Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Mar 9;18(3):e0272240. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272240

Understanding the nature of substance use in Zimbabwe: State of the art and ways forward: A scoping review protocol

Blessing N Marandure 1,*,#, Samson Mhizha 2,, Amanda Wilson 1,, Clement Nhunzvi 3,#
Editor: Herb Covington4
PMCID: PMC9997907  PMID: 36893211

Abstract

Reports of substance use in Zimbabwe paint a concerning picture of escalating prevalence of use, with over half of people admitted to inpatient mental health units reportedly experiencing a substance induced disorder. The country has gone through decades of significant political and socio-economical challenges, which are undoubtedly linked to the observed increases in substances use. Nevertheless, despite the resource constraints to adequately address substance use, the government has shown a renewed resolve to provide a comprehensive approach to address substance use in the country. However, there is a lack of clarity of the nature and extent of substance use and substance use disorders (SUDs), which in part is due to a lack of a national monitoring system for substance use in the country. Moreover, reports of a substance use crisis in Zimbabwe are predominantly based on anecdotal evidence, limiting the ability to gain an accurate picture of the situation. Therefore, a scoping review of the primary empirical evidence of substance use and SUDs is proposed in order to develop an adequately informed understanding of the nature of substance use and SUDs in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, the review will embed an assessment of the response to substance use, together with an analysis of the policy landscape on substance use in Zimbabwe. The PRISMA-ScR checklist will be utilised for the write up. The results of the scoping review will be essential for identifying the current state of knowledge around substance use, and identify gaps in knowledge and policy that would be a catalyst for further work to enhance knowledge and develop solutions situated within the local context. Thus the present work presents a timely effort that capitalises on current efforts by the government to address substance use in the country.

Introduction

Substance use in Africa is on the rise, with projections estimating a 40% increase in people who use substances between 2018 to 2030 [1]. This represents the largest increase globally, with Sub-Saharan Africa projected to have the highest increase when compared to other regions in the world [2]. Moreover, East and West Africa have been identified as key players in the distribution of drugs. The identification of key drug distribution areas in Africa is concerning, particularly given the expected global increase in prevalence of substance use disorders (SUDs) due to the economic crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic [1]. Additionally, projected increases in rates of substance use in Africa appear to be driven by demographic factors. Specifically, the fact that the continent’s population is generally younger than other regions, together with projected sharp population rises [1]. It is thus imperative for African states, as asserted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [1] to develop sustainable and human centred approaches in response to the impending rise in substance use disorders.

This renewed call to address substance use disorders [1] comes on the back of a global focus on mental health and the desire to achieve equitable access to mental health services for mental, neurological and substance use disorders [3]. This is the key aim of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Special Initiative for Mental Health: Universal Health Coverage for Mental Health, which was launched in 2019 [3]. One of the early adopters of this initiative from the sub-Saharan Africa region is Zimbabwe, a low to middle income country (LMIC) that has experienced significant economic, social and political challenges over the past few decades [4]. Despite these challenges, the country has shown a commitment towards strengthening its mental health systems through its National Strategic Plan for Mental Health Services (2019–2023) [5], which is in synergy with the goals of the WHO Special Initiative.

In line with data across the sub-Saharan Africa region, evidence suggests an upward trend of substance use in the Zimbabwean population [6]. For example, between 2009–2019, alcohol use was up from 9th to 8th place, in the top 10 risk factors contributing to disability adjusted life years (DALYS) in Zimbabwe [7]. Additionally, media reports paint a picture of an escalating and worrying situation of substance use, involving both licit and illicit substances. Moreover, the situation has been reported to be more complex, economic, and political, with clear signs of moving beyond teenage experimentation or chosen unhealthy behaviours [8]. Substances of concern reported on include alcohol (including illicit ‘moonshine’ brews), methamphetamine (crystal meth locally known as mutoriro), cough syrups containing codeine, and marijuana [911]. Reports of local youths identified to be in a drunken like stupor are widespread in the media, and colloquially referred to as ‘ku sticker’ (in reference to the paralytic like stupor youths high on substances are often found in) [11].

Anecdotal evidence also suggests a rise in substance use fuelled by the COVID-19 pandemic and resultant lockdowns [11, 12], so much so that is has been labelled an ‘impending public health disaster’ [6]. The ease of availability of substances, together with a lack of recreational activities for young people during lockdowns have both been cited as potential reasons for the increase [6]. However, even prior to the pandemic, drug use, particularly among the youth in Zimbabwe, was already reported to be reaching crisis levels [13], with concerns around drug use in vulnerable populations such as children living on the streets [14]. The authors assert that the significant socio-economic challenges experienced in the country are most likely linked to the observed substance use issues. Indeed, poverty is endemic in Zimbabwe, affecting 70% of the population [4], and has been identified as a risk factor for substance use [15]. Socio economic challenges are also linked to increased rates of stress, trauma, and mental health challenges which are all risk factors for substance use [15].

Strategies for addressing the identified increases in substance use are hampered by the treatment gap for mental, neurological and substance use disorders, with sub-Saharan Africa having the largest gap globally [13]. This is largely linked to the ‘brain drain’ due to mass emigration of mental health professionals [16], and significant underfunding for mental health services due to resource constraints [3]. For example, there is a paucity of drug and alcohol specialist treatment facilities in Zimbabwe [3]. The situation for managing SUDs is also likely to be worsened by the emerging reports of the country becoming a hub for drug trafficking, whereby drug runners are reportedly compensated for their services using drugs, increasing availability of drugs in local communities [10, 17].

In response to both increases in substance use and lack of specialist drug treatment provision, the country recently launched the Zimbabwe National Drug Master Plan (2020–2025) [18] which aims to provide both a comprehensive and integrated approach to address the rise in substance use in the country. Within this key strategic document, the government of Zimbabwe reports that currently approximately 60% of patients admitted in mental health institutions experience substance induced disorders [18]. However, significant challenges are evident in trying to ascertain a reliable picture of the nature of SUDs in the country, owing to the evolving complexity of the problem and the lack of a national monitoring system for substance use. Subsequently, most ‘evidence’ cited tends to be anecdotal in nature, and heavily reliant on secondary sources. Thus, it is imperative to gain an understanding of the primary evidence and policy landscape in Zimbabwe, to gauge what is known and what is being done about substance use and SUDs. This will also aid in identifying any gaps in knowledge and assist in development of culturally and locally appropriate and sustainable solutions to addressing SUDs. With these concerns in mind, the scoping review aims to develop a broad understanding of the nature of substance use and SUDs in the Zimbabwean context. The scoping review also seeks to understand interventions that have been developed and utilised in Zimbabwe, together with an analysis of the legislative and policy landscape in relation to substance use and SUDs.

Method

A scoping review will be conducted due to the breadth of information required to gain a broad understanding of the nature of the evidence and policy relating to substance use and SUDs in Zimbabwe. In developing the protocol, the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley [19] together with relevant previous applications of this framework [for example, 20, 21] were consulted. Ethics approval was waived by the De Montfort University Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee.

Stage 1: Research question

In developing the research question, the ‘Population, Concept, Context’ (PCC) paradigm by the Joanne Briggs Institute was utilised [22]. The ‘population’ is open, inclusive of both sexes and across a wide range of age groups. The ‘concept’ under study is substance use and use disorders, broadly encompassing both licit and illicit substances. The ‘context’ is geographically limited to Zimbabwe, as the review will pertain to evidence and literature from and about Zimbabwe. With these considerations in mind, the research questions are:-

  1. What is the nature of substance use and SUDs in Zimbabwe?

  2. What is the response to substance use and SUDs in Zimbabwe?

Research aim

The overarching aim of the scoping review will be to provide an assessment of the literature and policy on substance use and SUDs in Zimbabwe.

Objectives

The review’s aim will be realised through the following objectives:

  1. To identify the substances being used and/or misused within Zimbabwe

  2. To understand patterns, prevalence and consequences of use, and use disorders

  3. To identify and evaluate any interventions and/or harm reduction strategies being utilised

  4. To identify and critique legislative, policy and strategic documents relevant to substance use management in Zimbabwe.

  5. To identify gaps in knowledge, policy and strategy, and provide recommendations for addressing these gaps.

Stage 2: Identifying relevant literature

The scoping review will encompass both primary empirical studies, and policy/strategic/ legislative documents. BNM will lead on primary empirical studies and CN will lead on the policy/strategic/legislative documents. In order to capture both of these sources, two separate successive search strategies will be employed iteratively, refining the process as necessary as the study is conducted. Empirical studies will be identified first, followed by legislative, policy and strategic documents.

Identifying relevant studies

The databases to be used were identified by 2 authors (BNM & CN), with the help of a subject librarian. The databases to be used for identifying primary empirical studies will be Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Plus), Africa-Wide Information, Web of Science, PsychInfo, and PsycArticles. Grey literature sources will also be utilised in order to capture data from unpublished sources. For example, Web of Science Conference Proceedings; Grey Literature Report, and Open Grey.

In order to be included in the review, the identified studies must meet the following inclusion criteria: -

  • Studies should have been published in the last 10 years (2012–2022) in order to provide a contemporary perspective on the situation and to capture the influences of the economic & political changes post the Global Political Agreement signed between the country’s two main political parties at the time [23, 24].

  • Both peer reviewed studies and grey literature will be eligible in order to comprehensively capture relevant information.

  • Studies should be empirical studies in order to capture primary data sources

  • Studies should be located in Zimbabwe and/or reporting on the Zimbabwean situation (in order to capture studies done outside but about Zimbabwe)

  • Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodology will be included in order to represent both the nomothetic and idiographic perspectives on substance use.

In order to focus the review, the following exclusion criteria will be employed to exclude studies

  • Studies written in languages other than English or without available English translations will be excluded.

  • Animal studies will also be excluded.

Search strategy

Search terms were developed iteratively, and refined after running a sample web based search with broad terms for substances (substance OR drug AND Zimbabwe). Specific substances were identified from the sample search results and from the Zimbabwe National Drug Masterplan (2020–2025) [18], a key policy document developed for addressing substance use issues in Zimbabwe. This enabled the identification of substances and the associated terminology specific to the local context. See Table 1 for list of search terms.

Table 1. Search terms.
Keyword Alternatives
Substance Drug OR Alcohol OR 1Musombodia OR 1Kachasu OR Cannabis OR Marijuana OR 2Mbanje OR Methamphetamine OR Crystal Meth OR 3Mutoriro OR Cough Syrup OR 4Broncleer OR Codeine OR Opioid OR Opiate OR Heroin
Disorder Use OR Abuse OR Misuse OR Addiction
Intervention Therapy OR Treatment OR Harm Reduction OR Rehabilitation
Zimbabwe Harare OR Bulawayo

Boolean operators (AND/ OR) will be used to combine search terms, together with truncations for capturing term variations (e.g. Addict*) as appropriate for each database.

1Shona colloquialisms for local moonshine alcohol brews. 2Shona term for cannabis.3Shona term for crystal meth. 4 Illegally imported and banned brand of cough syrup containing codeine used locally.

Identifying relevant legislative, policy and strategic documents

Legislative documents will be identified initially from searches conducted within the Zimbabwe Legal Institute Database. References to relevant legislative, policy and strategic documents will also be followed from the empirical studies identified in the initial search. Web searches, using the Google search engine, will be conducted to find additional documents. In order to be included in the review, the documents identified must meet the following inclusion criteria: -

  • The documents should specifically focus on substance use and/or SUD

  • The documents should be publicly available

  • Primary source outlining policy/strategy or legislation in Zimbabwe

Documents that provide a commentary on or review of substance use policy, strategy, or legislation will be excluded. This should allow us to capture the policy landscape surrounding substance use in the country, and not others’ assertions on this.

Stage 3: Study and document selection

Study selection

In order to select studies for inclusion in the review, multiple researchers will be employed for bias reduction. This will be carried out in different stages as follows:

  1. Article titles will be reviewed in order to identify those with a key focus on substance use or SUDs. Where suitability of article is not clear it will be retained and reviewed at second stage (Research Assistant [RA] supervised by BNM)

  2. Review of abstracts and titles using inclusion and exclusion criteria will be conducted by 2 simultaneous independent reviewers (BNM & RA). Cohen’s K for inter-rater agreement will be calculated on the inclusion/exclusion decisions. If there is discordance between reviews, this will be resolved by a third reviewer (AW)

  3. Review of full text against inclusion and exclusion criteria will be conducted by 2 simultaneous independent reviewers (BNM & CN). Cohen’s K for inter-rater agreement will be calculated for the inclusion/exclusion decisions. If there is discordance between reviewers, this will be resolved by a third reviewer (SM).

Legislative/policy/strategic document selection

In order to select legislative, policy and strategic documents for inclusion, full text documents will be reviewed against the inclusion criteria by 2 simultaneous independent reviewers (CN & BNM). If there is discordance between reviewers, this will be resolved by a third reviewer (SM).

Stage 4: Charting the data

The RA will extract and chart the bibliometric information and study characteristics (under supervision by BNM) based on the following pre-created data extraction framework shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Data extraction framework.

Bibliometric information Characteristics of the study Categories of study characteristics
Title Research question/aim(s) Definitions and conceptualisations of key concepts and associated terms: substance use and use disorder
Authors Study Design
Source Sample (e.g. n =, age, geographical location [rural/urban], co-morbidity, socio-economic status/ occupation) Patterns of use and use disorder
Publication Year Type(s) of substance(s) studied Harms associated with substance use/ use disorder
Profession of primary author/ academic discipline Substance use measure utilised Treatment Approaches
Terms/definitions/conceptualisations of substance use and use disorder
Prevalence of substance use/use disorder Summary of key message(s)
Quantity/Amount of substance use
Factors influencing substance use
Consequences of substance use/use disorder
Intervention type(s) & delivery team Areas for further development
Intervention Outcome(s)
Key recommendation(s)

Two researchers (CN & SM) will extract information from the legislative/policy/strategic documents and chart it based on the following purpose made policy checklist (Table 3). This checklist is an adaptation of a mental health systems policy checklist created by the EMBASE research consortium for LMICs, and previously applied to the Zimbabwean context [25]. Substance use specific information was also extracted from a policy checklist created by the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa [26] and integrated within the current checklist.

Table 3. Policy & strategic document checklist.

Bibliometric Information Document Characteristics Categories of document characteristics
Author Consultation with service users and caregivers Service Provision
Promotes cultural approach
Date Enacted De-criminalisation of drug possession Human Rights
Specific provisions in legislation (i.e. legalisation)
Description PWID identified as key populations for HIV prevention Special/vulnerable populations
Harm Reduction (e.g. needle and syringe programmes) Knowledge Management
Specialist Drug Rehabilitation
Community Care Interventions
Evidence-based practice
Intersectoral collaboration
Finance and Funding
Prevention
Advocacy
National Monitoring System
Young people (children, adolescents, youth)
Trauma informed care
Underserved and marginalised populations (e.g. homeless)
MH Comorbidity

Stage 5: Collating, summarising and reporting the results

The RA will conduct a numerical analysis of bibliometric data and produce a PRISMA flow diagram for the scoping review process. A combined inductive-deductive thematic analysis of study characteristics and categories will initially be conducted by two researchers (BNM &AW). This will then be reviewed and refined by the rest of the team (CN & SM). The findings will be summarised and written up in the final report by two researchers initially (BNM &AW), with final revisions by the rest of the team (CN and SM). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist with be utilised for writing up the scoping review [27].

For the legislative, policy and strategic documents, a combined inductive-deductive thematic analysis of study characteristics and categories will initially be conducted by two researchers (CN and SM). This will then be reviewed and refined by the rest of the team (BNM & AW). The findings will be summarised and written up in the final report by two researchers initially (CN & SM), with final revisions by the rest of the team (BNM & AW).

Summary

The results of the scoping review will be essential for identifying the current state of knowledge around substance use, and identify gaps in knowledge and policy that would be a catalyst for further work to enhance knowledge and develop solutions situated within the local context. Thus the present work presents a timely effort that capitalises on current efforts by the government to address substance use in the country.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The authors received no external funding for this work.

References

Decision Letter 0

Herb Covington

31 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-19525Understanding the nature of substance use in Zimbabwe: State of the art and ways forward: A scoping review protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Marandure,

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.

I encourage you to carefully consider each of the Reviewer's comments noted below. Importantly, be sure to edit the paper so that the grammar is clear, concise, and correct. Please include a numbered response to each of the Reviewer's comments in your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 09 2023 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,

Herb Covington

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

[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: Multiple grammatical errors. INTRO: There are statements that are made with no reference. There are connections between various concepts that are made, with no justification. Here are some examples.

No reference in line 53/54. Line 54 "This is concerning..." What is concerning? The increase in subs use in Africa vs projected highest increases in Southern Africa vs East and West Africa distributing subs?.

Line 56-58: After mentioning the rise of subs use in Africa/Southern Africa, the author fails to show reasons for this rise in subs use to now lead to "become imperative on African states... to develop..." The author also fails to make a case why they refer to the rise in substance use as a crisis.

Line 59:no ref.; also unclear how the link is made between addressing substance use disorders and achieving equitable access to mental health services.

Lines 72-74: no ref. Lines 89-90: No ref. Line 94: "the situation is further..." Author needs to clarify what situation they are referring to.

Lines: 94-99: The author fails to show the link between paucity of substance use treatment facilities in Zimbabwe and "brain drain". Is there evidence that the paucity of substance use treatment facilities is new? And possibly linked to an increasing brain drain? It is possible that Zimbabwe's paucity of subs use treatment facilities is historical, due to under-funding/other factors and predates brain drain.

Line 103: "In response to these challenges..." Again, the authors need to be clear to the reader what challenges they are referring to. Is it challenges of increasing subs use, brain drain, paucity of subs treatment facilities or emergence of drug trafficking in the country? Which of these challenges is the drug master plan a response to?

METHOD: There seems to be reference to some things done in the past vs those that will still be done. Please check the tense.

Line 122: Is Scoping Review suggested or "will be used"? I suggest that the author considers rephrasing this.

Line 206: "specific substance use focus". What does that mean? will the author exclude documents that focus on primary healthcare (PHC) systems and include substance use interventions as part of PHC?

**********

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: Dr Tando A.S. Melapi. Department of Psychiatry; University of the Witwatersrand

**********

[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. 2023 Mar 9;18(3):e0272240. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272240.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Feb 2023

We thank both the editor and the reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are pleased to be offered the opportunity to further clarify and refine our manuscript. However, we also note with concern the reviewer's response to the following question:- 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Whilst there were minor clarity issues identified in places, we do not feel this warrants the judgement that the manuscript is not written in an intelligible fashion and in standard English. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript, and have provided a point by point response to the reviewer’s comments as follows:-

Reviewer #1: Multiple grammatical errors. INTRO: There are statements that are made with no reference. There are connections between various concepts that are made, with no justification. Here are some examples.

Response: We thank the reviewer for these observations. We have clarified and revised the identified issues as noted below.

Reviewer #1: No reference in line 53/54. Line 54 "This is concerning..." What is concerning? The increase in subs use in Africa vs projected highest increases in Southern Africa vs East and West Africa distributing subs?.

Response: We have now clarified the sentence’s intended meaning (line 55-56). The concern was that of the key drug distribution regions being in Africa. We believe this is a concern due to the link between distribution sites and increases in local availability of drugs identified in the latter part of the introduction.

Reviewer #1: Line 56-58: After mentioning the rise of subs use in Africa/Southern Africa, the author fails to show reasons for this rise in subs use to now lead to "become imperative on African states... to develop..." The author also fails to make a case why they refer to the rise in substance use as a crisis.

Response: The reasons for the projected rise in substance use have now been identified (lines 58-60). We also agree with the reviewer in regards to the terminology of ‘crisis’. Therefore, we have revised our assertions to be more tentative here and identified an impending rise in substance use disorders instead (line 62-63).

Reviewer #1: Line 59:no ref.; also unclear how the link is made between addressing substance use disorders and achieving equitable access to mental health services.

Response: The statement represents the authors assertions made in relation to the call made by UNODC in the latest world drug report (referenced in lines 60-62). We have added the UNODC reference to reflect this (line 64).

This call by UNODC was made after the launch of the WHO Special Initiative for Mental Health (lines 65-67). Hence, we assert that the call ‘comes on the back of the global focus on mental health and the desire to achieve equitable access to services (lines 64-66). We have added the WHO reference to line 66 for clarity.

The WHO Special Initiative seeks to address the treatment gap for mental, neurological and substance use disorders concurrently, and globally (and because access to these services is not equitable at present). Therefore, our assertions here are not identifying the addressing of substance use disorders in isolation as a solution to equitable access to care.

However, considering the marginalisation of substance users in access to care more generally, it is not implausible that addressing SUDs would improve equity of access. We have not sought to expand on this as this is beyond the scope of the present paper.

Reviewer #1 Lines 72-74: no ref.

Response: The reference has now been added (now line 80).

Reviewer #1 Lines 89-90: No ref.

Response: A reference is not required here as this represents our assertions. We have revised this to identify the statement more explicitly as the authors’ assertion (now line 99). Due to the paucity of literature, there is no primary evidence directly linking the socio-economic situation in Zimbabwe specifically to increases in substance use. What we have done instead is drawn on indirect evidence to support our assertion. Specifically, we go on to provide evidence of endemic poverty in the country (line 94) and evidence identifying poverty as a risk factor for substance use (line 96-98). Based on the identified link between poverty and substance use, it is reasonable to assert a link between the country’s socio-economic challenges and substance use.

Reviewer #1 Line 94: "the situation is further..." Author needs to clarify what situation they are referring to.

Response: We agree, with the reviewer’s noted lack of clarity here. We have revised the statement accordingly (line 113).

Reviewer #1 Lines: 94-99: The author fails to show the link between paucity of substance use treatment facilities in Zimbabwe and "brain drain". Is there evidence that the paucity of substance use treatment facilities is new? And possibly linked to an increasing brain drain? It is possible that Zimbabwe's paucity of subs use treatment facilities is historical, due to under-funding/other factors and predates brain drain.

Response: We have identified both underfunding and the brain drain as reasons for paucity of services (lines 115-117). This is evidenced clearly in the situational analysis of the country’s healthcare system conducted as part of the WHO special initiative. Trying to unpick which came first (under-funding or brain drain) is a ‘chicken and the egg problem’ and is beyond the scope of the paper. This information is there for context of what the current challenges are:- in this case limited specialist service provision. Though we also agree that there is value in future studies to conduct in depth analysis of the reasons for the paucity of specialist services as part of efforts to remedy this.

Reviewer #1 Line 103: "In response to these challenges..." Again, the authors need to be clear to the reader what challenges they are referring to. Is it challenges of increasing subs use, brain drain, paucity of subs treatment facilities or emergence of drug trafficking in the country? Which of these challenges is the drug master plan a response to?

Response: We agree with the lack of clarity here and have identified both the increase in substance use and lack of service provision as the issues to be addressed (line 122-123).

Reviewer #1 METHOD: There seems to be reference to some things done in the past vs those that will still be done. Please check the tense.

Response: Due to the nature of a study protocol, some of the actions are future actions (i.e. the steps that will be taken to conduct the scoping review e.g line 127), whilst others are past actions (i.e. steps already taken in devising the protocol- e.g. line 129-130). Hence it is not possible for the tenses to be consistent in the method. We have reviewed the method and all tenses align with either past or present actions as they should. We have also written the protocol following the guidance from other published protocols.

Reviewer #1 Line 122: Is Scoping Review suggested or "will be used"? I suggest that the author considers rephrasing this.

Response: Thank you, we agree this was phased awkwardly. We have now amended for clarity (now line 146).

Reviewer #1 Line 206: "specific substance use focus". What does that mean? will the author exclude documents that focus on primary healthcare (PHC) systems and include substance use interventions as part of PHC?

Response: All policy and strategic documents that focus on substance use in any capacity (e.g. prevention, intervention etc) will be included in the review. This will go beyond health care systems and include wider drug policy. We have amended for clarity, but also left it broad enough to capture our intended aim (line 232).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Herb Covington

23 Feb 2023

Understanding the nature of substance use in Zimbabwe: State of the art and ways forward: A scoping review protocol

PONE-D-22-19525R1

Dear Dr. Marandure,

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. I look forward to seeing your Review, on this important topic, when you have completed it. 

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,

Herb Covington

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Herb Covington

27 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-19525R1

Understanding the nature of substance use in Zimbabwe: State of the art and ways forward: A scoping review protocol

Dear Dr. Marandure:

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. Herb Covington

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES