Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 18;16(3):e0248481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248481

Health-related quality of life and associated factors among patients with stroke at tertiary level hospitals in Ethiopia

Ashenafi Zemed 1, Kalkidan Nigussie Chala 1, Getachew Azeze Eriku 1, Andualem Yalew Aschalew 2,*
Editor: Anandh Babu Pon Velayutham3
PMCID: PMC7971497  PMID: 33735246

Abstract

Introduction

Evidence on a patient-centered assessment of outcome among patients with stroke is limited in Ethiopia. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the level of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and associated factors in Ethiopia’s tertiary level hospitals.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted at three tertiary level hospitals (Felege Hiwot comprehensive specialized hospital, University of Gondar comprehensive specialized hospital, and Dessie referral hospital) from April 1 to May 31, 2019. A total of 180 patients with stroke were included, and a consecutive sampling method was employed to recruit the participants. RAND 36-Item Health Survey was used to measure the HRQOL. A generalized linear model with a gamma distribution and log-link function was used to investigate potential predictors, and variables with a P value of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Out of the participants, 50.56% were female. The average age and average duration of illness were 59.04 (12.71) and 1.5 (1.46) years, correspondingly. The physical health domain score was higher than the mental health domain score. Education (P = 0.041), social support (P = 0.050), disability (P <0.001), co-morbidity (P = 0.011), depression (P = 0.015) and income (<1000 ETB P = 0.002; 1000–4000 ETB P = 0.009) were associated with physical health domain. Whereas, ischemic stroke (P = 0.014), education (P = 0.020), disability (P <0.001), and depression (P <0.001) were associated with the mental health domain.

Conclusion

The HRQOL of the patients was low. Social support and lower disability status were associated with higher HRQOL, whereas disability and depression were associated with higher HRQOL. Therefore, attention should be given to strengthening social support; health professionals should focus on reducing disability/physical dependency and depression, as these are vital factors for improving HRQOL.

Introduction

The global lifetime risk of stroke rose to 25% for those 25 years and over in the last three decades [1]. Notably, stroke remains the second leading cause of death and disability worldwide, with 5.5 million deaths, in 2016. Although stroke incidence decreased in most regions (except East Asia and Southern sub-Saharan Africa), a decline in stroke death rates and the aging population makes it still prevalent [24].

Ethiopia has also shared the global problem, and stroke is becoming more prevalent. The Burden of Disease study reported that, in 2016, there were 52,548 incidences of stroke and 38,353 deaths in Ethiopia [5]. Previous studies showed that in-hospital mortality ranged from 11% to 44%. The majority of patients presented with some sort of disability such as weakness of the body, inability to communicate, etc. Moreover, in all studies, the proportion of patients with hypertension, which is a known risk factor for stroke, was high [611].

Although stroke causes significant functional sequela, objective assessment approaches such as clinical assessment (neurological function test) and biochemical tests often fail to gauge the subjective experience of the impacts of the disease [12]. However, the patient-report outcome, for instance, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), has increasingly been used as a crucial measurement for assessing the disease’s effects from the patient’s perspective [13]. HRQOL is a broad-ranging concept incorporating the person’s physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, and personal beliefs in a complex way and focuses on the impact of health status on HRQOL [14]. Thus, it is a subjective appraisal of the patient’s current level of functioning and satisfaction with their health compared to what they believe to be ideal. In other words, it is an inherent attribute of self-perception of various aspects of the patient’s general health [15,16]. Concepts in stroke care have expanded from decreasing mortality and morbidity to improving the functional level and quality of life [17]. Therefore, the appraisal of patient-reported outcomes is a valuable method, particularly among patients with a chronic disease such as stroke whose psychological and social wellbeing, just as physical health, are affected by the disease.

Several factors have a significant association with HRQOL. The two well-known factors are depression and disability [1822]. Others, including age [23], social support [24,25], income [19,26], co-morbidities like diabetes and hypertension [22,27,28], and sex [29] were also significantly associated with HRQOL.

Literature about HRQOL has been grown on various diseases and injuries, including stroke. There is, however, a huge gap in Africa, including Ethiopia, in this area. For instance, one study showed that from 50 different studies (1970–2017) on stroke, only ten studies were on HRQOL, and none of them were in Ethiopia [30]. To our knowledge, studies in our country, including in the current study areas, focus on prevalence, risk factor, clinical presentation or profiles of patients, and mortality rate of stroke [11,3134]. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the level of HRQOL and associated factors (sociodemographic, clinical, and environmental) among patients with stroke at the three tertiary hospitals in the Amhara National Regional State.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

An institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted at three tertiary level hospitals: Felege Hiwot comprehensive specialized hospital, University of Gondar comprehensive specialized hospital, and Dessie referral hospital, from April 1 to May 31, 2019. The hospitals are found in the Amhara National Regional State, northwest of Ethiopia. Each hospital has a chronic illness follow-up outpatient department (OPD) for chronic diseases, including stroke. The OPD is opened five days a week (Monday up to Friday), and patients with neurologic disorders, such as patients with stroke, get the service two days per week.

Subjects and sampling technique

A total of 180 patients with stroke were included, and the sample size was allocated proportionally: sixty participants per hospital. The population consisted of patients with stroke who were seeking post-stroke rehabilitation at the chronic illness OPD during the study period. Patients who were involved in the study were selected based on established criteria. Accordingly, after checking the patients’ medical record card, all adult patients (≥ 18 years) with any type of stroke who had the disease for three or more months were included, whereas patients with a brain tumor, any musculoskeletal problem, mental disorder, traumatic brain injury, or spinal cord injury were excluded from the study [18,35]. A consecutive sampling method was employed to recruit the participants until the required sample size was reached.

Data collection tools and procedures

The tool has three sections: sociodemographic variables (sex, age, marital status, educational status, religion, occupation, residence, and income), clinical variables (duration of a stroke, type of stroke, affected site, co-morbidity, and disability), and psychosocial variables (social support and depression). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey was translated into Amharic language and back-translated into the English language to keep its consistency. Furthermore, a pretest was done on five percent of the sample size outside the study area with a similar setting. A semi-structured interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect the necessary information. For those who fulfill the inclusion criteria but had communication or cognitive problems, we used reliable proxies to collect the data. Meanwhile, some of the clinical variables (type of stroke, affected side, co-morbidity, and duration of the disease) were collected from the patient’s medical record.

Measurements

Health-related quality of life. The HRQOL was measured by the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (Version 1.0). The tool contains 36 items, which can be computed into eight scales. The scoring has two-steps. First, precoded numeric values were recoded per the scoring manual. Second, items on the same scale were averaged together to create the scores. The higher the scores, the better the HRQOL. Finally, the eight scales were aggregated into two distinct summary measures: a physical component summary (PCS), which represented the physical dimension of HRQOL, and a mental component summary (MCS), which described the mental dimension of HRQOL [36,37]. The validity and reliability of the tools have been demonstrated in Ethiopia [38].

Depression. Depression was measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). There were seven-item self-report questions that measure the level of depression. The scale score ranged from 0 to 21, with 0–7 represent no depression, 8–10 represent borderline depression, and 11–21 represent depression [39].

Social support. The Oslo 3-items social support scale was used to measure social support. The tool has three items. A sum index was made by summarising the raw scores and the sum ranging from 3 to 14. A score of 3–8 is “poor social support,” 9–11 is “moderate social support,” and 12–14 is “strong social support” [40].

Functional ambulation category. The functional ambulation category (FAC) is a scale that measures the ambulation ability of the patient. It comprises six categories ranging from 0 represents non-functional to 5 represents normal ambulation [41].

Data analysis

The collected data were checked for completeness. Then, codes were given to each questionnaire and entered into EpiInfo Version 7 Software. Further analysis was done with Stata version 14. Descriptive statistics were presented using frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine significant differences between mean levels of HRQOL across the three hospitals. Assumptions of ANOVA: homogeneity of variance, normality, and presence of significant outliers were checked. Initially, bivariate analysis was done to identify factors associated with each domain (PCS and MCS) of HRQOL, independently, and variables with P value <0.2 [42] were selected for the final model: generalized linear model (GLM) with gamma family and log link function. The ability to handle a larger class of error distributions and data types is a key improvement of GLM over linear models [43,44]. To validate the distribution used in the GLM, the modified park test was applied. We fitted two models consisting of the PCS (model 1) and the MCS (model 2) as a dependent variable. Model one included sex, age, marital status, education status, occupation, income, type of stroke, co-morbidity, depression, disability, duration of a stroke, and social support. Model two included sex, age, education status, occupation, income, type of stroke, depression, disability, social support, and residence. Clinically meaningful combinations of variables and their interactions were assessed for effect; however, not engaged in the last model. The potential for multiple collinearities was tested using the variance inflation factor (VIF); where VIF <10 was desirable. Model adequacy was gauged by a progressive reduction in AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) and BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) [45]. Finally, variables with a P-values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethical Review Committee of the School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Science, University of Gondar (reference number SoM/1238/2019). A permission letter was given to the representatives of the chronic illness OPD. All participants were oriented to the study’s objectives and purpose before they participated, and they provided written informed consent. Patients at health facilities were informed that participation had no impact on the provision of their healthcare. Study team members safeguarded the confidentiality and anonymity of study participants throughout the entire study. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Results

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of study participants

A total of 180 patients were interviewed with a 100% response rate. Almost half (50.56%) of them were female, and the mean (SD) age of the participants was 59.04 (12.71) years. Out of the participants, 66.67% were urban dwellers. A significant number of patients (66.77%) were diagnosed as having ischemic stroke. The majority of the participants (74.44%) had co-morbidity; 117 (87.31%) of them were hypertensive. A considerable amount of patients (80.00%) had some degree of disability. Also, half of the patients had depression (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of study participants (N = 180).

Variables Frequency (%) Mean (SD)
Sex
Male 89 (49.44)
Female 91 (50.56)
Age in years 59.04 (12.71)
Residence
Urban 120 (66.67)
Rural 60 (33.33)
Marital status
Single 11 (6.11)
Widowed 27 (15.00)
Divorced 42 (23.33)
Married 100 (55.56)
Religion
Orthodox 98 (54.44)
Muslim 66 (36.67)
Protestant 16 (8.89)
Occupation
Government employed 38 (21.11)
Private employed 58 (32.22)
Housewife 50 (27.78)
Farmer 27 (15.00)
Retired 7 (3.89)
Educational status
Unable to read and write 63 (35.00)
1–8 Grade 47 (26.11)
9–12 Grade 29 (16.11)
College and above 41 (22.78)
Income
ETB <1,000 76 (42.22)
ETB 1,000–4,000 41 (22.78)
ETB >4,000 63 (35.00)
Type of stroke
Ischemic 120 (66.77)
Hemorrhagic 60 (33.33)
Duration of stroke in years 1.55 (1.46)
Co-morbidity
Yes 134 (74.44)
No 46 (25.56)
Type of co-morbidity
HTN 117 (87.31)
DM 4 (2.99)
DM & HTN 8 (5.97)
Cardiac & HTN 5 (3.73)
Affected side
Right 96 (53.33)
Left 84 (46.67)
Social support 10.47 (2.38)
Poor 40 (22.22)
Intermediate 75 (41.67)
Strong 65 (36.11)
Depression 7.85 (4.51)
Normal 91 (50.56)
Borderline 46 (25.56)
Depressed 43 (23.88)
FAC 2.91 (1.63)
Non-functional 21 (11.67)
Nonfunctional ambulation 17 (9.44)
Household ambulation 33 (18.33)
Surroundings of the house ambulation 32 (17.78)
Independent community ambulation 41 (22.78)
Normal ambulation 36 (20.00)

ETB, Ethiopia birr; FAC, functional ambulation category; HTN, hypertension; DM, diabetes mellitus; SD, standard deviation.

Health-related quality of life

The RAND 36-Item Health Survey had good internal reliability with Cronbach Alpha of α = 0.93 and α = 0.82 for the physical and the mental domain, respectively. Out of the eight scales, role limitations due to physical health problems (15.69) and emotional problems (19.81) were the lowest. In contrast, the bodily pain scale score was the highest (68.22). Moreover, the PCS score was higher 44.36 (21.15) than the MCS 39.54 (17.13) (Fig 1).

Fig 1. HRQOL scales and domains score of patients with stroke.

Fig 1

SF-36 scales: GH, General health perceptions; PF, Physical functioning; RLPH, Role limitations due to physical health problems; BP, Bodily pain; VT, Fatigue; SF, Social functioning; RLEP, Role limitations due to emotional problems; EW, Emotional wellbeing. SF-36 domains: PCS, Physical component score; MCS, Mental component score.

A one-way ANOVA analysis showed no significant differences for the physical and mental components scores of HRQOL among the three hospitals (Table 2). The assumptions of ANOVA were checked and fulfilled: Bartlett’s test for equal variances showed that the variance was homogenous. The physical and mental domains of HRQOL were approximately normally distributed (skewness = 0.52 and kurtosis = 2.51) and (skewness = 0.84, and kurtosis = 2.80), respectively. Moreover, after we fitted the regression model, the predicted Cook’s distance showed no outliers or influential observations, where Cook’s distance less than one was considered appropriate.

Table 2. Comparisons of HRQOL scores among the three hospitals (N = 180).

HRQOL domains UoGCSH, Mean (SD) FHCSH, Mean (SD) DRH, Mean (SD) P-value a
PCS 41.01 (22.30) 45.42 (21.01) 46.64 (20.00) 0.309
MCS 41.39 (17.03) 39.86 (18.30) 37.37 (16.02) 0.433

UoGCSH, University of Gondar comprehensive and specialized hospital; FHCSH, Felege Hiwot comprehensive and specialized hospital; DCSH, Dessie referral hospital.

aP < 0.05.

PCS: Bartlett’s test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 0.6981 Prob >chi2 = 0.705.

MCS: Bartlett’s test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 1.0365 Prob >chi2 = 0.596.

Factors associated with HRQOL

We fitted two models consisting of the PCS (model 1) and the MCS (model 2) as outcome variables. GLM was fitted to identify factors associated with the HRQOL. The modified Park test result showed that the HRQOL score was within the gamma distribution.

Factors associated with the physical component summary

It was found that individuals who were grade 9–12 had 22% higher HRQOL than individuals who were unable to read and write (exp(b) = 1.22, P = 0.041). HRQOL increased by about 3% with each additional score of social support (exp(b) = 1.03, P = 0.05). In addition, as the disability status improved, the physical component of HRQOL increased by about 20% (exp(b) = 1.20, P<0.001). Whereas, individuals with co-morbidity had 15% lower HRQOL than individuals who had co-morbidity (exp(b) = 0.85, P = 0.011); individuals who had income less than ETB 1,000 and ETB 1,000–4,000 had 21% and 18% lower HRQOL (exp(b) = 0.79, P = 0.002; exp(b) = 0.82, P = 0.009, respectively) than individuals who had income greater than ETB 4,000. Besides, HRQOL was reduced by about 2% with each additional score of depression (exp(b) = 0.98, P = 0.015) (Table 3).

Table 3. Generalized linear model analysis to identify factors associated with PCS among patients with stroke (N = 180).
Variables exp(b) 95% CI P value
Gender
Female 1.02 0.89, 1.16 0.813
Male ref ref ref
Age 1.00 0.99, 1.00 0.445
Marital status
Single 0.87 0.68, 1.11 0.278
Widowed 0.88 0.75, 1.03 0.106
Divorced 0.89 0.78, 1.02 0.087
Married ref ref ref
Occupation
Private employed 1.10 0.92, 1.31 0.290
Housewife 1.18 0.95, 1.46 0.139
Farmer 1.12 0.91, 1.38 0.299
Retired 1.23 0.90, 1.68 0.192
Government employed ref ref ref
Education status
1–8 Grade 1.13 0.98, 1.31 0.091
9–12 Grade 1.22 1.01, 1.47 0.041
College & above 1.05 0.85, 1.30 0.666
Unable to read and write ref ref ref
Income
ETB <1,000 0.79 0.69, 0.92 0.002
ETB 1,000–4,000 0.82 0.71, 0.95 0.009
ETB >4,000 ref ref ref
Co-morbidity
Yes 0.85 0.74, 0.96 0.011
No ref ref ref
Type of stroke
Ischemic 0.97 0.86, 1.10 0.653
Hemorrhagic ref ref ref
Social support 1.03 1.00, 1.05 0.050
Depression 0.98 0.97, 1.00 0.015
FAC 1.20 1.15, 1.25 0.000
Duration 1.02 0.98, 1.06 0.270
Constant 24.93 15.83, 39.27 0.000

CI, confidence interval; ETB, Ethiopia birr; FAC, functional ambulation category; SD, standard deviation.

Factors associated with the mental component summary

In the second model, variables that had an association with the MCS were education, disability, stroke type, and depression.

It was found that individuals who were grade 9–12 had 22% higher HRQOL than individuals who were unable to read and write (exp(b) = 1.22, P = 0.020). Moreover, as the disability status improved, the mental component of HRQOL increased by about 12% (exp(b) = 1.12, P<0.001). However, HRQOL was reduced by 3% with each additional score of depression (exp(b) = 0.97, P<0.001), and patients with ischemic stroke had 12% lower HRQOL than individuals who had a hemorrhagic stroke (exp(b) = 0.88, P = 0.014) (Table 4).

Table 4. Generalized linear model analysis to identify factors associated with MCS among patients with stroke (N = 180).
Variables exp(b) 95% CI P value
Gender
Female 1.01 0.90, 1.13 0.833
Male ref ref ref
Age 1.00 1.00, 1.01 0.268
Occupation
Private employed 0.99 0.86, 1.15 0.931
Housewife 1.09 0.90, 1.31 0.376
Farmer 1.14 0.94, 1.37 0.174
Retired 1.13 0.86, 1.47 0.384
Government employed ref ref ref
Education status
1–8 Grade 1.08 0.96, 1.23 0.206
9–12 Grade 1.22 1.03, 1.43 0.020
College & above 1.14 0.95, 1.37 0.169
Unable to read and write ref ref ref
Residence
Rural 1.00 0.90, 1.12 0.993
Urban ref ref ref
Income
ETB <1,000 0.97 0.86, 1.10 0.620
ETB 1,000–4,000 0.94 0.83, 1.07 0.366
ETB >4,000 ref ref ref
Type of stroke
Ischemic 0.88 0.79, 0.97 0.014
Hemorrhagic ref ref ref
Social support 0.99 0.97, 1.02 0.591
Depression 0.97 0.96, 0.98 0.000
FAC 1.12 1.08, 1.16 0.000
Duration 1.00 0.97, 1.03 0.991
Constant 32.86 22.16, 48.72 0.000

CI, confidence interval; ETB, Ethiopia birr; FAC, functional ambulation category.

There was no significant association between each domain of quality of life with sex, affected side, marital status, occupation, duration of stroke, and residence.

Discussion

This study aimed to assess the HRQOL and associated factors among patients with stroke at the three tertiary level hospitals. The RAND 36-Item Health Survey, which has eight scales, was used to measure the HRQOL. The scale’s scores ranged from 15.69 (physical health) to 68.22 (bodily pain). The MCS score was lower compared to the PCS score. Moreover, education, depression, and disability were significantly associated with both domains.

Stroke affects the patient’s physical, mental, and social aspects of life [46,47]. Measurement of patient-report outcome is increasingly important [48]. This study tried to measure the impact of stroke on the patient’s HRQOL. The findings revealed that most of the eight scales’ scores were low. The scales most affected were role limitations due to physical health and emotional health problems. Evidence showed that a sudden interruption of blood resulted in a stroke that damages brain tissues, which leads to a cognitive problem, disability, and emotional disturbance such as depression [27,46,49]. This finding also supported that more than 57% of patients were physically non-functional or had some degree of limited mobility, and around 50% of them had depression. These might lead to cutting down the time the patients spent on work or other activities and accomplished less than they would like, which reduces their roles and HRQOL.

Moreover, social functioning and physical functioning were affected next to role limitation due to a stroke. As we mentioned above, disability and depression are common among patients with stroke, including the patient’s day-to-day activities, social engagement, and interaction. A previous study showed that patients with a physical disability had limited daily activity and poor community reintegration [49].

Our study found better patient HRQOL as compared to the studies in Egypt [21,50]. Plausible explanations might be a difference in sample size and characteristics of the participants. For instance, in those studies, most participants had co-morbidity and dependent on daily activities. However, the current study is lower than the studies in Bangkok, Thailand [35], Brazil [15], New Zealand [51], in all scales. In addition, a study in Ohio [27] has a higher HRQOL score than the current study for most of the scales. A plausible explanation could be that those studies included cognitively fitted patients; most were from a rehabilitation center. They had a long duration of the event that helps the patients recover well psychologically and physically.

The second objective of this study was to identify factors that had an association with the HRQOL. Patients with good social support had a higher score on PCS than those who had poor social support. Previous studies are in line with this finding [20,25,52]. Stroke has an impact on the physical health of the patients. For instance, disability after a stroke makes the patient life dependent on others (families) [53,54]. This indicated that social support is important in stroke rehabilitation, especially after discharge to home. Thus, advice and encouragement from families, friends, or religious fathers might improve the patient’s perception of wellbeing and functioning; consequently, enhance the patient’s HRQOL.

This study showed that non-functional or limited mobility patients had lower HRQOL on both domains (PCS and MCS). This result is consistent with those of previous studies [18,21,55,56]. As the status of the patient’s mobility improves, their HRQOL also enhanced. According to a study from Prishtina, Kosovo, as the physical state improves, it becomes easier to reintegrate into the community [49]. Another significant predictor of HRQOL was depression, one of the emotional problems that affect function level. Several studies have shown that depression influences the patient’s HRQOL [18,19,28,55,57]. The current study is also in line with the above studies that depression reduces the mental domain of HRQOL. A study by Chang et al showed emotional status is a significant predictor of functional level and HRQOL at the chronic stage among stroke survivors [58].

Likewise, education was associated positively with both domains. Patients who achieved up to high schools had a better HRQOL than those who could not read and write. Studies in Kenya and Ohio [27,29] are in line with this finding. Education is an essential factor in understanding self-care management. Patients with a high educational level can easily read and understand stroke’s effects, leading to better awareness about the disease. Furthermore, it contributes to a high rate of adherence to self-care management.

The presence of co-morbidity appears to contribute toward lower PCS compared with those who had not co-morbidity. Other studies are also in line with this study [27,28]. The commonest co-morbidities among stroke patients are HTN and DM. In this study, 74.44% of patients had co-morbidities, and HTN was the most prevalent. The finding is compatible with studies conducted in Ethiopia [6,11,31,59].

Participants who had a lower income had lower PCS scores than those who had a higher income (ETB >4,000). Previous studies have also reported that low income or poor socioeconomic status reduced the patient’s HRQOL [19,26]. Another study also showed disability, especially severe form, needs more cost for treatment [13]. However, patients with low income could not afford sufficient treatment and rehabilitation. Although early initiation of rehabilitation is essential for functional recovery, low-income causes delayed rehabilitation initiation or not at all result in poor physical health [60].

There is controversy regarding the relationship between stroke type and HRQOL. Our study demonstrated that patients with ischemic stroke were associated with a lower quality of life concerning mental health than hemorrhagic stroke patients. The study in Egypt is also consistent with this finding [50]. However, other studies have shown that type of stroke did not associate with HRQOL [15,35,61].

There was no significant association between each domain of quality of life and sex, affected side, marital status, and occupation. Literature had inconsistent findings due to different methods and tools for measurement, subject selection criteria, and sociocultural differences.

Limitation of the study

The limitation of this study is that it is difficult to show causal relationships due to the study’s cross-sectional nature. In addition, relatively a small sample size who represent only stroke survivors sought care at public hospitals. Therefore, a further longitudinal study with a larger sample size should be done to investigate the influential factors on stroke survivors’ HRQOL. However, the strength is that we used a multicenter and multi-dimensional tool for the assessments of HRQOL.

Conclusion

This study indicated that a stroke had a remarkable impact on patients’ HRQOL. Notably, the mental dimension of HRQOL was affected more. The HRQOL of patients with depression was found to be more affected. Additionally, having co-morbidities and low income had a negative effect on the physical domain, while higher education status, lower disability status, and social support showed a positive effect. Therefore, attention should be given to strengthening social support; health professionals should focus on reducing disability/physical dependency and depression, as these are vital factors for improving HRQOL. Moreover, this study should be used as a starting point for further studies.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset. HRQOL (dataset).

(DTA)

Acknowledgments

We are very thankful to the University of Gondar for the approval of the ethical issue and its technical support. We forward our appreciation to the hospital managers for allowing us to conduct this research and their cooperation. Finally, we would like to thank the study participants for their volunteer participation and also data collectors and supervisors for their genuineness and quality of work during data collection.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This study was part of a master thesis funded by the University of Gondar. The preliminary findings of the study were presented at the School of Medicine, University of Gondar.

References

  • 1.Global, Regional, and Country-Specific Lifetime Risks of Stroke, 1990 and 2016. New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;379(25):2429–37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Johnson CO, Nguyen M, Roth GA, Nichols E, Alam T, Abate D, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet Neurology. 2019;18(5):439–58. 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30034-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ovbiagele B, Goldstein LB, Higashida RT, Howard VJ, Johnston SC, Khavjou OA, et al. Forecasting the future of stroke in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44(8):2361–75. 10.1161/STR.0b013e31829734f2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Yang Y, Shi YZ, Zhang N, Wang S, Ungvari GS, Ng CH, et al. The Disability Rate of 5-Year Post-Stroke and Its Correlation Factors: A National Survey in China. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0165341. 10.1371/journal.pone.0165341 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Johnson CO, Nguyen M, Roth GA, Nichols E, Alam T, Abate D, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet Neurology. 2019;18(5):439–58. 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30034-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Erkabu SG, Agedie Y, Mihretu DD, Semere A, Alemu YM. Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Stroke in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia: A Retrospective Hospital-Based Study. Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases: the official journal of National Stroke Association. 2018;27(6):1533–8. 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.12.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gebremariam SA, Yang HS. Types, risk profiles, and outcomes of stroke patients in a tertiary teaching hospital in northern Ethiopia. eNeurologicalSci. 2016;3:41–7. 10.1016/j.ensci.2016.02.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gebreyohannes E, Bhagavathula A, Befekadu T, Seid M, Taye K. In-Hospital Mortality among Ischemic Stroke Patients in Gondar University Hospital: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Stroke research and treatment. 2019;2019:1–7. 10.1155/2019/7275063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Greffie E. Risk Factors, Clinical Pattern and Outcome of Stroke in a Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. Clinical Medicine Research. 2015;4:182. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zenebe G, Alemayehu M, Asmera J. Characteristics and outcomes of stroke at Tikur Anbessa Teaching Hospital, Ethiopia. Ethiop Med J. 2005;43(4):251–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Deresse B, Shaweno D. Epidemiology and in-hospital outcome of stroke in South Ethiopia. Journal of the neurological sciences. 2015;355. 10.1016/j.jns.2015.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. The New England journal of medicine. 1996;334(13):835–40. 10.1056/NEJM199603283341306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rudberg AS, Berge E, Gustavsson A, Nasman P, Lundstrom E. Long-term health-related quality of life, survival and costs by different levels of functional outcome six months after stroke. European stroke journal. 2018;3(2):157–64. 10.1177/2396987317753444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference? PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(7):645–9. 10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Froes KS, Valdes MT, de P Lopes D, Silva CE. Factors associated with health-related quality of life for adults with stroke sequelae. Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria. 2011;69(2b):371–6. 10.1590/s0004-282x2011000300020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Megari K. Quality of life in chronic disease patients. Health psychology research. 2013;1(3). 10.4081/hpr.2013.e27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chang WH, Sohn MK, Lee J, Kim DY, Lee S-G, Shin Y-I, et al. Predictors of functional level and quality of life at 6 months after a first-ever stroke: the KOSCO study. Journal of neurology. 2016;263(6):1166–77. 10.1007/s00415-016-8119-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Abubakar S, Isezuo S. Health related quality of life of stroke survivors: experience of a stroke unit. International journal of biomedical science: IJBS. 2012;8(3):183. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kwon S, Park JH, Kim WS, Han K, Lee Y, Paik NJ. Health-related quality of life and related factors in stroke survivors: Data from Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) 2008 to 2014. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0195713. 10.1371/journal.pone.0195713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jaracz K, Kozubski W. Quality of life in stroke patients. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica. 2003;107(5):324–9. 10.1034/j.1600-0404.2003.02078.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ghandour AM. Multicenter Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) Among Stroke Survivors. ARCHIVOS DE MEDICINA. 2016;7(3):96. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mahran SA, Abdulrahman MA, Janbi FS, Jamalellail RA. The health-related quality of life in stroke survivors: clinical, functional, and psychosocial correlate. Egyptian Rheumatology and Rehabilitation. 2015;42(4):188. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Muli G, Rhoda A. Quality of life amongst young adults with stroke living in Kenya. Afr Health Sci. 2013;13(3):632–8. 10.4314/ahs.v13i3.16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kruithof WJ, van Mierlo ML, Visser-Meily JM, van Heugten CM, Post MW. Associations between social support and stroke survivors’ health-related quality of life—a systematic review. Patient education and counseling. 2013;93(2):169–76. 10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mackenzie AE, Chang AM. Predictors of quality of life following stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2002;24(5):259–65. 10.1080/09638380110081805 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sturm JW, Donnan GA, Dewey HM, Macdonell RA, Gilligan AK, Srikanth V, et al. Quality of life after stroke: the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Stroke. 2004;35(10):2340–5. 10.1161/01.STR.0000141977.18520.3b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nichols-Larsen DS, Clark PC, Zeringue A, Greenspan A, Blanton S. Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke. 2005;36(7):1480–4. 10.1161/01.STR.0000170706.13595.4f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Katona M, Schmidt R, Schupp W, Graessel E. Predictors of health-related quality of life in stroke patients after neurological inpatient rehabilitation: a prospective study. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2015;13:58. 10.1186/s12955-015-0258-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Muli G, Rhoda A. Quality of life amongst young adults with stroke living in Kenya. African health sciences. 2013;13(3):632–8. 10.4314/ahs.v13i3.16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Owolabi M, Olowoyo P, Popoola F, Lackland D, Jenkins C, Arulogun O, et al. The epidemiology of stroke in Africa: A systematic review of existing methods and new approaches. Journal of clinical hypertension. 2018;20(1):47–55. 10.1111/jch.13152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gedefa B, Menna T, Berhe T, Abera H. Assessment of Risk Factors and Treatment Outcome of Stroke Admissions at St. Paul’s Teaching Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Journal of Neurology & Neurophysiology. 2017;8(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sultan M, Debebe F, Azazh A, Hassen GW. Epidemiology of stroke patients in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital: Emphasizing clinical characteristics of Hemorrhagic Stroke Patients. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development. 2017;31(1):13–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zenebe G, Alemayehu M, Asmera J. Characteristics and outcomes of stroke at Tikur Anbessa Teaching Hospital, Ethiopia. Ethiopian medical journal. 2005;43:251–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zewdie A, Debebe F, Kebede S, Azazh A, Laytin A, Pashmforoosh G, et al. Prospective assessment of patients with stroke in Tikur Anbessa Specialised Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. African Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2018;8(1):21–4. 10.1016/j.afjem.2017.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Rachpukdee S, Howteerakul N, Suwannapong N, Tang-Aroonsin S. Quality of life of stroke survivors: a 3-month follow-up study. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2013;22(7):e70–e8. 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.RAND HEALTH CARE. 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) Scoring Instructions. https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/36-item-short-form/scoring.html.
  • 37.Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. The rand 36‐item health survey 1.0. Health economics. 1993;2(3):217–27. 10.1002/hec.4730020305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kebede D, Alem A, Shibre T, Negash A, Deyessa N, Beyero T. Health related quality of life (SF-36) survey in Butajira, rural Ethiopia: Normative data and evaluation of reliability and validity. Ethiopian medical journal. 2004;42:289–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2003;1(1):29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dalgard OS, Dowrick C, Lehtinen V, Vazquez-Barquero JL, Casey P, Wilkinson G, et al. Negative life events, social support and gender difference in depression. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology. 2006;41(6):444–51. 10.1007/s00127-006-0051-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaningfulness. Physical therapy. 1984;64(1):35–40. 10.1093/ptj/64.1.35 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Heinze G, Dunkler D. Five myths about variable selection. Transplant International. 2017;30(1):6–10. 10.1111/tri.12895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Blough DK, Ramsey SD. Using generalized linear models to assess medical care costs. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology. 2000;1(2):185–202. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Malehi AS, Pourmotahari F, Angali KA. Statistical models for the analysis of skewed healthcare cost data: a simulation study. Health economics review. 2015;5(1):11. 10.1186/s13561-015-0045-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kuha J. AIC and BIC: Comparisons of Assumptions and Performance. Sociological Methods & Research. 2004;33(2):188–229. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Clarke P. Understanding the experience of stroke: a mixed-method research agenda. Gerontologist. 2009;49(3):293–302. 10.1093/geront/gnp047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Carod-Artal J, Egido JA, González JL, Varela de Seijas E. Quality of life among stroke survivors evaluated 1 year after stroke: experience of a stroke unit. Stroke. 2000;31(12):2995–3000. 10.1161/01.str.31.12.2995 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Crispin Jenkinson. Measuring health status and quality of life 1998.
  • 49.Murtezani A, Hundozi H, Osmani T, Krasniqi V, Rama B. Factors associated with reintegration to normal living after stroke. Medical Archives. 2009;63(4):216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Mahran S, Abdulrahman M, Janbi F, Jamalellail R. The health-related quality of life in stroke survivors: clinical, functional, and psychosocial correlate. Egyptian Rheumatology and Rehabilitation. 2015;42(4):188. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hackett ML, Duncan JR, Anderson CS, Broad JB, Bonita R. Health-related quality of life among long-term survivors of stroke: results from the Auckland Stroke Study, 1991–1992. Stroke. 2000;31(2):440–7. 10.1161/01.str.31.2.440 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Tariah HA, Hersch G, Ostwald SK. Factors Associated with Quality of Life: Perspectives of Stroke Survivors. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Geriatrics. 2006;25(2):33–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Miller EL, Murray L, Richards L, Zorowitz RD, Bakas T, Clark P, et al. Comprehensive overview of nursing and interdisciplinary rehabilitation care of the stroke patient: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Stroke. 2010;41(10):2402–48. 10.1161/STR.0b013e3181e7512b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Jamison J, Ayerbe L, Di Tanna GL, Sutton S, Mant J, De Simoni A. Evaluating practical support stroke survivors get with medicines and unmet needs in primary care: a survey. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e019874. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019874 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Serda E, Bozkurt M, Karakoc M, Çağlayan M, Akdeniz D, Oktayoğlu P, et al. Determining quality of life and associated factors in patients with stroke. Turk Soc Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;61:148–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Rudberg A-S, Berge E, Gustavsson A, Näsman P, Lundström E. Long-term health-related quality of life, survival and costs by different levels of functional outcome six months after stroke. European stroke journal. 2018;3(2):157–64. 10.1177/2396987317753444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.de Oliveira Canuto MÂ, Nogueira LT, de Araújo TME. Health-related quality of life after stroke. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem. 2016;29(3):245–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Chang WH, Sohn MK, Lee J, Kim DY, Lee SG, Shin YI, et al. Predictors of functional level and quality of life at 6 months after a first-ever stroke: the KOSCO study. Journal of neurology. 2016;263(6):1166–77. 10.1007/s00415-016-8119-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gebreyohannes EA, Bhagavathula AS, Abebe TB, Seid MA, Haile KT. In-Hospital Mortality among Ischemic Stroke Patients in Gondar University Hospital: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Stroke research and treatment. 2019;2019:7275063. 10.1155/2019/7275063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Horner RD, Matchar DB, Divine G, Feussner J. Racial variations in ischemic stroke-related physical and functional impairments. Stroke. 1991;22(12):1497–501. 10.1161/01.str.22.12.1497 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lai S-M, Perera S, Duncan PW, Bode R. Physical and social functioning after stroke: comparison of the Stroke Impact Scale and Short Form-36. Stroke. 2003;34(2):488–93. 10.1161/01.str.0000054162.94998.c0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Amir H Pakpour

13 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-19104

Health-related quality of life and associated factors among patients with stroke at the tertiary level hospitals in Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aschalew,

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 Sep 27 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,

Amir H. Pakpour, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

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

[This study was part of a master thesis funded by the University of Gondar. The preliminary findings of the study were presented at the School of Medicine, University of Gondar.]

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

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

 [The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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: Dear author(s),

Many thanks for choosing this subject. I appreciate you because of all efforts, short of some recommendation below:

1. In your abstract, please do not change the subtitles. I mean Purpose. Write introduction instead of Purpose.

2. In abstract, please mention to the statistical population and the sample and the method of sampling. It is vital that author(s) present the area I which the study was carried out.

3. Your results in you abstract needs substantial changes. Please follow the routine methods to write this part. It is incomplete and the SD and p-value should be given where the estimations are reported.

4. There are a few keywords please extract further related keywords from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh.

5. About your introduction, please elaborate a little bit on HRQOL in the other areas and the importance of this subject. Some parts of Introduction part are related to Discussion part, so please transform them into Discussion part.

6. Why was proportional sampling chosen? And please state the type of sampling.

7. Is there any eligibility criteria? Please cite to related references where the inclusion and exclusion are confirmed.

8. Why was semi-structured interview opted? These types of interviews likely increase the personal bias. Please explain whether this conduction is solo or not.

9. Why was consecutive sampling done while your sampling is proportional? Bias can also occur in consecutive sampling when consecutive samples have some common similarity and it is a non-probability sampling.

10. Your instrument part is too long. To avoid prolixity, please explicate the main items briefly and cite to most related manuscript which can confirm what have been done.

11. Were the presumptions of ANOVA and multiple regression models checked?

12. Was there any outlier or influential observation in your data?

13. Was there any multicollinearity among main variable?

14. Why is a nominal p-value considered before modelling? Is there any valid source to cite? What is the type of model selection? Which kinds of model adequacy checking criteria were chosen?

15. What is the ground to separate two models for physical and mental component? Is there any previous knowledge to do that?

16. Please follow the general writing rules to write the figures. Write the figures with equal number of decimal.

17. Generalized linear model (GLM) is broadly used to analyze data in which there are some categorical predictors or covariates. Was this approach applied? This approach is different from multiple linear regression models, so please state the correct method.

18. Please interpret the effect of predictors clearly and completely and is there any moderator effect upon the related response variable?

19. Why was cut-off considered for some of covariates, for instance, income and education? You definitely lost a part of information by categorizing the continuous variables.

20. You have checked the relations between predictors and response variables and response comprises of 3 components. How did you examine the effects of each component? Which component is the origin of effect in each model? How you convince these parts of effects?

21. There is not any plot or path diagram which can illustrate the path between variables. Moreover, there is not any plot to for descriptive analysis. It is a plus point for your manuscript to display the effects schematically.

With regard to these comments, I thoroughly recommend author(s) revise their paper majorly.

Regards,

Maryam Ganji

**********

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

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-19104.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 18;16(3):e0248481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248481.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Sep 2020

Date: September 26, 2020

Subject: Response to reviewers

Manuscript title: Health-related quality of life and associated factors among patients with stroke at tertiary level hospitals in Ethiopia

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-20-19104

Dear Dr. AmirH. Pakpour ,

We appreciate the efforts by you and the reviewers on the manuscript. We thank you and the reviewers for the thorough reading and constructive comments and questions of our manuscript and for the opportunity to revise and resubmit. We are pleased to submit the improved research article, including re-analysis, language editing and formatting according to the journal requirement, “Health-related quality of life and associated factors among patients with stroke at tertiary level hospitals in Ethiopia” for your consideration in PLOS ONE. On the following pages, you will find our response to reviewer comments. On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you for your consideration of this resubmission. We appreciate your time and look forward to your response.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body .pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response:

We have reformatted the manuscript according to the above style guidelines, including file naming.

2. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Response:

The ethics statement of the manuscript is within the methods section.

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

[This study was part of a master thesis funded by the University of Gondar. The preliminary findings of the study were presented at the School of Medicine, University of Gondar.]

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

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

[The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

Response:

We have removed the Funding Statement in the manuscript, and we have agreed with the above Funding Statement.

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1: Dear author(s),

Many thanks for choosing this subject. I appreciate you because of all efforts, short of some recommendation below:

Thank you very much for your comprehensive comments and constructive suggestions. We read and consider each comment very carefully, and thoroughly revise the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions. We hope that the manuscript reads more convincingly after the revision.

1. In your abstract, please do not change the subtitles. I mean Purpose. Write introduction instead of Purpose.

Response:

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment, we have changed the subtitle “purpose” into “introduction”. (page 2, line number 13).

2. In abstract, please mention to the statistical population and the sample and the method of sampling. It is vital that author(s) present the area I which the study was carried out.

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we have included the study area, sample and sampling methods (page 2, line number 16-19).

3. Your results in you abstract needs substantial changes. Please follow the routine methods to write this part. It is incomplete and the SD and p-value should be given where the estimations are reported.

Response:

Thanks for pointing out our shortcomings! In this revision, we have included some descriptive, coefficient of significant variables and p-value in the result section of the abstract.

4. There are a few keywords please extract further related keywords from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh.

Response:

Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive comment; we have added some keywords. Please, see the revised manuscript line 37.

5. About your introduction, please elaborate a little bit on HRQOL in the other areas and the importance of this subject. Some parts of Introduction part are related to Discussion part, so please transform them into Discussion part.

Response:

Dear, thank you for your constructive comments. We have given some elaboration on HRQOL (line 54-57), and the importance of studying these subjects (line 61-61 and 68-73). We have also rewritten paragraphs three and four of the introduction section, and some statements were transformed into the discussion section.

6. Why was proportional sampling chosen? And please state the type of sampling.

Response:

Thank you for the question. One major advantage of proportional sampling is that it produces a sample size that is representative of the size of the groups within the population. Therefore, we use proportional allocation to increase the representativeness of each hospital. We proportionally allocate the sample size to the hospitals, and we used consecutive sampling to draw the study units.

7. Is there any eligibility criteria? Please cite to related references where the inclusion and exclusion are confirmed.

Response:

Thank you! We have already mentioned the exclusion and inclusion criteria. But based on your suggestion, we have cited two references in the revised manuscript. Please see reference numbers 18 and 35, line 91.

8. Why was semi-structured interview opted? These types of interviews likely increase the personal bias. Please explain whether this conduction is solo or not.

Response:

Thank you for your important question. We used semi-structured interview because some of the variables like age, duration of stroke and type of co-morbidity need such type of formats. But the majority of the questions were structured and semi-structured were not the only type of interview.

9. Why was consecutive sampling done while your sampling is proportional? Bias can also occur in consecutive sampling when consecutive samples have some common similarity and it is a non-probability sampling.

Response:

Dear reviewer, thank you for your question. Consecutive sampling was used to draw the study units while proportional allocation was applied to increase the representativeness of each hospital. Related to the bias of the sampling, even if the consecutive sampling seems non-probability sampling, we have two justifications for the robustness of the sampling process.

1. The time of data collection was selected randomly from twelve months.

2. For each visit, patients were visited (appointed) randomly. That means, during the data collection period, we found a mixture of patients, which visited the facility randomly.

10. Your instrument part is too long. To avoid prolixity, please explicate the main items briefly and cite to most related manuscript which can confirm what have been done.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. In response to your concerns about the length of instrument part we have substantially shortened it by 9 lines. Please, see line numbers 106-124 on page 7.

11. Were the presumptions of ANOVA and multiple regression models checked?

Response:

Thank you for your question. The outcome variable was to some extent skewed to the right (with skewness of 0.52 for PCS and 0.84 for MCS). One-way ANOVA only requiring approximately normal data because it is quite "robust" to violations of normality, meaning that assumption can be a little violated and still provide valid results. But other important assumptions: homogeneity of variance, comparable observation among the groups and absence of outlier were fulfilled, and these has been described in the result section of HRQOL. Homogeneity of variance was checked by Bartlett's test for equal variances and this can be found below table 2. Please, see line 181-185 and table 2.

Related to the assumption of multiple linear regression models (MLR), in the previously submitted manuscript, we have checked the assumptions of MLR: linearity, normality, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity. However, the homoscedasticity assumption was not satisfied with the Breusch–Pagan/Cook–Weisberg test Prob > chi2 = 0.0281 and Prob > chi2 = 0.0004 for PCS (model one) and MCS (model two), respectively. Even if we did not explain, robust regression was used as a treatment for heteroscedasticity. But after revision, we perceived robust regression should not be the first choice in such scenario, and transformation should come first. For our data, we found logarithmic transformation is appropriate. However, this transformation has some drawbacks such as retransformation bias. Based on your suggestion and our understanding, we opted generalized linear model (GLM) since it can correct for heteroscedastic errors and do not need to be adjusted for retransformation bias. Therefore, in the revised manuscript GLM with gamma family and log link function was used, and multicollinearity, family distribution and model adequacy were checked and fulfilled. All the changes have been described in the data analysis (lines 135-139) and factors associated (lines 193-196) sections of the revised manuscript.

12. Was there any outlier or influential observation in your data?

Response:

Dear, thank you for your important question. We have predicted Cook’s distance after we fitted the regression model and the result showed that there were no outliers or influential observations, where Cook’s distance less than one was considered as appropriate.

13. Was there any multicollinearity among main variable?

Response:

Thank you for your question. No, the overall variance inflation factor were 1.27 and 1.30 for model one and model two, respectively. Therefore, there was no multicollinearity among the covariates.

14. Why is a nominal p-value considered before modelling? Is there any valid source to cite? What is the type of model selection? Which kinds of model adequacy checking criteria were chosen?

Response:

Dear, thank you for your important questions. We used nominal p-value to be liberal in the selection of variables. In the other words, we are interested to include marginal confounders and important variables in the final model. Related to the source, we got the information from a book called “Regression Methods in Biostatistics. Authors Eric Vittinghoff, David V. Glidden, Stephen C. Shiboski, Charles E. McCulloch. Chapter 10, page 409” and Maldonado, G., & Greenland, S. (1993). Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. Am J Epidemiol, 138(11), 923-936, doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116813..

Moreover, there are plenty of articles that used such a method of variable selection. Here below are some of them, and it's the commonly used cutoff in our setup.

Abebe SM, Berhane Y, Worku A. Barriers to diabetes medication adherence in North West Ethiopia. Springerplus. 2014 Dec 1;3(1):195.

Worku A, Abebe SM, Wassie MM. Dietary practice and associated factors among type 2 diabetic patients: a cross sectional hospital based study, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. SpringerPlus. 2015 Dec 1;4(1):15.

Amberbir A, Woldemichael K, Getachew S, Girma B, Deribe K. Predictors of adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected persons: a prospective study in Southwest Ethiopia. BMC public health. 2008 Dec 1;8(1):265.

The method of model selection is called Selecting Predictors on Statistical Grounds, specifically bivariate screening (analysis): candidate predictors are evaluated one at a time in single predictor models. In some cases, all predictors that meet the screening criterion are included in the final model. For the last question, we have used AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) and BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) model adequacy criteria.

15. What is the ground to separate two models for physical and mental component? Is there any previous knowledge to do that?

Response:

Thank you for the questions. Yes, there are so many articles that handle SF-36 (HRQOL) as physical and mental. Here below are some of them

Mahran SA, Abdulrahman MA, Janbi FS, Jamalellail RA. The health-related quality of life in stroke survivors: clinical, functional, and psychosocial correlate. Egyptian Rheumatology and Rehabilitation. 2015 Oct 1;42(4):188.

Serda EM, Bozkurt M, Karakoc M, Çağlayan M, Akdeniz D, Oktayoğlu P, Varol S, Kemal NA. Determining quality of life and associated factors in patients with stroke. Turk Soc Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;61:148-54.

In this study, our dependent variable, HRQOL, has two domains: physical health and mental health. As we mentioned in the instrument section the SF-36 tool can be computed into two summary scales. Therefore, we can fit two independent models for each domain.

16. Please follow the general writing rules to write the figures. Write the figures with equal number of decimal.

Response:

Agreed. We have tried to follow the general rule, for instance, use numerals for large numbers (say, those over 10) but words for small numbers. Moreover, the figure with decimals was written consistently.

17. Generalized linear model (GLM) is broadly used to analyze data in which there are some categorical predictors or covariates. Was this approach applied? This approach is different from multiple linear regression models, so please state the correct method.

Response:

Thank you for pointing out this appropriate model. We have used GLM in the revised manuscript, and the detailed answer can be found under the response for question 11.

18. Please interpret the effect of predictors clearly and completely and is there any moderator effect upon the related response variable?

Response:

Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we have interpreted the effect of each predictor completely as well as we have tested the presence of interaction among predictors and unfortunately none of them were significant.

19. Why was cut-off considered for some of covariates, for instance, income and education? You definitely lost a part of information by categorizing the continuous variables.

Response:

Thank you for your question. We have revised some covariates (social support, depression and functional ambulation classification) in the model as a continuous variable. However, the variable income and education were collected as stated in the manuscript. In the other words, we are unable to change into continuous variables. Therefore, for your question “why was cut-off considered for some of the covariates?” based on our literature review those variable was considered as categorical and we used them as categorical in order to compare with other works.

20. You have checked the relations between predictors and response variables and response comprises of 3 components. How did you examine the effects of each component? Which component is the origin of effect in each model? How you convince these parts of effects?

Response:

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. If we are not mistaken, you want to say two components: PCS and MCS. These were the outcome variable and we predicted the effect of sociodemographic and clinical variables on the physical and mental dimension of HRQOL. The physical domain was the dependent variable for model one and the mental domain was the dependent variable. The detail can be found in the data analysis section of the manuscript.

21. There is not any plot or path diagram which can illustrate the path between variables. Moreover, there is not any plot to for descriptive analysis. It is a plus point for your manuscript to display the effects schematically. With regard to these comments, I thoroughly recommend author(s) revise their paper majorly

Response:

Dear, thank you. You have raised a very important comment. We have prepared a plot (fig 1) for the descriptive statistics of HRQOL. Related to path diagram (path analysis), it is a good comment, but our objective was to determine the level of HRQOL and associated factors. In order to do path analysis, it needs an independent literature review of mediator variables and another method of analysis such as the structural equation model. With great acknowledgment, we might consider this for another time.

Decision Letter 1

Anandh Babu Pon Velayutham

16 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-19104R1

Health-related quality of life and associated factors among patients with stroke at tertiary level hospitals in Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Andualem Aschalew, 

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.

You have addressed most of the reviewer's comments. However, the manuscript needs further revision. Please revise the data analysis section and abstract as suggested by the reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by December 30, 2020. 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,

Anandh Babu Pon Velayutham

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The authors addressed most of the reviewer's comments. However, the manuscript needs further revision. Please revise the data analysis section and abstract as suggested by the reviewer.

[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: (No Response)

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Dear author(s),

Many thanks for your paying attention and your efforts to revise your manuscript. I also write some new comments. It feels to me it is totally a nice paper. I recommend you implement them. Thank you for your patience:

1. Your abstract is now long, please shorten but do not omit the main part as I said before. In your results part in your abstract, it is dispensable to state all results, just mention to them but with those cautions that I mentioned previously.

2. In your data analysis part, please explicate why p-value<0.2 was chosen or please present an evidence about that. Please cite to a reference.

3. Please state the presumptions of ANOVA models and check them.

4. Please give a reason for making the covariates (income and education level) categorical. It helps you to enhance the validity of your manuscript.

5. please make your tables shipshape in terms of subheadings. (table3 and 4)

6. It would be very very nice if you interpreted the results clearly and please do not confine your paper to just reporting. It will be very nice if you report the measure of effect of each predictor.

7. please write a subtitle for your figure. it is vague.

It is better than the last version but it still needs to revise more.

Regards,

Maryam Ganji

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 18;16(3):e0248481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248481.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 Jan 2021

Dear Maryam Ganji,

Thank you very much for your comprehensive comments and constructive suggestions. We read and consider each comment very carefully, and thoroughly revise the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions. We have also edited the language. We hope that the manuscript reads more convincingly after the revision.

Reviewer #1: Dear author(s),

1. Your abstract is now long, please shorten but do not omit the main part as I said before. In your results part in your abstract, it is dispensable to state all results, just mention to them but with those cautions that I mentioned previously.

Response:

Dear, thank you for the comments, we have revised the abstract to shorten it without losing the main part. Please, see the revised manuscript.

2. In your data analysis part, please explicate why p-value <0.2 was chosen or please present an evidence about that. Please cite to a reference.

Response:

Thank you very much for the comment. There is a debate about the use of p-value for variable selection. However, often arbitrary choice has to be made about the selection parameter, that is, the significance level to decide whether an effect should be retained in a model. One of the ways to do that is to screen the variables by using p-value such as P value of 0.2 in the bi-variable analysis.

Evidence: Heinze G, Dunkler D. Five myths about variable selection. Transplant International. 2017;30(1):6-10. This reference has been cited in the data analysis part. Please, see reference number 42.

The main reason why we use the p-value to select variables is to have a parsimonious model, which is a model with the smallest number of variables that have a high effect on the outcome variable and this has its contribution to finding better estimates. The probability of the variables that have a p-value >0.2 from the bi-variable analysis to be significant on the final multivariable model is almost zero. Therefore, we believe adding those variables to the model may affect the parsimony and may also cause overfitting of the model. Moreover,it is usually advised that not just one criterion should be used but if possible an array of criteria. Common model selection criteria are R2, AIC, BIC, and p-level. Therefore, we have used p-value and AIC criteria to get the best final model.

Finally, as we mentioned in the previous response, usage of P value <0.2, during bivariable analysis for variable selection is common practice in our setup.

3. Please state the presumptions of ANOVA models and check them.

Response:

Thank you! There are six "assumptions" that underpin the one-way ANOVA. Since the first three assumptions (dependent variable should be measured at the continuous level, the independent variable should consist of two or more categorical, independent (unrelated) groups, and independence of observations) cannot be tested for using software, we have addressed them during study design and choice of variables. But, we can check the rest three assumptions: no significant outliers. dependent variable should be approximately normally distributed, and homogeneity of variances. We have mentioned the three assumptions in the method part of data analysis, and detailed results of the assumptions were given in the result section. Please, see line numbers 132-133 and 181-187.

4. Please give a reason for making the covariates (income and education level) categorical. It helps you to enhance the validity of your manuscript.

Response:

Dear, thank you for your comments. As we mentioned in the previous response, when the literature review was done, those variables, in most literature, were found as categorical, and for direct comparison purposes, we developed the questionnaire as a closed question (categorical). Unfortunately, we are unable to change those variables into continuous like social support and depression.

5. Please make your tables shipshape interms of subheadings. (table3and4)

Response:

Thanks for pointing out our shortcomings! We have revised the subheadings of Tables 1, 3 & 4.

6. It would be very very nice if you interpreted the results clearly and please do not confine your paper to just reporting. It will be very nice if you report the measure of effect of each predictor.

Response:

Dear, thank you for your constructive comments. We have interpreted each coefficient, which was significantly associated with each domain of quality of life. Please, see line numbers 199-207 and 215-220.

7. Please write a subtitle for your figure. It is vague. It is better than the last version but it still needs to revise more.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestions! we have revised the figure such as subtitle. Please see the revised figure.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Anandh Babu Pon Velayutham

1 Mar 2021

Health-related quality of life and associated factors among patients with stroke at tertiary level hospitals in Ethiopia

PONE-D-20-19104R2

Dear Dr. Aschalew,

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,

Anandh Babu Pon Velayutham

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Dear author(s),

Congratulation! your paper is accepted and reached the merit of publication criteria in PLOS ONE journal. Thank you for cooperation, patience and edition. Bravo, you nailed it.

Best,

Maryam Ganji

Reviewer #2: In the second revised version all reviewer's comments have been addressed satisfactorily and the quality of this manuscript has been improved.

**********

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: Yes: Maryam Ganji

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Anandh Babu Pon Velayutham

8 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-19104R2

Health-related quality of life and associated factors among patients with stroke at tertiary level hospitals in Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Yalew Aschalew:

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. Anandh Babu Pon Velayutham

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 Dataset. HRQOL (dataset).

    (DTA)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-19104.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES