Peer Review History
Original SubmissionMarch 22, 2021 |
---|
PONE-D-21-09369 Development of an intervention to improve AccesS to living-donor Kidney transplantation (The ASK study): a UK qualitative interview study with mixed stakeholders using the Person-Based Approach PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bailey, 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. This is an important piece of work that has generated interest of the reviewers given the timely and relevant nature of the topic, i.e. interventions to address socio-economic inequity in access to LD KTx. The expert reviewers came up with substantive comments and suggestions to improve the paper, and I agree with their assessments. The MS would be better if more concise (including the title as suggested by reviewer 2) as it is indeed extensive, and please check all figures and tables (as there had been issues with them upon primary submission). There might be selection bias at various levels, highlighted by 2 reviewers. Please address all reviewers' comments in a point-by-point discussion and make revisions accordingly. Beware that this invitation for major revisions does not automatically imply acceptance of the revised paper, as it will undergo thorough peer review again. Looking forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 06 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Frank JMF Dor, M.D., Ph.D., FEBS, FRCS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [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 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: 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: Dr Bailey presented on behalf of the research group their manuscript entitled Development of an intervention to improve AccesS to living-donor Kidney transplantation (The ASK study): a UK qualitative interview study with mixed stakeholders using the Person-Based Approach. The matter of this investigation is relevant and contemporary. This is a qualitative research. The authors give the impression they are deeply familiarized with the methodology applied. They compared three different approaches to improve living kidney donation rates, interviewing patients, relatives and health care professionals. They aimed to design an intervention to enhance the chances of socioeconomically deprived end-stage renal disease patients’ access to the kidney transplant list. They propose to apply this instrument adapted to the UK population in a future RCT. My concerns are the following: -the manuscript is very extensive, including over 25 years old references (for example ref 1-3;10). The reader may get overwhelmed with the extensive details that are not essential to the research. I suggest being more concise. -selection of participants seems biased. On page 9 is stated that the eligible population was identified by the local site primary investigators. Healthcare practitioners were contacted by e-mail based of the PI knowledge. My concern is how can be assured that these 12 patients and 4 relatives represents the variety of cases attending the two UK hospitals involved in this research. It is quite possible that introvert subjects were not selected, and other ethnic groups were underrepresented. Actually, 5 participants belong to other ethnic group, but it was not stated are they patients or healthcare providers. This is a major obstacle to the aim of enhancing socioeconomically deprived end-stage renal disease patients’ access to the kidney transplantation, and from my opinion lowers the validity of the results. -participants selection flow chart is not shown. Actually, figures were not provided. -it is not clearly exposed why 50% of the participants were healthcare professionals and 38% patients. In my understanding, patients’ and relatives’ opinion should be more extensively represented, clearly more than healthcare professionals. Patients and relatives can propose a model, and healthcare professionals evaluate feasibility. -were the 12 patients interviewed already on the transplant list, or under evaluation? Did they have previous knowledge about LD? -the think aloud technique is interesting, because it encourages proposing anything that come to the participant´s mind about a task. Would it be possible that UK patients could come with a new proposal, different from the three foreign models presented to them? Reviewer #2: I have reviewed the manuscript entitled Development of an intervention to improve Access to living-donor Kidney transplantation (the ASK study): a UK qualitative interview study with mixed stakeholders using the Person-Based Approach. Due to evidence of socioeconomic inequity to live donor kidney transplant this study aims to develop a UK-specific intervention to support eligible persons to access a living kidney transplant. Three existing interventions from the literature were identified The Norwegian model, The home education model and the transplant candidate advocate model. The person-based approach was used for intervention development. Qualitative in-depth interviews were performed with persons with advanced kidney disease, their family members and transplant healthcare professionals to understand how different people view the proposed intervention components. The interviews were analysed with an inductive thematic analysis. Four general themes were identified and for each of the three intervention discussed three themes were identified. The results are illustrated with demographics of participants, a figure of the themes generated from the interviews as well as quotations in the body text to strengthen the themes. With the results a multi component intervention was developed suitable for the UK context. This intervention will be evaluated in a coming study. This is a very well written manuscript and an important subject as well as interesting. A lot of effort has been put into making this thorough and detailed qualitative study. However, as reviewer I have a few minor comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. Title: It is a very long title, wouldn’t this be enough? Development of an intervention to improve Access to living-donor Kidney transplantation (the ASK study) Study population: Page 9 line 173 You wrote: People with advanced kidney disease CKD 4-5 and in this you include patients with a functioning kidney transplant? I do not agree that this is correct. Page 10 line 215: A query £20 voucher was given to the participants. Did the participants know in advanced that they would get the voucher after being interviewed? If Yes is that ethically correct? If no, please add the information in the text. Results: You have a qualitative approach however in the results you describe parts numerically e.g. page 15 line 305 and 317 (7/32) and 11/32) respectively. This continues through to page 20. Usually qualitative results are not described numerically, please change. I am also doubtful about the information given about each study participant that you quote, i.e. patient/gender/ age/education/occupational status. Is all this information needed for each quotation? I suggest you use only the first two or possibly the first three or explain why all are needed. On page 24 line 526 the sentence; Only 9/32 participants expressed positive views about the use of advocates. Again, this is a numeric way of describing the result and also valuing by saying only 9/32: Firstly it is a qualitative study and secondly I am not sure about if it is only either, 9/32 is 28 percent - close to one third of the study population. However this is not a quantitative study, please reword this sentence to a qualitative style. Reviewer #3: Reviewer Comments: Page 3, line 69: the authors refer to “Figure 1-flow chart illustrating programme of research” but figure 1 does not seem to be part of the manuscript. Page 3, line 75: reference is not provided for the definition for social support while references are provided for the other terms. Page 4, line 80: authors refer to “Figure 2-Mediators of socioeconomic inequity in living-donor kidney transplantation” but figure 2 does not seem to be part of the manuscript. Page 4, lines 86-88: The following sentence about “if low levels of patient activation contribute to difficulties ...” should be reworded as it is not currently easy to comprehend. Page 6, line 139-140: The authors refer to using “a theory and evidence based approach (basinginterventions on published research evidence and existing theories”. Is the theory-based approach referring to the original theoretical frameworks/constructs that were used during the development of the three previously existing interventions (e.g., Norway model...) or is this referring to the development of the multicomponent intervention? Please clarify and elaborate on the specifics of the theoretical frameworks utilized. Page 8-9 (Study Population): Did the study interview family members that were related to people with advanced kidney disease that also participated in the interviews? Page 9, line 183-184: What does “socioeconomic status (sampled by healthcare professionals’ knowledge of patient’s education...” mean? Was socioeconomic status used for purposive sampling determined by healthcare professional’s knowledge of a patient’s educational attainment? Page 13, line 265: The authors refer to “Figure 3-thematic diagram”, figure 3 seems to be missing. Page 14, line 280: The number of participants that brought up the four general themes are presented for three sections not including perceived cultural norms. How many participants brought up perceived cultural norms? Page 15, line 312: the employment status is missing from the participant. It is recommended that the paper be proofread for typos. ********** 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 Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] 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 |
Development of an intervention to improve AccesS to living-donor Kidney transplantation (The ASK study) PONE-D-21-09369R1 Dear Dr. Bailey, 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, Frank JMF Dor, M.D., Ph.D., FEBS, FRCS 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 Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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: Dr Bailey has elegantly answered all the queries. There is a better description of the methodology used to recruit participants. As in qualitative research is usually done, in the clean version the results that were described numerically were removed and the results are expressed in a suitable way. The authors still did not provide data on the patients with CKD being listed for KT or even being considered as suitable candidates for KT. However the authors now included a sentence stating that the patients were aware of KT and LD in particular. I consider that the manuscript has been remarkably improved and achieved good quality to be considered for publication. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-21-09369R1 Development of an intervention to improve AccesS to living-donor Kidney transplantation (The ASK study) Dear Dr. Bailey: 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. Frank JMF Dor 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 .