Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jun 11;19(6):e0304255. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304255

Determinants of effective interventions for HIV prevention, treatment, and care to address inequitable HIV outcomes among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in High-Income Countries: Systematic review protocol

Akalewold Tadesse Gebremeskel 1,2,*, Amoy Jacques 1, Faith Diorgu 1,3, Josephine Etowa 1,2
Editor: Muhammad Shahzad Aslam4
PMCID: PMC11166283  PMID: 38861503

Abstract

Background

In High-Income Countries (HICs) HIV/AIDS continues to disproportionally affect Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) and other racialized groups and is now a major public health concern. Despite the multiple efforts, evidence is limited on the effectiveness of HIV interventions to address the HIV outcomes inequalities among BWAD. This protocol outlines the methodological process of a systematic review that will gather quantitative and qualitative data to examine existing determinants of effective HIV prevention, treatment, and care interventions to address the HIV outcomes disparities and inequities among BWAD in HICs.

Methods

A systematic review of eligible articles will be conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search of the literature will be made in MEDLINE(R) ALL (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO Host), and Global Health (Ovid). Peer-reviewed studies involving the experience of BWAD in HICs; different HIV prevention, treatment, and care interventions both in the community and in a clinical setting; studies that report on the experience of BWAD on HIV intervention/ service including different levels of barriers and facilitators; reports of original research and peer-reviewed articles based on qualitative, quantitative, and mixed study designs published in English from 1980 onwards in HICs will be included. A narrative synthesis, thematic synthesis, and descriptive quantitative analysis of both extracted qualitative and quantitative data will be undertaken.

Conclusion

Substantial changes including tailored interventions are needed to address the inequities in HIV outcomes that disproportionally impact BWAD in HICs. Understanding the determinants of the effectiveness of BWAD-focused HIV interventions is critical to stemming the HIV epidemic and reducing the burden of the disease and poor health outcomes experienced by BWAD in HICs Our study finding will inform the multi level and multisectoral stakeholder including public health, community-based organizations and nongovernmental civil society organization engaged in BWAD HIV and health policy and practice in HICs. Findings from this review will be used to guide effective response to HIV/AIDS using an equity-driven policy and practice framework.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023458938.

Background

Globally in the last four decades HIV, the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is continues to be a major public health concern [1, 2]. According to the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3, the global stakeholders aimed to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030, yet rates of new infections and deaths are not falling rapidly enough to meet that target [3]. Although HIV can affect anyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, or where they live, in High-Income Countries (HICs), disparities in HIV risk and prevention and treatment outcomes are becoming an important public health issue. Racialized people, particularly Black Women of African Descent (BWAD)(referred to as Black women and girls) continue to bear a disproportionate burden of HIV/AIDS and related l HIV-related outcomes [1, 2, 4].

Worldwide, significant achievements have been made in HIV prevention, treatment, support, and the reduction of its impact, however, in HICs racialized people, including BWAD, are still experiencing substantial HIV-related outcomes disparities [2, 4]. Since the recognition of HIV/AIDS in 1981, HICs have had their own distinctive epidemic trends, transmission dynamics, and affected subgroups [5, 6]. In those countries, the social and molecular epidemiology of the epidemic has had features relatively different from the utmost impacted regions like sub-Saharan Africa [7].

In HICs, BWADs are disproportionately affected and overrepresented in HIV infection as compared to women of other ethno-racial backgrounds. In the year between 2015 to 2019, the rate of new HIV infections among Black women are eleven times that of White women and four times that of Latina women [710]. While BWAD represented 14% of the US population in 2019, they account for 40% of those living with HIV and 60% of new HIV diagnosis among US women in the same year [4, 11, 12]. In the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, and US, where declines in new HIV diagnoses have been smaller among Black people than among white populations [13, 14]. Similarly, in the UK, BWAD represent 66% of women HIV diagnoses; White women represent only 21% of diagnoses [14]. In Canada, Black people constitute 2.5% of the population but make up 16% of people living with HIV/AIDS in the country. According to the Ontario HIV Epidemiology and Surveillance initiative of women diagnosed with HIV for the first time in 2020, in Ontario (the largest province and where more than 50% of BWAD lives) 44.4% were Black Women, White 31.5% and Indigenous 13% [1517].

Differences in the presence of disease, health outcomes, or access to care among population groups are called health disparities [18]. Health disparities that are deemed unfair or stemming from some form of injustice in health status or in the distribution of health resources between different population groups, arising from the social conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. Health inequities are systematic differences in the opportunities groups have to achieve optimal health, leading to unfair and avoidable differences in health outcomes [19, 20]. For BWAD population, addressing such health inequities and their causes need robust evidence support and equity-driven policy and practice.

In HICs the causes of these disparities are complex and multifactorial [9, 12, 21, 22]. These disproportionalities observed in high vulnerability rates to HIV is associated with intersecting social determinants, structural and systemic factors (i.e., racism, stigma) and inequitable access to health care that limits achievement of optimal health outcomes [9, 12, 21, 22]. HIV vulnerability among racialized women, and people at the intersection of these identities, is situated in structural contexts of social, economic, and political inequities [19, 20]. Structural factors such as economic insecurity have a complex and indirect association with HIV risk, operating distally to reduce access to HIV testing, prevention, and care [9, 21, 22]. BWAD experience multiple and intersecting barriers compared to non-racialized women when accessing appropriate and responsive health information and care than non-racialized women [9, 22]. Independent of social and structural barriers, multiple factors influence the success of HIV prevention, diagnosis, and treatment cascade including healthcare systems and policy and guidelines [9, 12, 21, 22]. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing health inequalities faced by racial and ethnic minorities including BWAD in HICs (reference needed here)

The United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) announced a new set of ambitious targets in 2020, calling for 95% of all people living with HIV to know their HIV status, 95% of all people with diagnosed HIV infection to receive sustained antiretroviral therapy, and 95% of all people receiving antiretroviral therapy to have viral suppression by 2025 [23]. This replaced the three 90’s in 2014 target given several countries reached the target and the emergence of countries reaching coverage levels as high as 95% for testing, treatment and virologic suppression [24].

Although the new HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths have markedly decreased since the peak of the AIDS pandemic, efforts by HICs to address the systematic differences in HIV outcomes among marginalized and racialized people like BWAD have fallen short [2, 25]. Great disparities exist within and between countries to achieve the UNAIDS targets [9, 25]. The existing interventions are critical in preventing new HIV infection and helping people living with virus, however they are insufficient to reach the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets and ending the health threat of HIV/AIDS in HICs [1, 2] by 2030. The racial and ethnic implications leading to inequities faced by BWAD and racialized women suggest system wide fragmentation regarding HIV prevention programing and policies [25]. In HICs, over the past four decades, unchanged HIV intervention approaches have highlighted an increasingly urgent need for a tailored, innovative, and equitable approach to effectively end the HIV epidemic to address inequalities in HIV-related health outcomes. Beyond the standard approach, substantial changes and efforts are needed to achieve the UNAIDS targets and achieve the goal of HIV/AIDS elimination while ensuring health equity and equality for disproportionately impacted people including BWAD [1]. Understanding the race and ethnic inequities and determinants of the effectiveness of HIV programs targeting most at-risk and impacted populations like BWAD is critical to stemming the HIV epidemic and HIV outcomes inequality [22, 25]. We argue that reducing HIV-related health outcomes, health disparities and health inequities should be a major focus of the Global AIDS Strategy between 2021 to 2026 [1, 2, 26, 27]. Despite the multiple individual context-based studies focusing on the factors associated with HIV vulnerability or risk factors, there is limited evidence on the determinants of the effectiveness of HIV intervention to address the HIV inequality outcomes and impact among BWAD in HICs. There is no systematic review focusing on HIV interventions tailored to BWAD and determinants of effective HIV intervention to address the HIV inequality outcomes and impact among BWAD in HICs.

This systematic review will inform practice and policy interventions for effectively addressing HIV and related healthcare as well as improving inequalities in HIV outcomes among BWAD and beyond in HICs. We will identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of all relevant individual studies on HIV intervention among BWAD in HICs, thereby making the available evidence more accessible for policy and practice for tailored, innovative, and equitable approach to addressing HIV-related Health outcomes inequalities among BWAD and other racialized people.

The plan to end the health threat of HIV/AIDS is determined by evidence-based effective interventions [1, 2, 27, 28]. Due to the unchanged HIV intervention approach in the last four decades, a growing number of evidence have underscored the need for a tailored, innovative, and equitable approach to end the HIV epidemic while addressing HIV-related Health outcomes inequalities [26, 27]. Therefore, it is important to examine determinants of effective HIV prevention, testing, and treatment intervention strategies to address the HIV-related health outcome inequality among BWAD at higher risk of HIV, who still do not have equitable access to prevention, care, and treatment in HICs [4, 10, 22]. We argue that given the complexity of the challenges BWAD and other racial minority community members are experiencing, it is time to expand the current HIV-practices to fully explore the impact of vulnerable groups including BWAD in HICs.

The aim of this protocol is to outline the methodological process of a systematic review that will gather quantitative and qualitative data to examine existing determinants of effectiveness of HIV prevention, treatment, and care interventions to address the HIV outcomes disparities and inequities among Black Women of African descent (BWAD) in HICs.

The research questions is

What are the determinants of effective interventions for HIV prevention, treatment, and care to improve HIV and related health outcomes among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in HICs? More specifically,

  1. What are the HIV interventions /programs that are tailored to BWAD in HICs to address the HIV vulnerability and improve health outcomes?

  2. What are the barriers and facilitators to providing effective HIV interventions/ initiatives/program that are tailored to BWAD in HICs?

  3. What are the barriers and facilitators to accessing HIV initiatives/program that are tailored to BWAD in HICs?

  4. What are key lessons learned to date from efforts to provide or access HIV interventions/ initiatives/program tailored to BWAD HIV and related health needs?

Methods

Study design

This systematic review will include quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies addressing the experiences of BWAD.

Protocol registration and reporting

This systematic review protocol has been registered within the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023458938.

This systematic review protocol follows the protocol version of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses(PRISMA-P) guidelines for reporting systematic review [29] (see S1 File). This review will be conducted as per the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook of Systematic Reviews [30] and the findings will be reported in accordance with the reporting guidance provided in the PRISMAs statement [31]. Covidence offers tools and a workflow for all data extraction that would be necessary for the final SR reporting. It produces a PRISMA flow diagram and is able to export additional information.

Inclusion criteria

  1. Population: We will include studies involving the experience of women and girls self-identified as African or Black Caribbean or Black person who has lived in HICs; Black or having African or Caribbean descent/ origin, and who has lived in the western world for multiple generations such as the descendants of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Studies’ population include both service users and providers in the context of HIV and related interventions/ services in HICs. We defined high-income countries using the 2023 World Bank classification and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country membership [32].

  2. Intervention/ Exposure context: Eligible studies will involve standard specific interventions or combination HIV interventions in both community and in clinical settings. UNAIDS categorized HIV as a mix of different classes of interventions (behavioral, biomedical, and structural) [33]. Behavioral HIV Prevention interventions include education, awareness creation, knowledge creation, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)/Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), biomedical HIV intervention includes diagnosis or HIV testing and counseling (HTC), HIV treatment and care such as Antiretroviral treatment (ART) and prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT); Structural HIV intervention include social and economic support aligned with HIV prevention, treatments, and care.

  3. Comparison or control group: No comparison group for this study

  4. Outcomes of interest: Primary intervention outcomes: Studies that report on the HIV interventions /programs that are tailored to BWAD in HICs to address the HIV vulnerability and improve health outcomes; Studies that report on barriers and facilitators to providing effective HIV interventions/ initiatives/program that are tailored to BWAD in HICs; and studies that report on barriers and facilitators to accessing HIV initiatives/program that are tailored to BWAD in HICs.

    Secondary interventions outcomes: Studies that report on key lessons learned to date from efforts to provide or access HIV interventions/ initiatives/program tailored to BWAD HIV and related health needs.

  5. Study setting and design: We will include studies based both in the community and in clinical settings on experiences of BWAD in HICs. The eligible study will include non-experimental qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods study designs and reports of original research and peer-reviewed articles published in English on the experience of BWAD in HICs. The period from 1980 to 2023 thereby accounts for the new wave of research related to HIV and its impact [6].

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria include if: the study does not include Black women or girls; the study population has non-Black women, Black men, Caucasian participants or contained ethnic minority groups; studies where interventions did not focus HIV intervention; studies that only measured the outcomes of other health disparity, racial disparity, social determinant of health or individual behavior and social inequalities; studies with experimental design, conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Secondary literature (scoping reviews, literature reviews, letters/commentaries, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis), protocols, and case series. Studies do not reporting the full finding like conference abstracts.

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

A comprehensive search will be conducted using the primary source of literature will be a structured search of major electronic databases. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE and CINAHL for relevant peer-reviewed articles published between 1980 and 2023. The search strategies designed to access published materials comprise of three stages. (i) A limited search of Ovid Medline to identify relevant keywords contained in the title, abstract and subject descriptors. (ii) Terms identified in this way, and the synonyms used by Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL will be used in an extensive search of the literature. (iii) Reference lists of the review-eligible full-text articles will be perused to identify more relevant articles. The searches will be designed and conducted by the review team which includes four experienced public health researchers, in collaboration with a Health Sciences librarian, who helped in optimizing the retrieval of relevant citations. We will perform hand-searching of the reference lists of included studies, relevant reviews, or other relevant documents. Content experts and authors who are prolific in the field will be contacted. The search will include a broad range of MeSH terms and keywords related to BWAD-tailored HIV prevention, testing and care, and treatments.

A draft search strategy within Ovid Medline database is provided in S2 File.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

Searches and application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria will be conducted according to the PRISMA flow approach. All the articles(citations) identified by the database searches will be imported into the Zotero citation management software and uploaded in a zip file. The articles retrieved from searches in each database will be uploaded into the Covidence article online management system to be screened by two authors (ATG&JE) within the Covidence database for their relevance and eligibility using the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Covidence has a full blinding for screening and screening conflict resolution. This will include title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening against the eligibility criteria for studies deemed potentially eligible. We have this section to include steps taken to minimize observer bias and improve inter-rater reliability. E.g. we have clearly indicated that each title, abstract and full article will be screened by two team members and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Using JBI appraisal processes, we will evaluate any issues of sample selection and representation by primary studies included in our review.

Data management and extraction

The searches will be recorded using PRISMA guidelines, including the list of databases searched, recording of the dates (original and updated) searched and the strategies used for each database. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) flowchart will be used to document the selection process [34].

The authors will adapt a data collection form based on the needs of the review from a standardized data extraction form by the Cochrane library [29]. A data extraction sheet will be designed to capture information relating to the included articles. Following full-text screening, data will be independently extracted from the retrieved eligible studies by two of the reviewers (ATG and JE). Disagreements will be settled through discussion with a third reviewer (to be assigned). The data extracted will include all details specific to the review question, fulfilling the requirements for a narrative synthesis. This includes the following information from each article: authors and publication year, study setting, and study aim or hypothesis; design and data collection methods, outcome measures; study findings. We will also contact primary study authors for key information when data are ambiguous or missing from the included studies [3537].

Certainty of evidence

We will use the GRADE-CERQual for qualitative studies and GRADE approach for the quantitative studies. The GRADE-CERQual (“Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research”) approach will be applied by two authors independently to appraise and summarize confidence in key findings [38]. GRADE-CERQual approach helps to make judgements on four components: (i) methodological limitations of included studies, (ii) relevance of contributing studies to the research question, (iii) coherence of study findings, and (iv) adequacy of the data supporting the study findings. Judgements related to the four CERQual components will be summarized in a CERQual Qualitative Evidence Profile [38]. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [39] to assess the confidence in the evidence of effectiveness of interventions for HIV prevention, treatment, and care to address inequitable HIV outcomes among BWAD in HICs. We will present our GRADE assessments in a summary of findings table.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Appraisal of study quality

Quality of individual papers will be assessed using an appropriate Critical Appraisal tool. Methodological rigor in this review will be conducted by having two (ATG&JE) independent reviewers critically appraise the methodological validity of the included studies. Differences in the quality assessment will be resolved by discussion among all the authors [3537]. The discrepancies will be resolved by discussion with the third author. The methodological quality assessments of studies will be performed using Joanna Briggs Institute(JBI) critical appraisal checklists [40]. JBI’s critical appraisal tools helps to assess varieties of study design including cross sectional studies, cohort studies, economic evaluations, prevalence studies, qualitative research. The JBI critical appraisal tool includes multiple questions addressing the internal validity and risk of bias of study designs, particularly confounding, selection, and information bias, in addition to the importance of clear reporting [40].

Ethics and potential amendments

Ethics approval is not required as the systematic review does not involve the collection of primary data from participants. The collection of data for our review does not involve direct contact with human participants. Instead, we will use published and publicly accessed data. We do not envisage any amendments to the present protocol, but should an amendment be necessary, it will be notified, registered and reported.

Data synthesis

Evidence tables of an overall description of the included studies, including data from each paper that provided details of study characteristics like included study setting, country, study design, HIV intervention type, BWAD research participant characteristics, outcomes, and conclusion. A narrative synthesis, thematic synthesis, and descriptive quantitative analysis of both extracted qualitative and quantitative data will be conducted, a method that is ideal for synthesizing evidence from a wide range of research questions and study designs with qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches, as the emphasis is on an interpretive synthesis of the narrative findings of research [35]. Qualitative studies will be analyzed using thematic analysis to synthesize and categorize the findings of the included studies into themes (drawing from Braun and Clarke) [41]. Synthesis of data will be described in a narrative synthesis, grouped by study type and participant characteristics and review objective and outcome [3537]. We will summarize the included studies and findings using UNAIDS categorized HIV interventions (behavioral, biomedical, and structural). Accordingly, determinants of effective HIV intervention strategies to address the HIV outcomes inequalities among BWAD in HICs will aim to inform policy to address the HIV outcomes inequalities and improve the health outcomes of BWAD in HICs.

Discussion

This protocol outlines the methodological process of a systematic review that will gather qualitative and quantitative data in order to examine the existing experience of BWAD on HIV intervention /service in HICs. Searches and application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria will be conducted according to the PRISMA flow approach. A narrative synthesis, thematic synthesis, and descriptive quantitative analysis of both extracted qualitative and quantitative data will be conducted. First, we will summarize the key findings from the research and link them to the initial research question. Thus, this systematic review will provide an evidence base on multilevel barriers, facilitators and lessons in HIV intervention to inform policy makers and program planners to practice equity driven HIV programs while addressing HIV outcome inequalities among BWAD and other racialized people in HICs. Second, we will place the findings in multi-level context of HIV intervention among BWAD in HICs. By going back to the literature and analyzing how the results fit within previous research, this study will have significant importance in guiding multilevel BWAD context-based public health policy and implementation including using multiprong approach including targeted behavioral, biomedical, and structural interventions. Furthermore, our finding on multilevel determinants of effective HIV interventions will have significant impact in guiding equity-based health policy and intervention to address the HIV vulnerability and improve health of BWAD in HICs. Our study finding will inform the multi level and multisectoral stakeholder including public health, community-based organizations and nongovernmental civil society organization engaged in BWAD HIV and health policy and practice in HICs. Any changes to the protocol will be updated on PROSPERO and final manuscript.

Strengths and limitations of this study

Strength: First, the best of our knowledge, no systematic review has examined the existing determinants of effectiveness of HIV prevention, treatment, and care interventions to address the HIV outcomes disparities and inequities among BWAD in HICs using quantitative and qualitative studies. Second, the research team has extensive experience in BWAD health and HIV studies and have multiple publications and work on BWAD health and HIV studies in HICs and beyond. Third, the use of a comprehensive search strategy and a range of databases in consultation with health science librarian to develop the protocol.

Limitation, it would be difficult to avoid publication bias because of the exclusion of secondary/grey literature; studies published in languages other than English; and exclusion of studies including population other than BWAD.

Patient and public involvement

Patients will not be directly involved in the design of the study. As the study is a protocol for a systematic review and no participant recruitment will take place, their involvement in the recruitment and dissemination of findings to participants was not applicable.

Dissemination of findings

The systematic review and its evidence synthesis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at different local, national, and international conferences and scientific meetings.

Supporting information

S1 File. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P).

(DOCX)

pone.0304255.s001.docx (33.9KB, docx)
S2 File. Search terms.

(DOCX)

pone.0304255.s002.docx (19.5KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Collaborative Critical Research for Equity and Transformation in Health (CO-CREATH) Lab, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa for creating enabling situation for Black people health inequity critical research.

Abbreviations

AIDS

Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

ART

Antiretroviral treatment

BWAD

Black Women of African Decent

COVID-19

Corona Virus Disease 2019

HICs

High Income Countries

HIV

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

JBI

Joanna Briggs Institute

PRISMA-P

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols

PROSPERO

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

SDGs

Sustainable development goals

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

UNAIDS

United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This research program is financially funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Grant # FRN 183803. The funder is not responsible for the content of this paper. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and the decision to submit the paper to this journal.

References

Decision Letter 0

Yury E Khudyakov

12 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-33845Determinants of effective interventions for HIV prevention, treatment, and care to address inequitable HIV outcomes among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in High-Income Countries: Systematic review protocol.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gebremeskel,

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 Jan 26 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,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"The research program is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Grant # FRN 183803. "

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"The authors are grateful to Collaborative Critical Research for Equity and Transformation in

Health (CO-CREATH) Lab, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa

for creating enabling situation for Black people health inequity critical research; and the Canadian 

Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for providing funding for this study. "

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"The research program is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Grant # FRN 183803. "

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

Your manuscript was reviewed by one expert in the field who identified many important problems in your submission and produced copious comments. It is essential that you provide thorough responses to all comments submitted by the reviewer.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

**********

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: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, 

Thank you very much for your hard work and important study protocol for an extremely important subject. Thank you also for the opportunity to read and review your protocol. I believe your study has implications to better inform effectiveness of interventions for HIV prevention, treatment and care to BWAD to address inequitable HIV outcomes in HICs.

Overall, the protocol is good; however, there are several suggestions for sentence structure and grammar for your consideration and I do recommend another peer edit. Please ensure that you stick to one voice and not switch from active to passive voice (i.e., the authors… and then switch to “we will also…” – example in the Data management and extraction section). I have several comments, recommendations and suggestions for your consideration.  Once addressed, I believe the protocol and systematic review will a great contribution.

Comments:  

Abstract:

- Suggest rewording first sentence (for conciseness) to read: In High-Income Countries (HICs) HIV/AIDS continues to disproportionally affect Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) and other racialized groups.

- Suggest rewording last sentence (for conciseness): This protocol outlines the methodological process of a systematic review that will gather quantitative and qualitative data to examine existing determinants of effective HIV prevention, treatment, and care interventions to address the HIV outcomes disparities and inequities among BWAD in HICs.

Background: 

Paragraph 1:

- "Globally in the last four decades HIV, the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is continued to be one of the major public health concerns and health agenda.” Sentence is awkward. Which health agenda? Please clarify the sentence…is it SDGs? Hight income countries? Suggest: Globally in the last four decades HIV, the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) continues to be a major public health concern….”

- Racialized people including Black Women of African Descent (BWAD)(referred to as Black women and girls) continue to bear a disproportionate portion of the burden of HIV/AIDS and related l HIV-related outcomes (1,2,4). Sentence is awkward. Suggest "Racialized people, particularly Black Women of African Descent (referred to as Black women and girls) still disproportionately carry the burden of HIV/AIDS and its related outcomes."

Paragraph 2:

- Globally, significant achievements have been registered in HIV prevention, treatment, support, and the reduction of its impact, however, in HICs racialized people including BWAD are still experiencing substantial HIV-related outcomes disparities. Sentence awkward. Suggest: Globally, significant achievements have been made in HIV prevention, treatment, support, and the reduction of its impact, however, in HICs racialized people, including BWAD, are still experiencing substantial HIV-related outcomes disparities.

Paragraph 3

- In the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, and US, where declines in new HIV diagnoses have been smaller among Black people than among white populations. Suggest taking out “where” to read, “In the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, and US, declines in new HIV diagnoses have been smaller among Black people than among white populations.”

- In this section, in general, suggest to starting off with general racialized populations, and then focusing on BWAD. Right now it jumps from one to another throughout. Maybe establish the disparities among racialized and Indigenous communities and then focus on BWAD? What do you think? As the population you are focusing on in your systematic review is BWAD.

Paragraph 4

- Please provide a reference for your definition of health disparities.

- Review paragraph as there are some grammatical issues (periods in middle of second sentence (after age).

- The last sentence is quite long. Suggest dividing into two. Stop at “health outcomes (17).” Perhaps the next sentence should read, “They can be addressed by equity driven policy and practice…”. What is meant by policy and practice? Is it decisions, strategies? Please clarify.

Paragraph 5

- Second sentence awkward, suggest “This disproportionately in high vulnerability to HIV is associated with intersecting social determinants, structural and systemic factors (i.e., racism, stigma) and inequitable access to health care that limits achievement of optimal health outcomes.”

- Should be “BWAD experience multiple and intersecting… compared to non-racialized women.” in the 4th sentence.

Paragraph 6

- The following sentence is awkward. “Since the epidemic peaked, although the new HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths have markedly decreased, yet efforts have fallen short for many HICs to address the systematic differences in HIV outcomes among marginalized and racialized people like BWAD.” Not sure what you are meaning. Please clarify, is it that related deaths have decreased since the epidemic peaked (are you referring to the AIDS epidemic?) and yet BWAD continue to bear the burden of HIV/AIDS in HICs? If so, suggest:

“Although the new HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths have markedly decreased since the peak of the AIDS pandemic, efforts by HICs to address the systematic differences in HIV outcomes among marginalized and racialized people like BWAD have fallen short.”?

- Suggest rewriting this sentence: “The existing interventions are critical in preventing new HIV infection and helping people living with virus, however the existing HIV programs are insufficient to reach the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets and ending the health threat of HIV/AIDS in HICs(1,2) by 2030….. among black and other racialized women” Is this what you are getting at? “The existing interventions are critical in preventing new HIV infection and helping people living with virus, however they are insufficient to reach the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets and ending the health threat of HIV/AIDS in HICs (1,2) by 2030. The racial and ethnic implications leading to inequities faced by BWAD and racialized women suggest system wide fragmentation regarding HIV prevention programing and policies.”

Paragraph 7

- Awkward wording in the second sentence (‘a growing number of evidence have underscored the need…”). Suggest something like…” "Over the past four decades, unchanged HIV intervention approaches have highlighted an increasingly urgent need for a tailored, innovative, and equitable approach to effectively end the HIV epidemic to address inequalities in HIV-related health outcomes."

Overall comment about the introduction:

You have done a great job providing evidence and rationale behind the disparities faced by racialized women, particularly among BWAD in HICs. The way the introduction is written, you are jumping back and forth between racialized women and then BWAD and sometimes looking at both. Since your research questions is focused on BWAD in particular, may I suggest a funnel system that starts off broadly about HIV, then talk about inequities faced by racialized and Indigenous communities globally, then racialized and Indigenous women globally, then focus on HICs in particular, then focus on BWAD only as that is your focus in this systematic review. What do you think?

Another thought in reading the introduction is the provision of the definitions of health disparities and health inequities in paragraph 4 which almost come out of nowhere and cut the introduction. Suggest somehow, weaving this into the beginning in terms of globally what health dipartites and inequities are and then move into how these impact racialized and Indigenous communities. Whichever way you think flow would be better, as now it seem to cut the flow of thought while reading it.

Systematic Review Question

Currently reads: What are the determinants of effective interventions for HIV prevention, treatment, and care [intervention/comparator] to improve HIV and related health outcomes [outcome] among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in HICs [population]? The question is clear in terms of your intervention, population and outcome. The sub-questions provided are well outlined for qual, quant and mixed methods studies. Please note question #3 seems to have “programsthat” instead of “programs that”.

Suggest the following layout for conciseness as there seems to be some overlap in information provided:

- Under study design you describe BWAD and types of studies included. Suggest leaving the population description to the population section in the inclusion criteria aas quite repetitive.

- I would title the first section Protocol registration and reporting and put the section about PROSPERO and PRISMA here right after the major Methods section.

- Next is Inclusion criteria, this is where you describe the population, intervention/exposure, outcomes of interest and types of studies to be included [which is how you have it set up].

- Under Outcomes: In your RQ, you use the word “effective interventions” which insinuates some measurable outcome. How will this be defined? Are there specific primary or secondary interventions outcomes you will be looking at in addition to the sub-questions that focus on the types of interventions, barriers and facilitators and lessons learned. If you use effective, I think you will have to define what you mean by this? What have other protocols defined effective as? Are there examples of outcome variables that showed better health outcomes for BWAD or racialized communities? If so, what are those? Suggest looking at existing protocols/studies that outline effective strategies to guide you.

Table 1: your population states “Adults (16 years or older) who have experienced DSVA; adults who have

perpetrated DSVA”. The question only had adults who experienced DSVA? Should you change it to experience and perpetrate DSVA? It is noted later that you outline (line 170) that experience of DSVA “either as someone who has experienced or perpetrated DSVA”. Since this is not clear from the onset, when reading the question, the phrasing insinuates services/interventions supporting individuals who have experienced DSVA which does not necessarily intuitively include perpetrators. Clarity is needed for the systematic review process and in the question. In the section on intervention/exposure, you list classes of interventions, what were the outcomes of those that you could look at to determine effective ones and how are they deemed effective. I hesitate to leave this section without any examples of possible outcome measures to include in a systematic review. Additional information would provide the reader with a better idea as to what these outcomes are. In this systematic review, will there be measured effects in the quantitative studies? Will these be outlined?

Inclusion/exclusion of studies

- What about letters/commentaries and conference abstracts?

- Indicated only non-experimental; will there be experimental , quasi-experimental, randomized, quasi-randomized trials/studies? You mentioned quantitative, so only non-experimental quantitative. Please clarify.

Search Strategy:

- You have a decent # of databases so am sure you will catch many. Did you consider Gender Watch (ProQuest) [gender and women's studies; higher risk groups] or Web of Science?

- Will there be a grey literature search through google/google scholar? Please clarify rationale for not including grey literature or book chapters/programme reports that maybe relevant.

Certainty of Cumulative Evidence:

- Please clarify, you will use the GRADE-CERQual for qualitative studies and GRADE approach for the quantitative studies?

- Additionally, the citations for both are not the original citations for the GRADE-CERQual and GRADE approach, they are citations of the authors’ own papers when they completed or used this approach. Please use the original citations –

o https://www.cerqual.org/guide-for-decision-makers/

o https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-14

Appraisal of study quality

- Which quality appraisal tool will be used? JBI? CASP? Cochrane ROBINS-I? Please provide rationale as to why this hasn’t been decided.

Discussion:

- Suggest adding a sentence in the discussion that any changes to the protocol will be updated on PROSPERO and final manuscript.

References:

- Note you have the title References twice.

**********

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

**********

[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 Jun 11;19(6):e0304255. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304255.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jan 2024

Dear Editor, Dr. Yury E Khudyakov,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript PONE-D-23-33845: Determinants of effective interventions for HIV prevention, treatment, and care to address inequitable HIV outcomes among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in High-Income Countries: Systematic review protocol. We appreciate you and the reviewers for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards. The authors welcome further constructive comments if any.

Below we provide the point-by-point responses, rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by your self and reviewer(s). We uploaded all the documents including 'Response to Reviewers; 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes' and an unmarked version of 'Manuscript'.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 24 Jan 2024.docx

pone.0304255.s003.docx (28.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Muhammad Shahzad Aslam

5 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-33845R1Determinants of effective interventions for HIV prevention, treatment, and care to address inequitable HIV outcomes among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in High-Income Countries: Systematic review protocol.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gebremeskel,,

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 Apr 19 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,

Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Well done on the review of the protocol. The authors have addressed all my comments. One small suggestion for the revised version - under the exclusion criteria, the sentence "Studies don not reporting the full finding article/manuscript report like conference abstracts" reads awkwardly, requires minor editing.

Great and important work and I look forward to reading the final systematic review.

Best wishes.

Reviewer #2: Authors proposed a study of systematic review on the determinants of effective interventions among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in high-income countries. Author will conduct the systematic review under the PRISMA-P guidelines. The research topic is important for further understanding sex disparity and race/ethnicity disparity in HIV service. Standard meta-analysis procedures were proposed.

The only major concern is that this proposal is indicating a series of studies, while one same research may contribute information to different sub-analysis regarding different outcome. I.e., it is an umbrella proposal. Intervention strategy and outcome measure of each sub-analysis should be explicitly defined. I suggest authors may consider three points:

1) Describe scope of intervention strategies, and similarly, more specific outcome of interest. A cross-tab like combination table may help audience find specific topic of interest;

2) Propose an example of a specific research target. E.g., effectiveness of PrEP on HIV incidence rate/diagnosis rate among BWAD;

3) Two distinct subgroups among BWAD may experience totally different social economic challenge and support. It will be the best to differentiate new immigrant BWAD from local-born BWAD community.

**********

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

**********

[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 Jun 11;19(6):e0304255. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304255.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Mar 2024

Dear Dr. Muhammad Shahzad Aslam,

Thank you for reviewing and your positive feedback on our manuscript.

Now, we have addressed all concerns of the reviewers, please see uploaded documents asper your advice.

Thank you for your continued understanding and Support,

Akalewold MSc, PhD©

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 12 March 2024.docx

pone.0304255.s004.docx (17.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Muhammad Shahzad Aslam

24 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-33845R2Determinants of effective interventions for HIV prevention, treatment, and care to address inequitable HIV outcomes among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in High-Income Countries: Systematic review protocol.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gebremeskel,

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.

1-Explain authors prospect interpretation of expected findings, provide context, discuss implications, and suggest future directions.  

2- Highlight how their findings contribute to the current understanding of HIV prevention, treatment, and care among Black Women of African Descent in High-Income Countries (BWAD).

3- Mention that the discussion section typically addresses the implications of the study's findings for theory, practice, and policy. Ask the authors to consider the practical implications of their findings for healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers working in the field of HIV prevention and care for BWAD.

4- It's still important to address the limitations and strengths of the study that is expected. Planned it properly. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 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,

Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

1-Explain authors prospect interpretation of expected findings, provide context, discuss implications, and suggest future directions.

2- Highlight how their findings contribute to the current understanding of HIV prevention, treatment, and care among Black Women of African Descent in High-Income Countries (BWAD).

3- Mention that the discussion section typically addresses the implications of the study's findings for theory, practice, and policy. Ask the authors to consider the practical implications of their findings for healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers working in the field of HIV prevention and care for BWAD.

4- It's still important to address the limitations and strengths of the study that is expected. Planned it properly.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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 Jun 11;19(6):e0304255. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304255.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


6 Apr 2024

Dear Dr. Muhammad Shahzad Aslam thank you for reviewing our systematic review protocol and your positive feedback.

We have addressed your comment by adding more information throughout the manuscript. Please see our response below and the revised manuscript uploaded.

Akalewold

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers- 5 April 2024.docx

pone.0304255.s005.docx (19.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Muhammad Shahzad Aslam

12 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-33845R3Determinants of effective interventions for HIV prevention, treatment, and care to address inequitable HIV outcomes among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in High-Income Countries: Systematic review protocol.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gebremeskel,

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.

1-I have carefully reviewed your manuscript and find it to be a valuable contribution to the field. However, I would like to bring to your attention some potential biases that may need to be addressed. Firstly, it would be beneficial to provide more information about the process of participant selection to ensure the sample is representative of the population under study, thereby mitigating selection bias. Additionally, consider discussing strategies employed to minimize observer bias, such as blinding protocols or inter-rater reliability measures. Furthermore, please ensure that measurement instruments are validated and applied consistently across all study participants to mitigate the risk of measurement bias. Finally, transparency in reporting is crucial. Ensure that all relevant findings, regardless of significance, are included in the manuscript to avoid reporting bias. Addressing these biases will strengthen the validity and reliability of your study findings. Thank you for considering these suggestions, and I look forward to seeing how you incorporate them into your manuscript.

2- I commend you on the comprehensive systematic review protocol titled "Determinants of Effective Interventions for HIV Prevention, Treatment, and Care to Address Inequitable HIV Outcomes Among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in High-Income Countries." Your protocol lays a strong foundation for investigating crucial aspects of HIV prevention, treatment, and care among BWAD in high-income countries. As I review your protocol, I believe that emphasizing the practical implications of your findings within the discussion section would greatly enhance the relevance and impact of your study. Given the significance of your research topic, it is imperative to clearly articulate how the identified determinants of effective interventions can be translated into actionable strategies to improve HIV outcomes for BWAD. I encourage you to dedicate a section of the discussion to explicitly outline the practical implications of your findings. Consider addressing questions such as: How can the identified determinants inform the development and implementation of targeted interventions for BWAD? What policy changes or healthcare practices could be influenced by your findings to address disparities in HIV outcomes? Providing concrete examples or recommendations for stakeholders and policymakers will strengthen the applicability of your research in real-world settings. By integrating a discussion of practical implications, your study will not only contribute to the academic literature but also provide valuable guidance for addressing healthcare disparities and improving HIV-related outcomes among BWAD in high-income countries.

3-I am not satisfied with your current method on Assessment of risk of bias in included studies. Please add Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Jadad Scale.

4- Explain Joanna Briggs Institute

critical appraisal checklists(40).

5.Detail how Covidence will be utilized to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Describe the criteria and tools that will be used for evaluating study quality and risk of bias, and explain how Covidence will facilitate this process. Describe how data extracted from the included studies will be synthesized and analyzed using Covidence. Outline any planned approaches for meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, or qualitative synthesis, and specify how Covidence will support these analyses. Provide the flow diagram.

6- Develop the PICO TABLE.

7-It is important to write discussion with previous literature. Please explain why this review is needed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 27 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,

Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

1-I have carefully reviewed your manuscript and find it to be a valuable contribution to the field. However, I would like to bring to your attention some potential biases that may need to be addressed. Firstly, it would be beneficial to provide more information about the process of participant selection to ensure the sample is representative of the population under study, thereby mitigating selection bias. Additionally, consider discussing strategies employed to minimize observer bias, such as blinding protocols or inter-rater reliability measures. Furthermore, please ensure that measurement instruments are validated and applied consistently across all study participants to mitigate the risk of measurement bias. Finally, transparency in reporting is crucial. Ensure that all relevant findings, regardless of significance, are included in the manuscript to avoid reporting bias. Addressing these biases will strengthen the validity and reliability of your study findings. Thank you for considering these suggestions, and I look forward to seeing how you incorporate them into your manuscript.

2- I commend you on the comprehensive systematic review protocol titled "Determinants of Effective Interventions for HIV Prevention, Treatment, and Care to Address Inequitable HIV Outcomes Among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in High-Income Countries." Your protocol lays a strong foundation for investigating crucial aspects of HIV prevention, treatment, and care among BWAD in high-income countries. As I review your protocol, I believe that emphasizing the practical implications of your findings within the discussion section would greatly enhance the relevance and impact of your study. Given the significance of your research topic, it is imperative to clearly articulate how the identified determinants of effective interventions can be translated into actionable strategies to improve HIV outcomes for BWAD. I encourage you to dedicate a section of the discussion to explicitly outline the practical implications of your findings. Consider addressing questions such as: How can the identified determinants inform the development and implementation of targeted interventions for BWAD? What policy changes or healthcare practices could be influenced by your findings to address disparities in HIV outcomes? Providing concrete examples or recommendations for stakeholders and policymakers will strengthen the applicability of your research in real-world settings. By integrating a discussion of practical implications, your study will not only contribute to the academic literature but also provide valuable guidance for addressing healthcare disparities and improving HIV-related outcomes among BWAD in high-income countries.

3-I am not satisfied with your current method on Assessment of risk of bias in included studies. Please add Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Jadad Scale.

4- Explain Joanna Briggs Institute

critical appraisal checklists(40).

5.Detail how Covidence will be utilized to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Describe the criteria and tools that will be used for evaluating study quality and risk of bias, and explain how Covidence will facilitate this process. Describe how data extracted from the included studies will be synthesized and analyzed using Covidence. Outline any planned approaches for meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, or qualitative synthesis, and specify how Covidence will support these analyses. Provide the flow diagram.

6- Develop the PICO TABLE.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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 Jun 11;19(6):e0304255. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304255.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


4 May 2024

Dear Dr. Muhammad Shahzad Aslam thank you for reviewing our systematic review protocol and your positive feedback.

We have addressed your comment by adding more information throughout the manuscript. Please see our response below and the revised manuscript uploaded.

Akalewold MSc, PhD©

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-May 2, 2024.docx

pone.0304255.s006.docx (29.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 4

Muhammad Shahzad Aslam

9 May 2024

Determinants of effective interventions for HIV prevention, treatment, and care to address inequitable HIV outcomes among Black Women of African Descent (BWAD) in High-Income Countries: Systematic review protocol.

PONE-D-23-33845R4

Dear Dr. Gebremeskel,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Muhammad Shahzad Aslam

16 May 2024

PONE-D-23-33845R4

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gebremeskel,

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. Muhammad Shahzad Aslam

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 File. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304255.s001.docx (33.9KB, docx)
    S2 File. Search terms.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304255.s002.docx (19.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 24 Jan 2024.docx

    pone.0304255.s003.docx (28.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 12 March 2024.docx

    pone.0304255.s004.docx (17.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers- 5 April 2024.docx

    pone.0304255.s005.docx (19.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-May 2, 2024.docx

    pone.0304255.s006.docx (29.3KB, 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