigeria [35], Ghana [36], and Romania [37] that reported the cost of the medication as a significant barrier to glaucoma medication adherence. Previous studies done in Ethiopia showed that financial concern is one of the major barriers to eye care service utilization [34, 38]. This concern is more pronounced among glaucoma patients due to the long course of treatment and the high cost of glaucoma medications [39]. The financial burden would be even higher for those who are on multiple glaucoma medications [16, 26] and those with comorbidities taking other medications. Furthermore, despite the availability and promotion of community based health insurance in Ethiopia, out-of-pocket expenditures for health care still constitute a higher proportion of health care expenditures [40]. This could make eye care services in general, and glaucoma care in particular, inaccessible and unaffordable.

Limitations

This study is affected by recall bias and desirability bias inherent to the primary studies that used a self-reporting method of adherence ascertainment. This could potentially lead to an overestimation of medication adherence. Moreover, only 4 out of the 12 regions of Ethiopia are represented in the study, which makes the finding less generalizable to Ethiopia.

Conclusion

The magnitude of adherence to glaucoma medication is low among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia. Tailored health education for those coming from rural areas and those with affected visual acuity regarding glaucoma and drug adherence is recommended. Furthermore, expanding glaucoma related services to rural areas to make the service more accessible and affordable is recommended. Additionally, availing glaucoma medication at a subsidized price and expanding and raising awareness about community based health insurance to make glaucoma medications more accessible and affordable is recommended. We also recommend further studies to be done using objective and validated methods of adherence assessment.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0293047.s001.docx (36KB, docx)
S1 Dataset

(XLSX)

pone.0293047.s002.xlsx (11.6KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.AAO. https://eyewiki.aao.org/Primary_Open-Angle_Glaucoma 2023 [cited 2023 26–09].
  • 2.WHO. Blindness and visual impairment Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2023. [cited 2024 4-February]. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration.The AGIS Investigators. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(4):429–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Conlon R, Saheb H, Ahmed IIK. Glaucoma treatment trends: a review. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2017;52(1):114–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2016.07.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Robin AL, Muir KW. Medication adherence in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Expert Review of Ophthalmology. 2019;14(4–5):199–210. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sleath B, Blalock S, Covert D, Stone JL, Skinner AC, Muir K, et al. The Relationship between Glaucoma Medication Adherence, Eye Drop Technique, and Visual Field Defect Severity. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(12):2398–402. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.05.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Newman-Casey PA, Niziol LM, Gillespie BW, Janz NK, Lichter PR, Musch DC. The association between medication adherence and visual field progression in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(4):477–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.10.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shu YH, Wu J, Luong T, Mattox C, Fang EN, Lee BL, et al. Topical Medication Adherence and Visual Field Progression in Open-angle Glaucoma: Analysis of a Large US Health Care System. J Glaucoma. 2021;30(12):1047–55. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Schwartz GF, Quigley HA. Adherence and Persistence with Glaucoma Therapy. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2008;53(6, Supplement):S57–S68. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sayner R, Carpenter DM, Blalock SJ, Robin AL, Muir KW, Hartnett ME, et al. Accuracy of Patient-reported Adherence to Glaucoma Medications on a Visual Analog Scale Compared With Electronic Monitors. Clinical Therapeutics. 2015;37(9):1975–85. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.06.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Olthoff CM, Schouten JS, van de Borne BW, Webers CA. Noncompliance with ocular hypotensive treatment in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: an evidence-based review. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(6):953–61. e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.12.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tamrat L, Gessesse GW, Gelaw Y. Adherence to topical glaucoma medications in Ethiopian patients. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2015;22(1):59–63. doi: 10.4103/0974-9233.148350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Anbesse DH, Yibekal BT, Assefa NL. Adherence to topical glaucoma medications and associated factors in Gondar University Hospital Tertiary Eye Care Center, northwest Ethiopia. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019;29(2):189–95. doi: 10.1177/1120672118772517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dreer LE, Girkin C, Mansberger SL. Determinants of medication adherence to topical glaucoma therapy. J Glaucoma. 2012;21(4):234–40. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31821dac86 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tsai JC, McClure CA, Ramos SE, Schlundt DG, Pichert JW. Compliance barriers in glaucoma: a systematic classification. Journal of glaucoma. 2003;12(5):393–8. doi: 10.1097/00061198-200310000-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Movahedinejad T, Adib-Hajbaghery M. Adherence to treatment in patients with open-angle glaucoma and its related factors. Electronic physician. 2016;8(9):2954. doi: 10.19082/2954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Salman M, Andrews C, Heisler M, Darnley-Fisch D, Newman-Casey PA. Psychosocial Predictors of Glaucoma Medication Adherence Among the Support, Educate, Empower (SEE) Personalized Glaucoma Coaching Pilot Study Participants. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020;216:207–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.02.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Moore SG, Richter G, Modjtahedi BS. Factors Affecting Glaucoma Medication Adherence and Interventions to Improve Adherence: A Narrative Review. Ophthalmology and Therapy. 2023. doi: 10.1007/s40123-023-00797-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2022;18(2):e1230. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1230 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Modesti PA, Reboldi G, Cappuccio FP, Agyemang C, Remuzzi G, Rapi S, et al. Panethnic differences in blood pressure in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one. 2016;11(1):e0147601. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Melaku MW, Yibekal BT, Demilew KZ. Adherence to topical anti-glaucoma medications in Sidama regional state, Southern Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2023;18(4):e0284200. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mehari T, Giorgis AT, Shibeshi W. Level of adherence to ocular hypotensive agents and its determinant factors among glaucoma patients in Menelik II Referral Hospital, Ethiopia. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:131. doi: 10.1186/s12886-016-0316-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Assem AS, Fekadu SA, Yigzaw AA, Nigussie ZM, Achamyeleh AA. Level of Glaucoma Drug Adherence and Its Associated Factors Among Adult Glaucoma Patients Attending Felege Hiwot Specialized Hospital, Bahir Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2020;12:189–97. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S274850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Birhanie SA, Getie GA, Tesfa M, Mulugeta H, Gedfew M, Mekete YS, et al. Treatment adherence and associated factors among glaucoma patients attending Ophthalmic units of referral hospitals in North West Ethiopia, 2019. Frontiers in Ophthalmology. 2022;2:985893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kyei S, Kwao E, Mashige PK, Listowell Abu S, Racette L. Adherence to Ocular Hypotensive Medication in Patients With Primary Open Angle Glaucoma in Ghana. Journal of Glaucoma. 2023;32(9):777–82. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Abu Hussein NB, Eissa IM, Abdel-Kader AA. Analysis of factors affecting patients’ compliance to topical antiglaucoma medications in Egypt as a developing country model. Journal of ophthalmology. 2015;2015. doi: 10.1155/2015/234157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Santos MAK, Ayena DK, Kuaovi KR, Vonor K, Djagnikpo A, Balo KP. [Compliance with medical treatment in primary open-angle glaucoma in Lomé]. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2016;39(5):459–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tchabi S, Abouki C, Sounouvou I, Yèhouessi L, Doutetien C, Bassabi S. Survey of medical treatment in primary open-angle glaucoma. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2011;34(9):624–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cohen Castel O, Keinan-Boker L, Geyer O, Milman U, Karkabi K. Factors associated with adherence to glaucoma pharmacotherapy in the primary care setting. Family practice. 2014;31(4):453–61. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmu031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Shadid A, Alrashed W, Shihah AB, Alhomoud A, Alghamdi M, Alturki A, et al. Adherence to medical treatment and its determinants among adult saudi glaucoma patients in riyadh city. Cureus. 2020;12(2). doi: 10.7759/cureus.6847 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kim CY, Park KH, Ahn J, Ahn M-D, Cha SC, Kim HS, et al. Treatment patterns and medication adherence of patients with glaucoma in South Korea. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2017;101(6):801–7. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308505 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Morka ED, Yibekal BT, Tegegne MM. Eye care service utilization and associated factors among older adults in Hawassa city, South Ethiopia. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(4):e0231616. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Giorgis AT, Alemu AM, Arora S, Gessesse GW, Melka F, Woldeyes A, et al. Results from the first teleglaucoma pilot project in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Journal of Glaucoma. 2019;28(8):701–7. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Melese M, Alemayehu W, Friedlander E, Courtright P. Indirect costs associated with accessing eye care services as a barrier to service use in Ethiopia. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2004;9(3):426–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2004.01205.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Abdull MM, Chandler C, Gilbert C. Glaucoma, “the silent thief of sight”: patients’ perspectives and health seeking behaviour in Bauchi, northern Nigeria. BMC Ophthalmology. 2016;16(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s12886-016-0220-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ocansey S, Kyei S, Diafo A, Darfor KN, Boadi-Kusi SB, Aglobitse PB. Cost of the medical management and prescription pattern for primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) in Ghana–a retrospective cross-sectional study from three referral facilities. BMC health services research. 2016;16(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1528-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zaharia A-C, Dumitrescu O-M, Radu M, Rogoz R-E. Adherence to Therapy in Glaucoma Treatment—A Review. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2022;12(4):514. doi: 10.3390/jpm12040514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kegne Assaye A, Temeselew Tegegn M, Tilahun Belete G. Eye Care Utilization among Older Subjects with Visual Impairment in Northwest Ethiopia. Journal of ophthalmic & vision research. 2023;18(3):306–17. doi: 10.18502/jovr.v18i3.13779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Damji KF, Nazarali S, Giorgis A, Kiage D, Marco S, Philippin H, et al. STOP Glaucoma in Sub Saharan Africa: enhancing awareness, detection, management, and capacity for glaucoma care. Expert Review of Ophthalmology. 2017;12(3):197–206. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kassa AM. In Ethiopia’s Kutaber district, does community-based health insurance protect households from catastrophic health-care costs? A community- based comparative cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE. 2023;18(2):e0281476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Osamudiamen Cyril Obasuyi

30 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-32159Glaucoma medication adherence and associated factors among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abore,

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 15 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,

Osamudiamen Cyril Obasuyi, MD, MSc, FWACS, FMCOPh

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. Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file "data set.xlsx ". Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws. Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared: -Name, initials, physical address-Ages more specific than whole numbers-Internet protocol (IP) address-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)-Contact information such as phone number or email address-Location data-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order) Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. 4. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

TITLE: The title is unclear. What associated factors? If the authors wouldn’t mind a slight alteration to the title, I will like to suggest this:

Adherence, and factors influencing adherence to Glaucoma medications among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

I think this title better conveys the goals of the authors.

ABSTRACT

1. Glaucoma medications are one important pillar of glaucoma management to control intraocular pressure- The statement is unclear.

2. If left uncontrolled, intraocular pressure causes progressive visual loss and blindness.-This statement is not entirely accurate. While IOP is the only modifiable risk factor, various other factors may contribute to Visual loss in Glaucoma. The statement could be rewritten to reflect the true role of IOP in glaucoma.

3. Results do not properly delineate the factors affecting adherence. Which factors improved or discouraged adherence.

INTRODUCTION

1. Why have the authors decided to carry out this review in Ethiopia? The reason for this review in Ethiopia has not been justified.

2. The authors used "its associated factors" continually throughout the review. This phrase is unclear and does not fully convey the goal of the review. Factors affecting adherence could be positive or negative. The use of the phrase may have colored the way the review may have been carried out.

RESULTS

1. The authors should provide a summary of the various factors affecting adherence-positively or negatively- as studied by the various reports included in this review. This summary provides better understanding of the results.

DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION

The discussion currently reads like a repeat of the results. The authors have done nothing to contextualize the results and the import these results may have in Ethiopia. They have just compared their results with reports from other countries. This has also led to the conclusion that was drawn by the authors.

[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: Yes

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: The presented study is an original systematic review and meta-analysis with included completed PRISMA checklist and flow diagram. This research adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and meets all main Publication Criteria in PLOS ONE, but there are a few comments:

— In the “Ethics Statement” it should be written “N/A”, because the submission does not require an ethics statement.

— Manuscript should be written in a clear, correct, and unambiguous language. Please correct some punctuation and grammatical errors, like in the Line 43: “……cause of blindness, which ………..”; in the Line 33: “………. for meta-analysis” (without “the”); in the Line 57: Studies with the small “s”; in the Line 63: “vary” instead of “varies”; in the Line 129: Articles with the small “a”; in the Line 220: “…..among those, who are ….“, etc.

— Line 21: “Glaucoma medications are one of the important pillars……”

— Line 22-23: “Intraocular pressure causes progressive visual loss and blindness, if left uncontrolled.”

— In the Section “Introduction” the data on incidence and blindness related to glaucoma should be updated – Line 44-45 - (According to the World Health Organization, the total number of patients with glaucoma is about 105 million people, 11.2 million people are blind from glaucoma.)

— Line 46: Please add the abbreviation “IOP” after intraocular pressure

— In the Section “Results”: How the final review could include 6 articles, if the total number of retrieved articles was 170, 20 articles were removed due to duplication; 144 articles were excluded after reviewing the title and abstract, and additionally 6 studies reporting wrong outcomes were also excluded. Please give more descriptive information, according to the PRISMA flow diagram, which is correct

— Line 141: “Four studies used a tool …….” instead of “Of the studies, 4 of them used …“

— Line 197: “However, it is lower than reported or showed in studies……”

— Line 234: “……methods of adherence assessment…”

Reviewer #2: Study was reasonably well carried out and the limitations highlighted by the authors. Relevant statistical analysis were carried out. Recommendations were made that the authors believe would help in improving compliance with glaucoma medications.

**********

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.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 13;19(3):e0293047. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293047.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

8 Feb 2024

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the insightful comments we received. We have noted the concerns raised by the reviewers and we have carefully edited the manuscript. We have given our responses below in chronological order.

Sincerely,

Kibruyisfaw Weldeab (MD, MPH)

Editorial corrections

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

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We have carefully edited the manuscript as per the suggestion.

2. “We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file "data set.xlsx ". Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.”

Author response: Thank you for the comments. The identifiers included were the names of primary authors. We have corrected as per the suggestion.

3. “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”

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We have corrected as per the suggestion.

4. “TITLE: The title is unclear. What associated factors? If the authors wouldn’t mind a slight alteration to the title, I will like to suggest this: Adherence, and factors influencing adherence to Glaucoma medications among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. I think this title better conveys the goals of the authors.”

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We have corrected as per the suggestion.

5. Glaucoma medications are one important pillar of glaucoma management to control intraocular pressure- The statement is unclear.

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We have edited the abstract to make it clearer.

6. If left uncontrolled, intraocular pressure causes progressive visual loss and blindness.-This statement is not entirely accurate. While IOP is the only modifiable risk factor, various other factors may contribute to Visual loss in Glaucoma. The statement could be rewritten to reflect the true role of IOP in glaucoma.

Author response: we accept the editor’s comment and we have edited the abstract accordingly.

7. Results do not properly delineate the factors affecting adherence. Which factors improved or discouraged adherence?

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We have edited the result to address the editors’ comment.

INTRODUCTION.

8. Why have the authors decided to carry out this review in Ethiopia? The reason for this review in Ethiopia has not been justified.

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We accept the comment. We have edited the introduction and addressed the concern raised.

9. The authors used "its associated factors" continually throughout the review. This phrase is unclear and does not fully convey the goal of the review. Factors affecting adherence could be positive or negative. The use of the phrase may have colored the way the review may have been carried out.

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We have edited based on the recommendation.

RESULTS.

10. The authors should provide a summary of the various factors affecting adherence-positively or negatively- as studied by the various reports included in this review. This summary provides better understanding of the results.

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We have corrected as per the suggestion. We have included the factors favoring adherence and the factors favoring non-adherence on table1.

DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION.

11. “The discussion currently reads like a repeat of the results. The authors have done nothing to contextualize the results and the import these results may have in Ethiopia. They have just compared their results with reports from other countries. This has also led to the conclusion that was drawn by the authors.”

Author response: we sincerely thank the editor for the comment. We have noted the concern and edited the discussion and conclusion section to contextualize to Ethiopia.

Reviewer 1 comments

Thank you for the comments and we have made the following changes based on the comments.

12. In the “Ethics Statement” it should be written “N/A”, because the submission does not require an ethics statement.

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We have corrected as per the suggestion.

13. Manuscript should be written in a clear, correct, and unambiguous language. Please correct some punctuation and grammatical errors, like in the Line 43: “……cause of blindness, which ………..”; in the Line 33: “………. for meta-analysis” (without “the”); in the Line 57: Studies with the small “s”; in the Line 63: “vary” instead of “varies”; in the Line 129: Articles with the small “a”; in the Line 220: “…..among those, who are ….“, etc.

Line 21: “Glaucoma medications are one of the important pillars……” Line 22-23: “Intraocular pressure causes progressive visual loss and blindness, if left uncontrolled.” Line 141: “Four studies used a tool …….” instead of “Of the studies, 4 of them used …“ Line 197: “However, it is lower than reported or showed in studies……”. Line 234: “……methods of adherence assessment…”

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We accept the reviewer’s comments. We have edited each sections of the manuscript using language editing services.

14. In the Section “Introduction” the data on incidence and blindness related to glaucoma should be updated – Line 44-45 - (According to the World Health Organization, the total number of patients with glaucoma is about 105 million people, 11.2 million people are blind from glaucoma.)

Author response: Thank you for the comments. However, we were not able to identify the figure mentioned by reviewer. We have included recent figure from WHO that states 76 million people are affected by glaucoma and projected to be 95.4 million in 2040. Furthermore a factsheet from WHO published in August 2023 indicated 7.7 million people had visual impairment secondary to glaucoma.

15. Line 46: Please add the abbreviation “IOP” after intraocular pressure

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We have corrected it.

16. In the Section “Results”: How the final review could include 6 articles, if the total number of retrieved articles was 170, 20 articles were removed due to duplication; 144 articles were excluded after reviewing the title and abstract, and additionally 6 studies reporting wrong outcomes were also excluded. Please give more descriptive information, according to the PRISMA flow diagram, which is correct.

Author response: Thank you for the comments. We have corrected the error we committed during write up and rewritten it based on the PRISMA flow diagram

Reviewer 2 comments

Thank you for the comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

pone.0293047.s003.docx (19.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Osamudiamen Cyril Obasuyi

12 Feb 2024

Adherence and factors influencing adherence to glaucoma medications among adult glaucoma patients in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-23-32159R1

Dear Dr. Abore,

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,

Osamudiamen Cyril Obasuyi, MD, MSc, FWACS, FMCOPh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Osamudiamen Cyril Obasuyi

1 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-32159R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abore,

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

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks 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. Osamudiamen Cyril Obasuyi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0293047.s001.docx (36KB, docx)
    S1 Dataset

    (XLSX)

    pone.0293047.s002.xlsx (11.6KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0293047.s003.docx (19.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES