Caregiving motivations and experiences among family caregivers of patients living with advanced breast cancer in Ghana

Grace Kusi; Adwoa Bemah Boamah Mensah; Kofi Boamah Mensah; Veronica Millicent Dzomeku; Felix Apiribu; Precious Adade Duodu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229683

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 22, 2019
13 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - Rosemary Frey, Editor PONE-D-19-26686 Caregiving motivations and experiences among family caregivers of patients living with advanced breast cancer in Ghana. PLOS ONE Dear Dr Mensah, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please respond to the comments by reviewer 2. In your discussion I suggest it might be better to cite research supporting your findings of family support rather than the Iranian study. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 27 2020 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, Rosemary Frey Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: No 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this well planned and executed investigation into caregiving motivations and experiences among family caregivers of patients living with advanced breast cancer. Specific comments follow: It is unclear in Data analysis whether the procedure you took is the Colaizzi approach – could you clarify this. Colaizzi is difficult to find on line therefore it needs more clarification and preferably a more recent reference in addition. Also, the reference needs to show it is an edited book but consider using a more up to date reference for your methodology and relate more what you did to the reference you are using. Line 55 – Word form - Wound Line 58 – article required before treatment – also subject verb agreement – head noun in that sentence is treatment trend (is) Line 64 add “as well as” Line 72 researches (Count noun?) Line 80 Delete article an and add an article in line 116 Line 118 delete s off interests Line 151 count vs non-count noun -information Line 197 – add a reference to confirmability claim Line 204 a reference for and more detail of ‘voice-centered data analysis’ - Table S1? Where is it? Line 336 replace these for this Line 345 cited that? Line 443 – delete an ‘only’ Line 475 – 78 Not sure what you are saying here. Sense? Discussion - could do with being a bit sharper and to the point. Line 526- I’m not sure the contrast with the Iranian participants adds anything because we aren’t told why this is different Line 538 – sense? Line 542 – incomplete sentence and is it an irony? Line 560 – which home based model are you referring to? Have you explained it elsewhere in the paper? Reviewer #2: This article makes an important contribution to family and socio-cultural factors in breast cancer caregiving in Ghana. The paper still needs a bit more proofreading, but is otherwise satisfactory in all major respects and I would recommend publication. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229683.r001
Revision 1
15 Jan 2020 Author Response Reviewer #1 1. We thank the reviewer for the important suggestion raised on clarifying the Colaizzi’s approach used for data analysis. The comment has been addressed and highlighted in green font of the revised manuscript, now page 9-10, line 189-217 to provide more clarification on how the Colaizzi’s approach was used. 2. We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have addressed this comment in page 3, line 55. 3. This comment has now been addressed in the revised manuscript in page 4, now line 73 4. We thank the reviewer for the observation made. We have added as well as in the revised manuscript page 4, now line 84. 5. This comment has been addressed in page 4, now line 93 of the revised manuscript. 6. We thank the reviewer for the observation made. We have deleted the article “an” now in page 5, line 101 of revised manuscript. 7. The article “a” have been added to page 7, now line 137 and the sentence has been reconstructed to make it more meaningful. 8. We thank the reviewer for the observation made. We have deleted s off interests in page 7, now line 139 of the revised manuscript. 9. This comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript in page 8, now line 172. 10. We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have addressed this comment, and added a reference to the confirmability claim in page 11, now line 236 of the revised manuscript. 11. We thank the reviewer for this comment. This comment has been addressed and a reference and a more meaningful statement of data analysis has been added in page 11, line 242-244 of the revised manuscript. 12. We thank the reviewer for this comment. Table S1 is in the additional file that was submitted with the manuscript and has been highlighted in page 12, now line 263 of the revised manuscript 13. We thank the reviewer for the important observation. We have addressed this in page 17, now line 364 of the revised manuscript. 14. This has been well elaborated in page 17, now line 371-374 of the revised manuscript. 15. We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Therefore we have addressed in page 20, now line 460-461 of the revised manuscript. 16. We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have reconstructed the statement into a more meaningful statement in page 21, now line 489 -491 of the revised manuscript. 17. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. As suggested by the reviewer, we have been sharper in the ‘discussion’ section in page 22-24, now line 504-562 of the revised manuscript. 18. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. the Iranian example has been removed and the statement has been amended as suggested in Page 23, now line 543-546 . 19. We thank the reviewer for the important input. We have reconstructed the sentence into a complete statement to make it more meaningful in page 27, line 554-557 20. We thank the reviewer for the important input. The Home based model have been introduced and well elaborated in the ‘introduction section (page 3-4, now line 58-77)’. This has given a context to the home-based care model presented in the “conclusion section” page 25, now line 573 of the revised manuscript . Reviewer #2 We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. As suggested by the reviewer, we have accordingly proofread the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer final copy.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229683.r002
12 Feb 2020 Decision Letter - Rosemary Frey, Editor Caregiving motivations and experiences among family caregivers of patients living with advanced breast cancer in Ghana. PONE-D-19-26686R1 Dear Dr. Mensah, 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, Rosemary Frey Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: 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 ******** 2. 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 4. 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: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. 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: Still some errors in the text - I've highlighted a few here, but text needs careful reading mainly for small grammar errors - subject/verb agreement, word form error (women vs female), preposition use etc. Otherwise authors have addressed previous comments. Our findings correspond with earlier research works which posit that caregivers of women 527 provided support with daily activities (14, 49).Caregivers were the main providers of emotional support 544 by offering patients with words of encouragement. this further move other women cancers? ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229683.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Feb 2020 Acceptance Letter - Rosemary Frey, Editor PONE-D-19-26686R1 Caregiving motivations and experiences among family caregivers of patients living with advanced breast cancer in Ghana. Dear Dr. BOAMAH MENSAH: 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. Rosemary Frey Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229683.r004

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 .