Rollout of ShangRing circumcision with active surveillance for adverse events and monitoring for uptake in Kenya.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2011, Kenya has been evaluating ShangRing device for use in its voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) program according to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Compared to conventional surgical circumcision, the ShangRing procedure is shorter, does not require suturing and gives better cosmetic outcomes. After a pilot evaluation of ShangRing in 2011, Kenya conducted an active surveillance for adverse events associated with its use from 2016-2018 to further assess its safety, uptake and to identify any operational bottlenecks to its widespread use based on data from a larger pool of procedures in routine health care settings.
METHODS: From December 2017 to August 2018, HIV-negative VMMC clients aged 13 years or older seeking VMMC at six sites across five counties in Kenya were offered ShangRing under injectable local anesthetic as an alternative to conventional surgical circumcision. Providers described both procedures to clients before letting them make a choice. Outcome measures recorded for clients who chose ShangRing included the proportions who were clinically eligible, had successful device placement, experienced adverse events (AEs), or failed to return for device removal. Clients failing to return for follow up were sought through phone calls, text messages or home visits to ensure removal and complete information on adverse events.
RESULTS: Out of 3,692 eligible clients 1,079 (29.2%) chose ShangRing; of these, 11 (1.0%) were excluded due to ongoing clinical conditions, 17 (1.6%) underwent conventional surgery due to lack of appropriate device size at the time of the procedure, 97.3% (1051/1079) had ShangRing placement. Uptake of ShangRing varied from 11% to 97% across different sites. There was one severe AE, a failed ShangRing placement (0.1%) managed by conventional wound suturing, plus two moderate AEs (0.2%), post removal wound dehiscence and bleeding, that resolved without sequelae. The overall AE rate was 0.3%. All clients returned for device removal from fifth to eleventh day after placement.
CONCLUSION: ShangRing circumcision is effective and safe in the Kenyan context but its uptake varies widely in different settings. It should be rolled out under programmatic implementation for eligible males to take advantage of its unique benefits and the freedom of choice beyond conventional surgical MMC. Public education on its availability and unique advantages is necessary to optimize its uptake and to actualize the benefit of its inclusion in VMMC programs.

Introduction

Background

Devices for medical male circumcision (MMC) have the potential to accelerate provision of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) services by reducing the time it takes to perform the procedure, simplifying the procedure thereby allowing task shifting to lower cadre health care workers and increasing uptake of MMC among men who are averse to conventional surgery [1]. In 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) established a program for prequalification of male circumcision (MC) devices to promote and facilitate access to safe, appropriate and affordable MC devices of good quality in an equitable manner [2]. This was followed in 2012 by publication of the WHO framework for clinical evaluation of devices for MC after prequalification [3], which outlines the criteria and assessments that countries should fulfill before endorsing any device for widespread use in national VMMC programs for HIV prevention. The necessary assessments fall into three broad phases namely, implementation pilot, active adverse events (AE) surveillance and passive AE surveillance [3].

In June 2015, WHO prequalified the ShangRing device (Wuhu SNNDA Medical Treatment Appliance Technology Co, Ltd, Wuhu City, China) for use in circumcision of adolescent and adult males ages 13 years and older after determining that it meets international standards of quality, safety and demonstrated efficacy [4]. The device consists of two concentric plastic rings, the inner of which has a silicon lined non bio reactive surface with a shallow groove on its outer surface against which the outer ring clamps to crush the foreskin when closed [4]. The outer ring consists of two halves that are hinged together at one end and on the other, a ratchet mechanism for tight closure such that there is rapid compression of the foreskin between the two rings and occlusion of blood flow to distal tissues when locked. The ShangRing compression force is sufficient to prevent slippage of tissue so that the foreskin can be excised at the time of device placement [4].

Based on the WHO prequalification of ShangRing and results of pilot studies in Kenya and other African counties, which demonstrated its safety, ease of use and good cosmetic outcomes [5-11], the Kenya national VMMC technical working group endorsed its rollout under an active AE surveillance protocol. The surveillance activity was conducted according to the WHO framework for clinical evaluation of MC devices [3] and was consistent with similar previous initiatives, notably by Mavhu et al. [12]. The goal was to assess the feasibility of ShangRing device use in Kenya’s VMMC program based on better understanding of the potential clinical and operational challenges or opportunities associated with its widespread use in routine clinical settings. The purpose was to guide the Ministry of Health’s decision on whether to adopt ShangRing or not. The specific objectives were to (1) provide circumcision using ShangRing device as an alternative to other available methods of circumcision for males 13 years or older seeking VMMC services, (2) detect any new or rare AEs associated with ShangRing based on accumulation of a larger sample in addition to those in earlier pilot studies, (3) determine the proportion of men who choose circumcision through ShangRing device in routine VMMC service delivery settings when it is offered as an equally effective alternative to conventional surgical methods and (4) generate consumption data for different device sizes to guide forecasting of the proportions of different ShangRing device sizes to be procured to meet Kenya’s VMMC program needs.

Materials and methods

Evaluation sites

Six health facilities offering routine VMMC services in five counties with support from PEPFAR:-Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Teaching & Referral Hospital (JOOTRH), Bondo Sub County Hospital (SCRH), Got Agulu Dispensary, Loco Dispensary, Khunyangu Sub District Hospital, Mbita District Hospital were selected to implement the active adverse events surveillance (AAES) for ShangRing circumcision in Kenya. Key criteria for site selection included (1) location within a densely populated catchment area with well-established VMMC services so travel time between service point and most clients’ residences was short, (2) health care workers competent in conventional surgical MC available to be trained on the ShangRing method, and (3) access to county or sub-county referral hospitals with skilled providers to manage rare complications. These facilities were selected in five counties:-(Siaya, Kisumu, Busia, Homabay, and Nairobi) to capture variations in VMMC service delivery contexts in Kenya. Each site was to contribute about 167 procedures towards an overall target of at least 1,000 ShangRing circumcisions.

Training

A total of 21 certified VMMC surgeons were trained to perform circumcision using ShangRing. The training included a 2-day didactic session covering theory, AE management and documentation plus 1-day clinical observation of procedures performed by the trainers. Subsequently, each trainee performed 8 placements and 8 removals to attain certification.

Non-participating health care workers within the selected health facilities and from surrounding sites were sensitized on ShangRing AAES to enable them support and refer clients appropriately. Sensitization sessions were in form of half day meetings with the management and staff of all health facilities within the target area. Trained mobilizers sensitized the general public and potential VMMC clients on the availability of ShangRing as an alternative to conventional surgical circumcision.

Recruitment

Healthy males aged 13 years or older seeking VMMC at the sites implementing ShangRing AAES or their outreach points were counseled and voluntarily tested for HIV and these testing negative were offered ShangRing as an alternative to conventional surgical MC. All ShangRing circumcisions were performed at the designated fixed sites according to eligibility criteria and guidance in the product user manual [4]. Clients who chose ShangRing at outreach points were transported to the fixed site for the procedure.

Clients who chose ShangRing but were found clinically ineligible for the device (due to conditions like adhesions and thick or short foreskins) while remaining eligible for surgery were circumcised through conventional surgery according to the WHO and Kenya clinical manual for male circumcision under local anesthesia [13, 14].

Procedure

Prior to device placement, clinically eligible clients who chose ShangRing gave consent for the procedure including permission for active follow up through telephone or home visits and for use of their records in the active AE surveillance. They underwent the procedure conducted by trained clinicians using the flip technique with injectable local anesthesia per the manufacturer’s instructions for use [4]. Clients were discharged with instructions to keep the wound clean and dry, abstain from sex until complete wound healing, return on day seven for device removal and to contact the clinic or return at any time in case of concerns. Clients who failed to return for device removal on day seven or any other appointment were traced actively through phone calls and text messaging starting at close of business on the date of missed appointment until the end of day eight. Clients not successfully traced by the end of day eight would be traced physically through home visits and the outcomes documented. Similar to conventional surgical circumcision, AEs were classified based on the PSI/WHO Adverse Event Action Guide for VMMC [15] and moderate or severe AEs were reported then included in calculations of AE rate.

Outcome measures

The following outcome measures were used to gauge safety, uptake and operational challenges that may be associated with widespread use of ShangRing:

AEs

Rate of moderate or severe AEs, among clients circumcised through ShangRing including final outcomes in those experiencing the AEs

Frequency and detailed characteristics of AEs not previously encountered with the device and final outcomes in those experiencing such AEs

Uptake

Proportion of HIV uninfected males 13 years or older who chose ShangRing when offered as an alternative to conventional surgery. The numerator was all clients circumcised through ShangRing plus those screened out due to clinical ineligibility and those who missed the correct device size. The denominator used to compute uptake was the sum of HIV-negative clients aged 13 years or older circumcised conventionally or through ShangRing, screened out for clinical ineligibility and those who lacked appropriate device (presuming that all were given a choice between ShangRing and conventional surgery). Reasons for choosing or declining ShangRing were not collected because this evaluation was implemented in routine service delivery settings in conditions that were unfavorable for collection of additional elaborate information.

Clinical ineligibility

Proportion of those who chose ShangRing that were found to be clinically ineligible

Effectiveness

Proportion of eligible clients that had successful device placement with complete excision of foreskin.

Follow up rate

Proportion of ShangRing clients who returned for device removal (outcomes of active follow up efforts were recorded for clients who failed to return for their appointments)

Additional outcomes collected to inform program planning included duration of procedure; time until return for removal, classified as timely (one day before until one day after the scheduled day 7 removal), early (up till five days after placement), or late (day 9 and beyond); and device size.

Data analysis was primarily descriptive, using totals and disaggregation as appropriate by site, client age and device specific variable including size and days from placement to removal. The relationship between device size and age was analysed using generalized additive models with a line of best fit plus confidence bands generated then overplayed on a scatter plot.

This surveillance activity was reviewed and approved by the Kenya ministry of Health plus the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Center for Global Health (CGH) human research protection procedures and determined to be non-research (CDC CGH HSR Tracking # D-14-2015; 2016–173).

Results

From December 2016 to August 2018, a total of 3,692 HIV negative males aged 13 years and older seeking VMMC at six health facilities across five counties in Kenya were offered ShangRing. Of these, 1,079 (29.2%) chose ShangRing while 2,613 opted for surgical circumcision. Client recruitment, screening and enrollment cascade is presented in a Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Fig 1.

Fig 1

Flow diagram for client screening and enrolment for ShangRing circumcision.

Out of 1,079 clients who chose ShangRing, 11 (1.0%) were screened out due to clinical reasons (1 adhesion, 2 thick foreskins; 3 short foreskins; 2 hypospadias; 1 sickle-cell disease; 1 urethral discharge and 1 genital herpes). Five out of the 11 clients found ineligible for ShangRing were however eligible for dorsal slit method and were circumcised surgically. Ten out of the 11 clients who were clinically ineligible for ShangRing were 18 years or older. Seventeen (1.6%) of ShangRing eligible clients crossed over to conventional surgery due to lack of appropriate device size at the time of the procedure. Overall, 97.4% (1,051/1,079) of the clients who chose ShangRing underwent device placement.

Table 1 shows distribution by county, facility and age for the 1,051 clients who underwent ShangRing placement. The age range was 13–64 years with a median of 20 years (IQR 16–29).

Table 1

Distribution of clients circumcised through ShangRing by county, facility, and age band (N = 1,051).

		Age bands in years
County	Facility	13–14	15–19	20–24	25–29	30–34	35–39	40–44	45–49	50	Total	Median age (IQR)
Kisumu	JOOTRH	7	33	52	32	21	9	7	0	0	161	23 (20–29)
Siaya	Got Agulu Dispensary	19	66	18	10	9	3	6	0	0	131	18(15–24)
	Bondo SCRH	42	97	33	24	13	7	8	5	3	232	18 (15–24)
Homabay	Mbita District Hospital	47	88	18	9	7	6	3	0	2	180	18 (14–19.8)
Busia	Khunyangu Sub District Hospital	32	62	21	19	42	21	8	1	3	209	23 (15–32)
Nairobi	Loco Dispensary	2	13	42	23	32	7	11	3	5	138	26 (21–33)
	Total	149(14%)	359(34%)	184(18%)	117(11%)	124(12%)	53(5%)	43(4%)	9(1%)	13(1%)	1,051	20 (16–29)

ShangRing client recruitment, screening and enrollment cascade by county and site is presented in Table 2.

Table 2

ShangRing client recruitment, screening and enrollment cascade.

County	Kisumu	Siaya		Homabay	Busia	Nairobi	All
Facility	JOOTRH	Got Agulu SCRH	Bondo SCRH	Mbita District Hospital	Khunyangu Sub District hospital	Loco Dispensary	Total
Clients offered SR	678	157	242	1016	366	1239	3692
Clients who chose SR n (%)	163(24.0%)	133(84.7%)	235(97.1%)	193(19.0%)	216(59.0%)	139(11.2%)	1079(29.2%)
Accepted SR but clinically ineligible for SR	1(0.6%)	1(0.8%)	2(0.9%)	2(1.0%)	4(1.9%)	1(0.7%)	11(1.0%)
Lacked correct device size	1	1	1	11	3	0	17
Circumcised through SR	161	131	232	180	209	138	1051

SR = ShangRing; JOOTRH = Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Teaching and Referral Hospital; SCRH = Sub County Referral Hospital

Uptake of ShangRing

The overall proportion of eligible clients who chose ShangRing was estimated to be 29.2% but varied widely from 11.2% in Loco Dispensary, Nairobi to 97.1% at Bondo Sub County Hospital (Table 2).

Adverse Events

Of the 1,051 clients who underwent ShangRing procedure, one had severe and two had moderate AEs for an overall AE rate of 0.3% (3/1,051). The first AE was a failed device placement due to incompletely locked outer ring noticed after excision of the foreskin (classified as a severe AE) managed by immediate removal of the device with completion of the procedure through conventional surgical suturing. The second AE, classified as moderate, was wound dehiscence after device removal and the third AE, also moderate, was immediate post-operative bleeding, managed through sustained application of pressure with the device in place. All AEs resolved without long term sequelae. There were no previously undescribed ShangRing related AEs.

Average duration of device placement

Mean duration of device placement (measured from placement of the inner ring to complete excision of the foreskin) was 9.8 minutes (SD 2.8) and did not vary substantially by facility, client age or provider experience (not shown).

Follow up rate among clients circumcised through ShangRing device

Of the 1,051 clients enrolled, one had immediate device removal as described above. All other 1,050 clients returned for device removal from the 5th to 11th post-placement day. There were two (0.2%) early removals before day six, 1,033 (98.3%) timely removals from the sixth to eigth day and 16 (1.5%) late removals from day nine to day 11 (Fig 2). All 43 clients who failed to return for removal by the 7th post-placement day were successfully reached by phone and returned for device removal within 4 days without physical tracing.

Fig 2

Number of ShangRing removals by day since replacement.

Distribution of ShangRing device sizes used by client ages

The complete range of 18 available ShangRing device sizes for adolescents and adults, ranging from S (18mm) to A (40mm) were used in this evaluation (See Table 3). Five out of the six AAES facilities experienced at least one instance of stock out of some frequently used device sizes especially D to G which collectively accounted for 43.% of the total devices used. Overall, 17 eligible clients who chose ShangRing crossed over to conventional surgical circumcision due to stock out of the appropriate device size.

Table 3

ShangRing device sizes used among Kenyan males 13-64yrs (n = 1051).

	Age bands in years
Device size in mm	13–14	15–19	20–24	25–29	30–34	35–39	40–44	45–49	50+	Row Totals
A-40	2	15	18	13	17	4	3	0	0	72
	1.3%	4.2%	9.8%	11.1%	13.7%	7.3%	7.0%	0.0%	0.0%	6.8%
A1-39	0	2	9	1	3	0	1	0	0	16
	0.0%	0.6%	4.9%	0.9%	2.4%	0.0%	2.3%	0.0%	0.0%	1.5%
A2-38	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	4
	0.0%	0.0%	0.5%	0.9%	0.8%	0.0%	0.0%	11.1%	0.0%	0.4%
A3-37	0	0	1	2	5	1	1	0	1	11
	0.0%	0.0%	0.5%	1.7%	4.0%	1.8%	2.3%	0.0%	8.3%	1.1%
A4-36	0	2	2	1	3	0	0	0	0	8
	0.0%	0.6%	1.1%	0.9%	2.4%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.8%
B-35	1	19	17	10	15	8	2	1	0	73
	0.7%	5.3%	9.2%	8.6%	12.1%	14.6%	4.7%	11.1%	0.0%	6.9%
C-34	2	29	23	12	20	8	2	0	0	96
	1.3%	8.1%	12.5%	10.3%	16.1%	14.6%	4.7%	0.0%	0.0%	9.1%
D-33	6	44	21	21	6	14	10	0	2	124
	4.0%	12.3%	11.4%	18.0%	4.8%	25.5%	23.3%	0.0%	16.7%	11.8%
E-32	15	51	24	18	13	8	7	2	6	144
	10.07%	14.21%	13.04%	15.38%	10.48%	16.36%	16.28%	22.22%	50.00%	13.78%
F-31	9	33	15	6	13	4	6	2	1	89
	6.0%	9.2%	8.2%	5.1%	10.5%	7.3%	14.0%	22.2%	8.3%	8.5%
G-30	12	28	22	11	12	3	8	0	2	98
	8.1%	7.8%	12.0%	9.4%	9.7%	5.5%	18.6%	0.0%	16.7%	9.3%
H-29	13	34	14	8	7	2	1	1	0	80
	8.7%	9.5%	7.6%	6.8%	5.7%	3.6%	2.3%	11.1%	0.0%	7.6%
I-28	24	51	6	12	7	2	0	2	0	104
	16.1%	14.2%	3.3%	10.3%	5.7%	3.6%	0.0%	22.2%	0.0%	9.9%
K-26	14	23	7	1	2	0	2	0	0	49
	9.4%	6.4%	3.8%	0.9%	1.6%	0.0%	4.7%	0.0%	0.0%	4.7%
M-24	4	8	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	15
	2.7%	2.2%	1.6%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.4%
O-22	18	9	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	27
	12.1%	2.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	2.6%
Q-20	13	5	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	19
	8.7%	1.4%	0.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.8%
S-18	16	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	22
	10.7%	1.7%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	2.1%
COLUMN TOTALS	149	359	184	117	124	54	43	9	12	1,051
	14.2%	34.1%	17.5%	11.1%	11.8%	5.2%	4.1%	0.9%	1.1%	100.0%

The device size used increased with advancing age from 13–20 years (χ2 = 0.47, p<0.001) then plateaued from 20–40 years (χ2 = 0.057, p = 0.224) and above 40 years (χ2 = 0.006 p = 0.9686). Beyond 45 years, the relationship between device size and age may have been obscured due to the small number of clients in this age bracket.

A graphic presentation of the relationship between device size and client age is presented in Fig 3.

Fig 3

Distribution of ShangRing device sizes used by client age.

Discussion and conclusion

Discussion

This evaluation examined the safety, uptake and overall feasibility of ShangRing device for use in Kenya’s VMMC program based on 1,051 procedures conducted in routine health care settings. Overall, the device was effective, safe, with limited operational bottlenecks for roll out but had wide variation in uptake across different sites. The results corroborate findings from previous studies in Uganda, Kenya and Zambia [8, 9, 10] which showed that the device is effective, safe and client compliance with appointments for device removal on day seven is excellent.

The percentage of clients for whom the device is not suitable was quantified. Only 11 (1%) of the 1,079 clients who chose ShangRing were found to be clinically ineligible for the device and of these, five were moreover eligible for surgery leaving only five clients ineligible for both ShangRing and conventional surgery. Comparable low rates of clinical ineligibility for the device have also been reported in other studies; two out of 500 (0.4%) in Zambia [16], one out 200 (0.25) in Kenya [13] and five out of 1,211 (0.4%) men in a field study in Kenya and Zambia [9]. This is reassuring because only a small proportion of men will be clinically unsuitable for ShangRing circumcision as the device is rolled out, but it highlights the necessity of maintaining some availability of conventional surgical services.

The moderate and severe AE rate in this evaluation was low (0.3%) and corroborates reports from earlier studies across Africa [8, 9, 14]; suggesting that widespread use of ShangRing in the VMMC program would be safe.

The ShangRing uptake rate of 29.2% observed in this evaluation is much lower than was reported in Uganda by Kigozi et al. from comparable evaluations among adults (81.8%) and adolescents (82.8%) [8, 17]. Some previous studies reported high ShangRing acceptability rates based on client satisfaction with the procedure and whether they said they would recommend the procedure to friends [6, 11] which is not comparable to this evaluation. Possible explanations for the overall low uptake and its wide variation across sites (11.1%-97.2%) include variable recruitment practices across different counties with some sites only offering ShangRing at static facilities where both conventional surgery and ShangRing procedure would be performed on-site while others additionally offered ShangRing at outreach intake points from where clients would be transported to different fixed sites for the procedure. The need for transfer of ShangRing clients to a different location for placement may have discouraged clients served at outreach sites from choosing the device. The presentation of ShangRing as a different but equally effective alternative to conventional surgery rather than a superior option may not have been enough motivation for clients to switch from the widely known surgical methods to a new device. When people are offered something new and are expected to make a choice immediately, the natural tendency is to err on the side of caution. Finally, the computation of uptake is based on an assumption that all HIV negative clients aged 13 years or older who were circumcised through conventional surgery at the evaluation sites actively declined ShangRing without recording each individual’s choice; it is possible that in high demand seasons, some clients slipped through to conventional surgery without being offered ShangRing leading to underestimation of uptake.

Eventually, uptake of ShangRing will likely increase through information diffusion as more men experience the clinical advantages of the device such as short procedure time, absence of suturing and better cosmetic outcomes. Further, implementation of the March 2019 WHO amendment of ShangRing prequalification to include use of topical anesthesia and no-flip technique [18] may stimulate incremental demand from men who dislike injection and prefer a faster procedure.

The complete range of 18 ShangRing device sizes for adolescents and adults ranging from S (18mm) to A (40mm) were used in this evaluation with 17 (1.6%) clients missing the correct device at the time of the procedure. This was the most significant logistical challenge experienced during this AAES. The need to continuously stock all adult and adolescent device sizes may pose a challenge for procurement because the relative consumption rate of different devices sizes depends on daily service uptake by different age bands which is unpredictable. Similar challenges of device stock outs have been reported in other ShangRing studies [12, 14] and may require large stock of buffer supplies in the roll out phase. An important new development that addresses this challenge is the approach of using reduced number of ShangRing sizes which was evaluated by Feldblum et al. in Zambia and found to be effective and safe [16]. The results showed that using half the number (every other size) of adult ShangRing device sizes is sufficient for safe service delivery. WHO subsequently amended the prequalification of ShangRing in March 2019 to include availability and use of every other device size; this may alleviate some of the challenges around need to stock a large number of different devices sizes [18].

Limitations

ShangRing uptake in this evaluation should be interpreted with caution because it is based on clients who presented for VMMC at the health facilities implementing AAES and their outreaches; uptake by the unreached broader target communities may be different.

The observed wide variation in uptake of ShangRing across different sites cannot be explained fully because the reasons for not choosing ShangRing were not recorded. Additional efforts combining qualitative and mixed methods are therefore recommended to explore possible reasons for low and variable uptake of ShangRing. This will guide effective demand creation for the device in areas where uptake is low.

Overall, a trajectory of increasing uptake for ShangRing is likely because its prequalification has been updated to include no flip technique and topical anesthesia, which may attract more clients.

Another limitation is the documentation of AE rate based on client-provider interaction during placement and at day 7 removal only. The protocol did not include additional visits beyond day 7 removal, therefore any AEs occurring post-removal may have been missed if the client failed to seek help at the designated ShangRing evaluation facilities. This could result in underestimation of AE rate.

Conclusion

ShangRing circumcision is effective and safe in the Kenyan context and should be rolled out under programmatic implementation for men to take advantage of its unique benefits and the freedom of choice beyond conventional surgical MMC. Public education on its availability and advantages is necessary to increase its uptake and realization of public health benefits of its inclusion in VMMC programs. The WHO amendment of its prequalification in March 2019 to include its use among younger adolescents 10–12 years, application under topical anesthesia and no-flip technique may stimulate incremental demand for VMMC.

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the funding agencies.

Dataset from ShangRing AAES in Kenya Line.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

9 Jul 2019

PONE-D-19-15563

Rollout of ShangRing circumcision with active surveillance for adverse events and monitoring for acceptability in Kenya

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Odoyo-June,

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.

============================================================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Aug 23 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Webster Mavhu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.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. In your Methods section and Ethics Statement, please specify whether data were obtained in a fully anonymized and de-identified manner, and whether any of the researchers/authors had access to identifying information. If any of the authors had access to identifying information (names, addresses, etc.), please explain whether you obtained participant consent, or whether the requirement for informed consent was waived.

4. Thank you for including your ethics statement: "This surveillance activity was reviewed by the the Kenya ministry of Health VMMC program plus the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Center for Global Health (CGH) human research protection procedures and determined to be nonresearch (CDC CGH HSR Tracking # D-14-2015; 2016-173)."

a) Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This is a well-written manuscript describing active surveillance of the ShangRing device as per the WHO framework. I have a few comments:

1) In response to reviewers, authors should state that conduct of the active surveillance was consistent with the WHO framework and similar, previous initiatives (e.g. Mavhu 2016; 2019). The working definition of "acceptability" is consistent with both WHO and similar, previous initiatives. Of note active surveillance is not a study per se. Other reviewers comments are however, relevant and need to be addressed.

2) Possible reasons for variability in acceptability (11-97%) need to be provided. In other instances, this was because providers were actively sabotaging a device as more VMMCs in a shorter time meant less remuneration. If possible reasons are unavailable, this should be stated as a limitation and future initiatives should explore these. If it was due to absence if systematic demand creation, a recommendation would be that device-specific demand creation should be intensified and/or target those sites/communities with low acceptance.

3) Also, future initiatives (including qualitative/mixed methods) should explore possible reasons for not taking up ShangRing - these will be critical in informing demand-creation for the device.

4) Active tracing procedures need to be described in detail (see previous device active surveillance papers) - How many call/text attempts and when?

5) Rest of comments are editorial - most have been raised by reviewers

.Authors vacillate between UK & US English (e.g. anesthesia/anaesthesia, program/programme, analysed) - should use one consistently

.References - 101, 104, 304, 333-334

.Line 71 - 12 years

.112-studies, (13)

.167 - of ShangRing?

.196 timely, (comma use)

.276 - is may?

.330 AES or AAES?

.347, 361 (10-12 years)

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Major comments:

This is an interesting paper on safety and acceptability of ShangRing in Kenya. It is clear that devices are an important part of VMMC scale up and efficiency. The paper would be of interest to your readers and is timely. The data could inform a critical component of HIV prevention programs.

However with the multiple purposes of this evaluation including assessment of ShangRing safety and acceptability, the authors fail to completely address that they could not demonstrably show acceptability. Safety was assessed and ShangRing demonstrated safe. An average acceptability of only 29% is poor – half of the 6 sites had acceptance rates of 25% or less. This result, in contrast to previous research, is diminished and ShangRing scale up repeatedly suggested, although premature based on these data. The abstract, discussion, and conclusions are, therefore, misleading. As acceptability was not demonstrated, the investment in training, devices, and alternatives to surgical MC for ShangRing roll out are not supported in this paper. Related, the results – only one sentence on acceptability (a major outcome) are not well balanced. It is explained in the methods and limitations that they did not collect information from clients on reasons not to want ShangRing as this was largely routine data collection; however, this major limitation should be better explained. Although they posit some potential explanations in a discussion paragraph, the lack of further exploration of this interesting result severely limits the utility of this research.

Attention and revision with an eye to the results on acceptability is needed to strengthen the paper. The authors should return to clinics, focal persons, or other key VMMC informants to illuminate these findings and give some further rational for this interesting result. This is the key piece of the paper that could inform scale in Kenya and the region. This would not take long and would help make the results more informative.

Minor comments:

Line 101: Fix references. This is distracting and poor editing: “other African counties, which demonstrated its safety, ease of use and good cosmetic outcomes [5, 6, 7, 8, 9 102 10, 11, 12], the Kenya national VMMC technical working group endorsed 103 its rollout under an active AE surveillance protocol in line with the WHO framework for clinical 104 evaluation of MC devices[Error! Bookmark not defined.].” Line 304/334 reference as well.

Line 114: Rephrase: It is not an “equivalent alternative.” This phrase seems misleading.

Line 134: Please provide more details on the training ShangRing. How long was training? How was proficiency attained? How many procedures did the trainees watch or perform? Was AE identification, treatment, management, and documentation included?

Please clarify. Evaluation sites were noted to be chosen for dense populations with persons living close to MC sites. However, you later note in lines 155+, that clients receiving ShangRing were transported from additional outreach intake points to the fixed sites. This seems to contradict your evaluation site criteria.

Line 161: This is the basis for the paper and needs more detail in this section. How was active surveillance conducted and when? Were phone calls the first line of active surveillance and then home visits? Or either? Or both? Were they triggered on Day 7 or Day 8? Please clarify the active tracing procedures.

Line 190: Follow up rate outcome includes outcomes of active follow up efforts for clients who failed to return for follow up. Does this include only those with observed outcomes or also those who reported outcomes by phone?

211: This is a large limitation to the usefulness of the study to inform scale up. “Reasons for choosing or declining ShangRing were not collected because this evaluation was implemented in routine service delivery settings.”

Table 2: Why do you think that Mbita District Hospital had the majority of the missing ShangRIng sizes?

238: The fact that acceptability of ShangRing varied widely is suggestive of highly varied recruitment or demand creation procedures. How were demand creation officers trained? How did that training vary across sites? Were the mobilizers paid to recruit? Was that the same across sites?

259: No need to repeat outcome measures of timing.

Line 267 spelling error, “avialble” is an example of the need for grammar, spacing, and spelling review throughout. There are many examples of sloppy copy editing. Another: Line 276, “and age is may have been obscured due to the small number of clients in this age bracket.” Line 330 “experienced during this AES.” Even ShangRing is not consistently spelled throughout (check your tables and figures). Many more missing punctuation and errors to be addressed that show lack of close editing review.

Results lines 300+. This lower acceptability seems like the major result. This paragraph could be strengthened. What different in lower and higher acceptance sites? Just urban/rural? Was it only lack of ShangRing availability at the sites? If the transportation was a factor, this also shows that the sites were poorly selected as the criteria for inclusion suggested that close proximity to sites was a reason for site selection. Please explain.

Reviewer #2: Thank you to the authors for the manuscript that focuses on the active surveillance of the Shang Ring device in Kenya across 6 sites in 5 counties. While I consider the manuscript to be valuable it does require some revision and points of clarity.

Abstract

1. Conclusion in the abstract reads as a direct copy of the main manuscript conclusion.

Background

1. Where it is written medical circumcision recommend amending to read medical male circumcision (MMC) to be specific

2. There are sentences that require references and reference correction: end of sentence line 88, end of sentence line 92, end of sentence line 94, end of sentence line 97, reference 9 in line 102, reference error in line 104.

3. The authors mention that the goal of the surveillance activity was to “assess the feasibility of Shang Ring…” however, as per the WHO guidelines on evaluating medical male circumcision devices, feasibility is usually assessed during the pilot stage. Therefore, was this a true feasibility assessment? Furthermore, it is not clear what the operational challenges or opportunities were within the broader scope of the manuscript.

4. Were the outlined objectives representative of the overall active surveillance or the manuscript? Recommend revising these objectives to outline the aims of the manuscript under background and the active surveillance objectives can be included under the methods section. However, as it stands the presented objectives do not speak to the results of the manuscript. An example: objective (2) “detect new or rare AEs…” nothing new or rare was reported. None of the objectives clearly talk to operational challenges or operational bottlenecks. Based on the discussion, one can make the assumption that objective 4 makes reference to operational challenges however the link is not clear.

Methods

1. Were the health facilities or counties supported by PEPFAR. Consider re-wording for clarity.

2. Selection criteria for sites: the authors list 3 however it reads as 4. Population density and travel time should be two separate criteria.

3. What was considered to be a ‘short’ travel time between site and residence?

4. How did the authors define a ‘competent’ healthcare worker in conventional surgical MMC?

5. The target was 167 per site, however some were under and others over? Was the target enrolment controlled across sites? Did all sites start initiation of the Shang Ring at the same time?

6. Under training, the authors touch on sensitization of non-participating health care workers and the general public how was this achieved, through workshops, information sessions, pamphlets…

7. The study only enrolled HIV uninfected clients, does this mean that clients were tested at the facility prior to being offered the Shang Ring or was HIV status considered under screening?

8. Line 146 to 149 is unclear, recommend rephrasing to: Clients who chose ShangRing but were found clinically ineligible for the device (due to conditions like adhesions and thick or short foreskins) while eligible for surgery were circumcised through conventional surgery according to the Kenya clinical manual for male circumcision under local anaesthesia (13).

9. Under procedure it mentions that clients consent to “active follow-up” however the study does not continue to follow clients after device removal. This needs to be clarified.

10. Provide additional information to explain why some clients had to be transported to a service delivery point to receive the Shang Ring. Was this the same at those sites for clients opting for conventional MMC?

11. How was wound healing determined?

12. There is no description of how the data was collected and captured. Were these clinic files that were reviewed daily, logs that were assessed retrospectively and where was the information captured and stored?

Outcome measures

13.1. Proportion of AEs was calculated by adding the severe and moderate not severe or moderate

13.2. Under outcomes: safety is reported by the AE rate, acceptability is reported by device uptake. However, it is not clear how clinical eligibility, effectiveness, follow-up rate, device placement duration are related to operational challenges.

13.3. Does time until return for removal fall under follow up rate? This is confusing considering that the study has no formal follow-ups

14. Data analysis section should be a separate paragraph

15. Provider experience as a measurement only features under analysis description and does not appear in the results, discussion or background. Not clear how it is relevant.

Results

1. The study dates in the abstract are different from the dates in the results

2. In line 211-212 authors provide justification for why acceptability data is not collected, this is misplaced and should be moved from results to methods.

3. Figure 1: 11 clinically ineligible with not description in figure for why however 17 circumcised through conventional surgery with a description for why. Be consistent with how you represent your information.

4. What happened to the other 6 who were ineligible for Shang Ring and conventional surgical circumcision, were they referred for care?

5. Move sentence “Ten out of the 11 clients who were…” (line 222-223) before sentence starting with “Seventeen (1.6%)…” (line 220)

6. Be consistent with decimals when reporting percentages 1.6% vs 97%

7. It is not clear what the authors mean by “There were no previously undescribed ShangRing related AEs” (line 250-251)

8. What is the significance on reporting on duration of device placement? Device placement is not included in the discussion section. Furthermore, there is no data provided on duration of device removal.

9. Check Table of ShangRing device sizes: in table, A4 is 36 mm while in text A4 is 40mm.

10. Figure 3: The distribution of device sizes by age using the scatter plot is good. As the authors describe the plot is biphasic (13-20 years) and 20+ years regarding distribution of need for different device sizes. Device size variability is required in the younger age categories.

Discussion

1. Consider re-working the sections of the discussion to follow the order in which the results are reported. Current order of results: Eligibility, Acceptability, AE, Placement duration, follow-up rate, size distribution. The discussion sections are: Eligibility, AE, Acceptability, Size.

2. The authors spend a considerable length of the discussion justifying the reasons for not collecting additional information on acceptability for this reason there are certain sections of the discussion that read like they should be under the ‘Limitations’ heading. A recommendation would be to change the wording from acceptability and instead report on uptake of the ShangRing device with a future recommendation for more detailed acceptability studies to be done.

3. The discussion section focuses too much on the 17 cases that did not have the appropriate device sizes available. However, there is no description in the results of what these sizes were or the age categories of the clients. The manner in which the device size is represented in the discussion section renders the scatter plot irrelevant. Recommend finding a way to report on the sizes that were relevant to the active surveillance.

4. The discussion section would benefit from additional literature to substantiate some of the points being made by the authors.

Limitations

1. The description of no additional visits should also be reflected in the methodology

Conclusion

1. Remove references from conclusion

2. The WHO amendment to the prequalification is mentioned in the Limitations and Conclusions section however it is not in the Discussion section. It’s link to the overall paper is not clear.

Acknowledgement

1. Acknowledge the clients who participated in the active surveillance

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Sep 2019

Point by point response to the editor and the two reviewers are presented in a single table divided into three sections each addressing a single reviewer. The complete response is uploaded as Response to Reviewers.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-15563R1

Rollout of ShangRing circumcision with active surveillance for adverse events and monitoring for uptake in Kenya

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Odoyo-June,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 24 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Webster Mavhu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

All reviewer comments have been adequately addressed. A few editorial comments:

Line 139- Subsequently,

182 - ...who chose...

260 - ...third AE, also moderate, was...

270 Removals were... beyond). repeats lines 206-209 - could be paraphrased or left out

326 ...locations,...??

366 ...uptake of ShangRing...

382 ....realization of public...

384 ...adolescents 10-12 years...

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

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

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

9 Sep 2019

Pint-by-point Response to Reviewer Comments

Protocol title: Rollout of ShangRing circumcision with active surveillance for adverse events and monitoring for uptake in Kenya. PONE-D-19-15563R1

Response to additional Editor Comments:

1 Line 139- Subsequently, - Edited as suggested

2 182 - ...who chose...- Edited as suggested

3 260 - ...third AE, also moderate, was...- Edited as suggested

4 270 Removals were... beyond). repeats lines 206-209 - could be paraphrased or left out - Paraphrased

5 326 ...locations,...??- Edited as suggested

6 366 ...uptake of ShangRing…- Edited as suggested

7 382 ....realization of public...-Edited as suggested

8 384 ...adolescents 10-12 years..- Edited as suggested

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

11 Sep 2019

Rollout of ShangRing circumcision with active surveillance for adverse events and monitoring for uptake in Kenya

PONE-D-19-15563R2

Dear Dr. Odoyo-June,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Webster Mavhu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

19 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-15563R2

Rollout of ShangRing circumcision with active surveillance for adverse events and monitoring for uptake in Kenya

Dear Dr. Odoyo-June:

I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Webster Mavhu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE