A systematic review to identify research priority setting in Black and minority ethnic health and evaluate their processes

Halima Iqbal; Jane West; Melanie Haith-Cooper; Rosemary R. C. McEachan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251685

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 16, 2020
12 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Baltica Cabieses, Editor PONE-D-20-29158 Research priority setting in Black, Asian and minority ethnic health: A systematic review PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Iqbal, 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 Apr 26 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: 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, Baltica Cabieses, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. 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 specify the time frame for your search - i.e., did you search for articles from the inception of the databases? In addition, please ensure you include all relevant articles published to date. 3. Please state how many authors participated in the article search. 4. 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. 5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 6. 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. 7. We note that Figure 1 in S5 includes an image of a participant in the study. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The systematic review “Research priority setting in Black, Asian and minority ethnic health” well executed and scientifically founded study. Research question, hypothesis, methods and results are clearly described. Reviewer #2: The manuscript gives an interesting critical view of the evidence on research priority setting in BAME population. The strengths of this study include the application of a comprehensive methodological framework to evaluate processes. As well as reporting the non-compliance to good practice guidelines. However, there are missing details in the methodology to ensure the standards of the PRISMA statement. Besides description of the characteristics and main results of included studies, since the reader might be interested in having more information of priority research topics in BAME populations, beyond the quality of these studies. Furthermore, there are punctuation errors that must be revised throughout the document. Title It might be necessary to specify the scope of the review, considering that the authors proposed: “to determine the extent to which the evidence followed good practice principles”. Abstract Page 1. I suggest including a brief description of search terms and inclusion criteria. Page 2. The results section does not report the priority research topics (mental health, preterm birth, child obesity etc.) found in this study. Moreover, I suggest highlighting the concern related to evaluation criteria, as stated in the main text. Introduction Page 4. Although the authors have mentioned evidence on priority setting methods and the increase of priority setting exercise, there is no cited literature related to the specific context of BAME population research. Therefore, I recommend to clearly state the knowledge gap in BAME population and provide reference for “given the stark increase in research priority setting in the past decade, along with an increase of discourse around evaluation of research priority setting initiatives”. Methods Page 6. Regarding the study selection, I suggest specifying characteristics of the admitted population, study types and a well stablished main outcome. The latter is necessary to understand the applied criteria by the authors and to justify their selections. Therefore, it will support the statement “This included studies where an ethnically diverse population was described in order to determine how priorities may differ between ethnic groups”. Table 1. I recommend revising the description of inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to make a clear parallel between them. Page 7. Although the quality appraisal tool is presented in detail, there is some missing information related to the quality score interpretation (table 3 only shows percentages based on meet criteria). Page 9. There is a description of selection process that should be included before the quality appraisal. Furthermore, there is no information of data collection and synthesis (data extraction procedures and qualitative analysis). I suggest revising and follow a consistent structure with the PRISMA statement. Results Page 11. The first paragraph of the result section does not include a brief description of the characteristics (participants when possible, study type etc.) and main outcomes of included studies. This section must inform the readers of what is known about the research priority topics to highlight the current needs in BAME population. The results are focused on the quality criteria, instead of providing a comprehensive analysis of all the data that has been collected. Table 3. I suggest including columns for participant’s description and main outcomes related to the topic and scope of each study. Furthermore, the quality score column might include a brief explanation, so the reader will identify the flaws of each study. Please Define E-health at the table legend. Discussion Page 19. The first paragraph of the discussion must be accompanied with a brief critical synthesis of priority topics, beyond just mentioning them. Page 20. I suggest citing o propose strategies to promote evaluation of outcomes in BAME population research. Page 21. The authors state “sample sizes of BAME groups were either too small or there was no involvement of these groups at all, in any stage of the process”, which raise questions about the selection criteria; since the reader might be expecting studies that include BAME population through the process. Page 23. The Last paragraph of the discussion does not highlight the concern related to evaluation of the process. Please report a summary of study strengths and limitations ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Minor_comments_SystematicReview_PONE-D-20-29158.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251685.r001
Revision 1
15 Apr 2021 Author Response Academic editor’s comments 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming Author - The style changes have been made throughout the manuscript, including naming 2. Please specify the time frame for your search - i.e., did you search for articles from the inception of the databases? In addition, please ensure you include all relevant articles published to date Author - The following sentence has been added “we searched databases from their inception to July 2020” (p.7) 3. Please state how many authors participated in the article search Author - The following sentence has been added “the principal researcher (HI) independently conducted the article search” (p.6) 4. 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 Author - A title page has been added and has adhered to PLOS1 author guidelines 5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table Author - Table 1 is now referred to in the text on p.8. Table 2 is referred to on p.10 6. 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 Author - The supporting Information file now includes captions which can be found at the end of the manuscript. In text-citations have been updated. 7. We note that Figure 1 in S5 includes an image of a participant in the study. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual Author - Studies included in the review have been removed from the supporting information files. Included studies can be located in the reference list. Therefore, S5 no longer exists with the image requested to be removed Reviewer 1 comments Grammar errors on page 6, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23 Author - The errors have been corrected Since in the introduction the example of health conditions from UK Black African women was mentioned, the question rises why the search term “Africans” was not included in the search, to increase the reach of articles including this specific sub-group - Page 4. The example given of health conditions among UK Black African women has been removed Introduction: “This systematic review is interested to see if there has been any progress in research priority process evaluation since then, with a specific focus on BAME health, given the stark increase in research priority setting in the past decade, along with an increase of discourse around evaluation of research priority setting initiatives” � Recommendation to include the conclusion that since the publication of the narrative review from Bryant et al. (2014) and according to the results from this review (none of the studies fulfilled all the good practice criteria) barely any improvements have been made in terms of evaluation from prioritizations processes in exercises Author - Page 42. The recommendation has been added to the section Implications and recommendations for future research Reviewer 2 comments Title It might be necessary to specify the scope of the review, considering that the authors proposed: “to determine the extent to which the evidence followed good practice principles”. Author - Title has been changed to “A systematic review to identify research priority setting in Black and minority ethnic health and evaluate their processes” Abstract Page 1. I suggest including a brief description of search terms and inclusion criteria - Author - page 2. A description of search terms and inclusion criteria have been added to the abstract Page 2. The results section does not report the priority research topics (mental health, preterm birth, child obesity etc.) found in this study. Moreover, I suggest highlighting the concern related to evaluation criteria, as stated in the main text Author - Page 2. The results section has been amended to include the different topic areas found in the study. I have added in a sentence highlighting the concern related to the evaluation, which now states “None of the exercises followed all the good practice principles as outlined in the checklist" Introduction Page 4. Although the authors have mentioned evidence on priority setting methods and the increase of priority setting exercise, there is no cited literature related to the specific context of BAME population research. Therefore, I recommend to clearly state the knowledge gap in BAME population and provide reference for “given the stark increase in research priority setting in the past decade, along with an increase of discourse around evaluation of research priority setting initiatives” Author - Page 5. The following sentence has been added to address the reviewer’s concern: “It is also unclear whether research prioritisation exercises have been undertaken for BAME health” Page 5-6. References have been provided for the statement quoted by the reviewer Methods Page 6. Regarding the study selection, I suggest specifying characteristics of the admitted population, study types and a well stablished main outcome. The latter is necessary to understand the applied criteria by the authors and to justify their selections. Therefore, it will support the statement “This included studies where an ethnically diverse population was described in order to determine how priorities may differ between ethnic groups”. Table 1. I recommend revising the description of inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to make a clear parallel between them Author - Table 1 has been amended to make this distinction clear Page 7. Although the quality appraisal tool is presented in detail, there is some missing information related to the quality score interpretation (table 3 only shows percentages based on meet criteria) Author - page 12. the information has been added under the section data collection Page 9. There is a description of selection process that should be included before the quality appraisal. Furthermore, there is no information of data collection and synthesis (data extraction procedures and qualitative analysis). I suggest revising and follow a consistent structure with the PRISMA statement Author - Page 7 -8. The section has been amended to include this information Page 12. Information on data collection and synthesis has been added Results Page 11. The first paragraph of the result section does not include a brief description of the characteristics (participants when possible, study type etc.) and main outcomes of included studies. This section must inform the readers of what is known about the research priority topics to highlight the current needs in BAME population. The results are focused on the quality criteria, instead of providing a comprehensive analysis of all the data that has been collected. Author - Page 14. The first paragraph of the results section now includes a brief description of the participants in each study and the methods used in studies. Although Table 3 now includes a column displaying the main outcomes (research priorities) for each study, as suggested by the reviewer, multiple research priorities were identified throughout the studies, in different topic areas, as is typical in priority setting exercises as they encompass a wide spectrum of views. As such, we are unable to provide a comprehensive analysis of the priorities themselves in the first paragraph of the results section. Instead, we listed the top identified priority in each study. If the reader would like to view the full list of priorities for each study, the studies can be found in the reference list. Table 3. I suggest including columns for participant’s description and main outcomes related to the topic and scope of each study. Furthermore, the quality score column might include a brief explanation, so the reader will identify the flaws of each study Author - Columns have been added displaying the population and the main outcome of each study. We have added information in the quality score column, in the first box and signposted to Table 2 which provides detail of the quality criteria Please Define E-health at the table legend Author - Page 27. health has been defined at the table legend Discussion Page 19. The first paragraph of the discussion must be accompanied with a brief critical synthesis of priority topics, beyond just mentioning them. Author - Page 37. Examples of priority topics have now been given Page 20. I suggest citing o propose strategies to promote evaluation of outcomes in BAME population research Author - Page 38-39. Strategies have been proposed Page 21. The authors state “sample sizes of BAME groups were either too small or there was no involvement of these groups at all, in any stage of the process”, which raise questions about the selection criteria; since the reader might be expecting studies that include BAME population through the process Author - The selection criteria have been amended and it is now clear that BAME participation in studies was not a pre-requisite for study inclusion Page 23. The Last paragraph of the discussion does not highlight the concern related to evaluation of the process. Please report a summary of study strengths and limitations Author - Page 42. The concern regarding evaluation of the process is now highlighted Page 42. Strengths and limitations of the study have been provided Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251685.r002
3 May 2021 Decision Letter - Baltica Cabieses, Editor A systematic review to identify research priority setting in Black and minority ethnic health and evaluate their processes PONE-D-20-29158R1 Dear Dr. Iqbal, 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, Baltica Cabieses, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251685.r003
Formally Accepted
19 May 2021 Acceptance Letter - Baltica Cabieses, Editor PONE-D-20-29158R1 A systematic review to identify research priority setting in Black and minority ethnic health and evaluate their processes Dear Dr. Iqbal: 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 Dr. Baltica Cabieses Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251685.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .