https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0739-5661
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJune 19, 2020 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-20-18688 Correlation among experience of person-centered maternity care, provision of care and women’s satisfaction: cross sectional study in Colombo, Sri Lanka PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rishard, 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 Oct 29 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:
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, Emma Sacks 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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. 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 your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): BEFORE SUBMITTING A REVISION, PLEASE ADD PAGE AND LINE NUMBERS. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR REVIEWERS TO GIVE COMMENTS WITHOUT THESE. While this is a critically important topic, and clearly understudied in Sri Lanka, this paper needs significantly more analytic work. The analyses are very basic and present only the totals, despite the methods indicating the ability to assess various correlations between demographics and practices, and between the PCMC, Bologna, and Likert scales. The results presented here are cursory. Detailed results should be in the paper, not supplementary appendices. This paper requires more editing for grammar (even in the first paragraph, there are mistakes) and spelling (including Caesarean etc). Please spell out acronyms, including PCMC, IUGR etc, at first use and in tables. Please include in limitations that not including women with psychiatric illnesses may introduce bias, as these women may be more likely to experience mistreatment. Please include information about how women below age 18 were consented/assented. Please include more specifics in the methods - how were women recruited? what is an "established individual patient database" = are these hospital records? Please include more details about the sample size calculation. Please explain how it was ensured that women understood that research assistants were not hospital staff (which may have led to desirability bias) Why were indicators chosen like "non supine" rather than "women's preferred birthing positions were respected"? Wouldn't that be more person-centered? When referring to "risk factors" please clarify "medical risk factors" (to differentiate from social risk) "Near miss" is vague for a medical event - can you include the medical conditions which caused these severe morbidities? Figure 1 is very basic and could be strengthened by including bars comparing average PCMC scores for various subpopulations (the 3 sub categories can easily be shown in a stacked bar as part of the total) How did 99% of women think they were treated poorly by health professions but 63% thought they were treated with respect - is this not measuring the same thing? The percent of women delivering without a companion should probably be shown with the denominator of those who wanted to have a companion, as that would be a better proxy for respectful care. What is the definition of "supportive care"? How was "maternal outcome" assessed? The discussion section could use more detail: If many women had low PCMC scores but reported high satisfaction, does that indicate that expectations are low? Can this be unpacked - what is the literature on this about social forces that contribute to these expectations? If women delivered by a nurse had better PCMC scores than those delivered by a midwife, what is the hypothesis about how nurses vs midwives are trained? Why might practices be different vs day than night? Are there different staffing levels or cadres available? Figures 3A, B, and C are too blurry to read. [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: Yes 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: Yes 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: Overall, I think this is an area of needed research, especially understanding the intersecting relationships between person-centered maternity care, quality of clinical care, and women’s evaluations of the care experience. However, it appears that this study may need additional analyses, because I am not sure we are getting the full picture. 1. According to Chalmers & Porter (2003), the Bologna score quantifies “the extent to which labors have been managed as if normal as opposed to complicated.” Given that 51.8% of women had at least one risk factor and that 13.0% of women had at least one adverse outcome, please justify the use of this scale for this purpose among this sample. 2. Satisfaction scores are only informative to the degree that they indicate what women are satisfied with. What is the question used for “total satisfaction”? The frame of the question will help give context to what women were actually evaluating (e.g. was it satisfaction with care, the experience of childbirth, etc.?). 3. I think this study could benefit from further analysis. a. First, descriptions and results of multivariate analysis could be better described and presented (e.g. what were the variables included in the final multivariate model? What are the estimates associated with PCMC or Bologna score in the multivariate models). b. Though satisfaction was evaluated on a Likert scale, the multivariate analysis used logistic regression, splitting satisfaction into 6 and above versus under 6. It seems that linear regression seems more appropriate, assessing the incremental impact of the PCMC or Bologna scales. c. Furthermore, the indicators included in the Bologna scale may not carry equal weight for women’s perceptions of care, especially because satisfaction may be based on women’s expectations and conditional on their social context. For instance, because induction of labor is commonly practiced and may be expected, it might not negatively impinge on women’s satisfaction. Perhaps assessments of individual indicators with women’s satisfaction might reveal the extent to which certain practices are correlated with satisfaction in this context. d. One of the measures in the Bologna score was the presence of a labour companion, however many of the qualitative results (Supplement, Table 6) indicate that many women did not want a labor companion. In this case, the corresponding indicator within the Bologna scale would not represent better clinical care (for example, providers respecting a woman's decision to not include a companion would represent higher quality care). This should, in some way, be considered in your handling of the Bologna scale (and especially accounted for in your multivariate model). Smaller issues: For figure 1, scores are not easily comparable since they use different scales. It might be more helpful to display scores as percentages, so that they will be presented on the same scale. Do you have information about what factors are associated with induction of labour, either qualitative or quantitative? Is it regular practice based on longer labours? Is it based on certain criteria of women’s conditions? Did they tend to be at night, etc.? In the Supplementary Files, Table 5a-c, categorizes each measure into 3 groups. What is the reasoning behind these specific groupings? (For example, why is the first category for PCMC 0-58?) Reviewer #2: This is an interesting article on an important and timely topic. Methods are clearly described, the authors used reliable study measures and are transparent about their protocols and procedures. Overall the literature review is a bit thin – could use more of a rationale for why they chose to use a measure of satisfaction when for some time now researchers have understood satisfaction to be a poor discriminator of quality, in some LMICS, that their expectations for a low level of supportive care and the relief of having a live baby often leads to higher satisfaction scores even when they or observers report objective evidence of mistreatment. The discussion would also be enhanced with a bit more in depth exploration of some of the findings, as indicated in my notes below. In particular a discussion about the findings on quality of care as relates to global evidence on the overuse of interventions is missing – the authors limit their discussion to a small section on the components of the Bologna score without exploring the disconnect between overuse of interventions and patient satisfaction. The manuscript is mostly well organized and written in acceptable English but there are issues with syntax, missing plurals, tense, and typographical errors throughout – Since PLOS does not copyedit before publishing, I strongly recommend the authors arrange for copyediting by a native English speaker who is a good editor before resubmission. 1. Some examples of English language errors: • Notably, in Sri Lanka the maternal mortality rate had a major declined over the last sixty years - it was 1694/100,000 in 1947 - to reach one of the lowest rate_ in the South Asian Region, despite Sri Lanka being a lower middle-income country [1] • These remarkable achievements have been reached on the back of consistent commitment_ toward health and health-related policies, including as critical aspects (of?/as?) the provision of free of charge education and free of charge health services [3,4]. • For example, despite WHO explicitly recommends labor companionship as a low-cost intervention to improve outcomes of labor [16], and despite Sri Lankan government has explicitly included this in a national policy [17], a recent survey highlighted that nearly 60% of consultant obstetricians did not allow labour companions in their wards [18]. • Women who underwent a caesarian section, or with an age outside the inclusion criteria, or with major psychiatric illnesses, or hospitalized in intensive care unit, or refusing consent, were excluded. • On the other side, the PCMC score significantly changed in different ethnic group, in women with more pregnancies, and by type of professionals that assisted the delivery. 2. There are now several studies exploring mistreatment and abuse of women during pregnancy globally – please specify if you are referring to South Asian studies…. “Although few studies have explored the area of mistreatment and abuse of women during pregnancy, existing qualitative reports suggest a tendency for discriminatory behavior (such as verbal, emotional and even sexual abuse) and a diffuse normalization of disrespectful and abusive treatment of female patients [19,20” 3. Please specify what type of ‘training” the researcher received: “The questionnaire was administered in the immediate post-natal period, before discharge, by an independent trained researcher. “ 4. Re the discussion about the use of partograph as an indicator of quality via the Bologna Score: The WHO no longer recommends the use of partograph as a measure of quality: See these articles by their team: Bonet M, Oladapo OT, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM. Diagnostic accuracy of the partograph alert and action lines to predict adverse € birth outcomes: a systematic review. BJOG 2019;126:1524–1533. Souza JP, Oladapo OT, Fawole B, Mugerwa K, Reis R, Barbosa-Junior F, Oliveira-Ciabati L, Alves D, G€ulmezoglu AM. Cervicaldilatation over time is a poor predictor of severe adverse birth outcomes: a diagnostic accuracy study. BJOG 2018;125:991–1000. Please discuss the more current recommendations for monitoring, interpretation, and management of labour progress in light of your findings. 5. Please justify the rationale for recoding the Likert scale for satisfaction into a binary especially in light of the subtleties in using satisfaction as a measure of quality of experience: “Women satisfaction was analyzed as a binary outcome (Likert scale equal or more than 6 versus Likert scale less than 6) and the odds ratio (OR) of each predictor on it was calculated through bivariate logistic regression.” 6. Please specify how the women were “ involved in the study by providing their views on the quality of care received.” Did they participate in survey development? Pilot test? Content Validate the measures? 7. Points that need more in depth Discussion: • Despite the following interesting finding: “Nearly two thirds (61.7%) were assisted by a nurse, one third (33.7%) by a midwife, and only a minority by a doctor.” there is almost no discussion about the differential effects of the type of provider on the quality of care (aside from noting women reported more respect by nurses than midwives) , nor explanation of potential reasons for these differences. This is important to unpack especially in light of global evidence that suggests that midwives provide more respectful care. Please also add some information in the background about the organization of care in Sri Lanka, the respective roles of providers, and describe the caseload vs service based models available. • The mean PCMC score was significantly higher in Sinhalese women compared to Muslim (mean difference: 3.3; p=0.041) and to Tamil (mean difference: 3.8; p=0.049). S This sentence and finding also deserves more attention in the discussion – please acknowledge this ethnic disparities in PCMC and address any implied or known cultural racism and bias that exists within the socio political climate, and contributes to these findings. This is not unlike other jurisdictions where marginalized populations experience more mistreatment (See Vedam et al. 2019, Giving Voice to Mothers, Reproductive Health). 8. Given the high rates of different types of mistreatment and violations of human rights reported, the emphasis in the following sentence appears misplaced. I suggest that the clause should begin with less than two thirds rather than nevertheless, and there should be some discussion about why this type of behavior was acceptable to those in the two thirds portion of the data. “Notably, the majority of women (99.3%) reported to have been treated with an unfriendly manner by health professionals, nevertheless about two thirds (63.5%) thought that medical staff treated them with respect.” 9. Please take this opportunity discuss the following findings in light of global health human rights standards rather than deflecting this to a mandate for future study or simply development of courses to “promote PCMC”: “Overall one out of six (14.8%) felt to have been treated roughly like pushed, beaten, slapped, pinched, physically restrained, or gagged. About one third (28.5%) reported to have been shouted, scolded, insulted, threatened, or talked to rudely. For most women (85.8%) the health professionals did not explain the drugs given, and more than half (55%) didn’t feel involved in decisions about their care, nor were asked for permission or consent before performing procedures (57%). Less than a quarter (21.0%) thought that health professionals took the best of care of them or did everything they could to help control their pain (21.8%). 10. Please explain the following statements further – not clear as is: • “Interestingly, women’s satisfaction had a very poor correlation with the Bologna score, but a moderate correlation with PCMC, suggesting that women’s satisfaction may have been more affected by the “experience of care” than by the “provision of care”, and that the two domains were very poorly interconnecting, in women’s views.” • Notably, in this study in Sri Lanka some of items of the Bologna score actually indicated good practices, for example delivery in non-supine position was much more frequent tin this study than what reported in a study in Italy [35]. • On the other side, the PCMC score significantly changed in different ethnic group, in women with more pregnancies, and by type of professionals that assisted the delivery. ********** 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: Saraswathi Vedam [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 |
|
PONE-D-20-18688R1 Correlation among experience of person-centered maternity care, provision of care and women’s satisfaction: cross sectional study in Colombo, Sri Lanka PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rishard, 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. The reviewers acknowledge that the paper has been greatly improved by the revisions. They raise some additional important points. Please address these in a second revision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 14 2021 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:
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, Tanya Doherty, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (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 #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 your revision. The revised analyses and substantial discussion have greatly improved the paper. I especially appreciated the more detailed discussion surrounding women’s perceptions and normalization of disrespectful treatment. You addressed some limitations with satisfaction as a measure, but there are other biases and limitations that should be addressed regarding satisfaction. For example, using satisfaction as a dichotomous variable, splitting satisfaction at 6 and above, will pose problems especially because respondents will often select the mid-point option as a cognitive bias. It appears that this is bias was also present in your sample, since over 15% of your sample selected 5. This suggests that a large fraction of those who selected the middle option were subject to cognitive biases and not influenced by other risk factors and likely overestimates the proportion of those who were “not satisfied.” Rodway, P., Schepman, A., and Lambert, J. (2012). Preferring the One in the Middle: Further Evidence for the Centre-stage Effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26 (2), 215-222 DOI: 10.1002/acp.1812 Your discussion could also benefit by addressing limitations of the Bologna score. I am not sure that it can be considered a measure of “the provision of care” as defined by the WHO QOC framework for maternal and newborn health. Perhaps it might be better described as “recommended clinical practices” or something that highlights clinical practices. Both companion of choice and delivery in the position of choice are considered to be respectful care practices and I believe are classified under the “experience of care.” Because of this, I do not think the Bologna score can be considered an appropriate measure of the “provision of care.” Additionally, it should be mentioned that the correlation between PCMC and Bologna care should be interpreted conservatively, since it may be partially due to overlapping items. For example, the PCMC scale has items relating to companionship during labor and delivery, and whether the woman was able to deliver in the position she wanted. Minor points: Please address misspelled terms in footnotes of Table 1: “caesarian” “nera” “lapartotomy” Line 304: “One third (28.5%)…” It seems that ‘over one-quarter’ or ‘nearly one-third’ would be more accurate than ‘one-third.’ Line 454: “heart” is misspelled The figures are quite blurry. I am not sure if this because the images are of low resolution or if the system has distorted images. Figure 3, please correct “Skin-Skin” Figure 4, especially because some of your graphs include plots using only discrete values (i.e. 4b), please consider illustrating density in your plots (for example, using “jitter” or dodging points). Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to read this revised version. The paper is greatly improved in clarity and impact as a result of the edits and additions made in response to reviewers’ comments. My remaining suggestions are mostly very minor copyediting recommendations; however, I do have one important note to the authors and editor: This study adds to the growing body of literature that shows mistreatment and human rights violations during childbearing is a global and widespread phenomena (1/6), and is even more prevalent among historically disenfranchised communities (2/3). It is an important contribution to our understanding not only frequency of disrespect and abuse, but that these person-centred metrics of quality care are important outcome in their own right (eg. They do not need to be linked to other maternal newborn adverse outcomes, or patient satisfaction to merit urgent attention). Yet, the authors appear to be hesitant to let the data speak to this mandate, reserving the emphasis in the discussion solely to the key metric they chose to use: patient satisfaction. Perhaps they could at least state more clearly in their conclusions (abstract and paper) that “findings indicate evidence of poor quality care across several domains of mistreatment in childbirth in Sri Lanka. [and] Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality care is inadequate to inform health systems reform”. I can understand a reluctance to speak of prevalence of the most adverse outcomes (mistreatment) based on a sample size of 400 in the region (authors frame this analysis as pilot data), and I agree that discussions generally focus on findings per the originally intended methods. However, when results show egregious harm, in any study, it seems that researchers are obligated to name and elevate these findings and the urgency of rectifying harm and future targeted research on these matters. This is especially true when the findings align with incidence reported other published literature on the subject as cited. Copy edits and typographical errors Line 66 – Keywords - Suggested these edits to maximize searches for this article: Quality care, respectful maternity care, person-centered/person-centred, mistreatment, childbirth, disrespect and abuse (researchers in this field are unlikely to see satisfaction as an important component to include as noted by reviewer comments) Line 96 (comma instead of full stop) 109-110 missing word: also defined [as] patient-centred, … Line 142 suggest using “births” instead of deliveries – fast becoming the norm for respectful language (eg women give birth, providers Line 293-296 The following sentence is unclear – either there were significant differences with some factors having lower scores or the scores were significantly lower for xxxx than xxxx Additionally, other differences among the 294 full PCMC score (47.1; 95%CI 45.9-48.2) and “dignity and respect” (57.2; 95%CI 55.8-58.6), and 295 “supportive-care” subscores (50.5; 95%CI 49.0-51.9) were significantly lower (adjusted 296 p≤0.002 for all comparisons). PCMC not rescaled values are reported in Tables S2 and S3. Line 303 awkward phrasing: 303 six (14.8%) felt to have been treated roughly – perhaps change to one out of six (14.8%) reported that they were treated roughly --or—one out of six (14.8%) reported mistreatment – all of the listed factors constitute mistreatment by global definitions. Line 305 – best not to start a sentence with a percentage – perhaps rephrase: Most women (85.8%) reported that…. Line 357 women “at” their second pregnancy should be in their second pregnancy women….. or women [ in] their second pregnancy 422 mis-treated should be mistreated Other comments Line 368 “No factor was associated with women’s satisfaction” (sensitivity analysis just parity and non-supine position) -- this result shows that satisfaction is a poor discriminator of quality care and that finding should be discussed – with recommendation that future studies report on PCMC scores, and incidence of mistreatment as a stand alone indicator of quality, safety, rights. Line in 394-399 that discusses above is too mild given the findings that 1/6 to ½ experience serious mistreatment – as written the discussion does not address that only one modifiable experience of care factor (birth position) was even moderately correlated – hence satisfaction is not measuring quality or the correlation shou Lines 472-476 should immediately follow Line 427 as finding on differential experience by ethnicity are also socio-demographic predisposing factors. Then “ethnicity” should be added to the line 431 …-and better document how education, [ethnicity, social class], empowerment and values….. ********** 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: Michelle Nakphong Reviewer #2: Yes: Saraswathi Vedam [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 2 |
|
Correlation among experience of person-centered maternity care, provision of care and women’s satisfaction: cross sectional study in Colombo, Sri Lanka PONE-D-20-18688R2 Dear Dr. Rishard, 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, Tanya Doherty, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-20-18688R2 Correlation among experience of person-centered maternity care, provision of care and women’s satisfaction: cross sectional study in Colombo, Sri Lanka Dear Dr. Rishard: 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 Tanya Doherty 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 .