Peer Review History
Original SubmissionAugust 7, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-24673 Midwives’ and Obstetricians’ Perspectives about Pregnancy Related Weight Management in Ethiopia: A qualitative study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fekede Asefa, 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 submit your revised manuscript by 25th November. 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:
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, Sharon Mary Brownie 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 2. You have indicated in the submissions page that "all relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files"; however, there are no data in the supporting files. Please submit these data as Supporting files. 3. Please include additional information regarding the interview guide used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a guide as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 4. Please clarify whether a conceptual model or theory was used for this research. If not, please provide a rationale for not doing so. 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: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: No ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: Comments 1. Due to practicality issues (i.e. data analysis was conducted in Australia), the data collected from the participants was not verified by the participants to determine whether the analysis of the data was consistent with the participants understanding of the comments made by them. 2. The analysis does not imply an inductive approach to data analysis. It seems to be more deductive because you do not mention any pre-determined ideas regarding your themes and codes. 3. I am not so sure how you did the actual coding maybe availing the codebook would be of help. In Table 3: the way the codes are named does not seem right. For example, naming a code absence of guidelines in more or less a biased code. I think it is better to name it ‘availability of guidelines’ because participants may not necessarily talk about the absence of guidelines but have broader discussions on the availability of guidelines. 4. The subtitles of your results are biased and may not give a true picture of your analysis. For example, if you say “having limited knowledge of optimal GSW” I wonder if all the participants’ narratives indicated limited knowledge. The same applies to “lacking skills in counselling” I would suggest you name it “counselling experiences…” instead of lack of self-confidence to providing counselling you may call it “self-efficacy” 5. What are the health implications of GWG??? That is for both the mother and baby. Are there any public health implications pertaining to maternal and child health outcomes? This could be indicated in the background of the study. Reviewer #2: key words: counseling in the context of the text is vague and should removed, post-partum weight retention should be changed post-partum weight counseling. METHODS: What informed the authors about the choice of the facilities the recruited the participants from? It is not clear how they selected the participants from the various facilities and determined their number. Why were the authors so particular about the United states institute of medicine's recommendations on weight gain in pregnancy, has this been adopted in the study country of in countries with similar population characteristics in the region or maternal indices? Reviewer #3: In this study entitled: Midwives’ and Obstetricians’ Perspectives about Pregnancy Related Weight Management in Ethiopia: A qualitative study 1The study, context is in keeping with other literature on the topic. Physiological changes take place during pregnancy leading to weight gain. Therefore women are at a high risk of being overweight to obesity during postpartum period 2 since there is misunderstanding and inadequate knowledge of nutrition during pregnancy women need to be counseled about (GWG) and nutritional care in order to maintain adequate gestational weight. Midwives and obstetricians take care of pregnant women depending on the complication and facility therefore is in position to advice on GWS 3 The authors therefore set out to explore obstetricians’ and midwives’ views and practices related to GWG and postpartum weight management in this Ethiopian setting 4. The population was appropriate for the study since midwives and obstetricians are key maternity care providers and they are the most trusted source of information regarding nutrition and gestational weight gain. 5 The qualitative descriptive study design with face to face interview method with open ended questions used was appropriate 7 The authors analyzed data by thematic analysis with inductive approach which is appropriate for qualitative studies 8 Presentations of data available is appropriate with tables supporting it 10According to the authors there was inconsistence in knowledge and practice of counseling in gestational weight gain. Midwives lacked confidence to counsel the women while the obstetricians had other priority health issues Reviewer’s comments Generally there are English grammars mistakes that the authors need to address using grammarly or seek other assistance Please clearly re-write the title for table 1 What was the criterion for selecting the health facilities in the city. Are they the only maternal health care faculties available? How was the sample size determined? Although midwives and obstetricians are the key maternity care providers why didn’t the author consider other healthcare givers who may be involved in maternal health care? ********** 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. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: ESTER LILIAN ACEN 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 |
Midwives’ and Obstetricians’ Perspectives about Pregnancy Related Weight Management in Ethiopia: A qualitative study PONE-D-20-24673R1 Dear Dr.Fekede Asefa, 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, Sharon Mary Brownie Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-24673R1 Midwives’ and Obstetricians’ Perspectives about Pregnancy Related Weight Management in Ethiopia: A qualitative study Dear Dr. Asefa: I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Sharon Mary Brownie 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 .