Prenatal care providers’ perceptions of the SARS-Cov-2 vaccine for themselves and for pregnant women

Philippe Deruelle; Camile Couffignal; Jeanne Sibiude; Alexandre J. Vivanti; Olivia Anselem; Dominique Luton; Alexandra Benachi; Laurent Mandelbrot; Christelle Vauloup-Fellous; Anne Gael Cordier; Olivier Picone

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256080

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 6, 2021
22 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Hannah Dahlen, Editor PONE-D-21-15049 Prenatal care providers’ perceptions of the SARS-Cov-2 vaccine for themselves and for pregnant women PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Deruelle, 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 Aug 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: 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. 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, Hannah Dahlen, RN, RM, BN (Hons), MCommN, PhD FACM Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding 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. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section. 4. 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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: I Don't Know ****** 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper which describes the perceptions of health care providers in relation to COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women. The study is very timely given the status of the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall I think the study is soundly conducted and worthy of publication. The sample is quite large – 1400 responses including obstetricians, midwives and GPs. Some terminology requires attention to be clearer. I did not know what ‘collective exercise’ in terms of the medical practice was (this is in Table 1 but also in text). Perhaps this did not translate well. I suggest changing Medical practice to Clinical practice and Collective exercise perhaps to Model of care. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper that reports a cross sectional survey exploring the perceptions of French antenatal care providers, regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. The paper is generally well written, the authors are congratulated on this contribution to contemporary and much needed evidence. The following feedback is offered with the view to strengthening the manuscript. Page 11 “However, to adapt the content of educational pieces before improving knowledge of provider (this is unclear- do you mean to inform education for healthcare professionals?) … it is recommended to conduct a SURVEY on healthcare workers to understand their views.” Thus, we aimed to INTERVIEW the health care workers (obstetricians, midwives and GPs) involved in the management of pregnant women. The two data collection methods CAPITALISED contradict each other please amend. Page 12 Title needs correcting – currently reads as MATERIAL AND METHOS –please include ‘D’ in the word Methods Page 12 - “Haute Autorité de Santé” statement that allowed SARS-CoV-2 for high-risk pregnant women [18]. – do you mean RECOMMENDED COVID-19 vaccination for high- risk pregnant women? Page 12 – “risk factor i.e. age up to 35,” – do you mean over 35? Page 12 – “…obesity, diabetes and essential blood pression” – do you mean blood pressure, or essential hypertension? Page 13 “ their behaviour to the flu vaccination” – do you mean their usual participation in the flu vaccination? The use of the phrase/ word (collective) exercise throughout the manuscript is unclear- from the context it appears that this might be replaced with the word practice – modality or model of practice/ model of care. A few examples are below – please revise and clarify Page 13 “ The main modality of exercise was private practice (32.7%), followed by university hospital activity (26.2%) and general hospital activity” Table 1 is clear – the title ‘collective exercise’ however is not clear - for your consideration- may be better understood as ‘practice setting’, or, is it better as collaborative practice? Suggest English language editorial support Page 17 “A collective exercise was positively correlated with a positive vaccination practice among caregivers and their patients and with a positive perception of the SARS-CoV-“ page 18 “ modalities of exercise (collective or individual);” in this instance does collective actually mean collaborative? Does exercise mean practice? Page 21 “ Being an obstetrician in a collective exercise” – this collective exercise does not make sense “However, in the context of globalisation and competition between countries, political views can influence vaccine acceptance [32].” – it is not clear what direct relevance this statement has to your study findings – were political views or agents discovered in your findings? If there was no direct link or relevance to your findings, I would suggest removing, otherwise please expand and clarify. Page 23 “In this survey, which was conducted on all employees of a health care system, in December, before…” – is this referring to your study or another one? If it’s about the study in the previous line then maybe clarify … in this US survey. Thank you again for your work to produce this great study. I wish you all the best. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256080.r001
Revision 1
30 Jun 2021 Author Response Response to the editors: 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 A: We check that the manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements 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. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. A: when answering the questionnaire, the practitioner agreed to participate. The ethical committee agreed to the study. 3. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section. A: we did not validate the questionnaire which was constructed by the team. 4. 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. A: The full data are available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-RGy8RuAQDRpOmkRbbVLhCKGgTZhrCBR/view?usp=sharing Response to the reviewers: Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper which describes the perceptions of health care providers in relation to COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women.The study is very timely given the status of the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall I think the study is soundly conducted and worthy of publication. The sample is quite large – 1400 responses including obstetricians, midwives and GPs. Some terminology requires attention to be clearer. I did not know what ‘collective exercise’ in terms of the medical practice was (this is in Table 1 but also in text). Perhaps this did not translate well. I suggest changing Medical practice to Clinical practice and Collective exercise perhaps to Model of care. A : Indeed, we did not use the correct terminology. We ask an English-speaking medical doctor from UK who suggest to use the term “group practice. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper that reports a cross sectional survey exploring the perceptions of French antenatal care providers, regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. The paper is generally well written, the authors are congratulated on this contribution to contemporary and much needed evidence. The following feedback is offered with the view to strengthening the manuscript. Page 11 “However, to adapt the content of educational pieces before improving knowledge of provider (this is unclear- do you mean to inform education for healthcare professionals?) … it is recommended to conduct a SURVEY on healthcare workers to understand their views.” Thus, we aimed to INTERVIEW the health care workers (obstetricians, midwives and GPs) involved in the management of pregnant women. The two data collection methods CAPITALISED contradict each other please amend. A : we change for “we collect answers of a survey from healthcare workers” Page 12 Title needs correcting – currently reads as MATERIAL AND METHOS –please include ‘D’ in the word Methods A: change made Page 12 - “Haute Autorité de Santé” statement that allowed SARS-CoV-2 for high-risk pregnant women [18]. – do you mean RECOMMENDED COVID-19 vaccination for high- risk pregnant women? A : we change as suggested. Page 12 – “risk factor i.e. age up to 35,” – do you mean over 35? A: yes. Change made Page 12 – “…obesity, diabetes and essential blood pression” – do you mean blood pressure, or essential hypertension? Yes. Essential hypertension. Change made. Page 13 “ their behaviour to the flu vaccination” – do you mean their usual participation in the flu vaccination? The use of the phrase/ word (collective) exercise throughout the manuscript is unclear- from the context it appears that this might be replaced with the word practice – modality or model of practice/ model of care. A few examples are below – please revise and clarify Page 13 “ The main modality of exercise was private practice (32.7%), followed by university hospital activity (26.2%) and general hospital activity” Table 1 is clear – the title ‘collective exercise’ however is not clear - for your consideration- may be better understood as ‘practice setting’, or, is it better as collaborative practice? Suggest English language editorial support Page 17 “A collective exercise was positively correlated with a positive vaccination practice among caregivers and their patients and with a positive perception of the SARS-CoV-“ page 18 “ modalities of exercise (collective or individual);” in this instance does collective actually mean collaborative? Does exercise mean practice? Page 21 “ Being an obstetrician in a collective exercise” – this collective exercise does not make sense A: Indeed, we did not use the correct terminology. We ask an English-speaking medical doctor from UK who suggest to use the term “group practice. “However, in the context of globalisation and competition between countries, political views can influence vaccine acceptance [32].” – it is not clear what direct relevance this statement has to your study findings – were political views or agents discovered in your findings? If there was no direct link or relevance to your findings, I would suggest removing, otherwise please expand and clarify. A: We withdrawn this sentence. Page 23 “In this survey, which was conducted on all employees of a health care system, in December, before…” – is this referring to your study or another one? If it’s about the study in the previous line then maybe clarify … in this US survey. A: Indeed, It was not clear. We change for “in an US survey”. Thank you again for your work to produce this great study. I wish you all the best. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: RespReviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256080.r002
30 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Andrea Knittel, Editor Prenatal care providers’ perceptions of the SARS-Cov-2 vaccine for themselves and for pregnant women PONE-D-21-15049R1 Dear Dr. deruelle, 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, Andrea Knittel Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the feedback which has resulted in a strengthened manuscript. Congratulations on this important work. ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256080.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Sep 2021 Acceptance Letter - Andrea Knittel, Editor PONE-D-21-15049R1 Prenatal care providers’ perceptions of the SARS-Cov-2 vaccine for themselves and for pregnant women Dear Dr. Deruelle: 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. Andrea Knittel Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256080.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 .