Peer Review History
Original SubmissionApril 27, 2023 |
---|
PGPH-D-23-00725 Transitions from hospital to home: A mixed methods study to evaluate pediatric discharges in Uganda. PLOS Global Public Health Dear Dr. Wiens, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’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. Editor comments:
Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 06 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Marie A. Brault, PhD Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health Journal Requirements: 1. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 2. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about figure files please see our guidelines: LINK https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirements Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS Global Public Health 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 Reviewer #3: 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: This is an important topic of emergening interest to the global public health community. The objectives and study design are clear and the manuscript well-written. A few areas would benefit from additional information: I would like to have seen some more detail in Methods following "Study nurses, providing 12 hours per day... ". For example, how did they witness the admission process, family expectations and understanding of the treatment plan (which may extend from during admission to after discharge) and communication between health staff and families? In results, at line 212, financial constraints to admission leading to delays, and/or seeking local care alternatives are well described in the literature - were these investigated? If, so it would be helpful to report on these. I thought the reporting of '...two were informed about their child’s hospital care plan, one was informed about the types of barriers they may face during treatment..' was very helpful - more details on how this was sought (systematically?) would add value. Another prerviously reported issue is problematic staff-mother communication with mothers somethimes feeling looked down on and blamed - was this sought or identified? Under 'discharge planning' in the Results, when did discharge planning begin? Under 'discharge education' how many mothers/carers asked questions about what was being recommended post-discharge? Reviewer #2: Good manuscript focusing a mixed methods study on evaluation pediatric discharges in Uganda. Comments: In methods section Lines 105 - 106. It is stated tha the study had 3 phases: journey mapping, discharge process mapping and Focus Group discussions (FGDs). The first 2 Phases are self explanatory. Can the authors describe more the FGDs phase? Still in the methods section Lines 173-176. All FGDs were digitally recorded, transcribed into English. Was translation not done? Table 2: Harmonize figures in the table and text (length of hospital stay, days, [Median IQR]). Figure1: Pediatric Discharge Process Map. The first 2 child exit points do not appear to be discharges as the children were managed as outpatients. Correct spelling of "cue" to "queue" in box with - CG did not purchase medication for other reasons (money, long cue etc) Reviewer #3: This is a clear straightforward paper making important points based on a careful multi-method study with limitations clearly presented. I have only very minor comments: - in the abstract in the first para, there is a key sentence stating '...planning in many hospitals leading to poor implementation'. I suggest that the word 'leading' is replaced with 'contributing'. Although a very minor comment, the sentence highlights the inadequate attention in the paper to the range of structural/organisational drivers of poor post-discharge planning and patient outcomes, and therefore to how complex it can be to introduce and sustain change. Relatedly, a sentence or two highlighting this challenge and complexity could be added to the discussion, where there are many potential improvements listed without acknowledgement of the challenges of implementing such interventions beyond the context of trials. - in the introduction para 1, is the lack of awareness about post-discharge vulnerability a lack of awareness among policy makers, providers or parents (or all) - in the introduction it would be good to know a little more about the hospitals, including staffing levels in relevant wards and cost policies of admission - methods - the process maps across the very different hospitals were brought together into one - why was this done; would it not have been helpful to keep them separate, and look for similarities and differences (and reasons for difference?); how much could/should post-discharge differ by patient group - for example those admitted with an acute illness but also suffering from HIV, epilepsy, malnutrition - findings/discussion - it may be that there are some interesting differences in some of the gender and other dynamics across the different Ugandan settings, and with other nearby countries? See for example Muraya K, Ogutu M, Mwadhi M, Mikusa J, Okinyi M, Magawi C, et al. Applying a gender lens to understand pathways through care for acutely ill young children in Kenyan urban informal settlements. Int J Equity Health. 2021;20(1):17. and Zakayo SM, Njeru RW, Sanga G, Kimani MN, Charo A, Muraya K, et al. Vulnerability and agency across treatment-seeking journeys for acutely ill children: how family members navigate complex healthcare before, during and after hospitalisation in a rural Kenyan setting. Int J Equity Health. 2020;19(1):136. - ethics section in methods - exercise should be plural? - throughout, data should be plural? (currently inconsistent) ********** 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. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: James A Berkley Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
Transitions from hospital to home: A mixed methods study to evaluate pediatric discharges in Uganda. PGPH-D-23-00725R1 Dear Dr. Wiens, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Transitions from hospital to home: A mixed methods study to evaluate pediatric discharges in Uganda.' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests. Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated. IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health. Best regards, Marie A. Brault, PhD Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health *********************************************************** Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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 ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS Global Public Health 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 ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you, my comments have been addressed. Reviewer #2: None ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: James A Berkley Reviewer #2: No ********** |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .