R0:

EDITOR:

The reviewers agree that your manuscript addresses an important topic. They have also raised a number of well-justified concerns and points requiring clarification. I hope that you see these as opportunities to further improve your manuscript such that it may be accepted for publication.

Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The author wrote this manuscript quite well. However, there are some suggestions for improving it better including,

Abstract: The abstract is written well. However, the results showed about self-stigma representing at 49% so this result should be suggested in conclusion as well.

Introduction: The introduction is organised and written well. However, there are some suggestions about referencing that should be revised along with Vancouver style and the journal format, such as (6)(7)(8), should be (6-8) or (Mbuthia et al., 2020) should be a number of reference. Another point, the abbreviation of drug-resistant TB (DR-TB) should be the same with DRTB in table 2 (page 10). Moreover, in terms of objective of the study, it should be written clearly. The author stated in line 98-100 (page 3), but it seems like expected outcomes rather than its objectives.

Methodology: Ethics statement: It is a clear statement, however, the date of approval should be presented as well to ensure the data were collected after approval.

Study population: The author stated that the target population comprised people with TB who were on treatment and were 15 years and above. However, the results showed that there were some participants aged under 15 years (0-14) as well. Thus, the author should revise and make it correct.

Sampling procedures: The author stated that the data were collected in 12 regions, however there were only 11 regions stated in line 139-140.

Sample size: The author showed some details of sample size calculation that met 421 persons (line 147). However, there were only 367 participants recruited to this study which is less than the appropriate sample size calculated. So, the author needs to explain more details about the sample size. It should be 421 as the result of calculation with the appropriate formula. Moreover, if there are sources of the number used to calculate, the reference needed to be stated as well.

Eligibility criteria: In terms of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the author stated that all people with TB aged 15 years and older would be recruited to the research and all people who were below the age of 15 years were excluded. This is the main point that needs to be clarified because in the results, there are some participants aged 0-14 years as stated before. Moreover, in terms of ethics, participants aged less than 18 years cannot sign the consent form by themselves, their parents should sign the consent form. So, the author needs to revise and clarify further.

Data collection tools and procedures: There is no information about the questionnaire well. The questionnaire should be clarified the details, especially the items used to categorise into "no stigma and stigma (binary). If you use only one item, it should not be appropriate to categorise. This is an important point of this study that needs to be explained. As well as, if the questionnaire was conducted by previous researchers, it should be cited correctly. Moreover, the author stated in this part that stigma was assessed using a set of standardised questions rated on a five-point Likert scale (0 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree), while, in page 6, the author used (1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree) as well as the data were categorised in to 5 groups staring from 1.00 - 5.00. Please check the details again.

Data analysis: The Cronbach's alpha value needs to be presented with the exact value instead of >=0.70 that it will present the reliability of tools better. Moreover, the author stated in line 181 and table 2 "TB type" but in the conclusion, the author used "treatment type". So, this point needs to be the same. For the binary classification, the author needs to explain more details about how to categorise into 2 groups: no stigma and stigma. In terms of inferential statistics, the binary logistic regression and multiple logistic regression were not used and shown in the results. So, the author needs to revise about this point again.

Results: The sum of percentage, the details in Table 1 & 2 showed the percentage of each variable, which is good. However, the author needs to check the sum of each variable should be 100%. The author may use two decimal points for presenting the percentage. Moreover, some sub-variables which there is no data (0) does not need to present in the table. Please find the details in the attached file.

In table 2, inferential statistics, the author stated in data analysis that binary logistic regression and multiple logistic regression would be used to analyse to identify the predictors. However, in the results, there is no any results based on these statistics. So, the author needs to revise about the statistics stated in data analysis. Moreover, about chi-square, the author needs to check the assumption of chi-square because No cell should have an expected frequency < 1, and at least 80% of cells should have expected frequencies of 5 or more. So, if it does not meet the assumption, its results might be wrong.

Aged 0-14, the author stated in the methodology that the participants need to be 15 years or over. So, please check the data again.

Some words should be changed for example in line 213 from prevented to obstructed. Moreover, about abbreviation "DSTB and DRTB", for DSTB, the author did not state before so it needs to be mentioned in previous part first before using in this part. As well as, DRTB, the author used DR-TB in line 79 so it needs to be the same, with or without -.

Discussion: The author wrote this part quite well, however, the author needs to check about the number of percentage presented in this part again. Moreover, citation should be revise and rewrite following the format.

References: In terms of references, the author should check the format of Vancouver style referencing in both in-cited and references part again. As well as, the author needs to check the format along with the journal format. For example, (xx) to [xx]. Please revise and rewrite following the formats.

Reviewer #2: Please see my report. I think the manuscript transition from a dissertation to a paper is incomplete. Please review my report for details. I raise concerns regarding the sampling, statistical analysis and the conclusions made regarding the results.

Reviewer #3: This cross-sectional study tackles an important global health problem, TB-related stigma among people with TB. This study has significant merits including 367 people living with tuberculosis sampled over one year; and captures various contexts, specifically 180 health facilities across 11counties aiming for a nationally representative survey of TB-related stigma in Kenya. Two hundred and twenty-eight patients provided information regarding TB-related stigma, of whom 24 reported experiencing TB-related stigma.

Several areas remain unclear to me and require further clarification, elaboration or consideration for reformatting.

1. The referencing style used is inconsistent. e.g. introduction section lines 60-61(Mbuthia et al. 2020), whereas other areas have a different style that is numbered. Consider reformatting for consistency.

2. Previous research on TB-related stigma measurement and its implications to TB related outcomes in the Kenyan context has not been highlighted.

3. Ethics statement section could be aligned for consistent formatting with other text sections of the manuscript.

4. The sample size calculation could be further clarified for the readers to judge its robustness. a. Is there a proportion of TB-related stigma assumed from a previous study? b. What is the rationale of a 90% response rate? – Lines 147 to 150. c. What was the actual response rate?

5. From the manuscript, the sample size calculated was 421 TB patients, but only 367 are reported and 228 TB patients provide information related to TB stigma. These patients were sampled over one year from 180 health facilities across 11 counties in Kenya. a. Further clarification on the sampling frame is needed. b. How many patients were sampled per health facility? Was there any gender consideration per health facility? c. How were the 12 regions chosen and how do they relate to the current national or programmatic divisions? d. It is indicated that one county was chosen from the 12 regions but only 11 counties included.

6. Elaborating on the tool and procedures used is needed for the readers to judge the robustness of the methodology used. This information is crucial in the methods section. Lines 164-165: “Stigma was assessed using a set of standardized questions rated on a five-point Likert scale (0 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree).”

(i) What is the set of standardized questions? (ii) What tool was used? (iii) Has this tool been previously used in the literature? (iv) Has the tool been previously used in the Kenyan context? (v) Is this a validated tool? (vi) In what language/s were the questions asked? (vii) Who administered the survey? Provide relevant references.

These details are missing in the methods section; and need to be considered for inclusion in the main text and/or supplementary material based on journal guidelines.

1. What do the authors think could be the implications of handling neutral scores as missing? Lines 189-190: ‘Responses with a "Neutral" score were treated as missing in the binary variable.’ Please elaborate and describe the possible limitation.

2. Lines 192 to 194: “Variables with p-values <0.05 in bivariate analysis were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model to identify independent predictors of TB-related stigma” – Do the authors mean a multivariable logistic regression model?

3. In the results section, 10 participants are aged 0-14 years however, one of the study inclusion criteria is that participants should be aged 15 years and above. Further clarification is needed.

4. Are the age group categories shown in Table 1 meaningful? Would other summary descriptive statistics for age central tendency and dispersion be considered to provide more information about patient characteristics.

5. The term “Pagan” in Table 1 may be considered derogatory – consider an alternative word.

6. Several other participant characteristics would be important to understand TB-related stigma, including: a) the type of tuberculosis; b) the timing of treatment for the TB patient at which this survey was being performed; c) disclosure of a TB diagnosis; among others. There is existing global, regional and particularly Kenyan literature that supports the importance of these particular characteristics. Consider including these in Table 1.

7. Lines 228-230: “Out of 367 participants, 228 individuals with TB shared their experiences regarding stigma. Among them, 24 (11%) reported experiencing TB-related stigma, while 204 (89%) did not. The remaining 139 participants did not provide an opinion and were excluded from the bivariate analysis.” a. Based on this statement, it is not clear what the procedures for study participation were. The study was to assess TB-related stigma, but 139 participants did not provide an opinion. Please elaborate the study procedures for the readers to gain clarity. b. What are the characteristics of the individuals of TB patients who did not share their experiences regarding stigma? c. Were they different from those who did?

8. Clarification is needed regarding the proportions of stigma provided in different sections of the manuscript. TB-related stigma dimensions in Figure 2 report relatively high TB-related stigma levels (49% for self-stigma, 68% of community-level stigma); compared to the overall TB-related stigma reported as 11% and also shown in Table 2.

9. Consider including whether the type of TB was pulmonary or not, in Table 2. This is not clear.

10. Data analysis:

Lines 171-175: “Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to test the internal consistency and construct validity of the stigma scale in the Kenyan context. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess internal reliability, with values ≥0.7 indicating acceptable consistency. The principal components extraction method was used to identify underlying factors, with factor loadings ≥0.4 considered acceptable.”

• Although this section is included in the data analysis methods section, there is no data in the manuscript to support this. Please provide this information if it is available.

Lines 182-186: “Stigma-related responses covering domains such as guilt, fear, social avoidance, and disclosure concerns were numerically encoded (1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree). Scores were aggregated row-wise per participant to generate a mean stigma score, which was then categorized as follows: 1.00–1.49: Strongly Disagree, 1.50–2.49: Disagree, 2.50–3.49: Neutral, 3.50–4.49: Agree and 4.50–5.00: Strongly Agree.”

• Similarly, although this section is included in the data analysis methods section, there is no data in the manuscript to support this. Stigma is reported as a binary variable and not continuous. Please provide this information if it is available.

Lines 192-194: Variables with p-values <0.05 in bivariate analysis were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model to identify independent predictors of TB-related stigma. Outputs are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 of the Results section.

• Again, this section is included in the data analysis methods section, but there is no data in the manuscript to support this. No results are provided for multivariable logistic regression in Table 1 or Table 2. Please provide this information if it is available.

Was there a justification of including age group instead of age as a continuous variable instead in the data analyses models used?

Was the sample size calculated powered to determine the factors associated with TB-related stigma?

1. Results, Discussion and Conclusion. The main confusion for me is around denominators and the respective proportions related to TB stigma that have been presented. Clarification on this is needed.

2. Study limitations need to be acknowledged.

R0:

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: 1. The manuscript primarily shows that adding a visual inspection step increased the proportion of prosthetic feet deemed usable (83% to 94%). This outcome is predictable and does not constitute meaningful scientific innovation. The work reads as an operational description rather than rigorous research; novelty and contribution are therefore limited. 2. The proposed checklist is not validated. There is no mechanical or structural testing, no clinical functional outcomes, no prospective field evaluation, no inter-rater reliability assessment, and no sensitivity or specificity analysis. Accordingly, the checklist cannot be considered a standard, and the conclusions overstate the evidence. A formal validation phase is required. 3. Safety, mechanical integrity, and lifespan have not been evaluated. Visual inspection alone is inadequate for medical devices. No ISO-aligned static or cyclic loading tests are presented, nor are durability or time-in-service data available. This is a critical omission given the manuscript’s intent to inform international practice. 4. No patient-level outcomes are included (for example, fit success, comfort, skin issues, mobility, abandonment, repair frequency, or time-to-failure). Without these data, the practical value of the intervention remains uncertain. 5. Brand-level comparisons are underpowered, and model-level or material-level analyses are not presented. Despite acknowledging this limitation, the manuscript still interprets brand-related effects. 6. The Introduction and narrative sections are disproportionately long and repetitive; substantial condensation is recommended. In contrast, the Methods and Results require greater depth and clarity. 7. The statistical analysis is limited. Logistic models do not account for key confounders such as service age, storage duration, materials, or model type. Model diagnostics, effect sizes with confidence intervals, and multiple-comparison considerations are not reported. 8. Economic evaluation is absent. Donation and reuse programs in low and middle income settings are cost sensitive, and without cost modeling, the recommendations have limited actionable value. 9. Several claims are overstated, including suggestions related to circular economy effects, international standard development, and safety assurance. These assertions are not supported by the presented data and should be moderated.

Reviewer #2: It is suggested to review the Nippon Foundation/Exceed Cambodia in proposing the standards of P&O. The case study that has been done in Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam and Sri Lanka in will guide the current P&O Standard in low and middle income countries.

It is best to review the minimum standards of P&O in these countries as a underlying theory to govern the foundation of foot reuse and donation used.

A robust systematic reviews are vital in proposing standards for foot reuse and donations used in low and middle income countries. An updated literature are needed.

It is suggested to explore the preliminary findings in these low and middle income countries.

Reviewer #3: GENERAL This reviewer welcomes the ambition of the authors to start developing standards for donated prosthetic componentry to LMICs. Such standards are indeed much needed as one important factor to improve the quality of the prosthetic devices provided within LMICs.

The authors’ work has carefully been imbedded into a wealth of information and reasons for why the need is urgent for developing standards of donated prosthetic components. This information has been mindfully drafted including viewpoints and situation of many LMICs as well as HICs. Well done!

What left this reviewer wondering is why the development of the checklist has not been carried out with locals at the two centers, where MB and PM were able to collect the data of the stored feet. The rationale for not doing so should be included into the Limitations section.

Further, why has no testing of the developed checklist been carried out with the two centers? For example, dividing the available feet into two equal sized groups would have raised the opportunity to develop the checklist with one group of feet including the regression model and then test it on the remaining feet in the second group. Why was this not considered? One could classify all available feet as indicated in Table 1, but then consider only these feet who were mostly used in the field or were mostly available. Lowering the numbers of independent variables to the those variables that would represent the essence of the checklist best would have given the option for a regression model, or is this reviewer mistaken? These points should be discussed in the paper. In case the paper gets too long (word count), it is recommended to concise the actual discussion section as it provides similar points stated in the introduction.

And lastly, this reviewer does not think that retesting used feet similar to the stated ISO standards would be feasible. Instead, it might be worthwhile checking in other industries (aviation, deep-sea shipping) what type of non-mechanical controls for checking of wear and tear on materials/motors are available without dismantling motors or testing of used structures. Perhaps some light and/or sonar evaluation would be a way to check the mechanical structure of used prosthetic feet and other componentry without putting any more strain on the used materials. That might be some thoughts for the Future Work section. Also probable collaboration with universities in LMICs should be considered as a close source of additional brain power for the development of standards within a given country.

DETAILED The reviewer finds the word ‘prosthetics’ difficult and prefers the (correct) term ‘prosthetic componentry or prosthetic components’ instead. In her experience using the nomenclature of the P/O profession adds clarity in an interdisciplinary context. It is often unclear to people outside of or adjacent to the P/O profession that a ‘prosthetics’ is composed of different products, i.e. some industrial produced prosthetic components and – in most cases – a bespoken locally fabricated prosthetic socket. By using prosthetic components or prosthesis/prostheses when referring to the final product – the authors will signal directly that there are ‘pieces’ needed to compose an entire prosthesis. Further, using the correct term assists in distinguishing prostheses fabricated with componentry from those being fabricated by 3D printing, also a field needing standards for C2C design. Therefore, please change the wording accordingly within the entire paper – thank you!

Lines 165-168. This sentence seems to be incomplete – please check.

Line 229. This statement is incorrect. In Switzerland (and the reviewer is sure this is the case in France, Netherlands and the UK), prosthetic componentry has different life/warranty cycles depending on the type of prosthetic component and its model. Please rephrase this sentence pointing out that different prosthetic components and their models have different life/warranty cycles set by the industrial manufacturers.

Lines 284-286.This sentence is unclear: Are the authors checking prosthetic feet shipped to Africa prior to the study or as part of the study when these feet arrive in Africa? If they are analyzed prior to the study how do the authors make sure that the damage seen is indeed due to shipping and not due to storage, for example? If the authors controlled feet within the study time period, would the sentence not needed to be stated “… we review prosthetic feet ALSO in Africa.”? Or did the authors not review the feet at the study place, but only in Africa? Please clarify and rephrase – thank you. These clarifications/details seem to be better placed within the Materials and Methods Chapter.

Lines 287-311, in particular lines 311-317. Because the authors use an experimental setup, variables are usually considered as ‘independent’ or ‘dependent’. Please clarify what variables (independent, dependent) were considered. All variables the authors used to classify the different feet need be listed together with the rationale for the decision to include them into the regression model, including their order.

Ok – are the variables listed on line 314 the once considered as independent variables to classify a prosthetic foot as ‘reusable’ or ‘not reusable’? If so, why? In other words, why do the authors consider the ‘brand’ to be more important than the condition of the foot itself? Or is it the case because only those feet that passed the visual test of being 'usable' were included into the regression model? Up to this point, this reviewer understood the aim of the study as being to develop a set of criteria to classify a prosthetic foot as reusable or not. If a visual pre-selection needs to be carried out first, how good/robust is the regression model that follows? Please clarify and add this clarification to the text – thank you.

Lines 296-298. What variables (the authors call them ‘flaws’, if understood correctly) did the authors consider during the usability tests? How were these tests carried out? What happened with the feet the authors did consider as ‘not usable’: where they removed from the total sample of 366 feet (see below remarks to line 319)? For illustration: assuming the authors used for their visual check a variable called ‘cracks within the cosmetic’: did the authors classify a foot as still usable when only surface cracks were available, or did they exclude any foot with a crack in its shell? What were the criteria to classify a SACH foot as ‘usable’? More detailed information about the entire method for the visual checks and the resulting classification needs to be stated.

When did the authors add any of this variable into the regression model and they give some of the variables a weighting, i.e. were some of the variables considered more important than others, and if so, why? Please add this information and make a reference to Table 2 or better, create a new Table or flowchart showing the authors thoughts and decision process including the variables used upon which they based their decision to classify a foot as ‘usable’ or ‘not usable’. Clarification on this matter will strengthen the work as it helps the reader to better understand the authors’ rationale – thank you!

Line 319. Please start the results section with “A total of 366 feet where analyzed, 196 left and 170 right feet…”

Line 320. Please add “… and A brand could be identified for… ” – thank you.

Lines 320-322. Based on the information given in Table 1, there were 12 brands identified as categories plus one category with feet unknown to the authors. Because ‘unknown’ is not a brand, the sentence needs to be rephrased – thank you.

Lines 353-357. These sentences seem to be missing some text, at least, they do not make sense to this reviewer. In lines 353-355 the authors state that the feet of Trulife and Ossur performed worst. Then in the following lines the authors state that they are (nevertheless??) considered as appropriate for donation. Please clarify – thank you.

Table 4. Please explain/add, either in the corresponding text (lines 350 and subsequently) how the negative signs have to be read. Why has the measurement made against ‘BioQuest’ and not ‘Janton’ and how do the authors explain the difference in the coefficient between these two feet? Both feet were represented with n=1, why is there a difference? Please explain and add the clarification into the text within the Discussion section – thank you.

Figure 2. Please add to Fig. 2, a, b, and c, as done in Fig. 1. This assists in clarifying matters. Please add this clarification into the text: line 364 = Figure 2a; line 378: delete (Figure 2) and add after ‘NCRPPD’ (Figure 2b); line 379: add (Figure 2c) after ‘K4C’.

Line 388. Add at the end of the sentence ‘(Figure 3)’.

Line 395. Please expand this sentence like or similar as proposed “…can be a burden to the recipient LMIC [31, 39,40], as indicated by Marks et al (2019 – Please check PLOS rules!!):” and then have the quotation followed. This will connect the quotation with the text and makes it easier to read.

Line 469. Please check this sentence – the word ‘design’ seems to be twice stated. If this is correct, consider rephrasing as the sentence reads strange, thank you.

Checklist questions: • Question (1): Please add example of ‘completeness’ of a prosthetic foot, as you did for Question 2. • Question (3): Add examples of what the authors consider ‘compliant’: forefoot, heel, middle section? All of these, only one? Usable for light persons, like children if only one part of the foot is too compliant? If so, which one do the authors consider as the most important variable for a foot to be still considered ‘usable’?

Line 529. Word missing: “..cost of what” was the biggest barrier? Please complete.

Line 533. Please consider replacing ‘in this way’ with ‘Therefore’ or similar that would connect clearer the content of the previous paragraph with this new one.

Line 544. Typos: ‘reduce’ instead of ‘reduces’, ‘limit’ instead of ‘limits’.

Line 567. Stop the sentence after ‘repair of equipment’ and continue with a new sentence starting, for example with “Hamner et al (please check PLOS rules!!) point out that … and than add the quotation.

Line 570. Please delete ‘etc.’ This should not be used in a text as it lefts the reader wonder what else – in this case – could have had an influence. Instead write ‘for example’ and list the three most missing points that were not considered.

Line 620. Keep the number correct: the authors tested 306 feet. The number speaks for itself, no need to bolster it. To this reviewer bolstering looks bad, stay with the figures.

Line 622. Replace ‘are’ with ‘were’, as this was the case for the authors' sample. Samples of other authors might vary.

R0:

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: Full Title:

Manuscript full title does not match with the short title. Full title reads "Climate change, livelihoods, gender and violence in Rukiga, Uganda: intersections and pathways". While short tile reads "Climate Change and Gender Based Violence". 'gender based violence' may not necessarily mean the same as 'gender and violence'. Authors should consider revising the wording in the full time if they meant gender based violence.

Abstract:

Inconsistency in FGD size, harmonize to consistent range across the manuscript. Author said "Between April and July 2021, we conducted 28 focus group discussions (FGDs), comprising 6-8 participants each (line 29-30" and in methods author said "From 20 April 2021- 02 July 2021 five focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in each community (28 in total) each consisting of four to six participants (lines 135-136)".

clarify the CBV emergent theme. You said "This study, though not originally intended to focus on GBV, examines how it interconnects with poverty, shifting gender roles, alcoholism, environmental stress, and family planning dynamics." (lines 26-28). Consider adding a statement signalling GBV emerged inductively during data colletion and/or analysis.

Methods: Revise the methods section to ensure the study can be reprodcible, and signal reliability of findings.

What study design did you use? not clear

Author said participants were " purposively selected... with the help of community leaders" (lines 140-141). Clearly elaborate the eligibility criteria and how the gatekeepers' influence was mitigated, and proper justification why 28 FGDs and 40 KIIs were sufficient. Talk about saturation, was maximum variation considered? and how?

Results:

Tag all quotes with data source (FGD or KII), sex, age to evidence diversity across the groups.

Make sure all quotes are in clear quotations marks (lines 220-222). fix that for the entire results section and be consistent.

Authors said "When describing their experiences and perceptions of poverty and its associated consequences including poor diets, sickness, and lack of ability to pay for healthcare and transport to medical facilities, most respondents explicitly identified poverty as a direct cause of GBV:" (lines 311-314). Revise the wording on participants' perceptions to avoid implying causality from qualitative data. Check the entire document for this including the abstract lines 36 to 41.

Ethics: Include ethical committee name that gave ethical clearance for the study, also include the reference number and date.

describe safeguardings and referral procedures followed in the study if any.

Conclusion: The concept for this paper is timely and relevant. However several important elements require revision before the manuscript can meet PLOS Global Public Health Standards. Work on the clarity and consistency of the methods (study design was not clearly mentioned, there are several qualitative designs one can use, e.g. phenomenology, case study, etc. what design did you use?). PLOS Global Public Health guidelines on data sharing require that you provide some de-identified data, nevertheless authors stated that they would share data and the justification for that leaves much to be desired.

Reviewer #2: 1. Kindly mention the methodological orientation adopted for the study? 2. Discrepancy between number of participants in FGD mentioned in abstract and methods – (6 – 8 in abstract and 4 – 6 participants in methods)…Kindly make it uniform 3. Additional context on domestic violence and related statistics can be added in study setting 4. Details on steps taken to ensure internal validity/rigor to be mentioned – member checking, reflexivity 5. Give details of the parent project briefly 6. Any conceptual model/framework adopted to guide data generation/analysis? 7. What efforts were taken to address/refer victims of GBV once disclosed? 8. Socio - demographic details of the respondents could be added for better interpretation 9. Key themes are restated multiple times; Many dimensions of GBV (more details on each typology, coping strategies, prevention, etc) not elicited

Reviewer #3: Overall Comments The paper takes a qualitative approach to “examine locally held perceptions of the relationships between climate and livelihood-related stressors and changing dynamcis, including the risk of Rukiga district. Climate change remains a global threat, with many countries and communities within Africa, ill prepared to adapt and mitigate the consequences. The paper is an attempt to paint a picture of climate-related impacts, particularly how gender-based violence, a persistent public health, socioeconomic and development issue is shaped by and influencing social, economic and environmental stressors.

In its current form, the paper need to be strengthened to get it to be sufficiently robust for publication in PLOS Global Public Health. The paper needs to be strengthened in at least three ways:

1) Overall, the paper needs to better contextualise their goal. Authors state in line 115 to 117, that their purpose is to understand locally held perceptions of the relationship between climate and livelihood-related stressors, and in several other sections, indicate make clear that, their original intention was not GBV, but undertook a thematic analysis on the latter. This can be confusing making it difficult for readers to follow. Authors need to clarify their focus – if it is on GBV, they may consider better contextualising their paper, especially in the introduction.

As part of contextualising, authors may consider highlighting the initial primary research focus – this helps to provide context for readers to begin to appreciate how and why GBV took center-stage during the analysis. In doing so, it also provides an opportunity for authors to properly situate their contributions to the literature.

Other minor issues include: • Authors make claims about projected exponential increase (line 51-52) and yet, do not support with any data. Similarly, authors may want to consider revising the sentence, as it appears redundant.

• In line 55-57, it argued “Uganda’s vulnerability to climate change and climate-sensitive disasters is extremely high – it is not immediately clear to readers what this means. By which benchmark or metric are authors assessing Uganda’s vulnerability. Authors may consider revising to ensure clarity (also see lines 108-110 for punctuation issues).

• Lastly, the study takes place in Rukiga District – it would be helpful if authors provided some additional background context. Will the results be different, if the study was conducted in a different district rather than Rukiga? Basically, some discussions of the rationale and/or choice of the selected district is be useful.

2) Overall, authors need to improve their methods by revising and clarifying, some of the sections. For example, under study setting (line 128-130), it is not clear if the concluding sentence is provided additional context for the prior statement. Authors may want to revise for clarity purpose.

I. Reconcile the number of participants for FGDs – in the abstract, authors indicate 6-8 people form a FDG and in line 136, it says “…each consisting of four to six participants,…”. II. For both FGD and KII, it is useful to indicate and/or describe the demographic/characteristics of the people participating in the study (Perhaps, authors could outline their demographics by sex and age, and any other stratifier in the results section in a tabular format. How were participants selected, especially among the FGD participants? III. On ethics statement, although the data emanates from key informants and community members, authors do not indicate whether they sought ethnical approval for their study. If ethics was obtained, it is useful to indicate so. IV. Regarding data collection, lines 172 to 173, authors indicate that “discrepancies in the coding were re-examined…”. It useful to explain how the independent assessor resolved discrepancies and reached consensus. V. In the data collection section (line 155 to 157), authors indicate that they “undertook a specific analysis of what participants said about GBV”. However, in the results, it is often not clear, the specific thematic issues or results arising from this analysis. Related to this and linked to the analysis, it is not clear to readers how the two main clusters (line 188 to 191) link to GBV. While lines 193 to 212, describe nature of GBV, for the most parts (for example, line 213 to 308), it is difficult to follow how GBV is an interconnector in the results being discussed. At times, it difficult to see, where the analysis departs from its original intended goal. Were the issues around climate change and environment among others emergent from the data?

3) Overall, the results section outlines some very interesting insights. However, I do feel this section can be deepened. In many instances, the narratives are often not immediately supported by the relevant quotes, linking to GBV. • In line 230 – 323, authors reflect that the disruption to livelihoods leading to family instabilities and conflict, demonstrate how GBV is triggered. This assumption is challenging to sustain, considering that “unrest in families” and not having “peace in a home” do not necessarily connote GBV. Similar reflections are presented at line 306 (“...they both resort to quarrels…”), lines 316 to 320 (…start quarrelling and fighting…”) and (“…you fight with the woman”). • Although authors indicate these are “euphemisms for GBV” (line 208) that participants use – without critical analysis, we risk painting a picture that may not be correct. For example, will readers be correct to assume, that in Ugandan context, such referencs always mean GBV?. To avoid readers assuming without appropriate understanding of context, authors may consider, making explicit any additional nunaces related to the quotations or contexts for this pharses, to clarify and make the links to GBV much clearer.

Minor • Line 199 – please clarify how and why unintended pregnancies is considered a form of GBV • Line 208 to 209 – revise sentence – it is not clear what authors mean by throughout their experiences and perceptions • Line 211 – “GBV was raised during the discussions of a wide range of factors” – perhaps, useful to outline the contexts which GBV was raised

R0:

Reviewers' comments:

The study addresses the ongoing H5N1 panzootic, a topic of major global health concern. By focusing on zoonotic spillover and potential human-to-human transmission, it connects well to pressing pandemic preparedness questions. Here are my suggestions

The study acknowledges asymptomatic cases but doesn’t deeply explore realistic ranges of asymptomatic infection in H5N1. Since asymptomatic carriage in humans is poorly understood, exploring a wider range of assumptions (from very low to moderate prevalence) would add robustness. Maybe authors can discuss this point

While the UK setting is clear, the contact structures and public health response capacity differ in low- and middle-income countries where zoonotic spillover risk is high. Discussion of transferability would broaden the relevance.

The agricultural contact data are valuable, but heterogeneity within and across communities (e.g., multi-generational households, seasonal work, market interactions) could have been discussed more fully. This heterogeneity may affect outbreak potential.

Only contact tracing and self-isolation are modeled. In reality, outbreak management could include infection control, health care facility and capacity, movement restrictions, or culling of infected animals. Considering at least one additional intervention would make the study more comprehensive.

The study convincingly demonstrates that early interventions like contact tracing and self-isolation can substantially reduce outbreak size when R₀ is low and symptomatic detection is reliable. However, if R₀ increases or asymptomatic transmission is significant, these interventions may not suffice. Authors can discuss this point

For policymakers, this suggests that contact tracing and self-isolation are valuable but fragile tools—effective only under certain epidemiological conditions. Maybe authors can discuss they should be embedded in a layered response strategy including rapid diagnostics, surveillance, and (eventually) vaccines or antivirals.

Editor comments: - Given that there is little to no evidence of human-to-human transmission for avian influenza (H5N1), is self-isolation recommended as a control measure for human cases? Additionally, is self-isolation applicable in the context of seasonal influenza as well? - Introduction section: Line number 66: However, cases without zoonotic exposure and limited human-to-human transmission have been documented. Specify the virus name. Seasonal or avian influenza. - In method: you mentioned "contact with birds". It is better to mention the name bird or poultry or chicken or turkey. The meaning of bird is different than poultry. - Does the model possess adequate capability to address avian influenza, considering the virus exhibits limited human-to-human transmissibility?

R1:

All comments have been addressed.

R0:

Reviewer #1: The review is important to improve outcomes on cholera surveillance and response. However, there are a number of critical issues that must be addressed to ensure the manuscript conforms to the standard of scientific writing and scoping review. 1. Certain sections were ommitted e.g Quality assessment and Data analysis 2. The roles of the authors in the scooping exercise also omitted 3. The results and discussion sections are mixed up. The authors began discussing the findings in the result.

Reviewer #2: Given the ongoing cholera pandemic and its recurrent outbreaks in sub-Saharan Africa, it is commendable that the authors undertook a comprehensive mapping of cholera research in Kenya. 1.For the search strategy, the query “cholera AND Kenya” across all databases is overly restrictive and likely excluded studies using alternative terminology such as “Vibrio cholerae”, “waterborne disease”, or “WASH-related cholera”. I would recommend providing the full keywords, filters and timelines used for each database, to help in reproducibility, as stated in the PRISMA-ScR Checklist (Item 8). 2.Please provide the last search date or timeframe. 3.The authors mentioned the systematic search of five databases, including Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. However, in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1), there is no data for Google Scholar. 4.The use of Rayyan is recognized. However, reviewer roles, conflict resolution, and data extraction validation are not stated. 5.The authors mentioned the inclusion of non-primary studies, such as reviews, but stated “ineligible study design” as a reason for exclusion in Figure 1. A clarification on this is could be beneficial. 6.For each included study, the authors should present the characteristics of the data charted with respective citations in a table. 7.In section 3.2, the authors provide an informative table which shows the geographic focus of the studies across multiple countries, including Kenya. For a scoping review centered on Kenya, a similar table or map that shows the distribution of studies/ data on the county-level could be added. 8.Themes such as mortality and risk factors of cholera could be explored and discussed further to strengthen the manuscript. 9.The Results-Discussion boundary seems blurred. Discussion begins to appear within “Future directions” paragraphs under each theme. I would recommend that the authors consolidate all “Future directions” into a single Discussion summarising what is known and unknown.