Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Aug 5;16(8):e0255657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255657

Perceptions, awareness on snakebite envenoming among the tribal community and health care providers of Dahanu block, Palghar District in Maharashtra, India

Itta Krishna Chaaithanya 1,2,#, Dipak Abnave 1,¤a,#, Himmatrao Bawaskar 3, Ujwal Pachalkar 1, Sandip Tarukar 1, Neha Salvi 1, Prabhakar Bhoye 4, Arun Yadav 4,¤b, Smita D Mahale 1,2, Rahul K Gajbhiye 1,2,*
Editor: Ritesh G Menezes5
PMCID: PMC8341635  PMID: 34351997

Abstract

Introduction

India has remarkably the highest number of snakebite cases contributing to nearly 50% of the global snakebite deaths. Despite this fact, there is limited knowledge and awareness regarding the management practices for snakebite in the Indian population. The study aimed to explore the knowledge, awareness, and perception of snakes and snakebites, first aid, and treatment amongst the community and the frontline health workers in a tribal block of Dahanu, Maharashtra, India.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out from June 2016 to October 2018 in the Dahanu Block, Maharashtra. Perceptions, knowledge, awareness, and first-aid practices on the snakebites among the community were studied through focus group discussions (FGDs). Semi-structured questionnaires were used to assess the knowledge, awareness, and experience of the traditional faith healers, snake rescuers, frontline health workers on the snakebites and their management. A facility check survey was conducted using pre-tested questionnaires for different levels of the government health care facilities.

Results

Most of the tribal community was aware of the commonly found snakes and their hiding places. However, there was inadequate knowledge on the identification and classification of venomous snakes. Belief in a snake god, the perception that snakes will not come out during thunderstorms, change in taste sensation, the ability of tamarind seeds or magnet to reduce the venom effect were some of the superstitions reported by the tribal community. The application of a harmful method (Tourniquet) as the first aid for snakebite was practiced by the tribal community. They preferred herbal medicines and visiting the traditional faith healers before shifting the patient to the government health facility. The knowledge on the ability to identify venomous snakebites and anti-venom was significantly higher amongst nurses and accredited social health activists (ASHAs) than auxiliary nurse midwives (ANMs) and multi-purpose workers (MPWs) (p < 0.05). None of the traditional faith healers; but nearly 60% of snake rescuers were aware of anti-venom. Fifty percent of the medical officers in Dahanu block did not have correct knowledge about the Krait bite symptoms, and renal complications due to the Russell viper bite.

Conclusions

Inappropriate perception, inadequate awareness, and knowledge about snakes and snakebites may predispose the tribal community to increased risks of venomous snakebites. Unproven and harmful methods for snakebite treatment practiced by the community and traditional faith healers could be dangerous leading to high mortality. Therefore, a multi-sectoral approach of community awareness, mapping of vulnerable populations, capacity building of health care facility, empowerment of health care workers (HCWs) could be useful for reducing the mortality and morbidity due to snakebite envenoming in India.

Introduction

Snakebite is a major public health problem affecting an estimated 5.4 million people per year with up to 2.7 million envenomings [1, 2]. Many snakebite victims, mostly in developing countries, suffer from long-term complications such as deformities, contractures, amputations, visual impairment, renal complications, psychological distress [3]. India is considered to be the most affected country with an estimated 1.2 million snakebite deaths (average of 58,000 per year) from 2000 to 2019 [4]. Out of these, a very small proportion of snakebite cases were managed at government hospitals as the majority of the patients were referred to traditional faith healers [5, 6].

In a neighboring country, Nepal, 80% of the snakebite deaths occurred either in villages or during transport to the health care facility [7]. These observations highlight an urgent need to understand the healthcare-seeking behavior of the community for snakebites.

Snakebite is an occupational hazard affecting agricultural workers, farmers [8]. Working in the fields, fetching potable water, going to school or outdoor activities without footwear, defecation in an open field or outdoor toilet are some of the activities associated with a higher incidence of snakebites in rural and tribal areas [9, 10]. Inappropriate perception, the practice of unproven traditional methods, and inadequate knowledge about snakes and snakebites may increase mortality due to snakebite envenoming [11, 12]. However, most of these deaths are preventable, and hence community awareness is crucial. The community should be aware of the occupational risks and simple, cost-effective measures that can prevent a snakebite. There is a need to increase community awareness on the prevention of snakebites, bring behavioral changes for reduction of occupational risk, empower the community on first aid skills, and early transfer of snakebite patients to the nearest health facility. Delay in anti-venom administration, inadequate administration of the initial dose of anti-venom, absence of tracheal intubation, and ventilation by a bag valve mask or artificial ventilator could lead to higher mortality [10, 13]. Our earlier study reported a case fatality rate of 4.5% due to snakebite envenoming at Sub District Hospital (SDH), Dahanu, Maharashtra [14]. The majority of the snakebites (66%) were reported in younger and earning members of the family leading to a substantial financial burden. There was no awareness and prior training on the management of snakebites, no uniform protocol for the treatment and there was irrational use of the intradermal anti-venom test in the tribal region of Maharashtra [14, 15]. Therefore, the capacity building of healthcare workers (HCWs) is essential for reducing the deaths due to snakebite envenoming.

India, one of the largest low-middle income countries (LMIC), has around 8.6% of the tribal population, 705 different tribes with 75 tribes classified as particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTG) inhabiting a significant part of the underdeveloped areas of the country [16]. The majority of the tribal population (93%) lives in rural and hilly areas and is mainly engaged in agriculture and allied activities. There exists a huge gap between tribal and non-tribal populations concerning healthcare [16]. Dahanu block (19.97°N 72.73°E) in the Palghar District of Maharashtra State is one of the tribal blocks with a higher tribal population (~70%) [17]. Dahanu block has a tropical climate with a coast of the Arabian Sea on the west and Sahyadri Hills on the east. Different tribes are inhabiting the Dahanu block namely Warli, Kokana, Mahadev Koli, Malhar Koli, Dhodi, Katkari engaged in different occupations and follow different cultural practices. Warli tribes remain quite unassimilated from the rest of India and maintain their dress style, customs, religion, and ceremonies. Warlis live in hilly areas and their major occupation is hunting; while some are engaged as agricultural laborers. Katkari tribes are classified as PVTG and are engaged in various livelihood activities including production and sale of catechu, charcoal, firewood, and other forest products, hunting of small mammals and birds. They eat rodents including the black rats and greater bandicoot rats. Kokana, Mahadev koli, Malhar Koli and Dhodi tribes are mainly engaged in agricultural work [18]. Risk factors such as environment, occupations, wrong perceptions, and inadequate knowledge on snakes and snakebites may predispose the tribal population to increased risk of snakebite deaths. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to understand the perception, awareness, and knowledge of snakebites, prevention, first aid practices, and healthcare-seeking behavior of the community for snakebite treatment. The aim was also to explore the awareness, knowledge, and management practices for snakebites among the traditional faith healers, snake rescuers, and HCWs.

Methods

Study design and setting

This was a cross-sectional study conducted from June 2016 to October 2018 in the Dahanu block of Palghar district in Maharashtra, India. The Dahanu block has 70,742 households with 49.6% males and 50.3% females. Male and females have a literacy rate of 69.9 and 50.6 respectively [17]. SDH Dahanu has a capacity of 100 beds and has an intensive care unit (ICU), pediatrics, gynecology out-patient, and indoor facilities and caters to 51,000 population. SDH Kasa covers about 50,000 population with a capacity of 50 beds. Rural hospital (RH) Vangaon covers a population of 15,000 with 30 beds (Fig 1). Eighteen focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted from July 2017 to December 2017 to facilitate in-depth discussion to understand perception, awareness, and knowledge about snakes, snakebites, prevention, first aid practices, and healthcare-seeking behavior of the community for snakebite. The study was reported using COREQ criteria (see S1 Text).

Fig 1. The geographical location of Dahanu block, Palghar District, Maharashtra, India.

Fig 1

Map not to scale.

Data collection tools

The FGD guide was developed and adapted by our research team of public health experts, social scientist, and medical social workers (See S2 Text). All of them were proficient in the vernacular Marathi language. The draft version of semi-structured questionnaires for traditional faith healers, snake rescuers, frontline health workers, medical officers was evaluated independently by a panel of experts. The expert panel included experienced researchers including physicians, public health researchers, nursing staff, social scientist, medical officers working in the government healthcare facilities with adequate experience in snakebite management. Some of the questions were open-ended to capture the different perceptions, practices, and knowledge of the traditional faith healers, snake rescuers, frontline HCWs. The panel members reviewed the questionnaires and provided feedback for revision. The revised questionnaires were then validated by pilot testing at SDH Dahanu and primary health center (PHC) Ganjad in the study area. The research team also included one master’s in social work (MSW), a native of the tribal area to facilitate and help the team to understand the socio-cultural issues. All 18 FGDs were carried out by the same facilitator with the help of two trained MSWs. Major themes explored in the FGD were:1) Awareness and knowledge about snakes and snakebites, 2) Perception and health-seeking behavior and 3) Awareness about first aid procedures for snakebites.

Recruitment, sampling, and data collection

FGDs were held separately for males and females for each PHC in the study area. The selection of the male and female participants for FGD was according to the convenience sampling method. Each FGD had approximately 8–16 participants and the participation was voluntary. Each FGD session was conducted for no longer than 60 minutes. The information about FGD participation was given to the community members through frontline HCWs and community leaders. All FGDs were facilitated by the social scientist who communicated with the frontline HCWs and community leaders for finalizing the date and time of FGD. Once the date of the FGD was finalized, the nearest government healthcare facility was selected as the venue in consultation with frontline HCWs and community leaders. The social scientist contacted the frontline HCWs and community leaders over the telephone a day before the scheduled FGD for reminding them and re-confirming the participation of the invited participants from the community. On the day of the FGD, the research team carried the printed consent forms in vernacular Marathi language, audio recorder, stationery, and ensured the necessary logistic arrangements for conducting the FGD. The social scientist was assisted by two MSWs for writing the notes and recording the discussion. A copy of the participant information sheet and informed consent form was shared and explained in vernacular language (Marathi) to ensure voluntary participation. After obtaining the written informed consent, the social scientist assigned the responsibility to two MSWs for taking notes, monitoring the audio recording, and also checking the timer for keeping the track of time during the FGD. With the permission of study participants, the focus group discussions were audio-recorded and backed up by the field notes. The social scientist facilitated the discussion on perception, knowledge, awareness on snakes and snakebites, prevention methods, first aid practices, healthcare-seeking behavior of the community for snakebites. The social scientist encouraged the participants to explore the discussion topics in-depth and allowed them to raise their issues.

In the trial focus group discussions, it was observed that some of the community members were reluctant to share their age in front of other participants. It may be possible that some of the tribal community members may not know their exact age. Therefore, we could not record the age of the participants. However, the range of ages among participants regardless of gender was very broader from 18 to 60 years. There was a good response for participation in FGD. A total of 202 community members [Males 90 (44.5%) and Females 112 (55.4%)] participated in a total of 18 FGDs conducted for 9 PHCs representative of the tribal and non-tribal populations in the study area. Twelve participants were initially contacted but did not attend the FGD due to personal reasons. There were no dropouts during the FGD sessions. We tried to include participants reflecting a wide range of ages, community leaders, and members, older and younger to avoid any bias. Three trial FGDs conducted during the training were excluded from the present data analysis. During the discussion, if the participant used any tribal/other than local language, these points were written and further translated with the help of local snake rescuers (community volunteers who can handle live snakes).

Interviews of the traditional faith healers, snake rescuers, and frontline HCWs [Nursing staff, ASHA, ANM, and MPW] were conducted in the vernacular language (Marathi) using a semi-structured questionnaire. The research team visited health care facilities (Sub centers, PHCs, RH, and SDHs) in Dahanu block to conduct the interviews. The selection of HCWs (ASHA, MPW, ANM, Nurse) for conducting the interview was based on their willingness and availability. Interviews of a total of 96 HCWs were conducted representing the government health facilities in Dahanu block. Separate semi-structured questionnaires were used for different levels of HCWs. There was a separate questionnaire for traditional faith healers and snake rescuers. The semi-structured questionnaire included knowledge on venomous and non-venomous snakes, the symptoms of snakebite, preventive and first aid measures, traditional healing techniques, management practices, and knowledge on anti-venom.

Facility survey

The Facility check survey was carried out in 2 SDHs, one RH, 9 PHCs, and 18 sub-centers under the Dahanu block with three different pre-tested questionnaires. The questionnaire included information on the availability of medical officers, Nursing staff, Pharmacists, basic investigations for snakebite, snakebite treatment facilities, availability of anti-venom, and other lifesaving drugs required for snakebite treatment, prior snakebite training details, etc. The selection of subcenters for the survey was by random sampling method. The questionnaires were administered to the head of the health care facilities.

Capacity building of medical officers and frontline HCWs

A total of 40 medical officers from all the government health facilities in the Dahanu block attended the training on snakebite treatment which was conducted by one of the co-authors (HB) and included lectures, practical demonstrations, case studies, and in-depth discussions. A validated pre and post-test questionnaires were administered to assess the knowledge, experience, and practices of snakebite treatment. The questionnaire was based on the Standard Treatment Guidelines for snakebite management, 2017 [19]. The test was conducted before the commencement and immediately on completion of the training to assess the knowledge gained. Periodic training was provided to the medical officers during the study period. The training was also provided to the frontline HCWs. A training manual in the vernacular language (Marathi) was provided to the frontline HCWs (S1 Fig). Copies of the quick reference guides and flyers (STG,2017) were provided to all medical officers.

Data analysis

Audiotapes of the full sessions of FGDs were transcribed. Transcripts were proofread and then translated into English by the experienced research staff to ensure accurate translation of the dialogue/statement of the participants. All transcripts were read independently by the investigators of this manuscript, who identified a list of themes and subthemes after reading a sample of interviews. For any doubts in translation, one MSW was able to go back and check the original transcripts in Marathi/local language and an experienced researcher was present and received simultaneous translation for all interviews. Themes and subthemes were identified based on the transcripts and coded the remaining transcripts by two experienced research staff. The thematic outline was subsequently tested with other samples of transcripts for modification.

Data from interviews of frontline HCWs, traditional healers, snake rescuers were entered into an excel sheet and analyzed further for frequency. Both pre and post-test data of medical officers training was entered in an excel sheet and the standard error of the difference (P-value) between the pre and post-test questionnaire was analyzed using MedCalc statistical software.

Ethics approval

The research study was conducted with the approval of the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)—National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health (NIRRH), Mumbai, India (D/ICEC/Sci-108/145/2016).

The study was also approved by the Director, Public Health Department, Government of Maharashtra, and Research Advisory Committee of Model Rural Health Research Unit (MRHRU), Dahanu, India.

Results

Focus group discussions (FGDs) among community members

A. Awareness and knowledge about snakes and snakebites

a) Knowledge on common snakes found in the area. A total of thirteen snake species were mentioned by FGD participants, which are commonly seen in the Dahanu block (Table 1). Majority of the participants were aware of the names of venomous and non-venomous snakes commonly observed in the Dahanu region (Fig 2).

Table 1. The commonly found venomous and non-venomous snakes in the Dahanu block of Maharashtra, India.
S. No Common Name Scientific name Local name used in the tribal community Toxicity
1 Common krait Bungarus caeruleus Manyar, Chuad Venomous
2 Russell’s viper Daboia russelii Ghonas, Kamblya Venomous
3 Indian Cobra Naja naja Nag, Sap, (Dahaakadi) Ten numbered snake, it was classified as black cobra Venomous
4 Saw scaled viper Echis carinatus Furdsa, Fursa, Venomous
5 Vine snake Ahaetulla nasuta Harntol, Toli Mildly-Venomous
6 Indian rat snake Ptyas mucosa Dhamin, Adela or Adhelwad Sap Non-Venomous
7 Red Sand boa Eryx johnii Mahandulya, Madul Non-Venomous
8 Rock python Python sebae Azgar Non-Venomous
9 Checkered keelback Xenochrophis piscator Divad, Pansor, Panchita, Pansul (Sweet water snake) Non-Venomous
10 Bronze black tree snake Pseudonaja textilis Rukhai, Non-Venomous
11 Striped keelback Amphiesma stolatum Nanheti Non-Venomous
12 Trinket snake Coelognathus Helena Taskar Non-Venomous
13 Worm Snake Indotyphlops braminus Vala Non-Venomous
Fig 2. Commonly found venomous and non-venomous snakes in Dahanu block, Maharashtra, India.

Fig 2

Venomous snakes: (A) Saw scaled viper (B) Common krait (C) Cobra (D) Russell viper; Non-venomous snakes (E)Trinket snake (F) Rat snake. Photo credit: Mr. Sagar Vijay Patel, Forest Department/Biodiversity Department, Dahanu, Maharashtra, India.

b) Hiding places of snakes. The hiding places of snakes were reported in both residential and non-residential areas. The non-residential areas included agricultural farms mainly the rice plantations, rat and crab holes, under the green and dry grass, on trees, and under the tree in dry leaves. The storage of dry and green grass is a common activity in Dahanu block for animal fodder which was mentioned as a common hiding place for snakes. Similarly, the tribal community reported the Manilkara zapota (chikoo) plantation field as a common hiding place for snakes.

c) Identification and classification of venomous snakes. Participants mentioned the different methods such as the color, size, shape of the head, tail, and hissing sound for identification and classification of snakes. Indian Cobra was commonly identified as a venomous snake by the participants based on the hood mark. They further mentioned that number ten is inscribed on the head of the cobra (Daha akadi in vernacular Marathi language). Some of the participants referred to it in vernacular Marathi language as “lehar” meaning a sign of ‘U’ or V on the snakehead or under the neck. However, there was inadequate knowledge on the identification and classification of other venomous snakes such as common krait, Russell’s viper, and Saw Scaled Viper.

The participants mentioned that they could differentiate venomous and non-venomous snakes based on fang marks. They considered venomous snakebite based on two teeth bite marks. “If more than two teeth bite marks were seen then they considered the bite as non-venomous” (FGD, ID 07). If there was more bleeding at the site of the snakebite, it was considered as venomous snakebite compared to no bleeding which was considered as non-venomous snakebite (FGD, ID 12)

Two separate male respondents said “People here in this community are not able to identify snakes by names or by watching the snake, and after the bite, they were able to identify either venomous or non-venomous (FGD, ID 07,15) and all snakes are venomous (FGD, ID 13)

d) Season and timing of snakebites. Some of the FGD participants mentioned that more snakes are observed from May to October and most snakebites occur during the agricultural work in the monsoon season (FGD ID,03,15,18).

They further mentioned that during the monsoon snakes come out of their holes and encounter humans. (FGD, ID 01, 06).

2. Perception and health-seeking behavior for snakebite

a) Perception about snakes, snakebites, and treatment. The tribal community believed that snakes residing in the agricultural field are sent by God to protect their farm and agrarian territory. They worship the Snake God (Nagdevta) by offering coconut fruit and milk to the Snake idol in the Temple. So, the tribal communities do not kill such snakes found in the agricultural field. On the contrary, snakes found in the residential areas are either caught by the snake rescuers or killed by the local community people. These are the two different perceptions reported in the Dahanu block.

A male respondent said, “See, in our community, People worship cobra snake as god if they see in farms

(FGD, ID01; FGD, ID07; FGD, ID17).

Some of the participants mentioned that snake takes revenge, especially Cobra. If people try to kill Cobra and if cobra survives then it will take revenge after some days. The tribal community believed that male and female snake species always live together (as life partners). If one of the partners is killed by a human; then the surviving partner will take revenge.

If you kill a male snake then the female snake will take revenge on you

(FGD, ID 09).

Community members believed that snake venom alters the taste sensation. They mentioned that green chilies or dry chili powder, salt, sugar are given to the snakebite victim to eat and if there is a loss of taste sensation, they considered the bite as venomous and vice versa.

A female respondent said, “We give green chilies or dry chili powder, salt, sugar to the snakebite victims to eat, if they can identify the taste then it is a non-venomous bite but if they are unable to identify taste then it is venomous snakebite

(FGD, ID 10).

A female respondent said, “After the bite if the victim cannot walk even 5 steps and death occurs immediately it was considered as venomous snakes” (FGD, ID 08). Participants said, “If we disturb the snakes. then the only snakes will bite humans

(FGD ID 01, 11).

Few of the community participants believed that “If the snake bites once, a victim will not die, but if the snake bites the second time, the victim will die

(FGD ID 04).

The community members mentioned that “Thunderstorm will affect the snake activities and the snake will not come outside from the hole during a thunderstorm” (FGD ID 07). Some participants mentioned, “If pregnant woman encounters a snake and if she looks at the snake then the snake will become blind

(FGD ID 08).

Such wrong beliefs and superstitions will predispose the community to a higher risk of snakebite deaths.

b) Utilization of government health care services. Participants mentioned that they preferred to visit nearby government healthcare facilities for the snakebite treatment. “First, we prefer for home remedies, if it’s not cured then we visit government hospital (FGD, ID 03).

Few of them prefer local treatment with the herbal medicine (tamarind seed) to reduce the venom effect. Also, they approach a traditional healer if it is not recovered. If there is no improvement then they move to a nearby government hospital for treatment”

(FGD ID 15, ID 17).

3. Knowledge on prevention, first aid, and treatment of snakebite

a) Prevention of snakebite. The participants mentioned the use of household methods for the prevention of snakes. They prefer a sprinkling of locally available pesticide Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and insecticide Thimet powder around their houses and yards. They believed that DDT and Thimet powder have a strong odor and therefore the snakes cannot enter their house and will protect them from snakebites.

Female respondents said,” We use different methods such as DDT (pesticide), Thimet powder (insecticide) and Fish water (leftover water after cleaning fishes) sprinkling, and burning the scrap rubber tires, cow dung or firewood to prevent snakes”

(FGD ID 02, ID04, ID 04, ID 08, ID 10).

Some of the participants mentioned that they are not aware of the prevention methods. “We don’t follow snakebite prevention methods as we are not aware of them” (FGD ID 13).

Tribal communities in Dahanu commonly use dry cow dung, firewood as fuel for cooking purposes and store the dry/green grass for cattle feeding. However, these are the common hiding places for snakes. Some of the participants were aware of snakebite prevention measures such as keeping the cattle feed, firewood, dry cow dung above the ground level (FGD ID 17).

Some of the participants mentioned “maintaining clean surroundings, use of torchlight and wooden sticks at night will prevent us from snakebites”

(FGD ID 04, 05, 06, 13, 14).

The use of mosquito nets for the prevention of snakebites was mentioned by only one participant (FGD ID 05) suggesting that there is very limited awareness of snakebite prevention methods in the community.

b) Knowledge on first aid for snakebites. Use of a tourniquet or bandage above the site of the snakebite was reported as the first aid for snakebites by the participants (FGD ID 02,10,15). Overall, knowledge on the accurate use of first aid for snakebites was lacking in the majority of the study participants.

c) Snakebite treatment at government health facilities. Some of the participants were aware that, snakebite treatment is available in government hospitals. They further mentioned that the private hospitals do not admit snakebite cases as they do not have snakebite treatment facilities. Although some of the participants mentioned that they preferred government hospitals for the snakebite treatment, however, they said: “Government hospitals do not take care properly and do not respond in an emergency” (FGD ID 05).

Some of the participants mentioned, “Government hospitals do not provide treatment properly and also there is a long waiting time and non-availability of doctors during emergencies such as snake bites”. (FGD ID 03)

Interviews of HCWs, traditional faith healers, snake rescuers

Among 96 HCWs, 38 were Nursing staff, 35 were ASHA workers, 11 were ANMs, and 12 were MPWs. Nearly 58% of HCWs were having job experience of > 10 years with 48% working in the Dahanu area for >10 years (S1 Table). The ability to identify venomous snakebites and anti-venom were significantly higher amongst nurses and ASHAs than ANMs and MPWs (p < 0.05). The details of the analysis of knowledge, awareness, and first aid for snakebites amongst various HCWs are shown in Fig 3. Out of the total 9 traditional faith healers interviewed, 67% (n = 6) were educated below the primary level and 33% (n = 3) were above the primary level. The majority of them were working as the soul faith healer (tantric). About 33% of the faith healers were treating snakebite cases for more than 10 years. Sixty-six percent of the faith healers mentioned that they were able to identify venomous and non-venomous snakes. None of the traditional faith healers were aware of anti-venom (Fig 4). The majority of them (78%) were sending the snakebite cases to a nearby government health care facility if they were unable to manage. The traditional faith healers were reluctant to share the information on what traditional methods/medicines they use for treating snakebite patients due to the perception of losing the effectiveness of their method if shared with others.

Fig 3. Awareness, knowledge on snakebite and first aid practices amongst the frontline health care workers in Dahanu, Maharashtra.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Awareness, knowledge of snakebite and treatment practices amongst the traditional faith healers and snake rescuers.

Fig 4

Sixty-six percent of the snake rescuers had experience rescuing snakes for more than 10 years. More than 40% of them were working in the Dahanu area for more than 10 years (S2 Table). All of them were aware and able to identify the venomous or non-venomous snakes found in the study area. Fifty percent of the snake rescuers were aware of the first-aid practices and referred snakebite patients to the nearby government health care facility. About 42% of the snake rescuers had information about the availability of anti-venom in government hospitals for snakebite treatment (Fig 4).

Facility survey in government health care facilities

Basic laboratory investigations (bleeding time, clotting time, complete blood count, etc.) were available in SDHs and RH. Anti-venom was found available in all SDHs, RH, and PHCs in the Dahanu block suggesting the regular supply of anti-venom by the state government. The bleeding time and clotting time testing facility were available only in 4 PHCs. All 18 SCs that were randomly selected were found operational in the government-owned buildings. For 56% of the SCs, the nearest PHC was less than 10 km whereas for, 44% of SCs, the distance to the nearest PHC was more than 10 km (20 km maximum). There was no IEC (Information, Education, and Communication) material available on the identification of venomous and non-venomous snakes, prevention, first aid, and treatment of snakebites in any of the government healthcare facilities in the study area.

Training evaluation of medical officers

The majority (85%) of the medical officers were aware of the signs and symptoms of snakebites. Fifty-five percent of the medical officers were aware of krait bite symptoms (without local Pain or tissue damage) and only 45% knew about renal complications caused by Russells Viper (S3 Table). There was no prior awareness about the National snakebite management protocol, (2009) Govt. of India or Standard Treatment Guidelines for snakebite management (STG,2017).

Discussion

The study demonstrates inadequate knowledge, wrong perceptions, use of unproven methods for prevention and management of snakebites amongst the tribal community in Dahanu, India. The community had wrong perceptions on the identification of venomous snakes and snakebites. Belief in a snake god, ability of tamarind seeds or magnets to reduce the venom effect were some of the superstitions reported in our study. The community had a wrong belief that if anyone kills a male snake, then a female snake would take revenge on that person which was also reported in a study conducted in Nepal [20]. Such wrong perceptions and beliefs will make the tribal community at a higher risk of snakebite deaths.

Traditional knowledge of the local tribal community about the taste alternation in venomous snakebite needs further exploration as it has a scientific basis. There is evidence reporting alterations in smell and taste in envenoming by several snake species [2123]. Further investigations are needed to understand whether these are central effects or due to peripheral cranial nerve involvement [24]. Although the majority of the tribal community is following unproven household methods (sprinkling of DDT, Thimet powder) for the prevention of snakebites, there was some awareness on the use of a torch, wooden sticks, and mosquito net. Wearing long rubber shoes with enclosed toes, use a mosquito net on a bamboo cot or bed above the ground level could offer protection from krait and cobra bites [10, 25, 26]. However, there are challenges in the implementation of preventive measures, both amongst the illiterate and highly educated class indicating the need for education and awareness right from the school level to the university [27]. WHO strategy for prevention and control of snakebite envenoming focuses on prevention of snakebite, provision of safe and effective treatment, strengthening health systems, and increased partnerships, coordination, and resources [28, 29]. Evidence generated from this study and other studies from different geographical regions would be useful for the effective implementation of the prevention and control program of snakebite envenoming.

The use of alternative and unproven methods for the treatment of snakebite patients is still followed in many countries including India [30, 31]. Although there are reports on the use of snake stone (black stone) to treat snakebites since ancient times, there is negligible scientific literature on its therapeutic efficacy. Chippaux et al. conducted a study to determine the therapeutic efficacy of black stones using an animal model but failed to show any therapeutic efficacy [32]. Since traditional remedies do not have any proven benefit in treating snakebite, it is recommended to avoid traditional first aid methods including black stones and alternative medical/herbal therapy [33]. In our study, the community preferred local treatment with tamarind seed or magnet to reduce the venom effect and approached the traditional faith healers. If the victim does not recover, only then they preferred to transfer the patient to the nearby government healthcare facility. Similar use of tamarind seed was also observed in Bhil tribes of Rajasthan, India [34]. The use of such unproven methods was associated with increased risk of bite wound infection, long duration of hospitalization for the management of snakebite victims [30, 35]. Therefore, the community should be educated to discard such practices and unproven methods for snakebite treatment.

There could be several reasons for seeking treatment from the traditional faith healers. These include: i) strong belief of rural and tribal communities in the traditional healers; ii) low cost for traditional healing; iii) non-availability of doctors; iv) shortage of anti-venom in public healthcare facilities, and iv) limited access to public transportation. Sometimes, medical officers are not available at the public health facility especially during the night hours [36]. So, the snakebite victims are left with the option of going to the locally available traditional healer. Hence, we suggest developing a good understanding among the traditional faith healers and the public health departments. Traditional faith healers should be provided with proper training on detection of signs of envenoming for timely referral of patients to the nearest hospital for anti-venom treatment. Providing incentives to the faith healers for refereeing and accompanying the snakebite envenoming cases to the hospital can be a good strategy to reduce mortality. Towards this, efforts are ongoing in West Bengal, India to engage the traditional faith healers for timely referral to the nearest hospital for anti-venom treatment [37].

Despite the community’s awareness of the availability of snakebite treatment at government hospitals, they were reluctant to visit the government hospitals. This could be due to the unavailability of doctors during night time, lack of awareness in the doctors regarding the proper dosage of anti-venom, and poor confidence level of the treating doctors in the primary health care level [38]. Elsewhere studies in India and other countries have also identified similar gaps such as the inability to identify systemic envenoming and administration of anti-venom [37, 38]. Linkages should be build up with community leaders and health care providers to gain the confidence of the community for timely referral to the nearest hospital having anti-venom treatment.

The availability of experienced HCWs in tribal and rural areas is an important aspect of the prevention and control of snakebite cases. In the present study, around 50% of the medical officers lacked the correct knowledge about krait bite symptoms and complications due to Russell viper bite. Around 60% of the medical officers did not know about essential laboratory tests done for the diagnosis of venomous snakebites. Eighty-five percent of the medical officers answered correctly that intravenous injection was the appropriate route for anti-venom administration. These findings were similar to those from the earlier studies [29, 39]. Before our study, no formal training on the management of snakebite was being provided to the medical officers in the Dahanu block. Therefore, despite the availability of anti-venom, most of the medical officers did not have confidence in administering the anti-venom mainly due to a fear of anaphylaxis reaction and lack of formal training.

Globally, around 50% of the poor population is completely or partially dependent on livestock for their livelihoods [40]. Domestic animals including cattle, goats, horses, sheep are an important part of the livelihoods of tribal communities in the Dahanu. These domestic animals are often affected by venomous snakebites, causing fatality rates of more than 47% in livestock [41]. Therefore, active engagement with communities to create awareness on the prevention of human snakebites will increase their awareness about snakebites among domestic animals [42] to protect them from snakebites. Therefore, knowledge and awareness of the venomous and non-venomous snakes, perceptions about snakes and snakebites are of paramount importance in reducing the burden of snakebites in India and other tropical countries. The WHO strategy on prevention and control of snakebites recommends a model of “One Health” which includes collaborations between human and veterinary healthcare systems [42].

Study limitations

Our study had the following limitations. The study was carried out in the Dahanu block of Palghar District which may not be representative of the total tribal population in India. Thus, perceptions and awareness about snakebites could be region-specific and may not be representative of the entire tribal population in India. All FGDs and interviews were conducted in the vernacular language (Marathi) and later translated into English. Local snake rescuers were involved in the translations and interpretations of some of the words used by tribal communities during FGDs. Hence, some interpretations might have been lost in translation. We could not record the age of the FGD participants and the study missed out on an age-wise data analysis. The pre-and post-test to assess the knowledge and management practices were carried out just before the commencement of training and immediately after the training of medical officers. Therefore, the results of the pre- and post-training survey might reflect what was taught/discussed during the training.

Conclusions

The present study generated evidence to empower the community by increasing awareness on the prevention of snakebite, first aid, and appropriate treatment-seeking behavior. Culturally appropriate IECs should be developed for increasing the awareness and sensitizing the community for early referral of snakebite victims to the nearest health facility having anti-venom treatment. Further, large-scale studies on exploring the traditional knowledge and practices of the tribal communities should be undertaken on priority.

Recommendations

  1. To include snakebite management in the curriculum of training institutions of the state public health departments in India.

  2. Mandatory short-term training of medical graduates during their internship and also as a part of the induction training on joining the state health services in India.

  3. To develop a policy to ensure periodic in-service training on snakebite management as per the National snakebite management protocol.

  4. Periodic review and evidence-based update of the National snakebite management protocol

  5. To involve the program managers at national and state levels for successful implementation of the National snakebite management protocol.

Implications of the present study

Global mapping of hotspots identified the most vulnerable populations to 278 medically important snake species responsible for the most severe outcomes of snakebite envenoming [43]. Based on these observations and our experience from the present study, we propose a multi-sectoral model which includes the community education, mapping of vulnerable populations to the most severe outcomes of snakebite envenoming, capacity building of local health care facility, empowerment of medical officers and HCWs on the management of snakebite as per National snakebite management protocol, transdisciplinary expertise including animal health, herpetology, forestry, anthropology, and education (Fig 5). The model could be useful for reducing the mortality and morbidity associated with snakebites in rural India as well as in other tropical countries.

Fig 5. Multi-sectoral model for reduction of snakebite mortality and morbidity in rural India.

Fig 5

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Training manual on snakebite envenoming for primary health care workers in the tribal region of Dahanu, Maharashtra, India.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Snakebite experience of frontline health care workers in Dahanu block, Maharashtra, India.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Demographic details and awareness of snakebite amongst the traditional faith healers, and snake rescuers.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Pre and post-training evaluation of medical officers.

(DOCX)

S1 Text. COREQ checklist.

(DOCX)

S2 Text. Focus group discussion guide.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors are sincerely thankful to Dr. V M Katoch and Dr. Kiran Katoch for their guidance and motivation for the conceptualization and implementation of this study. The authors are thankful to Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Dr. Raman Gangakhedkar, Dr. Harpreet, and the ECD Division of ICMR for facilitating financial assistance for the project. Dr. Ashoo Grover, Dr. Sangeeta Sharma is sincerely acknowledged for providing the final version of the Standard Treatment Guidelines of the Government of India. Dr. Satish Pawar, Dr. Mohan Jadhav, Dr. Archana Patil, Dr. Sanjeev Kamble, Dr. Ratna Ravkhande, Dr. Shyam Nimagade, Dr. Umesh Shirodkar, Dr. Geeta Kharat, Dr. Santosh Gaikwad, Dr. Kanchan Vanere, Dr. Sanjay Bodade, Dr. Balaji Hengne, Dr. Mitesh Torankar, Dr. Abhijit Chavan and officials from Public Health Department, Government of Maharashtra are sincerely acknowledged for their support in the implementation of the study. The staff of SDH Dahanu and MRHRU, Dahanu are sincerely acknowledged for extending the support for the implementation of the study through MRHRU Dahanu. Dr. Yogeshwar Kalkonde and Dr. Taruna Madan are sincerely acknowledged for the critical review and assistance in editing the manuscript. Dr. A. R. Pasi and Dr. Ranjan Kumar Prusty are acknowledged for assistance in statistical analysis.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its S1 Fig, S1 and S2 Text, S1S3 Tables files.

Funding Statement

This study received support from Indian Council of Medical Research (www.icmr.nic.in) in the form of a grant (Tribal/113/2016-ECD-II) awarded to RKG. No additional external funding was received for this study.

References

  • 1.Chippaux JP. Snake-bites: appraisal of the global situation. Bull World Health Organ. 1998;76 (5): 515–24. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kasturiratne A, Wickremasinghe AR, de Silva N, Gunawardena NK, Pathmeswaran A, Premaratna R, et al. The Global Burden of Snakebite: A Literature Analysis and Modelling Based on Regional Estimates of Envenoming and Deaths. Plos Med. 2008;5 (11): e218. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jayawardana S, Arambepola C, Chang T, Gnanathasan A. Long-term health complications following snake envenoming. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2018;11: 279–85. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S126648 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Suraweera W, Warrell D, Whitaker R, Menon G, Rodrigues R, Fu SH, et al. Trends in snakebite deaths in India from 2000 to 2019 in a nationally representative mortality study. Jit M, Franco E, editors. eLife. 2020;9: e54076. doi: 10.7554/eLife.54076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Majumder D, Sinha A, Bhattacharya SK, Ram R, Dasgupta U, Ram A. Epidemiological profile of snake bite in South 24 Parganas district of West Bengal with focus on underreporting of snake bite deaths. Indian J of Public Health. 2014;58(1): 17–21 doi: 10.4103/0019-557X.128158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Armstrong LJ, Cynthia S, George M, Zachariah A. Comparing community and hospital data of snakebite in North Bihar: a community incidence survey and a parallel hospital-based clinical study. Trop Doct. 2019;49 (4): 285–92. doi: 10.1177/0049475519865036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sharma SK, Chappuis F, Jha N, Bovier PA, Loutan L, Koirala S. Impact of snake bites and determinants of fatal outcomes in southeastern Nepal. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;71(2): 234–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vaiyapuri S, Vaiyapuri R, Ashokan R, Ramasamy K, Nattamaisundar K, Jeyaraj A, et al. Snakebite and Its Socio-Economic Impact on the Rural Population of Tamil Nadu, India. PLoS One. 2013;8 (11): e80090. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Minghui R, Malecela MN, Cooke E, Abela-Ridder B. WHO’s Snakebite Envenoming Strategy for prevention and control. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7 (7): e837–e838. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30225-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bawaskar HS, Bawaskar PH. Snake bite: simple steps to prevention and reduction of morbidity. Lancet. 2010;375 (9717): 805. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60345-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bawaskar HS, Bawaskar PH. Profile of snakebite envenoming in western Maharashtra, India. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2002;96 (1): 79–84 doi: 10.1016/s0035-9203(02)90250-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pandey DP, Subedi Pandey G, Devkota K, Goode M. Public perceptions of snakes and snakebite management: implications for conservation and human health in southern Nepal. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 2016;12 (1): 22. doi: 10.1186/s13002-016-0092-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bawaskar HS, Bawaskar PH. Envenoming by the common krait (Bungarus caeruleus) and Asian cobra (Naja naja): clinical manifestations and their management in a rural setting. Wilderness Environ Med. 2004;15 (4): 257–66. doi: 10.1580/1080-6032(2004)015[0257:ebtckb]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gajbhiye R, Khan S, Kokate P, Mashal I, Kharat S, Bodade S, et al. Incidence & management practices of snakebite: A retrospective study at Sub-District Hospital, Dahanu, Maharashtra, India. Indian J Med Res. 2019;150 (4): 412–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chaaithanya IK, Salvi N, Bhoye P, Bhorekar S, Yadav A, Mahale S, et al. Anti-snake Venom (ASV) Intradermal Skin Test, a Common Clinical Practice in the Primary Health Care Setting in Tribal Block of Dahanu, Maharashtra, India. J Assoc Physicians India. 2020;6892): 87–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kumar MM, Pathak VK, Ruikar M. Tribal population in India: A public health challenge and road to future. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9(2): 508–12. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_992_19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Census of India Website: Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. [cited 17 May 2021]. https://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/dchb/Maharashtra_A.html
  • 18.Dhole Prasenjit Bhagwan, Dr. Landge S.S. A Study of Tribal community in the Thane District. Internation Journal Of Advance Research And Innovative Ideas In Education. 2019;5: 603–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Standard Treatment Guidelines on the Management of Snake Bites. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India; 2016. [cited 17 may 2021] https://nhm.gov.in/images/pdf/guidelines/nrhm-guidelines/stg/Snakebite_Full.pdf
  • 20.Subedi N, Paudel IS, Khadka A, Shrestha U, Mallik VB, Ankur KC. Knowledge of first aid methods and attitude about snake bite among medical students: a cross sectional observational study. JOccup Med Toxicol. 2018;13: 26. doi: 10.1186/s12995-018-0210-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hurwitz BJ, Hull PR. Berg-adder bite. S Afr Med J. 1971;45 (35): 969–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bush S, Siedenburg E. Neurotoxicity associated with suspected southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis helleri) envenomation. Wilderness & environmental medicine. 1999;10(4): 247–9. doi: 10.1580/1080-6032(1999)010[0247:nawssp]2.3.co;2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pearn J, McGuire B, McGuire L, Richardson P. The envenomation syndrome caused by the Australian Red-bellied Black Snake Pseudechis porphyriacus. Toxicon. 2000;38(12): 1715–29. doi: 10.1016/s0041-0101(00)00102-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ranawaka UK, Lalloo DG, de Silva HJ. Neurotoxicity in Snakebite—The Limits of Our Knowledge. PLoS NeglTrop Dis. 2013;7(10): e2302. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rodrigo C, Kirushanthan S, Gnanathasan A. Prevention of krait bites by sleeping above ground: preliminary results from an observational pilot study. J OccupMed Toxicol. 2017;12: 10. doi: 10.1186/s12995-017-0156-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mallik S, Singh SR, Sahoo J, Mohanty MK. Mosquito Net: An Underrecognized Protection Measure against Snakebites. Int J Prev Med. 2017;8: 1–1. doi: 10.4103/2008-7802.197686 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pandey D, Khanal. Inclusion of incorrect information on snakebite first aid in school and university teaching materials in Nepal. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Sciences. 2013;5: 43–51. doi: 10.5897/JTEHS12.059 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lancet T. Snakebite—emerging from the shadows of neglect. Lancet. 2019;393(10187): 2175. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31232-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Minghui R, Malecela MN, Cooke E, Abela-Ridder B. WHO’s Snakebite Envenoming Strategy for prevention and control. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7 (7): e837–e838. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30225-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Schioldann E, Mahmood MA, Kyaw MM, Halliday D, Thwin KT, Chit NN, et al. Why snakebite patients in Myanmar seek traditional healers despite availability of biomedical care at hospitals? Community perspectives on reasons. PLoS Negl TropDis. 2018;12 (2): e0006299. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dey A, De JN. Traditional use of plants against snakebite in Indian subcontinent: a review of the recent literature. Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med. 2011;9 (1): 153–74. doi: 10.4314/ajtcam.v9i1.20 eCollection 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chippaux JP, Diédhiou I, Stock R. Etude de l’action de la pierre noire sur l’envenimation expérimentale [Study of the action of black stone (also known as snakestone or serpent stone) on experimental envenomation]. Sante. 2007;17(3):127–31. French. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.WHO | Guidelines for the management of snakebites, 2nd edition. [cited 18 May 2021]. https://www.who.int/snakebites/resources/9789290225300/en/
  • 34.Jain A, Katewa S, Sharma S, Galav P, Jain V. Snakelore and indigenous snakebite remedies practiced by some tribals of Rajasthan. Indian journal of traditional knowledge. 2011;10: 258–268. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Michael G, Thacher T, Shehu M. The Effect of Pre-hospital Care for Venomous Snakebite on Outcome in Nigeria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2011;105(2): 95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2010.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bawaskar HS, Bawaskar PH, Punde DP, Inamdar MK, Dongare RB, Bhoite RR. Profile of snakebite envenoming in rural Maharashtra, India. J Assoc Physicians India. 2008;56: 88–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bhaumik S. Snakebite: a forgotten problem. BMJ. 2013;346. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f628 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Simpson ID. A study of the current knowledge base in treating snake bite amongst doctors in the high-risk countries of India and Pakistan: does snake bite treatment training reflect local requirements? Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008;102 (11): 1108–14. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.04.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Vongphoumy I, Phongmany P, Sydala S, Prasith N, Reintjes R, Blessmann J. Snakebites in Two Rural Districts in Lao PDR: Community-Based Surveys Disclose High Incidence of an Invisible Public Health Problem. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9 (6): e0003887. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Robinson TP, Thornton PK, Francesconi GN, Kruska RL, Chiozza F, Notenbaert AMO, et al. Global livestock production systems. FAO and ILRI; 2011. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/10537
  • 41.Bolon I, Finat M, Herrera M, Nickerson A, Grace D, Schütte S, et al. Snakebite in domestic animals: First global scoping review. Prev Vet Med. 2019;170: 104729. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104729 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.WHO | Snakebite envenoming—A strategy for prevention and control. In: WHO [Internet]. [cited 18 May 2021]. http://www.who.int/snakebites/resources/9789241515641/en/
  • 43.Longbottom J, Shearer FM, Devine M, Alcoba G, Chappuis F, Weiss DJ, et al. Vulnerability to snakebite envenoming: a global mapping of hotspots. Lancet. 2018;392 (10148): 673–684. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31224-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS One. 2021 Aug 5;16(8):e0255657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255657.r001

Author response to previous submission


Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

27 Oct 2020

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx

Decision Letter 0

Ritesh G Menezes

15 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-33739

Perceptions, awareness on snakebite envenomation among the tribal community and health care providers of Dahanu block, Palghar district in Maharashtra, India

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gajbhiye,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 01 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,

Ritesh G. Menezes, M.B.B.S., M.D., Diplomate N.B.

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 include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should remain uploaded as separate "supporting information" files.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. In the Methods, please discuss whether and how the questionnaire was validated and/or pre-tested. If these did not occur, please provide the rationale for not doing so.

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

"RG is an awardee of the DBT

 Wellcome India alliance clinical and public health intermediate fellowship (Grant no.

IA/CPHI/18/1/503933)."

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:

"Initials of the authors who received Funding : RG, SM

Grant numbers awarded :

Tribal Health Research Forum, Indian Council of Medical Research and Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India for financial assistance (NIRRH/MS/RA/886/03/2020)

The full name of each funder

URL of each funder website

www.icmr.nic.in

Did the sponsors or funders play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript?

NO"

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

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

6.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

6.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. We note that Figures SF2 and SF3 include images of participants in the study. 

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: The research question is definitely of interest to readers in India and other countries in the tropics where snakebite is well and truly a occupational hazard. To the best of my knowledge a study along similar lines has not been carried out in India and the results of the study would help policy makers in bringing in changes to plug the gaps and deficiencies identified.

The research question interesting and the methodology fairly well charted.

The deficiency really is in the presentation of the findings and results.

- The abstract and introduction need to be written better and be representative of the actual research question. The introduction seems scattered and not to the point, going from numbers of snakebite to chronic sequelae which also includes death, venom constituents and effect to ASV. Restructuring the introduction and giving it a form should help make it read better. Would suggest adding some details on the tribal community and geography as well. The research question here is perceptions and awareness on snakebite envenomation, of the 202 respondents in the community it has not been explicitly stated whether all were tribals. The researchers could also specify whether the different tribes had different occupations vis a vis hunter, gatherer, farmer etc and their educational status.

62 higher than what, as only 13 states were assessed as a part of the million death study

82 unidentified- unknown

Lines 84,85 - it would be interpreted that death is a long term complication

Lines 94,95- Relevance of skin hypersensitivity in the context of the article

103-108 against the flow

Line 125 drinking water (potable water), would also imply sleeping is an activity?

Lines 139-141 – 4.5 % CFR included non venomous too (76% venomous and 24% non venomous)

Line 165 qualitative study, qualitative cannot be considered a study design, the study is cross sectional

Line 185 convenience sampling ? how representative would it be of the population studied

Line 207 it could be that they are unaware of their age

Line 345/443 peripheral health care workers, would be best sticking to frontline health workers

Line 395 how were the 18 out of 65 SC decided upon, what criteria was used to pick the same

Line 457 / 58 not clear what he intends to say is it that non venomous do not bite multiple times

The training for medical personnel seems not to have made much of a difference in improving knowledge of treating doctors

Was there an incentive given to the community responders, was it a convenience sampling and if so would it bias the results and could the result be considered as representative of the study population

The most important part of the result would be the perception and understanding of the subject of venomous snakebite among the community members presumably tribals, this for me, the qualitative study results are not clear. Themes and sub themes have been mentioned but only a few have been represented. If a table giving percentages of themes and subthemes were displayed the qualitative aspect would be much clearer. The qualitative analysis needs better representation both by way of themes and subthemes and its relevance to the community studied.

I take this opportunity to wish the researchers the best and hope they continue their research in this much neglected field.

Reviewer #2: Abstract

• Line 35 – In-depth-interviews are to be conducted using interview guide, not using pre-tested questionnaire.

Methodology & Results

• As the study is of qualitative nature, authors need to refer to COREQ checklist (http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/ISSM_COREQ_Checklist.pdf) and report the data analysis and study results.

Reviewer #3: 1. The area of this research is important for India where more than 50% of global snakebite deaths are happening there. A recent study published in E-life by Million Death Study collaborates finds 58k deaths and 1.1 to 1.7 million bites annually in India and one million deaths were in last 20 years. I learnt from a snakebite advocacy group meeting at ICMR, a substantial amount of expired unused anti venom vials throwing into trash without use in every year while many thousands die without treatments. This is a problem of either people not aware of (or trust) anti venom treatment in hospitals or physicians were not trained/confident enough in clinical management of snakebite cases or both.

2. According to the authors, the objective of this study is to test the awareness about prevention strategies, knowledge of first aids and treatment options among community; Snakebite patient management among snake handlers, healers, healthcare workers and medical personnel. Another set objective is to train the healthcare workers, a significant part of the manuscript allocated for that purpose. I am not sure the latter is a research?

3. I have some doubt of technical aspect of the methods. As describe in the manuscript this study is a qualitative research based on focus group discussions. At the same time, they use pretested questionnaires for data collection. To my knowledge, data were collected using recorded narratives in qualitative research instead use questionnaires. Information of these data are analyzed using standard software like Nvivo. It is difficult for me to comment anything about the method because this method is a mix of quantitative survey methods and qualitative research, which I am not familiar.

4. Commenting of statistical analysis and presentation, tables and in figures are very poorly presented. In particularly figures are powerful tools to exhibit study outcomes. It is difficult to grasp the messages going to reflect from figures and they should need significant improvements to bring into the journal standard.

5. Full of many unwanted stories, inclusion of unrelated stuffs, repeating the same information in many places, confusing non-standard English wordings and confusing sentences etc. are in everywhere of this manuscript and very hard to follow for me to read and understand about 60 pages of the manuscript.

6. Research reporting also seen some professional bias. Researchers as the allopathic medical personnel ask the traditional healers to disclose their treatments at focus group meetings in front of others. Researchers complaining they rejected to explain their treatment methods to them. I think it is not relevant for this study and these researchers don’t have a common sense about other professions.

7. I am sorry all my comments are negative here. It does not mean this manuscript does not have anything good. I didn’t spend my time to go too much deep commenting for improving the manuscript because so many technical flaws are already there.

**********

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: Comments to the authors.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Aug 5;16(8):e0255657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255657.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Feb 2021

Dear PLOS ONE Editorial Staff,

Subject: Point by point response to reviewers and editors comments for the manuscript “Perceptions, awareness on snakebite envenomation among the tribal community and health care providers of Dahanu block, Palghar district in Maharashtra, India”

Please find below our point-by-point response to comments of the academic editor and reviewers. Many thanks for your efforts on this manuscript.

Editors Comments

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

Resposne: Thank you. We have tried our level best to format our manuscript according to the PLOS ONE’s style requirements. However, if there are any omissions, please point them out. We will continue to make corrections.

2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should remain uploaded as separate "supporting information" files.

Resposne: Tables are included as part of main manuscript and supplementary tables are submitted as supporting information.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

• The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

• A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

• A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

Resposne: The manuscript has been edited for language usage, spelling, and grammar as per the recommendations.

4. In the Methods, please discuss whether and how the questionnaire was validated and/or pre-tested. If these did not occur, please provide the rationale for not doing so.

Resposne: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added additional information about the questionnaire including validation and pre-testing. This information has been added to the ‘Data collection Tools’ sub-section of the “methods” section (Page No. 08; Line no. 170).

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

"RG is an awardee of the DBT

Wellcome India alliance clinical and public health intermediate fellowship (Grant no.

IA/CPHI/18/1/503933)."

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:

"Initials of the authors who received Funding : RG, SM

Grant numbers awarded :

Tribal Health Research Forum, Indian Council of Medical Research and Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India for financial assistance (NIRRH/MS/RA/886/03/2020)

The full name of each funder

URL of each funder website

www.icmr.nic.in

Did the sponsors or funders play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript?

NO"

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

Resposne: Thanks for pointing out the problem.

We have deleted the statement RG is an awardee of the DBT

Wellcome India alliance clinical and public health intermediate fellowship (Grant no.

IA/CPHI/18/1/503933) from the acknowledgement section.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

6.1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

6.2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Response: Thanks for your detailed guidance. We requested the copyright agency for the same, and we received “Email consent approval” to use the map (copy attached as Other File).

7. We note that Figures SF2 and SF3 include images of participants in the study.

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

Response: Thank you for guidance. We have removed the SF2 and SF3.

Resposne to Reviewers comments

Reviewer #1:

The research question is definitely of interest to readers in India and other countries in the tropics where snakebite is well and truly a occupational hazard. To the best of my knowledge a study along similar lines has not been carried out in India and the results of the study would help policy makers in bringing in changes to plug the gaps and deficiencies identified. The research question interesting and the methodology fairly well charted.

The deficiency really is in the presentation of the findings and results.

The abstract and introduction need to be written better and be representative of the actual research question. The introduction seems scattered and not to the point, going from numbers of snakebite to chronic sequelae which also includes death, venom constituents and effect to ASV. Restructuring the introduction and giving it a form should help make it read better. Would suggest adding some details on the tribal community and geography as well. The research question here is perceptions and awareness on snakebite envenomation, of the 202 respondents in the community it has not been explicitly stated whether all were tribals. The researchers could also specify whether the different tribes had different occupations vis a vis hunter, gatherer, farmer etc and their educational status.

Response: We thank the reviewer for suggestions to improve the strength of our manuscript. As per the reviewer’s recommendation, we have revised the abstract, introduction and also added additional information on details on the tribal community and geography. Additionally, the information different tribes and their occupations in study area is also added in the introduction section (Introduction - Page no. 06, line no. 124 -146).

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s critical comments and recommendations.

Line 62; higher than what, as only 13 states were assessed as a part of the million death study.

Response: The sentence is revised as follows:

An earlier study conducted in India demonstrated the highest snakebite mortality rates per 100,000 with an average prevalence of 4.5 and varied between states from 3.0 (Maharashtra) to 6.2 (Andhra Pradesh), compared to (1.8) the rest of country”. (Manuscript page no. 03, line no 63-66).

Line 82 unidentified- unknown

Response:

As suggested, we have replaced the word unidentified with Unknown. (Manuscript page no. 04, line no 83).

Lines 84,85 - it would be interpreted that death is a long term complication

Response:

We agree with the reviewer's suggestion. We have removed the word “Death”. (Manuscript page no. 04, line no 87)

Lines 94,95- Relevance of skin hypersensitivity in the context of the article

Response: We agree with the reviewer comment. The text on skin hypersensitivity is deleted.

103-108 against the flow

Response: Thank you. The text (103-108) is deleted.

Line 125 drinking water (potable water), would also imply sleeping is an activity?

Response: We agree with the reviewer's suggestion, changed the word drinking water with “Potable water. Removed the sleeping from activity. (Manuscript page no. 05, line no 103 -104)

Lines 139-141 – 4.5 % CFR included non venomous too (76% venomous and 24% non venomous)

Response: The annual incidence of snakebite was 36 per 100,000 populations in Dahanu block. The total venomous bites were 110 of which five have died; So CFR is 4.5%. This does not include non-venomous bites. (Manuscript page no. 06, line no 118).

Line 165 qualitative study, qualitative cannot be considered a study design, the study is cross sectional

Response: We thank the reviewer for suggestion on study design. As recommended, the study design is changed to cross sectional study”. (Manuscript page no.07, line no 149).

Line 185 convenience sampling ? how representative would it be of the population studied

Response: The recruitment criteria was primarily focused on ensuring the representation of the diversity of the population in the study area. We conducted separate FGDs for men and women. We attempted to include older and younger participants in the community, community leaders and members, educated and uneducated participants. Majority of the FGD participants were representative of the tribal and non-tribal population in study area. This has been explained under methods section.

Line 207 it could be that they are unaware of their age

Response: Yes we agree. It may be possible that the participants were unaware of their age. We have included this sentence in the revised manuscript (Page no. 10 , line no. 208-209).

Line 345/443 peripheral health care workers, would be best sticking to frontline health workers

Response: We thank for the suggestion. Peripheral health care workers is replaced by frontline health workers. Recommended changes are done throughout the Manuscript.

Line 395 how were the 18 out of 65 SC decided upon, what criteria was used to pick the same

Response: The 18 out of 65 sub centers were selected by random selection method ( Page no.11, Line no. 239).

Line 457 / 58 not clear what he intends to say is it that non venomous do not bite multiple times

Response: We have deleted the sentence line 457/58.

The training for medical personnel seems not to have made much of a difference in improving knowledge of treating doctors

Response: We agree that the training of medical officers did not made much of a difference in improving of treating doctors. The possible reasons could be the educational background of the MOs who attended the training. Seventy two percent (18 out of 25) of the MOs were from Ayurveda discipline (non MBBS doctors) and only seven MOs were having qualifications of MBBS. Ayurveda is one of the most ancient systems of medicine serving people in the Indian subcontinent. Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.) is a professional degree in Ayurveda. We therefore conducted repeat training programs in the study area to improve the knowledge of MOs.

Was there an incentive given to the community responders, was it a convenience sampling and if so would it bias the results and could the result be considered as representative of the study population

Response: No incentive was given to the community responders and the participation in FGD was voluntary. Convenience sampling method was used for selection of participants for focus group discussions. We included participants of both genders reflecting a wide range of ages, community leaders and members, older and younger participants representing the tribal and non-tribal population to avoid any bias.

The most important part of the result would be the perception and understanding of the subject of venomous snakebite among the community members presumably tribals, this for me, the qualitative study results are not clear. Themes and sub themes have been mentioned but only a few have been represented. If a table giving percentages of themes and subthemes were displayed the qualitative aspect would be much clearer. The qualitative analysis needs better representation both by way of themes and subthemes and its relevance to the community studied.

I take this opportunity to wish the researchers the best and hope they continue their research in this much neglected field.

Response: We truly appreciate the reviewer’s in depth review of our manuscript and bringing out the shortcomings of our manuscript. This has helped us in improving the manuscript and presentation of the results of FGDs with more clarity. As per the recommendation, a table is prepared giving percentages of the subthemes. We take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for appreciation and motivating us to continue our research in this much neglected field.

Major themes and Sub- themes of the study Frequency Percentage

Major theme 1: Awareness and Knowledge about snakes

Names of venomous and non-venomous snakes 120 59.4%

Hiding places of snakes 106 52.5%

Identify venomous snakes 66 32.6 %

Season and timing of snakebites 32 15.8%

Major theme 2: Perception and health seeking behavior for snakebite

Beliefs related to snakebites 37 18.3%

Treatment at public health facility 67 33%

Treatment from traditional faith healers 24 11.8 %

Application of herbal products or home remedies 25 12.3%

Major theme 3: Knowledge on prevention, first aid and treatment for snakebite

Preventive measures awareness 35 17.3%

Use of tourniquet/ bandage 29 14.3%

Availability of snakebite treatment at public hospitals 17 8.4%

Transport to nearest public health facility 18 8.9%

Reviewer #2: Abstract

Line 35 – In-depth-interviews are to be conducted using interview guide, not using pre-tested questionnaire.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the mistake. We apologize for the inconvenience. We have made necessary changes in the manuscript.

Methodology & Results

As the study is of qualitative nature, authors need to refer to COREQ checklist (http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/ISSM_COREQ_Checklist.pdf) and report the data analysis and study results.

Response: Thank you for the recommendation of COREQ checklist. As per the recommendation, COREQ check list is included in the manuscript under method section (S1 text). (Manuscript Page no 07. line no. 158)

Reviewer #3:

1. The area of this research is important for India where more than 50% of global snakebite deaths are happening there. A recent study published in E-life by Million Death Study collaborates finds 58k deaths and 1.1 to 1.7 million bites annually in India and one million deaths were in last 20 years. I learnt from a snakebite advocacy group meeting at ICMR, a substantial amount of expired unused anti venom vials throwing into trash without use in every year while many thousands die without treatments. This is a problem of either people not aware of (or trust) anti venom treatment in hospitals or physicians were not trained/confident enough in clinical management of snakebite cases or both.

Response: We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the importance of snakebite research for India.

2. According to the authors, the objective of this study is to test the awareness about prevention strategies, knowledge of first aids and treatment options among community; Snakebite patient management among snake handlers, healers, healthcare workers and medical personnel. Another set objective is to train the healthcare workers, a significant part of the manuscript allocated for that purpose. I am not sure the latter is a research?

Response: As recommended, we have deleted the major text related to training of healthcare workers.

3. I have some doubt of technical aspect of the methods. As describe in the manuscript this study is a qualitative research based on focus group discussions. At the same time, they use pretested questionnaires for data collection. To my knowledge, data were collected using recorded narratives in qualitative research instead use questionnaires. Information of these data are analyzed using standard software like Nvivo. It is difficult for me to comment anything about the method because this method is a mix of quantitative survey methods and qualitative research, which I am not familiar.

Response: We apologize for not clearly presenting the qualitative results. As recommended by reviewer, the methodology and results are revised and reported as per COREQ checklist (Page no. 7, Line no 158). We did not use the software Nvivo and manual coding was done.

4. Commenting of statistical analysis and presentation, tables and in figures are very poorly presented. In particularly figures are powerful tools to exhibit study outcomes. It is difficult to grasp the messages going to reflect from figures and they should need significant improvements to bring into the journal standard.

Response: As recommended we have substantially edited the manuscript, tables, and figures for improved presentation as per the journal standard.

5. Full of many unwanted stories, inclusion of unrelated stuffs, repeating the same information in many places, confusing non-standard English wordings and confusing sentences etc. are in everywhere of this manuscript and very hard to follow for me to read and understand about 60 pages of the manuscript.

Response: We apologize for the inconvenience caused to the reviewer. As recommended, we have revised the manuscript in light of the reviewer’s comments.

6. Research reporting also seen some professional bias. Researchers as the allopathic medical personnel ask the traditional healers to disclose their treatments at focus group meetings in front of others. Researchers complaining they rejected to explain their treatment methods to them. I think it is not relevant for this study and these researchers don’t have a common sense about other professions.

Response: We did not conduct the FGD with traditional healers. We conducted interview of traditional healers individually and not in group. The reasons for not disclosing the treatment given by Traditional healers was explained in the manuscript.

7. I am sorry all my comments are negative here. It does not mean this manuscript does not have anything good. I didn’t spend my time to go too much deep commenting for improving the manuscript because so many technical flaws are already there.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for accepting the fact that our manuscript has merit. As per the recommendations, we have revised the manuscript substantially incorporating the suggestions of all the reviewers and editor.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ritesh G Menezes

30 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-33739R1

Perceptions, awareness on snakebite envenomation among the tribal community and health care providers of Dahanu block, Palghar district in Maharashtra, India

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gajbhiye,

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 07-April-2021. 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Prof. Ritesh G. Menezes, M.B.B.S., M.D., Diplomate N.B.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

Additional Academic Editor Comments:

- Few errors of English grammar and use persist in the revised manuscript. Copy-edit the manuscript before proceeding with the next submission.

- Avoid abuse of capital letters throughout the manuscript (examples: line 58 - replace ''Health care workers'' with ''health care workers''; line 50: replace ''Medical Officers'' with ''medical officers'')

- Abstract: ASHA? ANM? MPW?

- Line 113-Introduction: ASV - Provide the full form in the first place of use of the abbreviation in the main text.

-Line 146-Introduction: HCW - Provide the full form in the first place of use of the abbreviation in the main text. I am aware that the abbreviation/full-form is already being considered in the 'abstract' section.

- Line 152- Methods: ICU & OPD - Provide the full forms.

- Line 170 - Methods: PHC?

- Line 171 - Methods: MSW?

- Methods-Recruitment, Sampling & Data Collection: The use of the abbreviation DA in the text apparently seems to be confusing for a term rather than the initials of a co-author. Rewrite to avoid confusion as there are other abbreviations like FGD and HCW used in the same paragraph.

- Line 280 - Results: Would you prefer to substitute ''circulating snakes'' with a better phrase?

- Lines 306-312: The scientific name of Indian cobra is mentioned, but not that of the common krait, Russell's viper and saw scaled viper. All scientific names are mentioned along side the corresponding common names in Table 1. Therefore, for the sake of uniformity, avoid using the term Naja naja in this paragraph.

- Let the ''conclusions'' drawn be based on the data/observations/results of the present study. Provide separate paragraphs on ''recommendations/future directions'' and ''implications of the present study''.

- Address the minor revisions recommended by the reviewer(s).

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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 #3: 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 #3: No

**********

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: The comments of the three reviewers have been taken into account by the authors and necessary revisions made. The manuscript makes for a much better read now and would be of interest to readers. The scientific / generic names of the snakes to be written correctly separating genus / species. Mention to be made of which echis species- carinatus or sochureki.

Wish the authors the best and I would recommend the article for publication, which I am sure would be of interest to a lot of readers.

Thanks for having given me the opportunity to review the manuscript.

regards

Jaideep

Dr Jaideep C Menon

Cardiologist, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences

Kochi, Kerala

Reviewer #3: See attachment.

1. The area of this research is important for India where more than 50% of global snakebite

deaths are happening there. A recent study published in E-life by Million Death Study

collaborates finds 58k deaths and 1.1 to 1.7 million bites annually in India and one million deaths

were in last 20 years. I learnt from a snakebite advocacy group meeting at ICMR, a substantial

amount of expired unused anti venom vials throwing into trash without use in every year while

many thousands die without treatments. This is a problem of either people not aware of (or trust)

anti-venom treatment in hospitals or physicians were not trained/confident enough in clinical

management of snakebite cases or both.

Response: We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the importance of snakebite research for

India.

# Thanks.

2. According to the authors, the objective of this study is to test the awareness about prevention

strategies, knowledge of first aids and treatment options among community; Snakebite patient

management among snake handlers, healers, healthcare workers and medical personnel. Another

set objective is to train the healthcare workers, a significant part of the manuscript allocated for

that purpose. I am not sure the latter is a research?

Response: As recommended, we have deleted the major text related to training of healthcare

workers.

# Glad to see many improvements in the Introduction text. I like the new text from line 184 to 208 and is appropriate.

3. I have some doubt of technical aspect of the methods. As describe in the manuscript this study

is a qualitative research based on focus group discussions. At the same time, they use pretested

questionnaires for data collection. To my knowledge, data were collected using recorded

narratives in qualitative research instead use questionnaires. Information of these data are

analyzed using standard software like Nvivo. It is difficult for me to comment anything about the

method because this method is a mix of quantitative survey methods and qualitative research,

which I am not familiar.

Response: We apologize for not clearly presenting the qualitative results. As recommended by

reviewer, the methodology and results are revised and reported as per COREQ checklist (Page

no. 7, Line no 158). We did not use the software Nvivo and manual coding was done.

# Thanks for improvements in research method. It is now somewhat more comprehensible to me. Since my knowledge in qualitative research is limited, I leave it to other reviewers and the editor to take care.

4. Commenting of statistical analysis and presentation, tables and in figures are very poorly

presented. In particularly figures are powerful tools to exhibit study outcomes. It is difficult to

grasp the messages going to reflect from figures and they should need significant improvements

to bring into the journal standard.

Response: As recommended we have substantially edited the manuscript, tables, and figures for

improved presentation as per the journal standard.

# I am OK with the revision

5. Full of many unwanted stories, inclusion of unrelated stuffs, repeating the same information in

many places, confusing non-standard English wordings and confusing sentences etc. are in

everywhere of this manuscript and very hard to follow for me to read and understand about 60

pages of the manuscript.

Response: We apologize for the inconvenience caused to the reviewer. As recommended, we

have revised the manuscript in light of the reviewer’s comments.

# A good progress can be seen in revised manuscript. I think remaining repeating information and consistency of the text in the manuscript can take care by the editor with the help of the authors at the editorial process.

6. Research reporting also seen some professional bias. Researchers as the allopathic medical

personnel ask the traditional healers to disclose their treatments at focus group meetings in front

of others. Researchers complaining they rejected to explain their treatment methods to them. I

think it is not relevant for this study and these researchers don’t have a common sense about

other professions.

Response: We did not conduct the FGD with traditional healers. We conducted interview of

traditional healers individually and not in group. The reasons for not disclosing the treatment

given by Traditional healers was explained in the manuscript.

# I am OK with the revision of the text.

7. I am sorry all my comments are negative here. It does not mean this manuscript does not have

anything good. I didn’t spend my time to go too much deep commenting for improving the

manuscript because so many technical flaws are already there.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for accepting the fact that our manuscript has merit.

As per the recommendations, we have revised the manuscript substantially incorporating the

suggestions of all the reviewers and editor.

# Thanks.

# Additional comments:

Throughout this manuscript uses the words ‘envenomation’ and ‘envenoming’ interchangeably. It looks authors have not given much attention to the difference between these 2 words. I think if the bite is an accident, then the best word would be the envenoming that WHO uses https://www.who.int/snakebites/disease/en/. Also I see another word “anti-snake venom”. The correct word should be the “anti-venom”. Refer same WHO and recent leading research articles on Snakebites.

**********

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: Jaideep C Menon

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: To.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Revewer report WS (post response).docx

PLoS One. 2021 Aug 5;16(8):e0255657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255657.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 Apr 2021

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS COMMENTS

Dear PLOS ONE Editorial Staff,

Many thanks for your efforts on this manuscript entitled “Perceptions, awareness on snakebite envenoming among the tribal community and health care providers of Dahanu block, Palghar district in Maharashtra, India”.

Our point-by-point response to reviewer's and editor's comments are as follows.

Journal Requirements:

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

Response: As suggested we have reviewed all the references quoted in the revised manuscript. We confirm that there are no retracted references cited in the manuscript.

Academic editors comments

1. -Few errors of English grammar and use persist in the revised manuscript. Copy-edit the manuscript before proceeding with the next submission.

Response: Thanks for pointing out the errors of English grammer. We have edited the manuscript and tried our best to rectify the grammatical errors in the revised manuscript.

2. - Avoid abuse of capital letters throughout the manuscript (examples: line 58 - replace ''Health care workers'' with ''health care workers''; line 50: replace ''Medical Officers'' with ''medical officers'')

Response: As suggested, we have done the changes throughout the revised manuscript.

3. - Abstract: ASHA? ANM? MPW?

Response: As suggested we have included full forms of ASHA, ANM and MPW in the abstract section (line no: 50 & 51) and deleted in the main text (Line no: 232 & 233).

4.- Line 113-Introduction: ASV - Provide the full form in the first place of use of the abbreviation in the main text.

Response: As recommended by reviewer 3, we have omitted the use of word anti-snake-venom (ASV) which is now replaced by “anti-venom” in the entire revised manuscript.

5. -Line 146-Introduction: HCW - Provide the full form in the first place of use of the abbreviation in the main text. I am aware that the abbreviation/full-form is already being considered in the 'abstract' section.

Response: . As suggested, changes have been done in the revised manuscript.

6. - Line 152- Methods: ICU & OPD - Provide the full forms.

Response: ICU & OPD full forms are added in the revised manuscript. Line No: 157,158

7.- Line 170 - Methods: PHC?

Response: PHC full form is added in the revised manuscript. Line No: 177 .

8- Line 171 - Methods: MSW?

Response: MSW full form is added in the revised manuscript. Line No: 178.

9.- Methods-Recruitment, Sampling & Data Collection: The use of the abbreviation DA in the text apparently seems to be confusing for a term rather than the initials of a co-author. Rewrite to avoid confusion as there are other abbreviations like FGD and HCW used in the same paragraph.

Response: Abbrivated authors names have been deleted in revised manuscript. Page No: 08 to10.

10.- Line 280 - Results: Would you prefer to substitute ''circulating snakes'' with a better phrase?

Response: Accepted the suggestion, ''circulating snakes'' phrase is replaced with “commonly found snakes in the area”. Line No: 291. The changes are done throughout the manuscript.

11. - Lines 306-312: The scientific name of Indian cobra is mentioned, but not that of the common krait, Russell's viper and saw scaled viper. All scientific names are mentioned along side the corresponding common names in Table 1. Therefore, for the sake of uniformity, avoid using the term Naja naja in this paragraph.

Response: Accepted the suggestion; the scientific name of Indian cobra is removed in the revised manuscript. Line no: 317.

12.- Let the ''conclusions'' drawn be based on the data/observations/results of the present study. Provide separate paragraphs on ''recommendations/future directions'' and ''implications of the present study''.

Response: As per the suggestions, we have revised the conclusion section. Also added separate paragraphs on recommendations and implications of the present study. Page no: 28, 29 line no: 593 & 607.

13. Address the minor revisions recommended by the reviewer(s).

Response : We have addressed the minor revisions recommended by the reviewers.

Reviewer #1

The comments of the three reviewers have been taken into account by the authors and necessary revisions made. The manuscript makes for a much better read now and would be of interest to readers. The scientific / generic names of the snakes to be written correctly separating genus / species. Mention to be made of which echis species- carinatus or sochureki.

Wish the authors the best and I would recommend the article for publication, which I am sure would be of interest to a lot of readers.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for critical comemnts and suggestions. Genus and species names of snakes have been corrected. The name of echis species i.e Echis carinatus is added in the revised manuscript. Table 1, page no: 15; Line no. 305.

Reviewer # 3

Glad to see many improvements in the Introduction text. I like the new text from line 184 to 208 and is appropriate.

A good progress can be seen in revised manuscript. I think remaining repeating information and consistency of the text in the manuscript can take care by the editor with the help of the authors at the editorial process.

Response : Thanks for the feedback on the revised manuscript.

# Additional comments

Throughout this manuscript uses the words ‘envenomation’ and ‘envenoming’ interchangeably. It looks authors have not given much attention to the difference between these 2 words. I think if the bite is an accident, then the best word would be the envenoming that WHO uses https://www.who.int/snakebites/disease/en/. Also I see another word “anti-snake venom”. The correct word should be the “anti-venom”. Refer same WHO and recent leading research articles on Snakebites.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion and sharing the link of WHO reference document for snakebite. In the revised manuscript, we have used the word envenoming and deleted the word envenomation.

Similarly, the word “anti-snake venom” is replaced with “anti-venom” in the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Comments .docx

Decision Letter 2

Ritesh G Menezes

6 May 2021

PONE-D-20-33739R2

Perceptions, awareness on snakebite envenoming among the tribal community and health care providers of Dahanu block, Palghar district in Maharashtra, India

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gajbhiye,

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 30-May-2021. 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Prof. Ritesh G. Menezes, M.B.B.S., M.D., Diplomate N.B.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: No

**********

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 #3: I am glad to see a reasonable progress in revised manuscript. Thanks, authors have well responded to my initial comments and no any technical issues from me.

Even tough I said no issues from me, manuscript needs a significant language improvement, condense the long descriptions squeeze into shorter, and eliminate all remaining repetitions and unrelated texts before publishing.

It is a serious challenge for editor and authors but would not be a big issue if you work seriously. Good luck

**********

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 #3: Yes: Wilson Suraweera

[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 Aug 5;16(8):e0255657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255657.r007

Author response to Decision Letter 2


21 May 2021

Response to Reviewer’s comments

Journal Requirements:

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

Response:

We reviewed the references and confirm that the reference list is complete and correct. During the revision of the manuscript, the following references were deleted

Reference no. 1,2,7,8, 33,38

In the revised manuscript, the following references are added

7. Sharma SK, Chappuis F, Jha N, Bovier PA, Loutan L, Koirala S. Impact of snake bites and determinants of fatal outcomes in southeastern Nepal. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;71: 234–238.

31. Dey A, De JN. Traditional use of plants against snakebite in Indian subcontinent: a review of the recent literature. Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med. 2011;9: 153–174. doi:10.4314/ajtcam.v9i1.20

Reviewer #3: I am glad to see a reasonable progress in revised manuscript. Thanks, authors have well responded to my initial comments and no any technical issues from me.

Even though I said no issues from me, manuscript needs a significant language improvement, condense the long descriptions squeeze into shorter, and eliminate all remaining repetitions and unrelated texts before publishing.

It is a serious challenge for editor and authors but would not be a big issue if you work seriously. Good luck

Response: As per the comments, we have edited the manuscript for language improvement. Also condensed the long sentences into shorter ones and removed the repetitions and unrelated text in the revised manuscript. We hope that the revised version of our manuscript is acceptable for publication.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Resposne to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Ritesh G Menezes

22 Jul 2021

Perceptions, awareness on snakebite envenoming among the tribal community and health care providers of Dahanu block, Palghar district in Maharashtra, India

PONE-D-20-33739R3

Dear Dr. Gajbhiye,

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,

Prof. Ritesh G. Menezes, M.B.B.S., M.D., Diplomate N.B.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Ritesh G Menezes

26 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-33739R3

Perceptions, Awareness on Snakebite Envenoming  among the Tribal Community and Health Care providers of Dahanu Block, Palghar District in Maharashtra, India

Dear Dr. Gajbhiye:

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

Prof. Dr. Ritesh G. Menezes

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 Fig. Training manual on snakebite envenoming for primary health care workers in the tribal region of Dahanu, Maharashtra, India.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Snakebite experience of frontline health care workers in Dahanu block, Maharashtra, India.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Demographic details and awareness of snakebite amongst the traditional faith healers, and snake rescuers.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Pre and post-training evaluation of medical officers.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Text. COREQ checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Text. Focus group discussion guide.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments to the authors.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: To.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Revewer report WS (post response).docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Comments .docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Resposne to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its S1 Fig, S1 and S2 Text, S1S3 Tables files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES