Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Apr 29;16(4):e0250020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250020

Perspectives of compounding pharmacists on alcohol-based hand sanitizer production and utilization for COVID-19 prevention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A descriptive phenomenology study

Assefa Mulu Baye 1,*, Andualem Ababu 2, Regasa Bayisa 2, Mahdi Abdella 2, Edessa Diriba 2, Minyechel Wale 3, Muluken Nigatu Selam 4
Editor: Jim P Stimpson5
PMCID: PMC8084187  PMID: 33914768

Abstract

Background

Globally, the safety of patients and healthcare providers is at risk due to health care-associated infections (HCAIs). World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend using alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) for hand hygiene in healthcare settings to prevent HCAIs. Irrational use of ABHR will have undesirable consequences including wastage of products, exposure of healthcare providers to infections and emergence of microbial resistance to the alcohol in hand sanitizers. This study aimed to explore the perspective and experiences of compounding pharmacists on production and utilization of ABHR solution for coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19) prevention in public hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Methods

A descriptive qualitative study using in-depth interview of 13 key-informants serving as compounding pharmacists in public hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, was conducted. The study participants were identified and selected by purposive sampling. All transcribed interviews were subjected to thematic analysis and transcripts were analyzed manually.

Findings

The compounding pharmacists in this study had a mean age of 30.6 (±3.1) years and nine of the thirteen participants were men. Ten participants believed that the compounding practice in their respective sites followed the principles of good compounding practice. More than half of the participants did not believe that ABHR products were used rationally in health facilities. They argued that users did not have enough awareness when and how to use sanitizers. Most of the interviewees reported that compounding personnel had no formal training on ABHR solution production. Study participants suggested incentive mechanisms and reimbursements for experts involved in the compounding of ABHR solutions.

Conclusion

Three of the compounding pharmacists indicated that ABHR production in their setting lack compliance to good compounding practice due to inadequate compounding room, quality control tests, manpower and equipment. Despite this, most study participants preferred the in-house ABHR products than the commercially available ones. Thus, training, regular monitoring and follow-up of the hospital compounding services can further build staff confidence.

Introduction

Globally, safety of patients and healthcare providers is concerning due to health care-associated infections (HCAIs). The consequences of HCAIs include prolonged hospital stay, long-term disability, resistance of microorganisms to antimicrobials, additional financial burdens, massive death, and increased costs for the healthcare system. In developing countries, the magnitude of the problem of HCAIs is estimated to be over 25%, resulting in morbidity and mortality [1, 2].

Hand hygiene is the simplest and least expensive measure proven to be effective in preventing HCAIs [2, 3]. Following the emergence of coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hand hygiene is getting much attention. Choosing an appropriate method of hand hygiene technique depends on various factors. In situations where availability of hand washing materials and water is limited, alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) is the best alternative [1].

World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend using ABHR for hand hygiene in healthcare settings, unless physical removal of microbes with soap and water is required [3, 4]. As ABHR causes less irritation to hands, is more effective in killing most pathogens, takes less time to use, dries automatically, and can be used at the patient bedside; guidelines favor ABHR over soap and water in most cases [5]. Evidences also indicate that ABHR is associated with a higher hand-hygiene compliance rate [6].

However, problems in supply and high cost of commercially-produced sanitizers highly limit the utilization of ABHRs in developing countries [7, 8]. Cost analysis from a case study conducted in Rwanda revealed a 71% financial savings when producing in-house ABHRs rather than a commercially-bought sanitizer [1]. Moreover, a rapid evaluation of 20 different commercial ABHR formulations by the Ethiopian Standard Agency (ESA) revealed that 70% of the products analyzed contained alcohol below the recommended limit (less than 75%) and all products failed to meet the limit test for hydrogen peroxide content [9].

Currently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, drug regulatory authorities in different countries are empowering health facilities for in-house compounding of ABHR solutions [10]. The Ethiopian Food and Drug Authority (EFDA) gave temporary production license for more than 100 institutions in the country. Producers are expected to ensure that quality is not compromised and safety of patients and healthcare providers is not negatively affected by the use of substandard materials [11].

Irrational use of sanitizers will have undesirable consequences, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, which include wastage of products, exposure of health providers to infections and emergence of microbial resistance to the alcohol in hand sanitizers [12, 13]. Perspectives of pharmacy professionals on the rational use of ABHR can minimize these undesirable consequences.

Pharmacists are one of the front-line healthcare providers during COVID-19 pandemic; they provide public health services through regular supply of medicines, provision of health information on hand washing techniques, sanitizer preparation and utilization, availability of face masks and instructions for their proper use and disposal [14, 15]. As a result, countries recognized the role of pharmacists in combating the pandemic of COVID-19. In New Zealand, the pharmacist’s contribution during this pandemic is appreciated by the government by extra remuneration for their support [16].

Evidences are hardly available that explored perspectives of pharmacists on production and utilization of ABHR; their recognition and reimbursement for their direct involvement in combating COVID-19 and implications on their future professional role in containing the pandemic. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the experience and perception of compounding pharmacists on production and appropriate utilization of ABHR solution for COVID-19 prevention in public hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Methods

Study design

A descriptive phenomenology study based on semi-structured guided interviews with compounding pharmacists was conducted to understand their experience and perceptions on production and utilization of hospital-based ABHR solution for COVID-19 prevention in Addis Ababa. The interview was undertaken between May 28 and June 07, 2020.

Settings, sampling and participants

A key-informant interview was conducted with pharmacists working as compounding case team coordinators in thirteen public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Purposive sampling was used to identify and select participants for the study. Addis Ababa is the capital of Ethiopia, with a projected population of approximately 3.6 million in 2019 [17]. All interviews were conducted privately in the compounding pharmacists’ office. Compounding pharmacists who had agreed to participate in the study were approached by the research team. The key-informant interview was continued until the thirteenth interview as the information gathered was saturated at this point [18].

Interview tool

A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect data from key-informants (S1 File). The interview guide was developed based on data from WHO, Ministry of Health-Ethiopia (MoH) and EFDA compounding guidelines and manuals [1921]. It consisted of open-ended questions, such as “what problems do you face in the supply of ingredients, personnel protective equipment, packaging and labeling materials?”, so that it can provide interviewees with maximum opportunity to express their views. The questions in the interview guide were evaluated by the research team in terms of relevance and appropriateness. The interview guides prepared in English were translated into Amharic Language for better understanding by the key-informants. Amharic and English Language experts were asked to verify the translation from English to Amharic Language for its accuracy and for appropriateness of the words used in the translated version.

Data collection

One-to-one face-to-face in-depth interviews of key-informants were conducted to collect the data. Before the actual interviews, objectives and process of the study were explained to the interviewees by the research team. The key-informants read the participant information sheets and were encouraged to raise questions about the study, which were answered accordingly. Participants gave verbal consent to take part in the study. Audio-recording was done for all the interviews and the researchers managed all interviews while the research assistant took the back-up notes. Each interview lasted for approximately 30 to 45 minutes. The interviews were done in Amharic language and to enrich the study objectives, probing questions were asked where appropriate to capture more detailed information on the issue involved. Demographic data of key informants was obtained before the interviews were conducted. When no additional information was obtained from participants, the content of the interviews was deemed to be saturated. The interviews were transcribed verbatim.

Data analysis

Transcription of the audio-recorded interview in Amharic language was done. Then it was translated into English by the researchers. All transcribed interviews underwent manual thematic analysis to detect the possible themes [22]. In all these steps, results were thoroughly discussed by research team.

Study rigor

Researchers considered the credibility, dependability, and transferability of each participant’s interview to maintain the rigor of this study. To ensure the credibility, audit trail was conducted throughout the interview to make sure that the interpretation of the researchers was according to the participant’s interviews. Identification and selection of the appropriate codes and the respective themes was also ensured by consensus among members of the research team. To ensure dependability of the findings, all interviewees were approached using the same interview guide. Readers can judge the transferability of the study with the proper selection of participants, data collection, and process analysis. We tried to manage reflexivity and minimize our own opinion from influencing the study data by appropriate review of interview transcripts, contrasting codes with the raw data, and comparing the findings with the participants’ views repeatedly. Pilot test was conducted at Adama Hospital Medical College to standardize the in-depth interview tool. In reporting study findings relevant elements for reporting qualitative research, COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) (S2 File) were followed.

Ethical consideration

Ethical approval was obtained from Ethical Review Board of School of Pharmacy, Addis Ababa University (ERB/SOP/229/06/2020). Consent was obtained verbally and it was approved by the Ethical Review Board. All participants gave consent for excerpts of their interview transcript to be published. Anonymity and confidentiality of study participants and their freedom to leave the interview were assured.

Findings

Description of study participants

All the interviewed participants (N = 13) were working as pharmaceutical compounding coordinators in their respective health facilities. The participants had a mean age of 30.6 (±3.1) years and nine of the thirteen participants were men. With respect to educational status, ten participants had first degree and three participants had master degree as the highest qualification. A participant stated 10 years of total working experience since first employed whereas most had a total of six years or less (7 participants). Three participants reported that ABHR solution production was launched at their facilities before the advent of coronavirus pandemic (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (N = 13).

Characteristics Frequency (%)
Age (years) ≤30 7(53.8)
>30 6(46.2)
Mean (±SD) years 30.6 (±3.1)
Gender Female 4(30.8)
Male 9(69.2)
Highest qualification First degree 10(76.9)
Second degree 3(23.1)
Current practice setting General hospital 9(69.2)
Specialized hospital 4 (30.8)
Working experience (years) Total work experience ≤ 5 6(46.2)
>5 7(53.8)
In the current position <1 8(61.5)
≥ 1 5(38.5)
ABHR production starting time Before COVID-19 Pandemic 3(23.1)
After COVID-19 Pandemic 10(76.9)

Themes

Six key themes elucidated the perspective of study participants towards facility-based production of ABHR solution to prevent COVID-19 in public hospitals found in Addis Ababa. These themes were the perspectives of compounding pharmacists on (1) supply of compounding materials, (2) standards of practice, (3) production capacity and future plan, (4) rational use of ABHR, (5) roles and expectations of pharmacist on ABHR production, and (6) supports to mitigate potential challenges.

Supply of compounding materials

All participants explained that their ABHR solution production was based on WHO formulation one (Ethyl alcohol-based formulation). Most of the participants indicated that ingredients (ethanol, hydrogen peroxide and glycerol) required for the production of ABHR solution were easily available from local suppliers while some stated that shortage of budget, accidental leakage of ethanol during transportation and erratic supply of dispensing bottles are main problems.

Local plastic factories, private wholesalers and donations were the sources of dispensing bottles, as indicated by respondents. Labeling materials were mentioned to be easily available from local stationary suppliers.

Few of the facilities reported that they already have adequate equipment for ABHR solution production as these facilities had established compounding services for non-sterile preparations. Many of the facilities purchased the equipment specifically for the production of ABHR.

Standards of practice

Participants were asked to reflect their views on the practice of facility-based ABHR production and comparison of ABHR products from their facilities with the commercially available ones.

Good Compounding Practice (GCP). On adherence to GCP principles, ten participants had positive perceptions. They believed that the compounding practice in their respective sites followed the principles of GCP. Availability of appropriate premise and supplies, conducting quality control activities and preparation of ABHR solution using the WHO suggested ingredients were among reasons raised for GCP compliance as illustrated by the following statements:

…our facility satisfied the basic requirements of GCP during production. Dedicated premise, available trained personnel, maintaining good personal hygiene and use of quality raw materials are important parameters for GCP. We also confirm the quality of compounded products by checking turbidity of solution, comprehensiveness of label information, alcohol concentration and others… (participant 12/M/30 years)

…while we are preparing ABHR based on the WHO guideline, we are following GCP. We are using the required standard ingredients including distilled water which is obtained from calibrated distiller. We are also wearing all appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during production. We clean the compounding premise and production equipment before and after ABHR production regularly. We have documented all ABHR products distributed to the users… (participant 13/F/32 years)

Some participants claimed that the compounding practice lack compliance to GCP principles. Lack of suitable compounding room and inputs for quality control (QC) tests were mainly stated for the non-compliance. They further added insufficient manpower and equipment as causes for lack of standard ABHR compounding practice which could be indicated by the following excerpt:

…I think the compounding practice in our site lack some of the basic requirements for GCP. For example, there is no well-established premise and we are not assuring the strength of hydrogen peroxide and glycerol used for the production of ABHR solution. Equipment like alcoholmeter and thermometer are not regularly calibrated as well… (participant 9/M/34 years).

Preference of in-house ABHR solution compared with commercial sanitizers obtained from the market. Most participants preferred sanitizers produced at hospitals than the ones from the market. They believed that sanitizers compounded at health facilities are superior in terms of quality than those obtained in the local market. Reasons mentioned for the preference included facility-based products were not profit oriented and strictly followed WHO’s recommendation. They also claimed that their products are cheaper than those manufactured by local companies which could be illustrated by the following excerpt:

…I recommend hospital-based ABHR than the commercial one as the health care facilities are not compounding ABHR for profit. Hospital-based ABHR fulfills all the quality requirements (e.g., 80% v/v of ethanol) compared to most commercial products. In addition, 130 ml ABHR solution is available for sale in our community pharmacy at a price of 30 Birr (less than $1 USD) against 100 Birr ($3 USD) for commercial product of same volume… (participant 12/M/30 years)

Most participants believe that quality and cost difference among facility-based and commercial products resulted from lack of stringent control of the country’s regulatory body over the commercial products. Hence, most sanitizers are being sold on streets, as they pointed out.

Production capacity and future plan

Production capacity. Majority of the participants reflected that they had optimum production capacity that fulfilled the demand of their respective facilities. They described the weekly or monthly production was based on the rough estimation of the quantity of ABHR needed which could be illustrated by the following quotation:

…we are satisfying the facility’s demand by compounding 2000 bottles sanitizer of 250 ml capacity in every two weeks. Our product is delivered to more than 1000 staff in our facility and other institutions like MoH and Addis Ababa Police Department… (participant 3/M/28 years)

Some compounding pharmacists stated that they have limited production capacity in their facilities which couldn’t meet the institutional demand. Less number of compounding personnel and absence of some ingredients were the reasons claimed for inadequate production which could be illustrated by the following saying:

…we couldn’t satisfy the demand of the staff. That is why additional sanitizers were requested and collected from donors. Main reasons of failure to compound ABHR at our facility regularly are inconsistent supply of ingredients and lack of adequate man power… (participant 6/M/35 years)

Future production plan. Majority of participants mentioned that the production of sanitizer in the healthcare facilities will continue in the future as illustrated by the following participant:

…the production of ABHR in our facility was started before COVID-19 pandemic and `will continue in the future as well since it is prepared for infection prevention program. Training on ABHR preparation was given to some staff considering continuity of production… (participant 4/M/30 years)

Rational use of ABHR solution

Participants reflected their perception on the appropriateness of ABHR utilization in their facilities. When and how to use the solution and handling of the dispensing bottles were the perspectives used to evaluate the rational use of ABHR solution by participants.

Utilization of ABHR solution. Both positive and negative perceptions were recorded. More than half of the participants believed that ABHR products were used irrationally in facilities as illustrated by the following excerpts:

…there is an overall awareness problem among ABHR users in our facility. They don’t really know when and how ABHR is used. They are using ABHR repeatedly without touching patients or patient surroundings. There is also inappropriate volume of ABHR for a single use (more or less than 2 ml) … (participant 13/F/32 years)

…some of the hospital staff don’t know when and how they should use ABHR solution. E.g., they are using it to clean their hands after taking meals, for disinfecting masks and bags, using on wet hands immediately after hand-washing… (participant 9/M/34 years)

Some participants believed that healthcare providers in their hospitals were using sanitizers rationally which could be illustrated by the following excerpt:

…there is rational use of sanitizers by health workers in our facility because they have awareness on when and how much to use. We have also reached the users through focal person of each unit during product distribution… (participant 8/M/27 years)

Handling of dispensers. Few participants commented that the bottles used for packaging of the ABHR solution were handled properly by users. They assumed that the proper use of dispensing bottles was because of the information provided as illustrated by the following excerpt:

… since, we have no sufficient packaging bottles for our community, we cannot substitute the damaged bottles. This is communicated to users especially for front-line staffs. Therefore, they are handling packaging bottles properly… (participant 10/M/33 years)

On the other hand, most participants stated the inappropriate use of dispensing bottles such as request for bottle substitutions or additional bottles which could be illustrated by the following notation:

…we gave a 125 ml capacity bottles for all users at the beginning. But most of them came without them for the refill schedule and their reasons were loss of the bottle, broken caps etc. This shows the level of attention given to the bottles… (participant 13/F/32 years).

Perception of pharmacists towards information provided on rational use of sanitizers. Majority of participants agreed that they had adequate knowledge about sanitizers and can deliver all the required information for any enquiry including its rational use which could be illustrated by the following excerpt:

…. we, pharmacy professionals, have basic knowledge about rational use of medicines including sanitizers. In our facility, we provide as much information as we can via social media, leaflets and posters on notice boards which are prepared by members of the hospital drug information center. The information provided include what ABHR is, its ingredients, how to use it and precautions during its usage etc.… (participant 13/F/32 years).

On the reverse, few did not perceive that pharmacists are not the only information experts regarding sanitizers use which could be illustrated by the following extract:

… I don’t think that pharmacists are the only information providers on sanitizers’ rational use. This time everybody knows about sanitizers and has sufficient information on its rational use as this product is repeatedly advertised to the public through different media… (participant 8/M/27 years)

Roles and expectation of pharmacists

All the key informants expressed that ABHR formulations were exclusively produced by pharmacy professionals in their respective hospitals. Few of the compounding personnel had in-service training on ABHR solution production facilitated by MoH. Most of the interviewees reported that compounding personnel had no formal training on ABHR solution production.

Asked about their view on how they are duly recognized and reimbursed for their public health services to combat COVID-19 in Ethiopia, most of them perceived that pharmacist were committed to their professional role but their contribution was not given due attentions by the government, media and the general public, which could be demonstrated by the following excerpt:

… it is well known that COVID-19 is a serious health problem and the contribution of pharmacy professionals in saving life during this pandemic is significant. The necessary PPE and other resources for COVID-19 are mainly forecasted, purchased and distributed to other healthcare providers and patients by pharmacy professionals. But the attention given to the role of pharmacy professionals in this regard is not adequate (e.g., not considered for additional benefits like others healthcare providers) because they are not considered as front-line workers … (participant 12/M/30 years)

Federal MoH, Addis Ababa Health Bureau, Ethiopian Pharmaceutical Association (EPA) and the pharmacy departments in the hospitals were mentioned for their suboptimal advocacy activities in promoting the role of pharmacists in combating COVID-19.

As stated by the key informants, benefits expected by pharmacy professionals for their services related to COVID-19 pandemic include compensations for risk (as alcohol could have acute and chronic toxicities) like other healthcare providers. This was illustrated by the following excerpt:

…pharmacy professionals should present their evidence of contribution in reasonable way and attention should be given. Officials from MoH and responsible organizations should clearly understand, recognize and acknowledge the role of pharmacy professionals during the pandemic… (participant 12/M/30 years)

Supports to mitigate potential challenges

All the study participants need supports from various stakeholders to strengthen their ABHR solution production capacity. Most interviewees believed that consistent supply of ethanol and materials for quality control of hydrogen peroxide and glycerol should be made available by those concerned bodies and hospital ABHR production should be supported and monitored by MoH, and its parastatals. This is illustrated by the following quotation:

…we need a means of confirming the strength of hydrogen peroxide and glycerol raw materials. Supply of ethanol to healthcare facilities should be easy and continuous (available from nearby suppliers when required). Standard packaging bottles with appropriate sizes should be made available to us and this can be facilitated by MoH or other relevant stakeholders… (participant 13/F/32 years)

Most key-informants also stressed on the need of in-service training and continuous follow-up of ABHR production and other compounding services by MoH and hospital administration, as indicated by the following informant:

…I believe MoH should provide in-service training on ABHR production and provide consistent follow-up to maintain the sustainability of ABHR production and compounding services. Hospital administrators should pay attention for the compounding service by allocating premises and recruiting sufficient personnel… (participant 4/M/30 years).

As most study participants mentioned, incentive mechanisms and additional benefits need to be set for experts involved in compounding of ABHR solutions. Most of them also demand support for compounding equipment including large size measuring devices.

…we are compounding mainly COVID-19 related products with limited number of staff and small size measuring devices that result in repeated exposure to alcohol. The ABHR production team is not a member of COVID-19 team in the hospital that disregards pharmacists from COVID-19 related incentives. MoH should guide our hospital management to consider pharmacy professionals as part of COVID-19 team and get all related compensations and incentives for ABHR production… (participant 3/M/28 years)

Discussion

The present study was conducted in public hospitals where ABHR production has been in practice. All the interviewees were serving as coordinator for compounding service of the respective hospitals. All participants reported that they were following formulation one for ABHR solution production in which ethyl alcohol is the active agent and hydrogen peroxide, glycerol and water are the other ingredients available in the formulation [19]. Ethyl alcohol-based formulation was being used in all facilities since ethanol is found to be cheaper than isopropyl alcohol and easily available from local sources. Similar findings were reported in other studies [1, 2]. Sugar factories were mentioned as consistent sources of ethanol for production of ABHR.

Good packaging practice is an important aspect during manufacturing of pharmaceuticals that preserves the stability and quality of products [23]. Despite this, most participants raised the challenges of obtaining the desired quantity and size of dispensing bottles. Unavailability of appropriate individual size bottles with safety caps is also reported in other studies [24, 25]. This problem might have its own impact on irrational use of ABHR solution. Shortage of supply of bottles might be because of an imbalance between demand and supply since most facilities started ABHR production after the occurrence of COVID-19 pandemic. Local plastic factories could have faced shortage of imported raw materials to produce bottles.

GCP is a recommended standard in the compounding of non-sterile preparations that meets the regulatory standards of producing safe, effective and quality products. It covers various components like premise, personnel, ingredients, compounding, quality assurance and control, sanitation and hygiene, storage, packaging and labeling, stability, distribution and documentation [2628]. Despite difference in perception of respondents about GCP, most of them felt that productions of ABHR solutions in their facilities are in line with the standards of GCP. Perceived reasons for compliance of GCP include premise availability, using WHO recommended ingredients and PPE availability were among the others mentioned by participants. Their knowledge on GCP might be limited due to inadequate experience of the compounding service in facilities, mainly ABHR. Lack of appropriate training on GCP (both theoretical and practical) was also raised by the participants.

The acceptance and use of ABHRs by healthcare workers is a crucial factor in the success of any hand hygiene program. Regarding the selection of sanitizers, most preferred the in-house products than commercially produced/purchased ones and same response was reported elsewhere [29]. Facility-based products were given more trust in terms of quality as they are not produced with the notion of maximizing profit. Poor control of manufacturers by the country’s regulatory body and issuing manufacturing license to non-pharmacy personnel might have a negative effect on quality of sanitizers especially with respect to the alcohol content. Relatively low cost (sometimes available for free) of in-house produced sanitizers is also indicated for their preference compared to those purchased from the market. Reports by other scholars also showed that sanitizers on the market are costly. For example, cost analysis from a case study conducted in Rwanda indicated a 71% financial savings while producing in-house ABHRs compared to those obtained from market [1, 7, 25, 30, 31].

Since the active agent of ABHR solution is alcohol, the efficacy of sanitizers is primarily determined by its alcoholic content. Hence, manufacturers should ensure the alcoholic strength of their products. Some of the interviewees raised their concerns on safety and efficacy of the commercial alcohol-based hand sanitizers as they are observed to contain fragrance and colors. It is documented that such excipients in the formulations may cause allergenic reactions and decrease the effectiveness of the preparations which otherwise should be evaluated [19, 29, 32, 33]. The drug regulatory body of the country has the mandate and responsibility of continuously assessing the quality of such products available in market, regardless of the sources to safe guarding the general public.

WHO strongly recommends local production of ABHRs in health facilities so that its quality and availability can be insured and it provides low cost alternative for similar products [19]. Most participants reported that there is adequate supply of ABHR solution currently for the hospital community. This is a good start for the studied hospitals as one of the greatest challenges for African hospitals has been that of securing an affordable, available and accessible supply of ABHR [24]. Consistent availability and supply of such a product is highly desired as it is one of the products included in the WHO’s essential medicine list [34]. The health facilities included in the study had a plan of reaching the public by scaling up their production capacity. Considering the current COVID-19 pandemic, and improved habit of the general public in using sanitizers, the demand for it exceeds the supply. Majority of participants explained that the production of sanitizers in their facilities will not be interrupted even after COVID-19 is controlled globally. Sanitizers are one of the important supplies for preventing infections in health facilities and the continuation of their production will be the basis for hospital-based compounding of other sterile and non-sterile preparations.

Despite its production and availability, rational use of sanitizers should be an issue of concern for its effectiveness in preventing transmissions of infections. As a finding of this study, most participants indicated the irrational use of sanitizers in the hospitals. Such inappropriate utilization of sanitizers could lead to wastage of products, exposure of healthcare providers to infections and emergence of microbial resistance to alcohol [12]. It is important to follow the instructions on use of sanitizers by manufacturers that are usually given on the label of ABHR bottles. Inappropriate use of dispensing bottles was also mentioned by most study participants and a similar problem was also reported for reused dispensers as a result of pump or cap damage [30]. Accessibility of products at the point of care might improve the appropriateness of its use and this can be achieved by using wall-mounted dispensers in proximity to the service delivery places [29]. Use of such dispensers can also minimize mis-handling practice of packaging bottles which are mentioned by majority of respondents.

It is essential that the team in charge of implementing the ABHR production and distribution educate their staff about the correct use of the product. This is the responsibility of pharmacists who are knowledgeable on rational use of drugs including sanitizers to provide specific education and ensure its correct use as mentioned by most of the interviewee.

As per the guideline set by EFDA, the compounding unit should be headed by a registered pharmacist who will be in charge of the overall compounding activity. Adequate number of pharmacy professionals should be involved in compounding activities [21]. All the key informants indicated that pharmacy professionals were engaged in the compounding of ABHR solution even though the number of pharmacy professionals assigned for the activity was not adequate. The pharmacy personnel involved in such activity should take an updating training in basic compounding skill, quality control and hygiene procedures [20]. Most of the interviewees reported that compounding personnel had insufficient formal training on ABHR solution production. Unless proper training is provided for compounding pharmacists, effective production, quality control and utilization of ABHR solutions will be compromised.

Most of the respondents perceived that they were committed for their professional role as pharmacist in combating COVID-19 in the country but their contribution was not given due attentions by government, media and the general public. Pharmacists are the most accessible healthcare provider and can act as an adviser in a public health capacity, increasing community awareness by providing appropriate information, advising on precautionary measures and offering counselling with respect to medicines including sanitizers. Moreover, they are primary supplier of necessary products, and can encourage healthcare providers and other individuals who are likely to be exposed to COVID-19 to wear medical masks and other PPEs, giving advice on when to seek treatment from healthcare facilities [35, 36]. To mitigate the current pandemic of COVID-19, innovative legal extensions have conferred the exploitation of the full potential of pharmacists globally, fostering the limited manpower of the overburdened healthcare system [37].

As a result of significant contribution imparted by pharmacy professionals in combating COVID-19 pandemic, some countries have recognized the role of pharmacists. For example, in New Zealand, the pharmacist’s contribution during this pandemic is appreciated by the government with extra remuneration for their support [16]. Incentives and compensations for health risk (as alcohol and hydrogen peroxide could have acute and chronic toxicities) like other healthcare were requested by majority of the key informants.

All study participants suggested supports from MoH, Addis Ababa Health Bureau and other stakeholders to strengthen their ABHR solution production capacity. Consistent supply of ethanol, accessing materials for quality control of raw materials and final product, training and continuous follow-up on ABHR production, incentive mechanisms and reimbursements, availability of compounding equipment and revision of organizational structure and functionality of the compounding case team in hospitals were identified to be points of focus of respective stakeholders.

One of the limitations of this study is that findings from the current study only apply to public healthcare facilities in Addis Ababa. Another shortcoming of this study is that most of the study participants were from the pharmacy team; hence reported results are perspectives from these professionals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, most study participants preferred the in-house products of ABHR than commercially purchased sanitizers. Few of participants perceived that the compounding practice lack compliance to GCP due to lack of convenient compounding room, QC tests, sufficient manpower and equipment. Most of the participants believed that there is inappropriate use of both ABHR products and dispensing bottles in their facilities. Majority of the interviewees reported that compounding personnel had no in-service training on ABHR solution production. So, on job training on compounding of pharmaceuticals should be devised and delivered to pharmacy professionals engaged in compounding service. Regular monitoring and follow-up of the hospital compounding services is also recommended. Finally, supportive mechanisms including relevant incentives and reimbursements are suggested for compounding pharmacists. Moreover, integrating pharmacists and compounding pharmacists in particular, in the pandemic management team should be part of the national policy to mitigate this pandemic.

Supporting information

S1 File. Key informants interview guide.

(DOCX)

S2 File. COREQ 32 checklist.

(DOCX)

S3 File. Excerpts of the transcripts.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The research team is very grateful for the study participants and pharmacy department heads who provided their valuable information. We acknowledge Ethiopian Ministry of Health for its technical support.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

Decision Letter 0

Jim P Stimpson

1 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-24316

Perspectives of compounding pharmacists on alcohol-based hand sanitizer production and utilization for COVID-19 prevention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A descriptive phenomenology study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Baye,

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.

Your article has benefited from three excellent reviews. I found each comment by the reviewers worthy of careful consideration. The reviewers point out several areas to improve the introduction and context of the paper. In addition to that context, it is very important at PLOS ONE to provide clear and transparent information about the methodology and so I recommend focusing on the comments by the reviewers regarding the methodology.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 2021 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,

Jim P Stimpson, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: Please explain why written consent was not obtained, how you recorded/documented participant consent, and if the ethics committees/IRBs approved this consent procedure.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: General comments

This is an interesting and informative manuscript looking closely about perspectives of compounding pharmacist on alcohol-based hand sanitizer production and utilization for COVID-19 prevention. The area is worthy of investigation; as relatively little exploration addresses this specific topic. Thus, this would be of interest to readers.

While navigating through the manuscript, there are some punctuation, capitalization and grammar errors that need to be corrected. And I would recommend the manuscript to be proofread again.

Specific comments to each section of the manuscript

Abstract

1. Would authors give explanation about the intent of using two different technical terms “descriptive” phenomenology study in the title of the manuscript and “exploratory” qualitative study in the abstract section?

2. Better to use “in-depth interviews of key-informants for phenomenological study”

3. It is better to use “Findings” instead of “Results” in the qualitative study.

4. It would be good to mention who are the participants or the key informants at least in the beginning of the paragraphs in the results and conclusion section of the abstract. Just like, “The compounding pharmacists in this study had a mean age of 30.6 (±3.1).”

Introduction

1. Every word should be in non-abbreviated form at its first appearance/ mention like COVID-19 and COREQ) (S2_File) etc.

2. Page 4, Line # 63, authors should delete “is” and rewrite it as “As ABHR has low irritation to hands….”

3. Page 4, Line # 81, authors justified the relevance of the study using evidences. One of the evidence is emergence of microorganisms resistance to the alcohol in hand sanitizers. Would authors support this with additional literatures?

Methods

1. Page 5, Line # 103: the type of sampling for the selection of participants in this qualitative study should be explained.

2. Page6, Line # 108 and 109, Setting section: It is appropriate to mention the total number of public hospitals in Addis Ababa in the setting part. “The recruitment of key informants was continued until the saturation point was reached at 13th interview and no new information was obtained from the subsequent interviews [17].” ….. this implies there are other possible interviewees.

3. Page 5, Line 111 : Interview tool …. Pls mention here about the use of conducting pilot test in the standardization of the interview tool.

4. Reflexivity –the positionality and perspectives of the researchers is missed in the manuscript. So it is good to incorporate it as it will affect or shape the whole research findings in quality study.

5. Page 7, Line # 138-142, so long as you use thematic content analysis, it is quite clear to follow and adhere to the steps in the thematic analysis. Do you feel it is important list down the steps here?

Results …. Findings

1. Page 9, Line 167, Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (N = 13). Authors should limit the number of vertical and horizontal lines as minimum as possible.

2. It is more advisable for qualitative researcher to have more narration of themes followed by peculiar quotes/ excerpts that underpin it.

3. On the other hand, the phrase “…illustrated by the following excerpts.” is recurrently appears in this section. So, better to reword it to enhance the palatability of the manuscript to the reader.

Discussion and discussion

It is well narrated section. However, I would recommend couple of points for authors.

1. The authors should argue strongly through comparing their findings with findings and experiences of other studies in other settings. So, the discussion should be anchored deeply in literatures.

2. The authors should distill recommendations for policy input and present them in the discussion well.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for allowing me to review this manuscript. Compounding of sanitizers was an essential extended role of pharmacist during COVID 19 pandemic around the globe.

Your article is very interesting and reflects to the necessity of implementing a good compounding practice and adequate pharmacist training. To make a bigger impression on the stakeholders in your country, I would refer and point out how practice has expanded in developed countries to show the example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551741120306628?via%3Dihub .

Please refer also to FIP guidelines: https://www.fip.org/files/content/priority-areas/coronavirus/COVID-19-Guidelines-for-pharmacists-and-the-pharmacy-workforce.pdf

In many pharmacy practices, compounding of sanitizers was one the first privilege’s for our profession at the beginning of SARS-COV-2 pandemic. I would refer to that in the article in the introduction.

The compounding standard was implemented in many EU states as a chapter in Pharmacopeia and urgently submitted by drug registrations office due to sanitizers deficit.

Since the role of compounding pharmacists is now more and more limited, pandemic is a very good chance to promote pharmacist professional skills.

The study was performed in 13 hospitals in the capital city. A very small sample of staff members took part in the project to make a larger impact.

Additionally, you mentioned about the role of compounding pharmacists but it seems they had different education levels.

Please explain, why there are different levels of education and mention this in the text please and if education may inflence anwsers. Older pharmacist are much better train in compounding than young ones.

I would like a clear information on that point please.

Do you have an up to date numbers from Ethiopian Statistical Office? The 2007 population and housing census of Ethiopia is very old, and I am sure that many things has changed. What is an average number of produced sanitizers in all this 13 hospitals? Please calculate the volume.

My final question, why did you decided to use this methodology, if this kind methodology is commonly used in nursing and midwifery research mainly?

I am missing the study limitation. I would not make my decision based on such a small number of participants, this was rather to show the problem, not to make an embracing change.

Please kindly update your manuscript references and answer my quires.

Thank you.

Reviewer #3: Concerns:

1. How do you evaluate the content validity of the interview guide? It has to be clearly described

2. While the topic and objective of the manuscript is to explore the perspective and experience of compounding pharmacists on production and utilization of ABHR solution, the interview guide consists of question #15 and 16. For example, Participants were asked to reflect on their believe on how they are duly recognized and reimbursed for their public health services to combat COVID-19 in Ethiopia

3. How many pharmacies were there in Addis Ababa? how many of them were producing ABHR at the time of data collection? how do you select study participants (sampling technique if any) .....need to be clarified so that the readers may evaluate the representativeness of the sample used

4. better to use most recent data on population of AA

5. …."The recruitment of key-informant was continued until the saturation point was reached at 13th interview and no new information was obtained from the subsequent interviews…." VS “ ….When no addition information was found from participants the content of the interviews was deemed to be saturated”......clarify the two different statements. What do we mean saturation point in qualitative study?

6. The statement "On the reverse, few did not perceive that pharmacists are information experts regarding sanitizers use" does not support the excerpt which follows it...needs modification

7. The language used while translating the Amharic tape record or note to English (excerpts) needs revision for grammatic errors

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: Birhanu_Reviewer Comments Nov , 2020.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 29;16(4):e0250020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250020.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Jan 2021

Point-by-point response

Reviewer #1

General comments

1) There are some punctuation, capitalization and grammar errors that need to be corrected. The manuscript to be proofread again.

RESPONSE: The manuscript is proofread and punctuations, capitalization and grammar errors are corrected accordingly

Specific comments

Abstract

1) Would authors give explanation about the intent of using two different technical terms “descriptive” phenomenology study in the title of the manuscript and “exploratory” qualitative study in the abstract section?

RESPONSE: To be consistent and appropriate according to the nature of the study, we managed it to be “descriptive” phenomenology study as indicated in the title.

2) Better to use “in-depth interviews of key-informants for phenomenological study”

RESPONSE: Corrected accordingly in the abstract part of the manuscript

3) It is better to use “Findings” instead of “Results” in the qualitative study.

RESPONSE: Yes, we replaced “Results” by “Findings”

4) It would be good to mention who are the participants or the key informants at least in the beginning of the paragraphs in the results and conclusion section of the abstract. Just like, “The compounding pharmacists in this study had a mean age of 30.6 (±3.1).”

RESPONSE: Thank you, we put descriptions of the key informants as recommended (in the result and conclusion section of the abstract)

Introduction

1) Every word should be in non-abbreviated form at its first appearance/ mention like COVID-19 and COREQ) (S2_File) e.t.c

RESPONSE: As recommended from the reviewer, the non-abbreviated form of COVID-19 is provided as “coronavirus disease of 2019”. The long form of COREQ is also indicated in the manuscript as ”COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research”

2) Page 4, Line # 63, authors should delete “is” and rewrite it as “As ABHR has low irritation to hands….”

RESPONSE: Thank you, “is” is deleted.

3) Page 4, Line # 81, authors justified the relevance of the study using evidences. One of the evidences is emergence of microorganisms, resistance to the alcohol in hand sanitizers. Would authors support this with additional literatures?

RESPONSE: The reference indicated as reference #12 was changed to address the original article. An additional article on the efficacy of hand sanitizers is included as indicated in reference # 13. Therefore, the former reference numbers after ref #12 are relabeled

Methods

1) Page 5, Line # 103: the type of sampling for the selection of participants in this qualitative study should be explained

RESPONSE: Indicated as “purposive”

2) Page6, Line # 108 and 109, Setting section: It is appropriate to mention the total number of public hospitals in Addis Ababa in the setting part. “The recruitment of key informants was continued until the saturation point was reached at 13th interview and no new information was obtained from the subsequent interviews [17].” ….. this implies there are other possible interviewees.

RESPONSE: The total number of public hospitals in Addis Ababa is 13. In few of these hospitals the number of compounding pharmacists (pharmacy professionals) is beyond the total number of the hospitals. As we reached at the point of saturation of information, we ended to proceed the in-depth interview. If there were no saturation at that point, we could have additional number of interviews with in these hospitals

3) Page 5, Line 111: Interview tool …. Pls mention here about the use of conducting pilot test in the standardization of the interview tool

RESPONSE: As indicated in the “study rigor” section of the manuscript, a pilot test was conducted at Adama General Hospital. The purpose of the pilot test is stated in the revised version of the manuscript.

4) Reflexivity –the positionality and perspectives of the researchers is missed in the manuscript. So, it is good to incorporate it as it will affect or shape the whole research findings in quality study

RESPONSE: Reflexivity is incorporated in the revised version of the manuscript as” We tried to maintain reflexivity and avoid our own opinion from affecting the study data by precisely reviewing interview transcripts, comparing codes with the raw data, and checking the findings with the participants’ views several times”.

5) Page 7, Line # 138-142, so long as you use thematic content analysis, it is quite clear to follow and adhere to the steps in the thematic analysis. Do you feel it is important list down the steps here?

RESPONSE: We are convinced to omit the steps that were listed in the manuscript as it is clear to follow and adhere to these steps.

Results (findings in the revised manuscript)

1) Page 9, Line 167, Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (N = 13). Authors should limit the number of vertical and horizontal lines as minimum as possible

RESPONSE: The frequency and percentage of the study participants are made in a single column in the revised manuscript

2) It is more advisable for qualitative researcher to have more narration of themes followed by peculiar quotes/ excerpts that underpin it.

RESPONSE: General introduction regarding the list and description of themes was already included. As much as possible, further narration of themes was included in the revised version of the manuscript

3) On the other hand, the phrase “…illustrated by the following excerpts.” is recurrently appears in this section. So, better to reword it to enhance the palatability of the manuscript to the reader.

RESPONSE: Addressed accordingly in the revised version of the manuscript

Discussion

1) The authors should argue strongly through comparing their findings with findings and experiences of other studies in other settings. So, the discussion should be anchored deeply in literatures

RESPONSE: An additional literature is included. Publications are very limited on ABHR utilization and production.

2) The authors should distill recommendations for policy input and present them in the discussion well.

RESPONSE: Recommendations for policy inputs are incorporated in the revised version of the manuscript

Reviewer #2

1) Two material sources were recommended to refer

RESPONSE: We have considered one of the sources recommended for the discussion of our manuscript

2) The study was performed in 13 hospitals in the capital city. A very small sample of staff members took part in the project to make a larger impact

RESPONSE: We appreciate your valuable comments. This is a qualitative research so that the number of participants is determined by the adequacy/ saturation of information gathered.

3) Additionally, you mentioned about the role of compounding pharmacists but it seems they had different education levels. Please explain, why there are different levels of education and mention this in the text please and if education may influence answers. Older pharmacist are much better train in compounding than young ones

RESPONSE: The educational levels of the compounding pharmacists are either first degree or second degree. Any of them could be assigned by the hospital manager to coordinate the compounding pharmacy service usually after they are trained on the services. We have included the age of the study participants with the Quotes they provided.

4) Do you have an up to date numbers from Ethiopian Statistical Office? The 2007 population and housing census of Ethiopia is very old, and I am sure that many things has changed. What is an average number of produced sanitizers in all this 13 hospitals? Please calculate the volume

RESPONSE: Thank you. We made correction for this. In the revised manuscript, the projected population of Addis Ababa is 3.6 million in 2019. To calculate the production volume of each hospital was no the interest of the research, rather to explore if the hospitals were able to produce ABHR by their full capacity inline with their demand.

5) My final question, why did you decided to use this methodology, if this kind methodology is commonly used in nursing and midwifery research mainly?

RESPONSE: The research question we raised demands this methodology. As the research questions are perspectives of pharmacists on the standards of ABHR production, barriers and challenges faced, perspectives on the rational use of ABHR, expectations … therefore, we believe that these types of questions are better addressed by qualitative methods than quantitative ones. The methods are so far utilized in pharmaceutical fields too‼

6) I am missing the study limitation. I would not make my decision based on such a small number of participants, this was rather to show the problem, not to make an embracing change

RESPONSE: The limitation of the study is already indicated in the final paragraph of the discussion in the manuscript. As stated above number of participants for qualitative studies is determined by the saturation level of information gathered

Reviewer #3

1) How do you evaluate the content validity of the interview guide? It has to be clearly described

RESPONSE: Pilot testing of the tool we developed was employed as the method of content validation. This is stated in the manuscript (under the “study rigor”)

2) While the topic and objective of the manuscript is to explore the perspective and experience of compounding pharmacists on production and utilization of ABHR solution, the interview guide consists of question #15 and 16. For example, Participants were asked to reflect on their believe on how they are duly recognized and reimbursed for their public health services to combat COVID-19 in Ethiopia

RESPONSE: These questions were included after the pilot test of the interview guide. The perspectives of compounding pharmacists on the compounding of ABHR was highly connected to their recognition and reimbursement for their activities.

3) How many pharmacies were there in Addis Ababa? how many of them were producing ABHR at the time of data collection? how do you select study participants (sampling technique if any) .....need to be clarified so that the readers may evaluate the representativeness of the sample used

RESPONSE: As indicated in the method section of the manuscript, the study participants were those compounding pharmacists working at “public hospitals” not “pharmacies”. The selection of the study participants was purposive, those key-informants (compounding pharmacists). This is also indicated in the “setting, sampling and participants” part of the manuscript

4) better to use most recent data on population of AA

RESPONSE: Corrected, updated data is included in the revised version of the manuscript, 2019 projected population of Addis Ababa

5) …."The recruitment of key-informant was continued until the saturation point was reached at 13th interview and no new information was obtained from the subsequent interviews…." VS “ ….When no addition information was found from participants the content of the interviews was deemed to be saturated”......clarify the two different statements. What do we mean saturation point in qualitative study?

RESPONSE: The later was indicated to explain the former sentence. In qualitative research, saturation is reached when no additional information was found from previous interviews. Sentence construction is revised in the manuscript.

6) The statement “On the reverse, few did not perceive that pharmacists are information experts regarding sanitizers use” does not support the excerpt which follows it…needs modification

RESPONSE: Thank you very much, the statement is corrected as “On the reverse, few did not perceive that pharmacists are not the only information experts regarding sanitizers use which could be illustrated by the following excerpt…”

7) The language used while translating the Amharic tape record or note to English (excerpts) needs revision for grammatic errors

RESPONSE: Revision is made in the revised version of the manuscript

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Jim P Stimpson

10 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-24316R1

Perspectives of compounding pharmacists on alcohol-based hand sanitizer production and utilization for COVID-19 prevention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A descriptive phenomenology study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Baye,

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.

This article does not meet publication criteria #5 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication. PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. I recommend that authors seek independent editorial help before submitting a revision. These services can be found on the web using search terms like “scientific editing service” or “manuscript editing service.”

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 27 2021 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,

Jim P Stimpson, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This manuscript needs another round of revisions to clarify the writing. Be as specific as possible and provide the data.

I will illustrate from the Abstract given how important this part of the manuscript is for indexing and dissemination, but this comment extends beyond the abstract to the entire paper.

Page 2 Line 34: Add more details about the methods. For example, how were the pharmacists selected?

Page 2 Line 36-37: “The compounding pharmacists in this study had a mean age of 30.6 (±3.1) years and men were the dominant one.”

Instead, of “men were the dominant one,” you should provide the descriptive stats for what proportion were male.

Lines 37-38: “Most participants believed that the compounding practice with

their respective sites followed the principles of good compounding practice.” Define what “most participants” means. Provide the data.

Lines 41-43: “Study participants demand incentive mechanisms and reimbursements for experts involved in compounding of ABHR solutions.” Did they “demand” incentives or is there a better word choice like “suggested” or “recommended.”

Lines 45-47: “Few of participants the compounding pharmacists indicated that the compounding practice lack compliance of good compounding practice due to lack of convenient compounding room, quality control tests, sufficient manpower and equipment.” This is an awkward sentence that needs significant revision. What does “few of the participants” mean? The word “lack” is used twice which confuses the meaning in the sentence.

Here are more examples from the Methods section, which is also critical for readers to understand the study. Again, this is not an exhaustive list, but illustrates the need for greater attention to the writing quality.

Page 6 Lines 110-111: “The compounding pharmacists who had agreed to participate in the study were approached.” Approached by whom? In what way were they approached? This sentence either needs to be clarified or deleted.

Lines 111-113: “The recruitment of key- informants was continued until the saturation point was reached at 13th interview and as no new information was obtained from the subsequent interviews.” 13th should be spelled out as thirteenth. The word “the” should proceed 13th. This sentence is unclear as it suggests that 13 interviews were conducted but infers that more were conducted but that the subsequent interviews did not yield new information. Therefore, 13 interviews were used for the analysis but how many interviews were conducted?

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

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 29;16(4):e0250020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250020.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


27 Mar 2021

Comment: This article does not meet publication criteria #5 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication. PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. I recommend that authors seek independent editorial help before submitting a revision.

Response: In this revision we made all possible correction to make the manuscript clear, and correct, and unambiguous. A senior professor who is expert in the field of the study was invited and made very important corrections.

Comment: Page 2 Line 34: Add more details about the methods. For example, how were the pharmacists selected?

Response: Further descriptions are included in this revision in the method section of the abstract.

Comment: Page 2 Line 36-37: “The compounding pharmacists in this study had a mean age of 30.6 (±3.1) years and men were the dominant one.” Instead, of “men were the dominant one,” you should provide the descriptive stats for what proportion were male

Response: The descriptive stats for the proportion of men is indicated with the actual figure as “…mean age of 30.6 (±3.1) years and nine of the thirteen participants were men.”

Comment: Lines 37-38: “Most participants believed that the compounding practice with their respective sites followed the principles of good compounding practice.” Define what “most participants” means. Provide the data.

Response: It is correcting by specifying the actual number of participants that maintain the principle of good compounding practice. It is rewritten as: “Ten participants believed that the compounding practice in their respective sites followed the principles of good compounding practice.” This is also corrected in the main result section of the manuscript.

Comment: Lines 41-43: “Study participants demand incentive mechanisms and reimbursements for experts involved in compounding of ABHR solutions.” Did they “demand” incentives or is there a better word choice like “suggested” or “recommended.”

Response: Thank you for the “soft words” suggested. We modified the sentence as “Study participants suggested incentive mechanisms and reimbursements for experts involved in the compounding of ABHR solutions.”

Comment: Lines 45-47: “Few of participants the compounding pharmacists indicated that the compounding practice lack compliance of good compounding practice due to lack of convenient compounding room, quality control tests, sufficient manpower and equipment.” This is an awkward sentence that needs significant revision. What does “few of the participants” mean? The word “lack” is used twice which confuses the meaning in the sentence

Response: The exact number (i.e., three) replaced “few” and the whole sentence is reconstructed as follows: “Three of the compounding pharmacists indicated that ABHR production in their setting lack compliance to good compounding practice due to inadequate compounding room, quality control tests, manpower and equipment.”

Comment: Page 6 Lines 110-111: “The compounding pharmacists who had agreed to participate in the study were approached.” Approached by whom? In what way were they approached? This sentence either needs to be clarified or deleted

Response: They were approached by the research team. Revision is made in this way “Compounding pharmacists who had agreed to participate in the study were approached by the research team.“ Participants were approached after the objectives and the process of the study was explained to them, as stated in the data collection section of the manuscript.

Comment: Lines 111-113: “The recruitment of key- informants was continued until the saturation point was reached at 13th interview and as no new information was obtained from the subsequent interviews.” 13th should be spelled out as thirteenth. The word “the” should proceed 13th. This sentence is unclear as it suggests that 13 interviews were conducted but infers that more were conducted but that the subsequent interviews did not yield new information. Therefore, 13 interviews were used for the analysis but how many interviews were conducted?

Response: The word “the” is included before 13th (spelled out as thirteenth). We did thirteen interviews and we got the information collected at this point to be nearly similar to the preceding data. Therefore, we ceased further data collection. We have included all the thirteen interviews in the analysis. The way we stated this sentence is modified as follows: ”The key-informant interview was continued until the thirteenth interview as the information gathered was saturated at this point.”

Comment: Other corrections… this is not an exhaustive list, but illustrates the need for greater attention to the writing quality.

Response: Corrections are made throughout the manuscript to address the clarity of the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Jim P Stimpson

30 Mar 2021

Perspectives of compounding pharmacists on alcohol-based hand sanitizer production and utilization for COVID-19 prevention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A descriptive phenomenology study

PONE-D-20-24316R2

Dear Dr. Baye,

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,

Jim P Stimpson, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Jim P Stimpson

17 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-24316R2

Perspectives of compounding pharmacists on alcohol-based hand sanitizer production and utilization for COVID-19 prevention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A descriptive phenomenology study

Dear Dr. Baye:

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. Jim P Stimpson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Key informants interview guide.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. COREQ 32 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File. Excerpts of the transcripts.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Birhanu_Reviewer Comments Nov , 2020.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES