Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Feb 3;17(2):e0262982. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262982

Preventive practices toward sexually transmitted infections and their determinants among young people in Ethiopia: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Etsay Woldu Anbesu 1,*, Setognal Birara Aychiluhm 1, Mussie Alemayehu 2
Editor: Ali Rostami3
PMCID: PMC8812866  PMID: 35113900

Abstract

Background

Globally, the estimated annual number of new cases of curable sexually transmitted infections occurring among young people aged 15–24 years is approximately 178.5 million. There are fragmented and inconsistent findings on preventive practices for sexually transmitted infections. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of preventive practices of sexually transmitted infections and identify its determinants among young people in Ethiopia.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) will be used to develop the review protocol. Online databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Google, and Google Scholar will be used to search published and unpublished studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument will be used to assess the quality of the study. Statistical heterogeneity will be checked using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression will be performed to identify the sources of heterogeneity. The statistical analysis will be performed using STATA version 14 software. A random-effects model will be performed to estimate the pooled prevalence and identify determinants of preventive practices of sexually transmitted infections.

Discussion

Young people have a high unmet need for sexual and reproductive health services and poor preventive practices toward sexually transmitted infections. Although there are studies on preventive practices for sexually transmitted infections, there is no study finding on the pooled prevalence of preventive practices for sexually transmitted infections and its determinants among young people in Ethiopia. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will help to develop appropriate strategies.

Introduction

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are diseases such as gonorrhea, syphilis, chancroids, lymphogranuloma venerum, and more than 30 different bacteria, viruses, and parasites. STIs can be curable and incurable. The curable STIs include gonorrhea, syphilis, trichomonas, and chlamydia. The incurable STIs include herpes simplex virus, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and human papilloma virus (HPV). STIs are transmitted through sexual contact, such as vaginal, anal, and oral sex. It can also spread through nonsexual means via blood or blood products and mother to fetus during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding. The common symptoms or syndromes of STIs include urethral discharge, vaginal discharge, genital ulcer, lower abdominal pain, inguinal bubo, neonatal conjunctivitis, and scrotal swelling [1–4].

Globally, the estimated annual number of new cases of curable STIs that occur among people aged 15–49 years is 357 million, and approximately half of them are between 15–24 years [5, 6]. Every day, more than 1 million STIs are acquired [1]. STIs are health threats to adolescents and young people in developed and developing countries [4, 7–11]. In Ethiopia, although there is a lack of surveillance data, the self-reported prevalence of STIs among female and male youth aged 15–24 years was 3% and 1%, respectively [12]. STIs cause serious consequences, including an increased risk of HIV infection, stillbirth, neonatal death, low birth weight, sepsis, pneumonia, and neonatal conjunctivitis or blindness [1].

The age of young people by itself is a risk factor for many factors. It is a critical developmental period where youth begin to know and explain their sexual values and behaviors. They are at high risk for unsafe sexual behaviors, including STIs, unplanned pregnancy, abortion, low school performance, psychosocial problems, and economic crises [1, 13]. Moreover, rapid reproductive maturity among young people could lead to early sexual initiation and unsafe sex with the reluctance to use contraceptive methods [14–17].

In addition, factors such as multiple sexual partners, engaging in risky sexual behavior (RSB), sex without condoms, sex with older partners, consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs, cultural, religious, peer pressure, watching pornography, being single, nondisclosure of HIV status, and conflicts between couples and families affect young people’s sexual behavior [4, 8, 10, 18–24].

In Ethiopia, although STIs remain one of the sustainable development goal (SDG) agendas [25] and the development of national guidelines for the management of STIs using a syndromic approach [26], there is a lack of attention and surveillance data on preventive practice toward STIs in young people [27]. Moreover, although studies have been conducted in different parts of the country on the preventive practices of STIs among young people, there are inconsistent findings on prevalence and its determinants. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of preventive practices of STIs and identify its determinants among young people in Ethiopia.

Research question

  • What is the pooled prevalence of preventive practices toward STIs among young people in Ethiopia?

  • What are the determinants of preventive practices toward STIs among young people in Ethiopia?

Objectives

  • To determine the pooled prevalence of preventive practices toward STIs among young people in Ethiopia

  • To identify the determinants of preventive practices toward STIs among young people in Ethiopia

Methods

Review protocol development

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) will be used to develop the review protocol [28], and the PRISMA-P 2015 checklist will be used to report the protocol procedures [29] (S1 File).

PECO search guide

Population

Young people (10–24 years old) [30].

Exposure

Exposure is a determinant that increases or decreases the likelihood of preventive practices toward sexually transmitted infections.

Comparison

The reference group for each determinant in each study will be the comparison variable. It may include good knowledge versus poor, positive attitude versus negative, education versus no education, access to information versus no accesses, consistent use of condoms versus not.

Outcome

The outcome variable will be the pooled prevalence of preventive practices of STIs. Studies with the primary objective of determining the prevalence of preventive practices of STIs and their determinants among young people in Ethiopia will be considered.

Data source and search strategies

Online databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Google, and Google Scholar will be used to search published and unpublished studies. As searching Google and Google Scholar leads to numerous studies, a limited number of studies will be screened from Google and Google Scholar using the phrase “Preventive practices toward Sexually Transmitted Infection in Ethiopia”. The two authors (EW and SB) will retrieve the studies. In addition, across-reference search will be performed to add other related studies from the final included studies that may be missed during the database search. The search terms are indicated in S2 File. The search string will be adapted based on the specific requirements of the database to identify relevant studies. Retrieve studies will be exported to Endnote version 8 reference Manager software [31].

Eligibility criteria

All observational studies (cross-sectional, case–control, and cohort) will be included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies that reported the prevalence of preventive practices of STIs and its determinants among young people in Ethiopia will be included. Moreover, studies that reported only the prevalence of preventive practices of STIs or at least measured associations between determinant variables and the preventive practice of STIs will be considered. Institutional and community-based studies will be included. We will exclude studies that only address the qualitative approach. For both quantitative and qualitative data, only the quantitative data will be considered. We will not make restrictions on the date of publication. Studies published other than those in the English language, expert opinions, conferences, and case reports will be excluded.

Selection of studies

The two authors (EW and SB) will independently screen the studies based on the titles and abstracts. Duplicate, irrelevant title, and abstract studies will be removed from the citation manager. The quality of full text studies will be evaluated, and studies that are not eligible will be removed. We will discuss with the third author (MA) to resolve any disagreement among reviewers during the review process. The selection process flow diagram will be presented using the PRISMA chart (S3 File).

Quality assessment

To assess the quality and validity of the studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) will be used [32]. The quality assessment will focus on clear inclusion criteria, study subjects and setting, standard measurement criteria, exposure and outcome measurements, and appropriate statistical analysis (S4 File). The quality of the studies will be assessed independently by the two authors (EW and SB). Studies 50% and above of the quality scale will be considered for the final systematic review and meta-analysis. During the quality review of the studies, any disagreement among reviewers will be resolved with the third author (MA).

Data extraction

A data extraction template form on Microsoft Excel (2016) will be used. Before the beginning of the actual data extraction, we will pilot the Microsoft Excel data extraction form. The first author’s name, publication year, study area, study design, sample size, associated factors, odds ratio, and prevalence of the studies will be included in the data extraction template. In addition, we will calculate the logarithm and standard error (SE) of the prevalence and odds ratio. The two authors (EW and SB) will extract the data independently. Discussion will be made for any difference with a third author (MA). We will contact the corresponding author of the studies in case of missing data or incomplete reports.

Data synthesis and statistical analysis

Narrative synthesis of data will be done for the included studies. Summary tables and graphs will be performed to describe the characteristics of the included studies. Random-effects model [33] will be performed to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of preventive practices ofSTIs and identify its determinants among youths in Ethiopia. A 95% CI will be used to declare the statistical significance. Statistical heterogeneity will be checked using the Cochran Q test [34] and I2 statistics [35]. I2 values represent 25% low, 50% moderate, and 75% substantial heterogeneity. Subgroup nalysis and meta-regression will be done toidentify the sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis will be performed to assess the effect ofstudies on the overall estimation. The presence of publication bias will be checked usingfunnel plot [36], Egger’s, and Beggar’s test [37].

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of preventive practices of STIs and identify its determinants among young people in Ethiopia. Although young people are sexually active, they have an unmet need for sexual and reproductive health services. The common barriers in low- and middle-income countries include lack of behavioral change and accessibility of services [38–40]. Despite different interventions implemented to enhance the preventive practice of STIs among young people, the problem is still challenging in low-income countries, including Ethiopia [12, 26].

To the best of our knowledge, there is no study finding on the pooled prevalence of preventive practices of STIs and its determinants among young people in Ethiopia. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will help policymakers develop appropriate interventions on preventive practices of STIs in Ethiopia. This study protocol may have limited heterogeneity between studies. Only observational study designs published in the English language will be included.

Supporting information

S1 File. PRISMA-P 2015 checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (40.2KB, docx)
S2 File. Draft of search strategy to be used using PubMed electronic database.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (18.2KB, docx)
S3 File. Diagrammatic presentation of the studies selection process for systematic review.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (37.3KB, docx)
S4 File. JBI critical appraisals for observational studies as shown in the link below https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (13.3KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Samara University for the provision of free HINARY database websites, and internet and library access.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.WHO, Sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Fact Sheets, 2019.
  • 2.Lazarus J.V., et al., Systematic review of interventions to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, among young people in Europe. Croatian medical journal, 2010. 51(1): p. 74–84. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2010.51.74 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Organization, W.H., Report on global sexually transmitted infection surveillance 2018. 2018.
  • 4.Samkange-Zeeb F.N., Spallek L., and Zeeb H., Awareness and knowledge of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among school-going adolescents in Europe: a systematic review of published literature. BMC public health, 2011. 11(1): p. 1–12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Organization, W.H., Strengthening the health sector response to care, support, treatment and prevention for young people living with HIV: WHO/UNICEF consultation, 13–17 November 2006 Blantyre, Malawi. 2008, World Health Organization.
  • 6.Organization, W.H., Global health sector strategy on sexually transmitted infections 2016–2021: toward ending STIs. 2016, World Health Organization.
  • 7.Chanakira E., et al., Factors perceived to influence risky sexual behaviours among university students in the United Kingdom: a qualitative telephone interview study. BMC public health, 2014. 14(1): p. 1–7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chen M., et al., Comparison of sexual knowledge, attitude, and behavior between female Chinese college students from urban areas and rural areas: a hidden challenge for HIV/AIDS control in China. BioMed research international, 2016. 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Goundry A.L.R., Finlay E.R., and Llewellyn C.D., Talking about links between sexually transmitted infections and infertility with college and university students from SE England, UK: a qualitative study. Reproductive health, 2013. 10(1): p. 1–7. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-10-47 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hong Z., et al., Contraceptive knowledge, attitudes and behavior about sexuality among college students in Beijing, China. Chinese medical journal, 2012. 125(6): p. 1153–1157. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Matkins P.P., Sexually transmitted infections in adolescents. North Carolina medical journal, 2013. 74(1): p. 48–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.FMOH, FMOH Central Statistical Agency, Ethiopia demographic and health survey, Addis Ababa. 2016.
  • 13.Netsanet F. and Abebe M., Risky sexual behaviors and associated factors among male and female students in Jimma Zone preparatory schools, South West Ethiopia: comparative study. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences, 2014. 24(1): p. 59–68. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v24i1.8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Derese A., Seme A., and Misganaw C., Assessment of substance use and risky sexual behaviour among Haramaya University Students, Ethiopia. Science Journal of Public Health, 2014. 2(2): p. 102–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fetene N. and Mekonnen W., The prevalence of risky sexual behaviors among youth center reproductive health clinics users and non-users in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a comparative cross-sectional study. PloS one, 2018. 13(6): p. e0198657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198657 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Morris J.L. and Rushwan H., Adolescent sexual and reproductive health: The global challenges. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 2015. 131: p. S40–S42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Temesgen G. and Markos Y., Assessment of substance use and risky sexual behaviour among public college students in Bonga town, Southwest Ethiopia. Am J Biomed Life Sci, 2015. 3(5): p. 91–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bakhoum A.Y., et al., Assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practice of risky sexual behavior leading to HIV and sexually transmitted infections among Egyptian substance abusers: a cross-sectional study. Advances in Public Health, 2014. 2014. doi: 10.1155/2014/787282 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gebremedhin A.T., et al., Khat chewing and risky sexual behavior in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 2013. 11(12): p. 59–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Girmay A. and Mariye T., Risky sexual behavior practice and associated factors among secondary and preparatory school students of Aksum town, northern Ethiopia, 2018. BMC research notes, 2019. 12(1): p. 1–7. doi: 10.1186/s13104-018-4038-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Melchiorre M.G., et al., Social support, socio-economic status, health and abuse among older people in seven European countries. PloS one, 2013. 8(1): p. e54856. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mersha A., et al., Risky sexual behaviors and associated factors among preparatory school students in Arba Minch town, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, 2018. 10(12): p. 429–442. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Negeri E.L., Assessment of risky sexual behaviors and risk perception among youths in Western Ethiopia: the influences of family and peers: a comparative cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 2014. 14(1): p. 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Uchudi, J., M. Magadi, and M. Mostazir, A multilevel analysis of the determinants of high risk sexual behavior (multiple sexual partners) in sub-Saharan Africa. Social Research Methodology Centre Working Paper: Africa. London, UK: Department of Sociology, City University, 2010.
  • 25.Nino, F.S., Sustainable Development Goals—United Nations. United Nations Sustainable Development, 2015.
  • 26.FMOH, National guidelines for the management of sexually transmitted infections using syndromic approach 2015.
  • 27.Alfvén T., et al., Global AIDS reporting-2001 to 2015: lessons for monitoring the sustainable development goals. AIDS and Behavior, 2017. 21(1): p. 5–14. doi: 10.1007/s10461-016-1662-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Moher D., et al., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine, 2009. 6(7): p. e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shamseer L., et al., Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Bmj, 2015. 349. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.UNDESA, Definition of Youth. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2013.
  • 31.Bramer W. and Bain P., Updating search strategies for systematic reviews using EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 2017. 105(3): p. 285. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2017.183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Munn Z., Tufanaru C., and Aromataris E., JBI’s systematic reviews: data extraction and synthesis. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 2014. 114(7): p. 49–54. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000451683.66447.89 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Berkey C.S., et al., A random‐effects regression model for meta‐analysis. Statistics in medicine, 1995. 14(4): p. 395–411. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780140406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Cooper, H., L.V. Hedges, and J.C. Valentine, The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2019: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • 35.Higgins J.P. and Thompson S.G., Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in medicine, 2002. 21(11): p. 1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Liu J.L., The role of the funnel plot in detecting publication and related biases in meta-analysis. Evidence-based dentistry, 2011. 12(4): p. 121–122. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400831 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Egger M., et al., Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj, 1997. 315(7109): p. 629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Menna T., Ali A., and Worku A., Effects of peer education intervention on HIV/AIDS related sexual behaviors of secondary school students in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a quasi-experimental study. Reproductive health, 2015. 12(1): p. 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Newton-Levinson A., Leichliter J.S., and Chandra-Mouli V., Sexually transmitted infection services for adolescents and youth in low-and middle-income countries: perceived and experienced barriers to accessing care. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2016. 59(1): p. 7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.03.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Seangpraw K., et al., THE EFFECT OF SEX EDUCATION AND LIFE SKILLS FOR PREVENTIVE SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOURS AMONG UNIVERSITY OF STUDENTS THAILAND. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad, 2017. 29(4): p. 540–546. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ali Rostami

19 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-25527Preventive practices towards Sexually Transmitted Infection and its determinants among young people in Ethiopia: a protocol for a systematic review and Meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Anbesu,

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

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ali Rostami

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. 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)

3. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: This article represents a protocol for a systematic review on an important topic in developing countries. The authors utilized the PRISMA statement to establish a standard protocol for their study.

-Line 48: It is more appropriate to say: mother to fetus instead of “mother to child”

-Lines 55-57: “In Ethiopia, … respectively”. This sentence seems a bit unclear. Please rewrite it more transparently. A native English language editor can resolve minor issues in the use of the English language in this manuscript.

-Lines 77-78, 80, 124, 125, 209, 213, 215: please use the acronym instead of “sexually transmitted infections”.

-Line 129: “CINAH”, did you mean CINAHL?

-Line 129: Please indicate how you will screen the results from google and google scholar. For example, indicate if you want to screen a limited number of studies in these search engines. Usually, searching in google and google scholar leads to numerous studies, which screening all of them is not feasible.

-Lines 128-145 and additional file 2: Some alterations can help to improve the quality and feasibility of the search strategy:

I think the presented search strategy is too broad and will result in numerous irrelevant studies. For example, based on additional file 2 and using Term 5 to search in PubMed, there will be more than 812 thousand results, which is definitely too high to be screened. I do recommend consulting with an expert to develop a more specific search strategy.

Also, when you use “prevention & control OR control” it seems redundant. Because when you search “control” it automatically contains “prevention & control”. Another similar example is “Condoms OR Condoms use”. Please revise your search strategy in this regard.

You used “Unsafe Sex”, two times in Term #1.

In addition, I suggest mentioning the search strategy only in additional file 2, and removing it from the main text to prevent redundancy.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2022 Feb 3;17(2):e0262982. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262982.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

7 Dec 2021

Response to reviewer

#1

� Mother to fetus (line 48)

� Women and men … respectively (line 56-57.)

� STIs (line 76-77, 124, 126, 14-143, 182, 191, 195, 199, 201 )

� CINAHL (Line 129 )

� As searching in Google and Google scholar leads to numerous studies, limited number of studies will be screened from Google and Google scholar using this phrase “Preventive practices towards Sexually Transmitted Infection in Ethiopia” (line 130-132)

� Search strategy (additional file 2) (line 135)

� Filter will be applied on PubMed database on titles/abstract, full text, journal articles, observational studies, and English language to manage the available studies (additional file 2).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (25.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ali Rostami

28 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-25527R1Preventive practices toward Sexually Transmitted Infections and its determinants among young people in Ethiopia: a protocol for systematic review and Meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Anbesu,

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 Feb 11 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ali Rostami

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed most of my comments. The protocol is now technically sound, however, the manuscript still needs a revision in terms of English language use, and some alterations are necessary:

The authors want to search four databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Google, and Google Scholar. I recommend adding "Scopus" to widen the scope of your literature search.

Line 20: This sentence is unclear “: Globally, about 178.5 million new cases of curable sexually transmitted infections occurred among young people aged 15-24 years.” OR in line 52, 53: “Globally, about 357 million new cases of curable sexually transmitted infections occurred among people aged 15–49 years, and over half of them were between 15-24 years ”

Are these sentences about the estimated "annual" new cases? If so, the authors should mention.

Line 26: Change CINAH to “CINAHL” in the abstract.

Line 43, 54, 63, 74: Abbreviations should be defined in the text just at first use. You repeated Sexually transmitted infections in the mentioned lines.

Line 57: Change “STIs causes” to “STIs cause”

Line 46: Abbreviations should be defined in the text at first use: human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Line 65: Do you mean “contraceptive methods”?

Line 73: STIs “remain”

Line 145, 146: “However, for studies that examined both quantitative and qualitative study” change to “both quantitative and qualitative data”

Line 148: Would you please explain why you want to exclude “national surveys”? For example, why do you want to exclude an Ethiopian national survey on this topic?

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2022 Feb 3;17(2):e0262982. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262982.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

3 Jan 2022

Response to reviewer

#1

� Scopus data base (line 28, 127 )

� Globally, the estimated annual new cases of curable sexually transmitted infections occurred among young people aged 15-24 years was about 178.5 million ((line 20-21 ). 178.5 million new cases was just to estimate about half of the 357 million cases among people aged 15–49 years were between 15-24 years. i.e 50% of 357 ≈178.5 (line 55)

� Globally, the estimated annual new cases of curable sexually transmitted infections occurred among people aged 15–49 years was 357 million, and about half of them were between 15-24 years (line 54-55).

� CINAHL (line 27)

� STIs (line 45, 54, 56, 64, 74, 86,88, )

� human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (line 48)

� STIs cause (line 59)

� contraceptive methods (line 67)

� STIs remain (line 73)

� Both quantitative and qualitative data (line 143)

� National survey. It was mistake and corrected now (line 145)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (26.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Ali Rostami

11 Jan 2022

Preventive practices toward Sexually Transmitted Infections and its determinants among young people in Ethiopia: a protocol for systematic review and Meta-analysis

PONE-D-21-25527R2

Dear Dr. Anbesu,

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,

Ali Rostami

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for revisions. The manuscript is acceptable. There is only one issue. Please use full term for STIs in beginning of introduction.

Best regards

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ali Rostami

26 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-25527R2

Preventive practices toward sexually transmitted infections and their determinants among young people in Ethiopia: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Anbesu:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ali Rostami

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. PRISMA-P 2015 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (40.2KB, docx)
    S2 File. Draft of search strategy to be used using PubMed electronic database.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (18.2KB, docx)
    S3 File. Diagrammatic presentation of the studies selection process for systematic review.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (37.3KB, docx)
    S4 File. JBI critical appraisals for observational studies as shown in the link below https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (13.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (25.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (26.2KB, docx)

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES