PONE-D-20-14361

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Patient Satisfaction with Pharmacist Services Questionnaire (PSPSQ 2.0) into the Nepalese version

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shrestha,

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.

It is noted that there are several comments in common between the two reviewers. These comments need to be addressed. Additionally, please pay careful attention to the justification of six factors in light of the scree plot and original scale. Reviewer 1 suggests additional analysis would be required to support the chosen factor model.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 14 2020 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Carl Richard Schneider, BN, BPharm (Hon), PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding the consent of the expert reviewers employed to test the validation of this questionnaire. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Please ensure that you have specified whether participant consent was informed. In addition, please refrain from stating p values as .000, either report the exact value or employ the format p<0.001.

4. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://fulltxt.org/article/957

https://mhealth.jmir.org/2018/1/e24/

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Jeevee Health Pvt Ltd.

5.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

5.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. 

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

6. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: In the scarcity of the instrument of focus, the authors' aim to provide the need of validated and reliable questionnaire to measure patient's satisfaction towards pharmacy services is noble and this present study could be the answer.

However, the authors do not present the study satisfactorily and there are much room for improvement. Firstly, it seems that the manuscript was not adequately proofread before submission. The presence of basic grammatical errors in many parts of the article can be the evidence. For example, some sentences miss the full stop (for example, lines 154 and 242) and even a "sentence" is not a sentence, but just a phrase (for example, lines 146-147). The subheadings are not written consistently as well as some journal or publisher name(s) in the Reference section. The use of however and although in a sentence could be possible, but the authors seem to not use them properly and potentially create confusion for the readers (lines 96-97). Two sentences in the Introduction section are sequentially repeated in the Methods section, i.e. lines 90-93 vs 159-163. The reference number of ethical clearence presented in line 247 is slightly different from line 421.

Secondly, it seems that the authors want to provide a validated and reliable translated questionnaire that could be useful for all pharmacy settings, i.e. hospitals, clinics, and community pharmacies, but the sample was only taken from community pharmacies without sufficient details about the number of pharmacies, sampling method, and typical services provided by the pharmacies. The study may also be prone to recall bias as the defined recall period is 3 months. Providing more details on the data collection and giving more focus on community pharmacy settings (i.e specify the pharmacy setting in the title) may improve the quality of the manuscript.

Thirdly, in the Results section, there are many technical details to read the tables that usually are not supposed to be written in the paragraph. They should be put as a table caption.

Fourthly, the authors tend to repetitively report the KMO value and the adequate number of sample, especially in the Results and Disccusions sections while it may not be necessary.

Fifthly, in the construct validity analysis, the authors retained six factors in the final model, but the internal consistency reliability was calculated based on the three-factor solution like the original construct. No name was given for each of six factors retained in the model. No further discussion was given on the discrepancy of the number of domains found in the Nepalese version vs the original version. The authors also miss to report one important table, which is the distribution of each question to each factor with its corresponding factor loading. The questions should be displayed in its original language and the target language, while the authors only provide the Nepalese version in the Supplementary file.

Lastly, the authors also used visual inspection of the scree plot as it complemented the Kaiser’s criterion of 1 (K-1) to decide the number of factors retained. While they decided to use a six-factor solution, the inspection of scree plot shows that the kink of the plot is on the third eigenvalue. This result should suggest only two or three factors should be retained. Any alternative analysis, such as the parallel analysis, is recommended to support the decision for retaining six factors.

Reviewer #2: Title: Please revise; it can be shortened (remove abbreviations for instance).

Please be consistent; Napalese version vs Napalese language.

Some minor english editing of the manuscript is required.

The number of tables could be reduced.

Introduction:

Patient vs consumer satisfaction; patients needs in many ways to rely on the service; while consumers can easily disregard the service. Is this an issue when it comes to needs and whether or not to measure satisfaction?

Cultural differences between English and Nepalese what would be the most prominent ones?

Aim; I don't think as it is currently written encompass cultural adaption.

Methods:

Consistent and clearly stated.

But, from the introduction I get the impression that this tool can be used in all pharmacies; but you only collect data from community pharmacies: Perhaps it is wise to exclude some of the information provided about hospital pharmacies/clinical pharmacies; or at least this needs to be discussed thoroughly.

The sample size seems appropriate; and the statistics is well described.

Results:

The correlation matrix could be presented as a supplement in its full version.

Several of the correlation is way below 0.3, is this problematic, and should it be discussed?

Table 3, unessecary; information could be given in text.

Table 4. I suggest that you instead provide the percentages of explained variance from the different loadings.

It could also be an idea to present the scree plot before table 4; this will provide the reader with information about how many different factors one should include.

Discussion:

All data are collected by one pharmacist in community pharmacies: please discuss.

The cross cultural adaption; is the culture among Nepalese speaking people in India, Buthan and Myanmar similar?

The number of participants in the study is good. 300 is acceptable. Please do not repeat it.

Why is your sample not represenative; could you please elaborate on these characteristics. Please provide information about how many of the respondents that couldn't read or write. On p. 211 you state that patients filled out the questionnaire by themselves: pleas adjust wording.

Reference list:

Please adjust/provide adequate informartion; e.g., ref no. 33.

**********

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: Kjell H. Halvorsen

[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.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Patient Satisfaction with Pharmacist Services Questionnaire (PSPSQ 2.0) into the Nepalese version in a community settings

PONE-D-20-14361R1

Dear Dr. Shrestha,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Carl Richard Schneider, BN, BPharm (Hon), PhD

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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #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 for responding to my comments. Hopefully, the instrument will be useful for pharmacy practice in Nepal.

Reviewer #2: I think the authors have addressed my initial concerns appropriately, although there are still a few typos and minor errors in punctuation.

**********

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: Yes: Antonius Nugraha Widhi Pratama

Reviewer #2: No