Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Dec 7;15(12):e0243202. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243202

Electronic based reported anthropometry—A useful tool for interim monitoring of obesity prevalence in developing states

Pamela S Gaskin 1,*, Peter Chami 2,3, Tamara Nancoo 1, Patricia Warner 4, Patrick Barrett 3, Yvette Mayers 5
Editor: Mauro Lombardo6
PMCID: PMC7721176  PMID: 33284831

Abstract

Background

Wide participation in electronic surveys and reliable reporting of anthropometry can serve to reduce costs associated with monitoring of obesity among adolescents where resources are limited. We conducted a single school pilot study among Caribbean adolescents to assess use of electronic surveys and whether face to face encouragement could promote enrollment. In addition, we assessed students’ ability to reliably report simple anthropometry.

Methods

Students were provided with access to an electronic survey on anthropometry and food preferences regarding school-based food offerings. Responses to survey questions were presented as percentages. A sample of students also had their heights and weights measured after reporting these measures from memory. Intra-class correlation coefficients were used to assess reliability among measurers and Bland-Altman plots, consistency between student reported and recorded anthropometric measures and Support Vector Machine to assess robustness of anthropometry prediction models.

Results

Response rate to the electronic survey was low (9%). Students were able to interpret questions; open-ended options were inappropriately used 13% of the time. Post survey qualitative responses indicated displeasure with use of school-associated e-mail addresses. Concerns with confidentiality were expressed as well as preference for completion of surveys during school time. Students reliably reported anthropometry most measures fell within the 95% CI of Bland-Altman plots. SVM classified with a prediction accuracy of 95%. Estimates of overweight from recorded and reported measures were similar.

Conclusions

Adolescents are able to report simple anthropometry, and this can be used to help with monitoring of growth and overweight. Although they are capable of competently completing electronic surveys, school-based email is an ineffective contact tool. In-person school-based contact and administration of surveys are preferred. Adolescents can reliably report simple anthropometry that can be utilized for estimation of overweight/obesity prevalence. This method can be widely applied.

Background

Barbados is a resource-scarce country, yet like many developing nations it has problems emanating from a high burden of chronic disease [1, 2]. It is hoped that interventions during youth can help to ameliorate or to prevent the onset of some of these diseases in adulthood [3]. A major challenge is the ability to capture data that would help to characterize groups of individuals who should be specially targeted and would help to assess responses to intervention. Self-reported data are used among adults for such purposes [4, 5]. However, there is debate about adolescents and children’s ability to give reliable reports of physical measures and behaviours [6, 7].

Given that children are accessible in school, especially in countries where school is mandatory well into adolescence, it forms a convenient setting for early data capture on individuals. Such data can serve to monitor basic growth and weight status among children and adolescents.

It is well accepted that children and adolescents living in the 21st century are generally au fait with the use of electronic gadgets [8, 9] and prefer using these types of instruments to traditional pen and paper means of communication [10, 11]. Nevertheless, a major challenge is the fact that many electronic surveys have low response rates [12]. How adequate levels of participation in such studies can be achieved is in question, particularly if we are to use them for national data capture among secondary school students [13]. It is also important to understand adolescent’s ability to use surveys in this format. Examination of open-ended responses can serve to indicate whether the options offered as answers on surveys would be comprehensive enough to reflect the preferred responses of the participants.

A country wide study among school going adolescents in Barbados is in the planning stages. Its intended purpose is to develop efficient and easy methods for capture of anthropometric and food-related data intended to guide and monitor interventions among adolescents in Barbados. It is hoped that reported physical measures, socio-demographic information and associated factors captured by electronic means can be effectively utilized.

In the current pilot study, we sought to test whether face to face encouragement could prompt use of email and electronic interfaces for data capture amongst adolescents. We also tested whether the students would correctly interpret demographic and anthropometric questions and whether they would appropriately use preformatted answers to survey questions. In addition, we sought to assess barriers to recruitment as well as students’ ability to reliably report their heights and weights.

Methods

Permission to conduct the study was given by the Institutional Review Board of the University of the West Indies/Ministry of Health Barbados. All applicable institutional and governmental regulations concerning the ethical use of human volunteers were followed during this research. Informed written consent was obtained from parents and assent from children.

The purpose of the current pilot study was to test the methods for a potential country wide study among secondary school children. The school selected for this pilot study is a secondary school in Barbados that attracts a wide cross-section of students as it is centrally located in the capital of the country. Entrance to the school is open to children from any school zone on the island. Tuition fees are covered by the Government as is the case with approximately 95% of schools in Barbados. The race mix of students in the school reflects of the general population which has 92% Afro Caribbean, 2.7% White, 3.1% Mixed, 1.3% Indian, 0.4% Other [14]. This school offers the standard curriculum set by the government of Barbados that includes academic and creative instruction, in addition to athletics. Teachers across secondary schools have a similar qualification profile. The urban-rural differences in Barbados are unremarkable given the close proximity of services and availability of transport to all. This school was therefore deemed suitable for a pilot study. Students’ socio-economic status was not assessed.

The study was executed in three sections the “Electronic Survey”, the “Focus Groups” and the “Reliability Study”. Recruitment for the study occurred between February 5th– 22nd 2019. An information sheet with an attached parental consent form was provided for all students except those in the first form as they were unlikely to have much information on the canteen having just entered the school and were therefore excluded from the study. All eligible students were sent an email message using their school-based email address. This provided the link to the electronic-based survey. Volunteers from selected 2nd, 3rd and 5th forms (Grades 8, 9 and 11) comprised the convenience sample used for the focus groups. A representative sample of the 2nd to 5th forms (Grades 8–11) was selected using probability proportionate to size sampling (PPS) for the anthropometric reliability study.

Prior to the issuing of the electronic survey a senior member of the research team addressed the student body during full assembly which is a mandatory meeting for all students. Students were encouraged to complete the survey and were introduced to members of the research team who would collect the physical measurements and reported anthropometry. The method for logging on to the survey was explained. Students were encouraged to ask questions about the study for clarification at the conclusion of the presentation.

The questionnaire was pretested by two investigators and a research assistant for formatting, typographical errors, whether the questions were able to be read on the electronic medium in a fashion similar to the paper version and if the data would be entered in the database appropriately. In addition, the questionnaire was assessed for face validity. It was then tested by a group of 8 students to determine whether they could easily follow the instructions. There were no reports of misinterpretation or misunderstanding of questions.

The electronic survey

We developed a survey which was then transposed into electronic format using the SoGoSurvey® software. It started with reconfirmation of consent followed by demographic items, reported anthropometry and questions about the canteen and its food offerings. These items were used to examine whether the electronic interface worked as expected with items appearing in the intended sequence. Demographic questions including date of birth, sex and form were compared with school records as a means of assessing children’s ability to interpret questions. Weights and heights were used to assess whether students would correctly use imperial or metric units. We intentionally selected simple subject matter as the basis of most of the survey items; this we believed would enhance our ability to assess use of the tool as the questions would not be challenging.

The principal of the school provided a list of names, date of birth, sex and form in addition to the school-based e-mail address of each student in the list. A study ID number was assigned to each student so that names could be disconnected for dissemination among the study team. Students used a unique code issued to them to prevent one person answering multiple times. Mail merge was used to send the code and the link to the survey. At the beginning of the survey parents were again required to indicate approval of their child/ward completing the survey by selecting “Yes I agree” or “No I do not agree” to the parental permission question.

We used a proforma to categorize the responses to the survey. It captured information on:

  1. Response rate

  2. Students’ ability to understand the demographic questions by comparison of reported answers with school records

  3. Appropriate use of the options for different measurement units (weight could be reported as pounds or kilograms and height as centimeters or feet and inches)

  4. Appropriate use of the preformatted answers, these were provided as drop-down menus

  5. Appropriate use of open-ended sections of the questionnaire (responses were coded and categorized as to whether they conveyed the same message as a preformatted option or were a novel response)

  6. Whether the SOGO software collated the data in a manner that was suitable for analysis.

  7. Open-ended responses to be used to refine questionnaires for the larger study.

All questions except for the permission and demographics questions were presented in the format in the example below:

  • 1
    What meals do you eat from the canteen? (Please choose all that apply)
    1. (Breakfast, Morning snack, Lunch, Evening snack)
  • 2

    I preferred the foods offered by the pervious operator: (Y/N/No preference)

Students were offered the following responses to foods offered by the canteen for example fresh fruit:

  • 3
    Fresh fruit:
    1. How many times a week do you buy it? (Open ended)
    2. I buy Fresh fruit because:
      1. It is cheap
      2. I like it
    3. I DO NOT buy Fresh fruit because:
      1. It is expensive
      2. I do not like it
      3. It is unhealthy
      4. Allergies/intolerance
      5. Religious reasons

The focus groups

Three post survey focus groups were conducted over the period February 20th to 25th 2019 to qualitatively explore reasons for or against completion or engagement in the survey and to further examine students’ understanding of how to use the electronic interface. We elected to do 3 groups of 10 children each. This was in order to reflect the spectrum of opinions across different age ranges. Any student from the selected 2nd, 3rd, and 5th form (grade 8–11 equivalent) was eligible to be a participant. Roughly equal numbers of boys and girls were selected until the target of 10 students was met for each group. They were required to be currently enrolled students of the pilot school.

The focus groups were conducted using a set of prepared open-ended questions as a guide. They lasted approximately 30 minutes. The guide was developed to a) describe barriers to recruitment among adolescents in the school setting b) elicit reasons for not completing the survey and c) to get students recommendations for ways in which to improve the survey and methods for improving recruitment. All interviews were conducted by the principal investigator (PI) in a private area at the school site. The PI had extensive training and experience in conducting interviews for quantitative studies and some experience with conducting focus groups. The guide for the focus groups is given in the S4 File.

Focus group analysis

The PI took detailed notes during the focus groups of students’ responses. A coding scheme was developed based on categories of responses and a proforma was filled with the results. Most of the survey questions could be answered with simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as the intent was to determine the manner in which the actual instrument was used rather than to analyze the content of the answers. Students’ responses were therefor coded in a binary fashion. All analyses were carried out by the PI.

Reliability study

An aim of the study was to determine whether students were able to reliably report their weights and heights and to compare estimates of overweight/obesity with those calculated from measurements taken by trained observers. Students were asked to report their heights and weights on the electronic survey. However, since it was possible that uptake of the electronic survey might be inadequate, we took an a priori decision to also collect reported weights and heights as well as weights and heights recorded by trained observers at the school level. This would ensure that we were able to capture anthropometric data on a representative sample of the school, even if that could not be elicited from the electronic study.

The physical measurements were taken during school visits. All eligible students were assigned a number. At the level of the classroom we did a simple random sample to reach the number of students required by the PPS for that form.

Prior to the start of the study, observers were trained on measurements of weights and heights using standard methods [15]. Students were asked to first report their heights and weights from memory. Anthropometry could be reported in imperial or metric units and were all converted to S.I. units. Students’ heights and weights were then measured by trained observers using standard methods. Participants were measured in uniform with shoes and socks removed. Standing height was measured to 0.1 cm using a stadiometer (Charder Co. Ltd., HM200P, USA). Weight was measured to 0.5 lbs using a digital scale (Tanita® UM-081, USA) [15]. Two consecutive measures were performed for each anthropometric measure. The mean was used in data analyses. BMI was calculated and converted to z-scores using the WHO growth reference and AnthroPlus® program [16]. AnthroPlus® was also used to calculate overweight/obesity estimates [16].

The sample

We used the entire population of students on the school roll in 2nd to 6th form for the electronic survey. A convenience sample of 30 students 10 each from 2nd, 3rd and 5th form was selected for three focus groups. To assess the reliability of reported anthropometric measures, a complete random representative sample of 259 students (124 boys, 135 girls) in 2nd to 5th form (grade equivalent 7–11) was calculated. This was at a power of 95% and incorporated an assumed non-response rate of 50%. Next, we carried out stratified probability proportionate to size sampling to select the students. Once we had the measurements of the prescribed number of students per class determined by our PPS Sample; we allowed any other students that wanted to participate to do so. This policy saw us having 11 extra students participating. Giving us a complete sample of 270 students in the study.

Statistical analysis

We calculated percentages to complete the proforma for the electronic survey. Focus group responses were coded and summarized. To assess the reliability of our trained observers, we used intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). For estimation of reliability between reported measures (from participant report) and recoded measures (measured by the trained observers) we used the Bland Altman method [17]. We first investigated the data for outliers by use of box and whisker plots for the weight and height variables. We then used Bland-Altman plots of weight, height and body mass index z-score (BMIz) [16] to investigate differences.

The Bland-Altman plot is created from a series of paired data for the same specimens using two different methods of measurement. The plot analysis is a simple way to evaluate a bias between the mean differences, and to estimate an agreement interval, within which 95% of the differences of the second method, compared to the first one. Data can be analyzed either as plots of unit difference or percentage difference. The method defines the intervals of agreements; acceptable limits must be defined a priori, based on clinical necessity, biological considerations or other goals. These statistical limits are calculated by using the mean and the standard deviation (s) of the differences between the two measurements. A graphical approach is used to check the assumptions of normality of differences and other characteristics.

In a further step we then applied a Support Vector Machine (SVM), to classify the weight status of a student; using the student reported weight and height as the training variables [18]. The SVM was used as an approach to examine our hypothesis that student self-reported anthropometry could act as a proxy for measures taken by the trained observers. We used a universal Radial Basis Function (RBF) kernel [19] to mitigate overfitting.

K(x,x)=exp(-x-x22σ2)

We optimized the SVM both via the fit of the data to the hyperplane and by penalizing the number of samples inside the margin simultaneously. We achieved this by optimizing the Cost (C); where C defines the weight contributed by samples inside the margin to the overall error. Consequently, C adjusts for how hard or soft our large margin classification should be. With a low C, samples inside the margins are penalized less than with a higher C. On one extreme, where C is 0, samples inside the margins are not penalized. This can have the effect of disabling the large margin classification. With an infinite C, there would be hard margins on the other extreme. We tuned our model via ten-fold cross-validation on a set of models of interest. From these models we created a vector of a sequence of C values from 0.1 to 100 with increments of 0.2. We applied a 70/30% split of (training data set/testing data set) for cross validation of reported compared to recorded values. BMIz [16] was used to assign the class labels of thin, normal, overweight or obese to weight status groups. This is a common method for describing the performance of a classification model using a confusion matrix. This is a simple cross-tabulation of the observed and predicted classes of the data. Results were therefore presented as a confusion matrix to describe the performance of the classification model on a set of test data (reported measures) for which the true values (recorded measures) are known. R statistical language and the Python programming language was used to carry out calculations.

Finally, we assessed the agreement between estimates of overweight from reported and recorded by comparing 95% CI of BMIz derived from AnthroPlus® calculations [16].

Results

The electronic survey

Response rate for the electronic survey was 9.1%. Seventy-one (71) (41 girls, 30 boys) students responded to the survey. Mean age was 16.15 ± 2.52. Seventy-five percent of respondents were from 4th to 6th form (grade 10 to 12 equivalent). Of those responding, 49% completed the survey.

Since the response rate was low for the electronic survey we applied a two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS test) to determine whether the sample that answered the survey had age and sex distribution similar to the entire school population. Results of the test were D = 0.16901, p-value = 0.02626.

Further, since we had a representative sample of the school from the reliability study, we used BMIs calculated on this study to compare with the BMIs reported in the electronic survey. Weight and height measures were not available for the entire school population. Of the 71 students who answered the electronic survey, 65 reported weights and heights, compared to 270 students on the reliability study. We carried out an independent samples t-test to assess difference in mean BMI. There was no significant difference in BMI between the two groups (Mean difference; 95% CI: 1.49; p = 0.203).

Table 1 summarizes the assessment of the electronic survey. Two surveys had parental refusal, however this question appeared to be misunderstood by one parent as all other questions were answered. Notably, this participant indicated strong negative feeling about the canteen.

Table 1. Use of the electronic survey among adolescents.

Measurement/Assessment Methods Analysis Findings
Proportion of students who completed the survey SOGO software automatically recorded the completion status of each questionnaire Percentage of complete responses was calculated 49% (35) of questionnaires were complete. Among the incomplete ones 77% (28) were terminated by Question 17 of 43 questions
Participants’ ability to understand demographic questions Records obtained from school principal’s office were assigned identification numbers (IDs) and used to compare with answers from students Percentage of responses from students that correctly matched records were calculated
Sex: {M/F} 100% (71) correct responses
Date of birth: {dd/mm/yyyy} 99% (70) correct responses
Form (Grade): 100% (71) correct responses
Use of imperial or metric units The units for reported weights and heights were examined for credibility. Weight 13% (9) of respondents used kg. 82% (58) used lbs
6% (4) gave no response
1% (1) used the options incorrectly
Height 23% (16) of respondents used cm
65% (46) used ft and inches
10% (7) gave no response
4% (3) used the options incorrectly
The canteen/food questions
Responses using preformatted options Frequency of use of drop-down boxes were used to assess appropriate use Percentage of responses using the drop-down menu 92% (3858) of questions were answered using the drop-down menu
Skip patterns 100% (4189) of skip patterns were appropriate
Open ended questions Frequency of novel answers among open-ended responses Percentage of responses that were unavailable in the menu 8% (25) of open-ended responses were novel
Number of answers that were available in the drop-down menu Percentage of open-ended responses that were inappropriate 14% (44) of responses were open ended even though a similar option was available in the menu

With respect to the open-ended questions, 14% (44) were answers that were already provided in the drop-down menu. Forty seven percent (47%) (157) of the responses where the open-ended section was used could be classified as “I don’t want to”. The reasons that the remaining 39% (129) chose the open option were: I brought it from home (14%) (47); there was no minimum frequency offered (11%) (36); novel answers (8%) (25); neither an “unaware” or “don’t know” option was offered (6%) (21).

The focus groups

The focus groups comprised 5girls and 5 boys from the second year, 5 boys and 5 girls from the third year and 6 girls and 4 boys from the 5th year. The 30 students, mostly identified as Afro Caribbean with 2 of mixed race. They ranged in age from 13–17 years.

Focus group responses following administration of both parts of the study suggested the following:

  1. Eighty-six percent (86%) of focus group participants were aware that the survey was being conducted. Most got this information from the study researcher during the information session held at full assembly. Older students said they did not listen to the details given by the researcher nor the principal as they often ignored announcements given in this forum. The younger adolescents said that their interest was stimulated at the information session, but it quickly faded from memory. By and large younger children reported not receiving the survey. Many said they did not use e-mail often especially the one given by the school. Some of them said they could not remember their log-on credentials so were unable to attempt the survey. In contrast older students received the e-mail request to the complete the survey and were able to log-on. They reported checking school e-mail often because they are frequently given homework assignments by this means. None of them cited parental objection as a reason not to complete the survey. Among students attempting the survey 50% did not complete it because it took too long. This was also cited as a reason for omission of questions.

  2. Survey questions were well understood, as were the use of the dropdown menus. Adolescents doubted that individual responses would be inaccessible to school officials given that the means of contact was their school-based email. They reported that the main reason for low response rate was failure to use school-based emails. They also reported that use of the school assembly to prompt engagement was unsuitable

  3. Student suggestions for improved engagement in the survey included maintenance of an electronic medium to administer surveys. Cellular phones were considered an important medium. Most students reported that classroom administration to groups or classes during school time would be desirable. They also felt that if representatives of the study were present during the administration of the survey that they would be more likely to believe that responses would be confidential. Students said they would have responded better had interfaces such as WhatsApp or Instagram been used to alert them instead of e-mail as they often use this type of social media.

The reliability study

For the reliability study, test retest reliability among raters, was high ICC ≥ 0.97. The response rate was 100% and a representative sample of the school population was easily accessed. The final sample comprised 131 boys and 139 girls, mean age 14.08 ± 1.14 years. Box and whisker plots revealed 7 students on the low end of the height distribution and 5 on the high end. While for weight there were 3 on the high end. The contingency table of outliers for weight status by sex showed that of 12 outliers (6 girls and 6 boys) 9 were on the low end and 3 on the high end.

Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that students reported heights and weights accurately. Figs 13 show that 99% of all height measures fell within the 95% CI, this was 93% and 96% for weight and BMIz respectively.

Fig 1. Bland-Altman plot showing recorded and reported height vs. mean recorded and reported height.

Fig 1

Ninety-nine percent (99%) of all height measures fell within the 95% CI.

Fig 3. Bland-Altman plot showing recorded and reported BMIz vs. mean recorded and reported BMIz.

Fig 3

Ninety-six percent (96%) of all height measures fell within the 95% CI.

Fig 2. Bland-Altman plot showing recorded and reported weight vs. mean recorded and reported weight.

Fig 2

Ninety-three percent (93%) of all height measures fell within the 95% CI.

The Bland-Altman plots, by virtue of the almost horizontal lines, demonstrate that there were no statistically significant differences between the pairs of reported and recorded heights and weights and this of course would also be reflected in the BMI comparisons as BMI is calculated using height and weight.

For the SVM, the sample of 270 cases was split into a training dataset (70% of cases) and the remainder of cases in the sample was used by the SVM as a test dataset used to show accuracy of the model’s prediction (30% of cases). This allowed the SVM to create the prediction models. The test dataset was used to test how well the SVM predicted weight status (Table 2). The results represent the accuracy of the SVM predictions.

Table 2. Support vector machine prediction.

Normal Obese Overweight Thin
Normal 45 0 1* 2*
Obese 0 0 0 0
Overweight 1* 2 23 0
Thin 0 0 0 8

*Misclassified values

Our SVM model was trained exclusively on student self-reported weight and heights using the recorded data as the gold standard. For this SVM model, we obtained the lowest cross-validation error rate an optimal cost value (C) of 2.2, which gave the performance error of 0.058 and dispersion of 0.046. Using this optimal C of 2.2, we predicted the class labels for weight status on our set of test observations. From the predicted class table, which is the confusion matrix for our test data (Table 2), our SVM classifies students by weight status with a prediction accuracy of 95%.

The table presents the confusion matrix for our test data. The diagonal cells denote cases where the classes are correctly predicted while the off-diagonals illustrate the number of errors for each possible case. The prediction accuracy was 95%.

Table 3 shows the distribution of BMIz [16]. When the sample was divided into two categories (normal and overweight), 93.7% of students correctly categorized their weight status. The estimates of overweight and obesity for recorded measures were 29.7% (95% CI 24.2–35.2); 10.2 (6.5–14.0) and for reported measures—30 (24.4,35.7): 11 (7.1,14.9).

Table 3. Table of distribution of body mass index z score [16] in boys and girls combined with 95% confidence intervals.

BMI-for-age (%) (95% CI) % < -3SD % < -2SD % > +1SD % > +2SD % > +3SD Mean SD
Reported measures (n = 270) 2.6 (0.5%, 4.7%) 7.4 (4.1%, 10.8%) 30.5 (24.8%, 36.2%) 11.2 (7.2%, 15.1%) 0.7 (0%, 2.0%) 0.28 1.38
Recorded measures (n = 270) 1.1 (0%, 2.6%) 2.6 (0.5%, 4.7%) 29.7 (24.1%, 35.4%) 10.8 (6.9%, 14.7%) 2.6 (0.5%, 4.7%) 0.35 1.32

Discussion

Parental approval for engagement in the study was high exemplified by the high consent rate among both children completing the electronic survey and those who engaged in the reliability assessment. Findings from our qualitative analyses suggest that administration of electronic surveys was preferred to paper versions and that administration as a classroom activity would significantly raise levels of participation. These factors would address the response rate to the electronic survey a feature which presents a challenge on many surveys using mass email for distribution [20]. Further, our focus group findings suggested that a large group information session outlining the study to students had limited ability to prompt completion of the survey. Notably, students remembered the presentation and younger students reported listening to the contents. In addition, students appeared to have understood what was required as they had no queries about the procedure when instructions were given by the researcher. At the time of the presentation, there was only one question pertaining to the confidentiality of information gathered from students. The issue of confidentiality was also raised in focus groups.

Table 1 shows that students understood how to answer questions using the menus provided and used the “other” option appropriately. Children’s ability to answer demographic questions was demonstrated by comparison of records with the official school records. This showed that the method of self-report can be useful. A revised instrument should offer more drop-down menu options which covered items such as the child having brought lunch from home. In addition, it would have been preferable to give a “minimum or less” option for questions that asked frequency of consumption or activity to reduce the use of the open-ended option. Since most students terminated the survey after answering 49% of questions this suggests that the questionnaire was too long.

Given that the D value of the KS statistic was close to 0, it can be inferred that the distribution of age and sex among the sample that answered the electronic survey was not different from the school population. In addition, the children from a representative sample of the school reported similar BMIs to those who reported BMI on the electronic survey. One would reasonably expect the distribution of BMI on the representative sample to represent that of the school population. This lack of difference in mean BMI supports our conclusion that students who did not complete the electronic survey would be able to use the electronic format to report height and weight. This along with the broad range of students who answered the electronic survey suggests that the survey findings on use of the electronic interface were likely to reflect the general abilities of the student body.

Unlike younger students, older students reported having received the e-mail message requesting participation in the survey. This was reflected by the fact that the mean age for the students responding to the electronic survey was higher than for the other sections of the study. This appeared to the directly related to the fact that school-based e-mail was used in older age groups as a regular method for distribution of homework and other assignments.

Participants said that use of alternate social media platforms such as “WhatsApp” or “Instagram” would have improved their tendency to complete the electronic survey this is supported by finding from other settings [20]. Use of school-based e-mail is likely not optimal and would be unsuitable for collection of sensitive information. Therefore, teacher involvement in organization of small group information presentations and administration of distribution survey should enhance response rates.

Our findings support the notion postulated elsewhere that the mode of recruitment, for example small group sessions, would have greater influence on response rates than does the method of data collection [21]. These may both be enhanced by use of incentives [22].

Students’ willingness to engage in the physical survey of body measurements was encouraging. A representative sample of the school was easily gathered. The representative nature of the sample is supported by the fact that the estimate of overweight was in-keeping with expectations [2].

Importantly our Bland Altman plots (Fig 3) demonstrated that 95% of the data points (weight—93%) for the reported anthropometry were within ± 2 SD of the mean difference compared to recorded values. This demonstrated high reliability especially for height. Weight did slightly less well and this would be expected given that weight fluctuates more easily and that body composition tends to have diurnal fluctuations [23]. Bland Altman plots are popularly used to assess accuracy between a gold standard mechanical instrument and an alternative [17]. However, this is not the only application of the technique. In fact, the authors clearly describe its use as a graphical method to compare two clinical measurement techniques [24]. Further, they later described the use of the methodology to assess differences in multiple measurements among human subjects [25]. Hence our findings demonstrate that students in the school we surveyed were capable, of reporting anthropometry accurately. Table 3 clearly shows that estimates of overweight using the two methods were statistically indistinguishable from each other.

We were nevertheless were interested in working through whether reported measures would have application in other schools. We therefore used SVM, a machine learning classification approach, to assess likelihood of consistent high reliability of reported measures. The Bland Altman showed that the students’ reporting overall was accurate 97% of the time. Results from our machine learning algorithm therefore enhance the credibility of our findings and indicate that the method would be transferable to other groups with a 95% accuracy.

Our findings demonstrate the potential for use of reported measures collected in electronic format among adolescents. The ability to estimate the weight status of adolescents by relatively cheap swift means, without use of trained observers and long measurement times, has far reaching implications for establishing inexpensive monitoring of changes in pediatric obesity. This, especially as they pertain to school- based obesity interventions in situations where financial and human resources for mounting of large-scale surveys is limited. These methods can be enhanced by use of: loaner sets of equipment such as scales, stadiometers, wearable activity monitors and simple food intake instruments that would also allow assessments of levels of physical activity and quality of food intake. The high reliability of the overweight estimates and the indications of appropriate ability to use electronic surveys among adolescents under supervised conditions are important as they suggest that simple instruments can be crafted that are easily used by students and can fill a much needed monitoring gap of the distribution of risk factors for obesity and other chronic cardiovascular disease.

Strengths and limitations

Our use of trained observers to complete the physical measurements added to the integrity of the study. The high a priori intra-class correlation coefficients for height and weight support this.

We were limited to use of a single school to test our hypotheses. However, the school chosen attracts a wide cross-section of students as it is centrally situated. Entrance to the school is open to children from any school zone on the island. Also, socio-economic status has less of an impact on this school as it is falls under the same umbrella of the approximately 95% of secondary schools where tuition fees are covered by the government. In addition, Barbados has a large middle class and a mandatory school leaving age of 16 years that is well enforced. These factors coupled with high literacy rates [26] and universal access to exposure to electronic based learning suggest that children’s ability to use electronic media and to answer simple questions on anthropometry and other measures is likely to be relatively evenly distributed among adolescents throughout the island, even among children who are of lower SES. The results of our SVM strongly support these assertions.

This was a pilot so that the submission of incomplete questionnaires was not negative but rather can help us to determine and acceptable questionnaire length. In addition, findings from the focus groups, as well as the high participation in the physical measurements study, indicates that parental consent is not a likely barrier to engagement. Some questions would have been optimized by use of more detailed options in drop-down lists and ability to give a “don’t know” response. This was ameliorated by provision of open-ended responses.

Our data set was relatively small this was nevertheless mitigated by optimization of the model and the radial basis function kernel we used in the SVM both via the fit of the data to the hyperplane and by penalizing the number of samples inside the margin simultaneously which works well even with smaller number of data points. In addition, our data suggests that even where there is some variability on the actual weight and height measures, this has little effect on the categorization of weight status when it is collapsed into two categories (normal/overweight) as weight status is frequently reported. For example, while an overweight student may report somewhat lower weight than was measured, our models tell us that the student is still likely to place themselves in the correct category of weight status which results in good estimates of overweight for the group.

A major strength of this study is the fact that reliability was established by three methods the Bland Altman plots with 95% of values within the 95% CI; the very similar estimates of overweight with strongly overlapping confidence intervals (Table 3) and ultimately the SVM which demonstrated the robustness of the method.

Conclusions

Large group information sessions have moderate usefulness in sensitizing students about an intended survey. This would be enhanced by dissemination using popular social media platforms. Adolescents were able to correctly interpret questions and instructions presented in electronic questionnaire format. Electronic delivery of surveys was a preferred method of delivery but there was a preference for administration in small class-room groupings within school hours. Use of a school-based email addresses is a barrier to student engagement. Adolescents can reliably report simple anthropometry that can be utilized for estimation of overweight prevalence. This method can be widely applied.

Supporting information

S1 Questionnaire

(DOCX)

S1 File

(DOC)

S2 File

(DOCX)

S3 File

(DOCX)

S4 File

(DOCX)

S5 File

(DOCX)

S1 Data

(XLSX)

S2 Data

(XLSX)

S3 Data

(XLS)

S4 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

Class of MDSC3900 (UWI) 2019–2020 Justin Ward.

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.Howitt C, Hambleton IR, Rose AM, Hennis A, Samuels TA, George KS, et al. Social distribution of diabetes, hypertension and related risk factors in Barbados: a cross-sectional study. BMJ open. 2015;5(12):e008869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gaskin PS, Hall RV, Chami P, St John MA, Gaskin DA, Molaodi OR, et al. Associations of Blood Pressure with Body Composition among Afro-Caribbean Children in Barbados. PloS one. 2015;10(3):e0121107 10.1371/journal.pone.0121107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gaskin PS, Chami P, Ward J, Goodman G, Sing B, Jackson MD, et al. A practical model for identification of children at risk of excess energy intake in the developing world–CORRIGENDUM. Public health nutrition. 2019;22(14):2721-. 10.1017/S1368980019002933 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Reuben DB, Siu AL, Kimpau S. The predictive validity of self-report and performance-based measures of function and health. Journal of Gerontology. 1992;47(4):M106–M10. 10.1093/geronj/47.4.m106 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Subar AF, Freedman LS, Tooze JA, Kirkpatrick SI, Boushey C, Neuhouser ML, et al. Addressing current criticism regarding the value of self-report dietary data. The Journal of nutrition. 2015;145(12):2639–45. 10.3945/jn.115.219634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fonseca H, Silva A, Matos M, Esteves I, Costa P, Guerra A, et al. Validity of BMI based on self‐reported weight and height in adolescents. Acta Paediatrica. 2010;99(1):83–8. 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01518.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tokmakidis SP, Christodoulos AD, Mantzouranis NI. Validity of self-reported anthropometric values used to assess body mass index and estimate obesity in Greek school children. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2007;40(4):305–10. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chassiakos YLR, Radesky J, Christakis D, Moreno MA, Cross C. Children and adolescents and digital media. Pediatrics. 2016;138(5):e20162593 10.1542/peds.2016-2593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Houghton S, Hunter SC, Rosenberg M, Wood L, Zadow C, Martin K, et al. Virtually impossible: limiting Australian children and adolescents daily screen based media use. BMC public health. 2015;15(1):5 10.1186/1471-2458-15-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Twenge JM, Martin GN, Spitzberg BH. Trends in US Adolescents’ media use, 1976–2016: The rise of digital media, the decline of TV, and the (near) demise of print. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shih T-H, Fan X. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field methods. 2008;20(3):249–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL. A meta-analysis of response rates in web-or internet-based surveys. Educational and psychological measurement. 2000;60(6):821–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Millar MM, Dillman DA. Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys. Public opinion quarterly. 2011;75(2):249–69. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.CIA World Fact Book Central Intelligence Agency 2009. [Internet]. 2012.
  • 15.Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R. Anthropometric standardization reference manual: Human kinetics books Champaign, IL; 1988.
  • 16.Md Onis, Onyango AW, Borghi E, Siyam A, Nishida C, Siekmann J. Development of a WHO growth reference for school-aged children and adolescents. Bulletin of the World health Organization. 2007;85(9):660–7. 10.2471/blt.07.043497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bland JM, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fradkin D, Muchnik I. Support vector machines for classification. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. 2006;70:13–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J. An introduction to support vector machines and other kernel-based learning methods: Cambridge university press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sheehan KB. E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of computer-mediated communication. 2001;6(2):JCMC621. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dodge N, Chapman R. Investigating recruitment and completion mode biases in online and door to door electronic surveys. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2018;21(2):149–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Magro MJ, Prybutok VR, Ryan SD. How survey administration can affect response in electronic surveys. Quality & Quantity. 2015;49(5):2145–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rodríguez G, Moreno LA, Sarría A, Fleta J, Bueno M. Assessment of nutritional status and body composition in children using physical anthropometry and bioelectrical impedance: influence of diurnal variations. Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition. 2000;30(3):305–9. 10.1097/00005176-200003000-00017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. International journal of nursing studies. 2010;47(8):931–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics. 2007;17(4):571–82. 10.1080/10543400701329422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ember M, Ember CR. Countries and their cultures: Macmillan Reference USA; 2001.

Decision Letter 0

Jianhong Zhou

13 May 2020

PONE-D-19-32927

Electronic Based Reported Anthropometry - A Useful Tool for Interim Monitoring of Obesity Prevalence in Developing States

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gaskin,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 26 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jianhong Zhou

Associate 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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. Moreover, please clarify your statement at line 167 ("Consents were not

received for one class in the 2nd  form group which may be an administrative error of collection"), and specify whether those data were excluded from analysis.

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Moreover, please include more details on how the questionnaire was pre-tested, and whether it was validated.

4. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a table of relevant demographic details, d) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

5. When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number, training and characteristics of interviewers and participants in the focus group study; and how data were coded and analysed.

6. Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it is within the scope of our Determinants, Consequences and Management of Obesity  Call for Papers. This collection of papers is headed by a team of Guest Editors for PLOS ONE:Rachel Nugent and Pratibha V. Nerurkar. Additional information can be found on our announcement page: https://collections.plos.org/s/obesity-one.

If you would like your manuscript to be considered for this collection, please let us know in your cover letter and we will ensure that your paper is treated as if you were responding to this call. If you would prefer to remove your manuscript from collection consideration, please specify this in the cover letter.

7. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: This manuscript focused on assessment of the use of electronic surveys, comparison of consistency between reported and recorded anthropometric indices, and robustness of anthropometry prediction models. The topic is interesting due to the comparison between reported and recorded anthropometric indices in adolescents and the issue about the ability for adolescents to give reliable reports. However, I found several important and critical issues, and the results of the experiment are not enough to draw conclusions.

Major:

1. For anthropometric measures, basic demographic characteristic information was need.

2. The present study was focused to test whether the students would correctly interpret demographic and anthropometric questions. But I can’t find the contents on interpretation of demographic questions.

3. In comparison of students’ heights and weights from memory with real heights and weights by trained observers, more explanation about Bland Altman method in Statistical analysis subsection and the results of Bland-Altman plots in Results section should be added. Authors present only “…99% of all height measures…” and captions of three figures in Results section. Readers need more accurate and detailed explanation.

4. I confuse the sample size. In The sample subsection, authors mentioned that “A representative sample of 259 students was selected using probability proportionate to size to assess the reliability of reported anthropometric measures”. What are the results of using this sample size? Tables 2 and 3?

5. In results of SVM experiment (in Table 2), how many samples were used in this experiment? 259 samples? Is this the results of ten-fold cross validation of 259 samples? These contents are very confusing.

6. What is the exact information on Table 2? (confusion metric for multi-classes or number of correct predict samples?). More detailed footnotes were needed.

7. The information of detailed measurement of height and weight is very insufficient. The authors should add the information or configuration of recorded measure by trained physician (the situation of wearing clothes or shoes, equipment, etc).

8. It is recommended to present the contents of the sample section procedure as flow chart.

9. Authors mentioned that “ Test retest reliability among raters, was high ICC ≥0.97.” We can’t find this information on figures or tables.

Minor:

1. Why did you present the responses to the survey questions as percentage? It is necessary to write the exact values in addition to percentage.

2. The contents on captured information (such as Response rate, Students’ ability to understand…, and Fresh fruit) in Electronic survey subsection should be added to the supplementary information.

Reviewer #2: Review of PONE-D-19-32927 Also attached.

Summary: An electronic survey administered in school was designed to obtain health survey information. The survey responses were validated against school records. A SVM model was used to use survey data to predict obesity status.

Review:

General comments: The results are not as good as the authors claim. There are high levels of misreports of body weight and height. Even 5 kg is a high level of error (~10 lbs). Moreover, not listed as a limitation, the school records may not be direct measurements. Even if they came from a doctor’s office, sometimes these are self-reported and not directly measured.

The weights and height were not discussed in the description of the survey. The entire survey should be available as supplementary material.

The most promising outcome is the results of the SVM model which had a 95% accuracy of predicting obesity status.

The authors should also include their code and data sharing statements so that their work could be replicated.

There are many sentence fragments and misspelled words. The authors should clean up the manuscript for these errors. The reviewer lists the following:

Needs a comma and revision suggested inclusions are in red:

Given that children are accessible in school, especially in countries where school is mandatory

well into adolescence, schools form a convenient setting for early data capture of individuals.

Not a sentence - revise:

Nevertheless, a major challenge is the fact that

55 many electronic surveys have low response rates,[12] how adequate levels of participation in

56 such studies can be achieved if we are to use them for national data capture among secondary

57 school students is in question.

Line 61 Hyphenate school-going

Not a sentence:

These comprised questions on the menu of the school

77 canteen and demographics. This

Not a sentence. What does and form mean?

Demographic questions including date of birth, sex and form

6

were compared with school records as 83 a means of assessing children’s ability to interpret

84 questions. Forms 1-6 are equivalent to grades 6-12.

This was approved by an ethical board, but seems coercive. Students will not be likely to not consent if a principal is distributing the survey.

Consent to engage in the study was distributed and collected by the principal who oversaw

154 access to students.

This is the first time we hear that weights are being reported in the survey.

Since it was possible that uptake of the electronic survey might be inadequate, an aim of the

158 study was to determine whether students were able to reliably report their weights and heights

159 and to compare estimates of overweight/obesity with those calculated from measurements taken

160 by trained observers.

Python is misspelled

reported compared to recorded values. BMIz[14] was used to assign the class labels of thin, normal, overweight or obese to weight status groups. R statistical language and the Pyhton programming language was used to carry out calculations.

Enlarge means to make larger. Just state Younger children reported that they did not receive the survey.

By enlarge younger children reported not receiving the survey. Many said they did not

242 use e-mail often especially the one given by the school. Some of them said they could not

243 remember their log-on credentials so were unable to attempt the survey. In contrast older

244 students received the e-mail request to the complete the survey and were able to log-on. They

245 reported checking school e-mail often because they are often given homework assignments by

246 this means. Among students attempting the survey 51%% did not complete it because it took too

247 long. This was also cited as a reason for omission of questions.

Box and whisker plots revealed 7 students on the low end of the height distribution and 5 on the

265 high end. While for weight there were 3 on the high end. The contingency table of outliers for

266 weight status by sex showed that of 12 outliers (6 girls and 6 boys) 9 were on the low end and 3

267 on the high end.

**********

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: Yes: Diana Thomas

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 7;15(12):e0243202. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243202.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Jun 2020

We thank the reviewers for their cogent comments to our submission “Electronic-based reported anthropometry - A useful tool for interim monitoring of obesity prevalence in developing states”. We have attempted to revise and improve the manuscript using this guidance. Edits are highlighted using Track Changes in Microsoft Word directly in the text. Below we have responded to the comments of the associate editor and the reviewers in the order in which they were made. Your comments are in Italics and our responses in normal type.

ASSOCIATE EDITOR COMMENTS TO AUTHOR

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf”

We have amended our manuscript and referencing style by the guidelines shown in the PLOS ONE formatting template.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. Written and assent from children Moreover, please clarify your statement at line 167 ("Consents were not

received for one class in the 2nd form group which may be an administrative error of collection"), and specify whether those data were excluded from analysis.

We apologize for the miscommunication. The principal investigator of the study gave all consent forms to the principal of the school. She had the forms disseminated to student so that they could be disseminated to parents. However, the principal was not actively involved in distribution or collection of consent forms. Only children who had written consent were included in the study. This is clarified at Line 76.

The comment about second form refers to the fact that the 15 consent forms were not returned. The children were therefore not included. We have removed this statement so as not to confuse the reader given that only children with consent were included in the study. All students involved in the study gave assent.

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Moreover, please include more details on how the questionnaire was pre-tested, and whether it was validated.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this omission. We have included greater detail on the way in which we executed the study (Line 95). At Line 113 we have included information on pretesting of the questionnaire and augmented the section on the electronic survey. The questionnaire is included in the Supporting Information.

4. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a table of relevant demographic details, d) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

At line 95 we have included a detailed section on the method of recruitment for all three portions of the study which should allow for repetition of the procedures and have augmented the section on the sample at line 230. We have reorganized the Methods section for better flow.

With regard to inclusion and exclusion criteria, all students attending the school were eligible to be participants in the study except those in the first form (line 95). For the electronic portion of the study, all eligible students (all students except those in first form) were sent an invitation to participate in the survey using their school-based email address. Students are assigned a school-based email address on entry to the school.

The sample for the reliability study was representative of the distribution of the students by age group and sex. Selection entailed the use of a list of all children present in the school, their form and sex. The method of probability proportionate to size was employed to determine sample size (line 233).

5. When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number, training and characteristics of interviewers and participants in the focus group study; and how data were coded and analysed.

We augmented the methods section of the focus group to include information on the interviewer, line 190, participants, line 179, and the analysis, line 195. The guide for the focus groups is given in the Supporting Information.

6. Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it is within the scope of our Determinants, Consequences and Management of Obesity Call for Papers. This collection of papers is headed by a team of Guest Editors for PLOS ONE:Rachel Nugent and Pratibha V. Nerurkar. Additional information can be found on our announcement page: https://collections.plos.org/s/obesity-one.

If you would like your manuscript to be considered for this collection, please let us know in your cover letter and we will ensure that your paper is treated as if you were responding to this call. If you would prefer to remove your manuscript from collection consideration, please specify this in the cover letter.

We would be very happy to have our manuscript included as part of the call for papers on “Determinants, Consequences and Management of Obesity” should you choose to accept it for publication and have indicated such in the cover letter.

7. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instruction s on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

I have linked my ORCID ID using the Editorial Manager link.

REVIEWER COMMENTS:

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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

We have reviewed the manuscript and have revised some sections to improve the flow of the language.

________________________________________

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: This manuscript focused on assessment of the use of electronic surveys, comparison of consistency between reported and recorded anthropometric indices, and robustness of anthropometry prediction models. The topic is interesting due to the comparison between reported and recorded anthropometric indices in adolescents and the issue about the ability for adolescents to give reliable reports. However, I found several important and critical issues, and the results of the experiment are not enough to draw conclusions.

While I respectfully acknowledge that larger sample size is optimal, the close agreement seen in the results of the Bland-Altmann plot as well as the accuracy of the SVM, support our argument for the reliability of the results. In addition, a primary focus of the study was to determine whether overweight estimates could be reliably calculated from report. Our data suggests that even where there is some variability on the actual weight and height measures, this has little effect on the categorization of weight status. Overweight is often expressed in a binary manner (normal or overweight) in this instance the categories thin and normal are collapsed as are overweight and obese. This meant that 93.7% of the students placed themselves in the correct weight status category. We have inserted the percentage of correctly classified students at line 386 in the results section. We have included some discussion of this in the limitations section (line 508).

Major:

1. For anthropometric measures, basic demographic characteristic information was need.

We have included demographic information for the electronic survey at Line 289, for the focus group at line 306 and for the reliability study at line 344.

2. The present study was focused to test whether the students would correctly interpret demographic and anthropometric questions. But I can’t find the contents on interpretation of demographic questions.

Table 1 containing the demographic data has been edited to correctly show the information. The raw data are given in the supplemental file, “SoGoSurvey_The St. Michael school”.

3. In comparison of students’ heights and weights from memory with real heights and weights by trained observers, more explanation about Bland Altman method in Statistical analysis subsection and the results of Bland-Altman plots in Results section should be added. Authors present only “…99% of all height measures…” and captions of three figures in Results section. Readers need more accurate and detailed explanation.

At line 259 we inserted a subsection which gives an explanation of the use of the Bland-Altman plot. We have included a legend on each of the 3 plots.

4. I confuse the sample size. In The sample subsection, authors mentioned that “A representative sample of 259 students was selected using probability proportionate to size to assess the reliability of reported anthropometric measures”. What are the results of using this sample size? Tables 2 and 3?

The representative sample of 259 participants was selected for the reliability study. Figures 1, 2 and 3 as well as Tables 2 and 3 present the results for this section.

5. In results of SVM experiment (in Table 2), how many samples were used in this experiment? 259 samples? Is this the results of ten-fold cross validation of 259 samples? These contents are very confusing.

At Line 364 For the SVM, the sample of 259 cases was split into a training dataset (70% of cases) and the remainder of cases in the sample was used by the SVM as a test dataset used to show accuracy of the model’s prediction (30% of cases). This allowed the SVM to create the prediction models. The test dataset was used to test how well the SVM predicted weight status (Table 2). The results represent the accuracy of the SVM predictions.

6. What is the exact information on Table 2? (confusion metric for multi-classes or number of correct predict samples?). More detailed footnotes were needed.

We have included a legend in Table 2 and have given a greater explanation in the Statistical Analysis section at line 275

7. The information of detailed measurement of height and weight is very insufficient. The authors should add the information or configuration of recorded measure by trained physician (the situation of wearing clothes or shoes, equipment, etc).

We apologize for this omission. A section on the measurement procedures is inserted at line 207. Measures were recorded by trained observers.

8. It is recommended to present the contents of the sample section procedure as flow chart.

We inserted sections at Line 95 and at Line 229 which explain the sample selection more clearly.

9. Authors mentioned that “ Test retest reliability among raters, was high ICC ≥0.97.” We can’t find this information on figures or tables.

We have included a supplementary file named “A priori reliabilities” showing inter-rater reliability measurements.

Minor:

1. Why did you present the responses to the survey questions as percentage? It is necessary to write the exact values in addition to percentage.

We have inserted the actual numbers in Table 1.

2. The contents on captured information (such as Response rate, Students’ ability to understand…, and Fresh fruit) in Electronic survey subsection should be added to the supplementary information.

The response rate for the electronic survey was calculated as a percentage of the total number of responses of the email requests made. For the reliability study, all students selected agreed to engage in the study. We have included the proforma for the electronic study in the file “St. Michael's Canteen Study Electronic Survey Proforma”.

Reviewer #2: Review of PONE-D-19-32927 Also attached.

Summary: An electronic survey administered in school was designed to obtain health survey information. The survey responses were validated against school records. A SVM model was used to use survey data to predict obesity status.

Review:

General comments: The results are not as good as the authors claim. There are high levels of misreports of body weight and height. Even 5 kg is a high level of error (~10 lbs). Moreover, not listed as a limitation, the school records may not be direct measurements. Even if they came from a doctor’s office, sometimes these are self-reported and not directly measured. We did the direct measurements

We have reorganized the manuscript so that the sequence is clearer to the reader. There were three sections to the study: an electronic survey, a focus group and a reliability study. School records were only used as a means of assessing children’s ability to interpret questions on the electronic survey (line 125, Table 1). These were not used to assess reliability of self-report, this was done in the reliability study (line 203).

While I respectfully acknowledge that larger sample size is optimal, the close agreement seen in the results of the Bland-Altmann plot as well as the accuracy of the SVM, support our argument for the reliability of the results. In addition, a primary focus of the study was to determine whether overweight estimates could be reliably calculated from report. Our data suggests that even where there is some variability on the actual weight and height measures, this has little effect on the categorization of weight status. Overweight is often expressed in a binary manner (normal or overweight) in this instance the categories thin and normal are collapsed as are overweight and obese. This meant that 93.7% of the students placed themselves in the correct weight status category. We have inserted the percentage of correctly classified students at line 385 in the results section. We have included some discussion of this in the limitations section (line 497).

The weights and height were not discussed in the description of the survey. The entire survey should be available as supplementary material.

The weights and heights on the electronic survey were not compared with records. They were used to assess whether students would correctly use imperial or metric units. For the reliability study, all reported measures were taken directly from students and all recorded measures conducted by the field team. We have included the raw data file “Reliability study data” in the Supporting Information.

The most promising outcome is the results of the SVM model which had a 95% accuracy of predicting obesity status.

The authors should also include their code and data sharing statements so that their work could be replicated.

We have included our raw data, “R-Code”, in the Supporting Information.

There are many sentence fragments and misspelled words. The authors should clean up the manuscript for these errors. The reviewer lists the following:

Needs a comma and revision suggested inclusions are in red:

Given that children are accessible in school, especially in countries where school is mandatory

well into adolescence, schools form a convenient setting for early data capture of individuals.

Not a sentence - revise:

Nevertheless, a major challenge is the fact that

55 many electronic surveys have low response rates,[12] how adequate levels of participation in

56 such studies can be achieved if we are to use them for national data capture among secondary

57 school students is in question.

Line 61 Hyphenate school-going

Not a sentence:

These comprised questions on the menu of the school

77 canteen and demographics. This

Not a sentence. What does and form mean?

Demographic questions including date of birth, sex and form

6

were compared with school records as 83 a means of assessing children’s ability to interpret

84 questions. Forms 1-6 are equivalent to grades 6-12.

We edited the text for grammatical and typographical errors.

This was approved by an ethical board, but seems coercive. Students will not be likely to not consent if a principal is distributing the survey. Consent to engage in the study was distributed and collected by the principal who oversaw access to students.

We apologize for our expression, with regard to the principal’s permission. She in no way engaged in any coercive action. Parental permission had already been given for students to engage in the study. The principal simply afforded the investigator access to the school compound and students so that the students engaging in the focus group could be gathered for the activity. We have revised the manuscript to avoid misinterpretation. See Line 95.

This is the first time we hear that weights are being reported in the survey.

Since it was possible that uptake of the electronic survey might be inadequate, an aim of the

158 study was to determine whether students were able to reliably report their weights and heights

159 and to compare estimates of overweight/obesity with those calculated from measurements taken

160 by trained observers.

Thank you for pointing out this omission. Weights and heights on the survey were used to determine whether children would appropriately use imperial or metric units.

Python is misspelled

reported compared to recorded values. BMIz[14] was used to assign the class labels of thin, normal, overweight or obese to weight status groups. R statistical language and the Pyhton programming language was used to carry out calculations.

This was corrected.

Enlarge means to make larger. Just state Younger children reported that they did not receive the survey.

By enlarge younger children reported not receiving the survey. Many said they did not

242 use e-mail often especially the one given by the school. Some of them said they could not

243 remember their log-on credentials so were unable to attempt the survey. In contrast older

244 students received the e-mail request to the complete the survey and were able to log-on. They

245 reported checking school e-mail often because they are often given homework assignments by

246 this means. Among students attempting the survey 51%% did not complete it because it took too

247 long. This was also cited as a reason for omission of questions.

Box and whisker plots revealed 7 students on the low end of the height distribution and 5 on the

265 high end. While for weight there were 3 on the high end. The contingency table of outliers for

266 weight status by sex showed that of 12 outliers (6 girls and 6 boys) 9 were on the low end and 3

267 on the high end.

We edited this.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Decision Letter 1

Mauro Lombardo

9 Sep 2020

PONE-D-19-32927R1

Electronic based reported anthropometry - A useful tool for interim monitoring of obesity prevalence in developing states

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gaskin,

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 Oct 24 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mauro Lombardo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This revised manuscript provided answers to important issues. Major comments have been addressed. So, I hope to accept this manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The reviewer appreciates the responses and has a couple questions.

First, the survey is still not included. The survey should be included.

Second, the response rate was very low. What the authors have actually shown is that the sample that responded had reasonable agreement with the measurements. What are the characteristics of the sample that did not respond? If the authors cannot demonstrate that the individuals who did not respond are different at least in base characteristics, they cannot make a strong statement that all adolescents can supply height and weight by survey.

**********

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: Yes: Diana Thomas

[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. 2020 Dec 7;15(12):e0243202. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243202.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Sep 2020

September 23, 2020,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lombardo,

We thank the reviewers for their cogent comments to our submission “Electronic-based reported anthropometry - A useful tool for interim monitoring of obesity prevalence in developing states”. We have attempted to revise and improve the manuscript using this guidance. Edits are highlighted using Track Changes in Microsoft Word directly in the text. Below we have responded to the comments of the editor and the reviewers in the order in which they were made. Your comments are in Italics and our responses in normal type.

ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS TO AUTHOR

1. “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.”

We have made every attempt to comply with the publication criteria of PLOS ONE. As such, we have responded to reviewers and added additional supporting material.

REVIEWER COMMENTS:

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

________________________________________

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

We have added the raw data from the electronic survey in the supporting information in a file labelled “The Electronic Survey raw data”.

________________________________________

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

We have reviewed the statistical analysis and we believe it to be appropriate and rigorous.

________________________________________

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No response)

Reviewer #2: No

We have added additional supporting information giving the raw data for the electronic survey and the age/sex distribution of all students in the school in files labelled “The Electronic Survey raw data” and “List of all children by form sex and dob” respectively.

________________________________________

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: (No Response)

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This revised manuscript provided answers to important issues. Major comments have been addressed. So, I hope to accept this manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The reviewer appreciates the responses and has a couple questions.

First, the survey is still not included. The survey should be included.

Second, the response rate was very low. What the authors have actually shown is that the sample that responded had reasonable agreement with the measurements. What are the characteristics of the sample that did not respond? If the authors cannot demonstrate that the individuals who did not respond are different at least in base characteristics, they cannot make a strong statement that all adolescents can supply height and weight by survey.

1. We apologize for this omission. We have added the raw data from the electronic survey in the file “The Electronic Survey raw data” in the supporting information.

2. While we admit that the response rate to the survey was low, we have no reason to assume that those who did not answer were unable to supply weight and height by electronic survey. We had baseline age and sex for each student and we have included results at line 293 that which demonstrate that the students who answered the electronic survey were from the same distribution as those in the entire school. At line 425 we discussed this. In addition, do recall that on the reliability study, where we had a representative sample of the school, all children were able to give a credible estimate of their weight and height. We have no reason to believe that they would not have been able to write down these same reported weights and heights on an electronic survey. Also, during the focus groups none of the students reported difficulty with understanding how to answer the survey as a reason for not responding to the electronic survey.

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: Yes: Diana Thomas

[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.

________________________________________

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.

Yours faithfully,

Pamela Gaskin PhD

Lecturer, Essential National Health Research

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Decision Letter 2

Mauro Lombardo

6 Oct 2020

PONE-D-19-32927R2

Electronic based reported anthropometry - A useful tool for interim monitoring of obesity prevalence in developing states

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gaskin,

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 Nov 20 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mauro Lombardo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #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 #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: It's not satificatory to say that we have no reason to believe there is no difference between those who filled the survey or not. Make a table of the non-survey takers and the survey takers with statistical characteristics. Is BMI different between groups? Even better is to run a t-test.

**********

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 #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. 2020 Dec 7;15(12):e0243202. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243202.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


28 Oct 2020

Dear Dr. Lombardo,

We thank the reviewers for their cogent comments to our submission “Electronic-based reported anthropometry - A useful tool for interim monitoring of obesity prevalence in developing states”. We have attempted to revise and improve the manuscript using this guidance. Edits are highlighted using Track Changes in Microsoft Word directly in the text. Below we have responded to the comments of the editor and the reviewers in the order in which they were made. Your comments are in Italics and our responses in normal type.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

________________________________________

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #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 #2: (No Response)

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: It's not satisfactory to say that we have no reason to believe there is no difference between those who filled the survey or not. Make a table of the non-survey takers and the survey takers with statistical characteristics. Is BMI different between groups? Even better is to run a t-test.

We addressed the comparison of BMI differences among those who filled the survey compared to non-survey takers at line 296 in the results section. Given that we did not have weights and heights for the entire school population we used BMIs reported on the reliability study, which had a representative sample of the school, to compare with the BMIs reported in the electronic survey. It is reasonable to expect that the distribution of the BMI on the representative sample would be very similar to that of the school.

Of the 71 students who answered the electronic survey, 65 reported weights and heights, compared to 270 students on the reliability study. We carried out an independent samples t-test to assess whether the mean reported BMI on the electronic survey was significantly different from that of the representative sample. There was no significant difference in BMI between the two groups (Mean difference; 1.49; p = 0.203).

Do recall that a priori we expected a low response rate so that the electronic survey was never intended to be used as a means of assessing children’s ability to report anthropometry reliably. Rather it was used to explore ability to complete the survey and to help us to understand barriers and solutions to completion of surveys presented in this format.

________________________________________

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 #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.

Yours sincerely

Pamela Gaskin PhD

Lecturer, Essential National Health Research

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Decision Letter 3

Mauro Lombardo

18 Nov 2020

Electronic based reported anthropometry - A useful tool for interim monitoring of obesity prevalence in developing states

PONE-D-19-32927R3

Dear Dr. Gaskin,

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,

Mauro Lombardo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #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 #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed this reviewer's concerns with patience and grace. Thank you. This form is making me go beyond 100 characters so I filled it with a water sandwich.

**********

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 #2: No

Acceptance letter

Mauro Lombardo

25 Nov 2020

PONE-D-19-32927R3

Electronic based reported anthropometry - A useful tool for interim monitoring of obesity prevalence in developing states

Dear Dr. Gaskin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mauro Lombardo

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 Questionnaire

    (DOCX)

    S1 File

    (DOC)

    S2 File

    (DOCX)

    S3 File

    (DOCX)

    S4 File

    (DOCX)

    S5 File

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    S2 Data

    (XLSX)

    S3 Data

    (XLS)

    S4 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    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