Giving birth: A hermeneutic study of the expectations and experiences of healthy primigravid women in Switzerland

Valerie Fleming; Franziska Frank; Yvonne Meyer; Jessica Pehlke-Milde; Piroska Zsindely; Harriet Thorn-Cole; Claire de Labrusse

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261902

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 29, 2021
2 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - David Desseauve, Editor PONE-D-21-14238Giving birth: a hermeneutic study of the expectations and experiences of healthy primigravid women in SwitzerlandPLOS ONE Dear Dr. de Labrusse, 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 Dec 17 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: https://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, David Desseauve, MD, MPH, PhD 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 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. 3. Please include a copy of the interview guide used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously. 4. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified 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. 5. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 6. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 7. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. 8. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 9. Please upload a new copy of Figure 1 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" [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: Understanding the reasons for increased rate of C-section is an important topic. Multiple points of view and type of reasearch may help. This paper point out the view of women before and after having giving Birth. Despite the diversity of culture in switzerland and a small number of patient, the authors found reasonably 4 mains themes to explore women's thougt patterns. These themes should help to sustain further studies and may be usefull to lead antenatal discussions. I suggest to remove l152:"three gave Birth" wich is not usefull and suggests possible other interviewers biais (ethnicity, gender, nationality, age …). Fig 1 appearence should be improve. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, I really enjoyed reading your paper and its contribution ot the literature in this area. these are just suggestions to enhance the review/background and further raise concerns re rising cesarean rates: perhaps include references to concerns as to the indication recorded as a justification for the CS i.e. if its fetal hypoxia is this corroborated in the notes. This was highlighted re maternal request in Brazil. Suggest also adding to concerns re the consequences of rising CS rates in terms of placenta accreta/percreta/increta and also the rising CS rates ineh USA accompanied by an increase in maternal deaths.... ****** 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: Yes:** Alexandre Farin 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.0261902.r001
Revision 1
2 Dec 2021 Author Response Dear Dr. David Desseauve, We would like to thank you for considering our manuscript, and the reviewers for their time and comments. We have edited our manuscript and supporting information to address the raised concerns: Journal 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 -------------------------The style of the manuscript has been changed to meet the PLOS One requirements. 2. 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.-------------------------------------------------The following references have been added following the comments of reviewer 2: o 11: Morton R, Burton AE, Kumar P, Hyett JA, Phipps H, McGeechan K, et al. Cesarean delivery: Trend in indications over three decades within a major city hospital network. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2020;99: 909–916. doi:10.1111/aogs.13816 o 13: Sobhy S, Arroyo-Manzano D, Murugesu N, Karthikeyan G, Kumar V, Kaur I, et al. Maternal and perinatal mortality and complications associated with caesarean section in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2019;393: 1973–1982. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32386-9 3. Please include a copy of the interview guide used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously.------------------The interview guides in English, French, German and Italian are now included. 4. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified 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.---------------------------------------------4. We have specified in our manuscript that women were asked to sign a consent form. 5. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. ------------------------------------- When submitting, we will ensure the funding information matches between the manuscript and the financial disclosure. 6. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.------------------------------------------------------We have stated that the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript 7. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.-------------------------------------------- Please, would you mind changing the corresponding author to Valerie Fleming of the Liverpool John Moores University. 8. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ---------------------------------------- Prof. Valerie Fleming’s ORCID number is 0000-0002-4672-4843 9. Please upload a new copy of Figure 1 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/"---------------------------- Thank you for pointing this out. We have now improved the quality of Figure 1, and checked it meets the journal's specification on PACE. Reviewer 1 comments: Understanding the reasons for increased rate of C-section is an important topic. Multiple points of view and type of reasearch may help. This paper point out the view of women before and after having giving Birth. Despite the diversity of culture in switzerland and a small number of patient, the authors found reasonably 4 mains themes to explore women's thougt patterns. These themes should help to sustain further studies and may be usefull to lead antenatal discussions. I suggest to remove l152:"three gave Birth" wich is not usefull and suggests possible other interviewers biais (ethnicity, gender, nationality, age …). Fig 1 appearence should be improve. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We would like to thank reviewer 1's positive and constructive feedback. We agree with the made comments and removed l172: "three gave birth", and as above (see item 9) improved figure 1. Reviewer 2 comments: I really enjoyed reading your paper and its contribution ot the literature in this area. these are just suggestions to enhance the review/background and further raise concerns re rising cesarean rates: perhaps include references to concerns as to the indication recorded as a justification for the CS i.e. if its fetal hypoxia is this corroborated in the notes. This was highlighted re maternal request in Brazil. Suggest also adding to concerns re the consequences of rising CS rates in terms of placenta accreta/percreta/increta and also the rising CS rates ineh USA accompanied by an increase in maternal deaths.... ----------------------------------------------------------- We would like to thank reviewer 2's suggestions and positive feedback. Reviewer 2 has raised to interesting points which we have addressed: - L66-67: a sentence was added reporting the common medical indications for CS. - L.70-71 : another sentence was added reporting the concerns re the rising CS rates. 2 References were then added. See point 1. We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to enhance our manuscript with your constructive comments. We have made sure that we have incorporated your feedback and hope that our manuscript now meets the PLOSone standards and convinces you to accept it for publication. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be happy to answer any further queries and comments that you may have. Best wishes Claire de Labrusse, on behalf of Valerie Fleming Corresponding Author: Valerie Fleming Liverpool John Moores University, Faculty of Health Rodney House, Mount Pleasant, Liverpool L3 5UX, United Kingdom V.Fleming@ljmu.ac.uk [Tel: 0044 (0) 151 231 4017] Additional Contact [should the corresponding author not be available] HESAV School of Midwifery Av. de Beaumont 21, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland claire.delabrusse@hesav.ch [Tel: 0041 (0) 21 316 81 60 ] Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal lettre.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261902.r002
14 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - David Desseauve, Editor Giving birth: a hermeneutic study of the expectations and experiences of healthy primigravid women in Switzerland PONE-D-21-14238R1 Dear Dr. Fleming, 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, David Desseauve, MD, MPH, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261902.r003
Formally Accepted
27 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - David Desseauve, Editor PONE-D-21-14238R1 Giving birth: a hermeneutic study of the expectations and experiences of healthy primigravid women in Switzerland. Dear Dr. Fleming: 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. David Desseauve Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261902.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 .