http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2122-8747
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionAugust 7, 2019 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-19-22252 ‘We don’t see because we don’t ask’: qualitative exploration of service users’ and health professionals’ views regarding a psycho-social intervention targeting pregnant women experiencing domestic and family violence PLOS ONE Dear Mrs. Sapkota, 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 Dec 02 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:
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, Susan Bartels, MD, MPH, FRCPC Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for your important work on violence against women in Nepal. The article has been independently critiqued by three reviewers who have provided feedback below. In particular, the authors are asked to provide a more critical appraoch to the intervention (feasibility, barriers, efficacy, etc.) and to clarify some of your methodologies. Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 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:
3. Please ensure you have included the registration number for the clinical trial referenced in the manuscript. 4. We note that you have included your manuscript title page as a separate, 'Other' file. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. [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 Reviewer #3: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: No ********** 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 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: Overall, the study is an important contribution to the literature and to practice of domestic violence prevention. A few revisions are recommended below for consideration to enhance the study’s influence. 1. The abstract mentions that the study will assess feasibility and efficacy. However, both need additional articulation as to what realms of both of these issues the qualitative study was meant to assess and how do the findings relate to those domains. For example, feasibilty could be assessed in a much broader realm than what is presented. The same for the efficacy results. What were the primary outcomes and how did the study reach or not reach those goals as ascertained through the qualitative assessment. While this is an embedded qualitative study, there were most likely primary outcomes for feasibility and efficicacy that would be helpful to state up front and assess the accomplishment of the study against those expectations. 2. Needed, especially in the discussion but also in the introduction is a more critical assessment of the role of screening in settings where services are perceived to be lacking or ineffective. There is growing programming in Nepal from the government and from local and international NGOs that deal with this topic, but still the services were percevied to be to lacking. More contextualization of what is available versus what is perceived to be available and effective would help the reader to ascertain this disconnect. 3. Similarly, given the perceived lack of services, and possibility of actual lack of services, it would be helpful to have a more indepth discussion of screening and referral in such an environment. This has programmatic implications but also ethical ones that would be helpful to understand in more detail. 4. The discussion has a strong bend toward literature that supports the study’s findings. A more critical assessment of the literature would useful to help situation the study’s findings in the broader programmatic and research literatures. 5. Additionally, a stronger critique of a one-session intervention is needed. The respondents for the most part seemed to suggest that more is better and that is often the case with exposure to interventions, including literature supporting interventions for health sector based violence prevention. While the intervention is described as theory based, it would be helpful to understand what kind of change was anticipated from a one session counseling session, that the respondents seemed to indicate was useful, but not sufficient to change practices that are both normative and perpetrated by others. 6. The health providers mentioned the importance of the topic, but also clearly indicated the fear of marriage dissolution. This speaks to the strong norms underpinning the family as a key unit as well as the fear of massive over-reporting, which is not likely the case given statistics the world over that a vast minority of violence survivors seek formal help, especially through the health sector. Additional consideration of these perceptions would be helfpul to understand what type of training and support is needed at the facilitator level to make screening and referral successful. 7. The health providers mentioned several institutional barries to making this type of programming work. Additional consideration as to the feasibility of this type of intervention with limited staffing, limited time, etc in a lower income setting. While there is a move to have one stop centers in hospitals, how widespread is this and how likely is continued funding for the staffing and infrastructure needed to sustain the program as sustainability is a key theme of the analysis. 8. The short duration of the interviews with survivors and the lack of quotes that showed how survivors actually used the brochures or the counseling in their real life suggests a lack of depth of the impact. Is there evidence that represents more than general perceptions of utility and benefit? This would be helpful evidence to see impact/efficacy beyong more general perceptions of utility. 9. The study particpants represent individuals who in large part participated in the program. A significant number did not and there is no information about those individuals. In terms of feasibility and efficacy, what does the non participant/lack of follow up suggest? Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript - it addresses a very important topic. The research design for the study was appropriate and there is evidence of a robustly undertaken study. The study was well contextualised in the context of DFV in LIMC and the activities of the intervention was useful. I have the following observations for the authors to improve the manuscript: Abstract In the abstract (conclusion) we are informed for the first time that the intervention was an antenatal intervention. this information would have been useful to have earlier in the abstract. The 'introduction' would be an appropriate place. It would be useful for terminology to be consistent throughout. The term 'abuse' is used interchangeably with 'violence'. Data Collection Data were collected from the women at 4-6 weeks after the intervention and gain 6 weeks post birth. This indicates that there was some kind of longitudinal data collection. On lines 96-97 it is noted that “verbal and non-erbal cues from the participants were noted down on paper as well”. This would not be for all participants as some were interviewed by telephone. Clarity needed. How were these observations used as they are not discussed in the analysis section? Data collection at 2 time points with the women allows for some investigation of whether or not their views changed over time, and more nuanced understanding of how they used the information provided across time. The analysis, however, makes no distinction between data that were collected shortly after the intervention and post-birth. It would also be interesting to know whether the same questions were asked at each time point or if they changed and the reason for either. For a longitudinal data collection, I would have expected to see an analysis with a temporal component. Data Analysis The reference that is provided for the data analysis is Braun and Clarke, yet the description of the process that was undertaken does not reflect the 6 steps that Braun and Clarke identify. Additionally, the description of data analysis does not appear to reflect steps that were taken in the order they were undertaken. It is also noted that “the final codebook was developed through progressive iterations with other authors” (lines 103-104). This reads as if the emerging data did not impact on the codebook. Taken to its logical conclusion, this could suggest that data were ‘moulded’ to fit the codebook and not vice versa. I’m certain that this was not what the authors intended. Greater clarity around data analysis is needed. Trustworthiness/Rigour The reference provided for Lincoln and Guba is Cohen, Crabtree, yet the weblink does not appear to have Cohen & Crabtree on the site (Lincoln and Guba are, but I could not see Cohen & Crabtree). Clarification needed. Additionally Lincoln and Guba use the term 'confirmability' not 'conformability' - clarification needed. Results Domain 2 has a very nice lead in sentence about who was asked about the issues to be discussed. In Domain 1, understanding that it was just HCPs who were asked about DFV per se is less clear. A sentence similar to Domain 2 would be very useful. Discussion On page 25 consideration is given to including husbands in the counselling sessions with the women. I would urge caution here given the large literature about the dangers to women in doing this, or at the very least, include the suggestion but with the caveat around the literature on the potential dangers and inappropriateness of such an approach in the literature. General comments It would be useful for more details about the counsellor(s) to be included in the manuscript. It is not until line 471 that the reader is told that the intervention is 'nurse-led'. I have taken this to mean that the 'counsellor' is a nurse? This needs explanation and incorporation earlier in the manuscript. It would also be important to include the level of understanding of the counsellor of the dynamics of violent relationships, particularly bearing in mind the body of literature that describes the inappropriate response that many women who are experiencing DFV receive from counsellors who do not have this understanding. The quotes often appear a bit disconnected from the text that introduces and describes them. Consider interspersing your quotes rather than presenting them in a block at the end of each section. On page 12 (lines 220-221) it is noted that ……[the approach] ………helped them [women] to consider adopting a change in their lives”. I’m sure it is just the way it is written, but it reads as if the onus if on the women to change rather than the perpetrator to end his use of violence. Page 16 (among others) mention is made of making contact by telephone (line 298). The authors do note that the WHO ethical and safety recommendations for violence related research were utilised, but it might be worthwhile making a specific comment about how you were able to be assured that the woman was safe, or her safety would not be compromised, if you were making contact by telephone. Page 21 – lines 411 – 413 provides a brief description of s shared care model. Please consider including within that text that the clinicians need to understand the dynamics of a violent relationship – having clinical knowledge is insufficient. Page 21 (lines 423-424) reference is made to an intervention that addresses perpetrators. Whilst this may be a worthwhile intervention it is a very different intervention to what was piloted. This needs to be recognised. Typographical errors and errata Page 4 – delete ‘the’ between ‘about’ and ‘DFV’ Page 4 - change ‘practicing’ to ‘practising’ Page 5 – delete comma after ‘Besides’ Page 9 – add ‘s’ to ‘explanation’ Page 12 – change’ spend’ to ‘spent’ Page 18 – the term ‘participant’ is used as a descriptor for a quote. Change? Page 20 – it is noted (line 391) that addressing DFV required ‘multi-dimensional health interventions’ Not only do interventions need to be multi-dimensional, they need to be multi-sectoral. Include? Page 25 – change ‘setting’ to ‘settings’ (line 513) Awkward expression: Lines 143 – 144: “Data analysis materialised a number of themes and subthemes” Line 494 – change “punish the perpetrators” to “hold perpetrators to account” Lines 505-507 – re-word “Similar to the current finding……….support services” Reviewer #3: This paper is in an area of great importance because there is a dearth of interventions for IPV especially in low income countries. Process evaluations of trials of interventions are vital and not done enough in research. There are several areas for improvement in the manuscript detailed below. Abstract It is not clear what the research questions are or specific objectives. The themes are a bit difficult to interpret Introduction is a good background and the objectives are clear here. Methods. It is not clear when the second interviews were done in relation to the intervention as women were recruited up to 34 weeks? how many people in total were in the intervention group- was it 63? what was the pool of HCPs that the 7 were selected from and how were they able to provide the most pertinent information? What were the interview questions? Were the women and HCPs analysed together? and why? Please spell out the Braun and Clarke method in more detail. Results It is confusing the domains and then the themes and they are not reflected in the abstract clearly. Further the materail needs to be synthesised more there are too many themes. A further synthesis would strengthen the analysis. The themes are very descriptive, which does not match quality thematic analyses. It appears that the domains might reflect direct interview questions which has resulted in this very descriptive level analyses? Why is the first domain only from HCPs? Please remove some of the aconyms In the second domain it would be good to get a sense of the strength of the themes- some women, most women.... p12 it is not helpful to discuss the quantitative findings as they are not presented here. Some of the quotes are very powerful but sometimes the headings for the subthemes don't match the quotes e.g. new and positive learning experience starts with the value of being asked alone and the feeling empowered section suddently has barriers using the phone? Discussion The discussion repeats the findings quite a lot rather than summarising and the conclusion is not helpful as we dont have the quantitatve results. ********** 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: Yes: Prof Colleen Fisher 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 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-19-22252R1 ‘We don’t see because we don’t ask’: qualitative exploration of service users’ and health professionals’ views regarding a psychosocial intervention targeting pregnant women experiencing domestic and family violence PLOS ONE Dear Mrs. Sapkota, 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 Feb 22 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:
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, Susan A. Bartels, MD, MPH, FRCPC Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript. It has been reviewed by two indiviiduals who have made additional suggestions to improve the article, particularly around editing, grammar, choice of language, etc. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Thank you for addressing issues raised in the previous round of review. Upon re-reviewing the manuscript, however, I would like to raise issues that I feel still require further response. There appears to be inconsistency in the stated aims of the research. The abstract (lines 25-26) - "acceptability and the perceived impact of....[the intervention] The introduction (lines 135-119) - "....perceived strengths and limitations of [the intervention] (described as 'objectives') Finding - Line 382 - 'improvement and sustainability'. Although this is not an aim per se, it does highlight the inconsistency across the manuscript in what was being addressed through this particular study. Clarity and consistency needed. Other inconsistencies: Line 133, reference is made to "the research nurse", yet line 139 refers to "Both interviewers'. It is unclear how many interviewers there were (1 or 2) and whether the 'research nurse' is one of them. Clarity is needed. Lines 277 and 282 - the term 'participants' is used. 'Participants' refer to BOTH the HCPs and women. If the discussion is about how the women felt, then I would anticipate that 'participant' should actually be women. A similar issue arises throughout the theme "Impact of intervention on women's lives" Other issues Line 169 - what is meant by "reasoned, logical and valid" Lines 179-180 : it is noted that "A review of field notes in conjunction with the transcripts addressed dependability". Dependability is normally addressed through the keeping of an audit trail. It is unclear how merely reviewing notes and transcripts addresses dependability. Explanation (with references) needed. Line 274 - 'Verbal feedback' is referred to. Should this not be data from the interviews? What is meant by 'fair proportion' -line 344 There is still some disconnect between the surrounding text and the quotes provided as evidence: Eg Lines 224 - 225. The main thrust of the quote is family relations but the text refers to lack of education Lines 287 - 288. This quote is about 'confidence'. The link to how a person centred approach enables women to come forward is still unclear. Lines 289 - 291 - the quote which refers to 'contained space' (I'm assuming is quite removed from where this was discussed in the text. Please consider inserting. Lines 353 - 354 - Why is there a quote from a woman when the preceding text is related to HCPs? Lines 429 - 434 - the preceding text refers to collaboration with stakeholders, supportive supervision and debriefing are discussed but different issues are raised in the quotes Line 463 - how does 'adequate time' related to 'the best quality care' as described in the preceding text. Written English. Although it is noted that the manuscript has been copy edited, there are a number of instances throughout where further work is required. Eg: Abstract: Lines 36-37 : "Intervention participants expressed the counselling session as a safe haven....." Awkward expression Line 64 - consider not using the term 'cases' to refer to women' (ie, the first time 'cases' is mentioned in the sentence) Line 70 - The term 'programmes insufficient' is used. Are the programs insufficient or the number (or spread) of programs insufficient? See also line 83 Line 72 - what is meant by the 'enforcement' of the initiatives. Please consider using a more relevant term Line 74 - Please reconsider the phrase 'larger segment of population in Nepal' - Awkward expression Line 79 - I a review 'on' intervention, or 'about' interventions Line 85 - What is meant by 'alert women against DFV' - Awkward expression. Line 90 - we screen victims 'ford' DFV not 'of DFV' Line 96 - change 'involvements' to 'involvement' Line 151 - "....were read in conjunction with the transcribed verbatim". It appears word/s are missing. Line 179 - What is meant by "a triangulation of researchers"? Line 213 - Do you mean,.....'and overlapping in nature'? Line 256 - change 'currently' to at the time the article was written, as this information may go out of date. Line 259 - insert 'the' between 'notify' and 'hospital's' Line 301-302 - ...learn how to respond to FV and some topics Line 387 0 delete 'as well' Line 515 - insert 'the' between 'of' and 'booklet' Line 516- change 'after' to 'rather' Line 518 - insert 'a' between 'DFV' and 'one-size-fits-all" Line 520 - change 'influences' to 'influence' Line 544- meaning of 'awareness on need of acting against DFV' is unclear Line 545 - delete 'very' Line 552 - this sentence reads as if the HCPs are disclosing the women's experiences. I'm sure this is not what was intended Line 559 - delete 'the' Line 564 - do you mean 'funding in this area'? Line 573, delete the comma after 'Despite' Line 581. Start a new sentence at 'this study' Reviewer #4: This qualitative study examines the acceptability and utility of a psychosocial intervention, from the perspective of service users and health professionals. Overall, the authors have addressed the reviewers’ prior concerns and comments. I’m not sure why the authors have chosen to use DFV for Domestic & Family Violence since the more common terms (and therefore more searchable by potential readers) are DV (domestic violence) or IPV (intimate partner violence). I recommend the authors use the most commonly used IPV. While significantly improved over the initial submission, the manuscript requires copyediting for language usage, grammar and clarity. Related to this, some of the quotes were poorly translated into English. ********** 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 #2: No Reviewer #4: 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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
‘We don’t see because we don’t ask’: qualitative exploration of service users’ and health professionals’ views regarding a psychosocial intervention targeting pregnant women experiencing domestic and family violence PONE-D-19-22252R2 Dear Dr. Sapkota, 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, Susan A. Bartels, MD, MPH, FRCPC Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-19-22252R2 ‘<I>We don’t see because we don’t ask</I>’: qualitative exploration of service users’ and health professionals’ views regarding a psychosocial intervention targeting pregnant women experiencing domestic and family violence Dear Dr. Sapkota: 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. Susan A. Bartels Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .