https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0610-4850
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMarch 25, 2021 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-21-09606 Views and experiences of maternity healthcare professionals involved in the provision of influenza vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alhendyani, 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 Jul 16 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, Emma Sacks Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 2. Thank you for providing your flowchart as figure S1. Please make this figure 1 in your main manuscript. 3. Please confirm that you have included all items recommended in the PRISMA checklist including the full electronic Boolean search strategy used to identify studies with all search terms and limits for at least one database. Please attach this as supplementary file. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "KJ is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Centre (ARC) West Midlands. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The author(s) 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. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Additional Editor Comments : Thank you for your submission of this article on an important and timely topic. However, myself and the reviewer have a number of concerns we are hopeful you can address. My main concern is that the findings are presented with no weighting, yet most come only from one contributing study, some conflict, and the overall number of included papers is quite small. Consider looking at the guidance for GRADE CERQual methodology and the ways to assess confidence in the review findings (especially if they are not necessarily generalizable to multiple settings). I would suggest adding the contributing studies, along with their quality and location, to Table 3. I don't fully understand why this paper assessed the quality of each contributing study with the CASP but then does not utilize those assessments to eliminate, weight, or contextualize the interpretations of the findings. Instead, the methods include an assessment of data richness, but the assessment of this is not explained. My other main concern is that the introduction (as well as the findings) need more more differentiation by country/setting or geographic region. The vaccination rates vary widely, and should be discussed. The % of countries which recommend influenza vaccine for pregnant women and if possible, the extent to which national guidance is available, should be included. Further, significant years (introduction of vaccine, change in guidelines, etc.) should be mentioned, and the years of the search strategy should be included. -In the abstract, there is information in the conclusion not included in the results; new findings should not be presented here - "decline" would be a better word than "rejection" -a review of effective interventions would be a different review; if the point here is to ask what MCHPs would recommend, please state that clearly -Please be careful with the framing as these are MCHPs often reporting on what they THINK is influencing women's uptake of the vaccine. In other research, we have seen that health care workers and patients have different understandings about reasons for patient behaviour. -What terms are used in the search? Can the search strategy be appended? -It's a significant limitation to restrict to English-only. How many potential papers were screened out because of language? Please add further explanation in the limitations about the possible biases introduced because of this. -Why are community health workers included in the results, if they are not included in the inclusion criteria? Please clarify. -Given how small the sample size is, the findings are far too general. For example, "MHCPs held one on one discussions" is only cited by one study, so cannot be generalized to every practice around the world. -The headings have reference to the MHCP and women's "characteristics" but I don't see them in the findings (other than the power dynamic between patient and provider, which seems more of a perception and less about the characteristics of the MHCP him/herself) -"Social and cultural norms" is quite a broad category - as it covers religion, intrahousehold power, and gendered dynamics. Consider separating these out. -Consider adding identifiers to the quotes - what cadre of health care worker is speaking? From what country was the contributing study? -It seems that the prohibition on ANC might be one of the most important barriers to vaccination uptake rather than specifics around the vaccine itself. This gets lost in the current framing under social norms, but would certainly require a different set of interventions or messages -"Media" is pretty broad - what types of media? (tv, internet, radio, social media, etc.) -gang groups and violence around the clinic seems very specific to one site, do you have evidence that this is more widespread? (see above my comment about CERQual, as this method would downgrade a finding such as this) -In the discussion, while more confident providers may lead to higher uptake, there was a concerning quote in included in the paper about how patients may not feel empowered to decline something recommended; I would include a caveat here about the importance of informed consent. -Workload and time constraints feature prominently in the abstract and discussion, but did not come out strongly in the findings as presented (other than deprioritizing this vaccine against others, but there were other confounders) -Vaccine champions are mentioned but not explained -I don't understand the phrase "naturally present" with regard to patient-provider relationships; why would this be inherent? -Table 3 is very unclear: are these the views of MCHPs about women's views? -Please add line numbers so reviewers can more easily point out suggestions -there is at least one sentence that is repeated verbatim. Overall, the paper would benefit from a careful proofread, as there are grammatical errors and typos (including in the references and tables) [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 ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ********** 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 ********** 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: Summary: This article is systematic review of qualitative studies of MHCPs’ views of and experience with providing influenza vaccines during pregnancy. It then identifies themes from these studies and suggests approaches to enhance vaccination uptake. The authors draw from eight studies, reflecting participation of 277 MCHP’s across low, middle, and high income countries. They identify six analytical themes and 17 descriptive themes and, and from those themes, propose areas for intervention specifically for MHCPs. While socio-cultural norms and the beliefs of pregnant women strongly influence MCHPs’ decision making, barriers of knowledge among MHCPs and structural constraints within the visit, as well as national policy/guidelines and benchmarks are all more intervention-ready targets to increase rates of influenza vaccination in pregnancy. The paper does an adequate job of reviewing available literature and synthesizing themes—the methodology is appropriate for a systematic review. Comments by section: Introduction: - See this recent study Dawood et al, Incidence of influenza during pregnancy and association with pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in three middle-income countries: a multisite prospective longitudinal cohort study - The Lancet Infectious Diseases for additional (though contradictory) data regarding risk of antenatal influenza and birth outcomes - You can condense your first two sentences, as your readers know pregnant women and their fetuses are at high risk from influenza - Would make two sentences from Deberra et al study—one about effects of vaccine in pregnant women, one about protection in infants - Is there a published statistic for uptake of influenza vaccine in pregnancy globally? Looks like about 50% in United States (Low Rates of Vaccination During Pregnancy Leave Moms, Babies Unprotected (cdc.gov)) - Brings up interesting point—there are (at least) two issues at play here: 1) How often are pregnant women being offered the influenza vaccine by their MHCP? 2) How often are women receiving the vaccine? Your paper is primarily concerned with the former, but this is never explicitly delineated. - When you say “experiences” for MCHPs (2nd sentence, 3 paragraph) do you mean MCHPs’ past experience recommending influenza vaccine? Knowledge, beliefs, and time constraints are fairly self-explanatory concepts, but “experiences” remains unclear to me throughout the paper. - Your fourth paragraph is strong and makes a good argument for the necessity of the paper. Methods: - Well delineated inclusion and exclusion criteria, though would be interesting to comment on difference between MCHPs’ views of Tdap vs influenza vaccines (structural constraints identified as barrier to Tdap vaccination as well) somewhere in discussion. Table 1 very helpful and clear. - Search and selection strategy well described and sound Results: - Table 2 informative - Quality assessment is useful. Seems like Bergenfeld et al was problematic from recruitment strategy perspective—may need to justify its inclusion (especially since it is heavily referenced in the introduction section) - Table 3 is clear delineation of themes - Figure 1. MHCP “characteristics” not clear—do you mean knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs? - More generally, it seems like there is more to draw out of the “knowledge” and MHCPs. The “Characteristics” and the first part of “Local Healthcare system” sections seem like they would be better combined under “MHCP knowledge and education about influenza vaccine”, especially as this emerges as a target for intervention in your discussion. - Then the rest of “local healthcare system” is systems factors (checklist, electronic medical record based interventions, place for documentation) which seems like its own theme. - The record keeping/vaccination history piece of “national policy and practice” is an excellent point, and perhaps should be highlighted in your discussion section as well Discussion: - Is there way to explicitly highlight MCHP generated strategies (visiting religious services in Kenya, creating EHR vaccination prompts, dedicated vaccine teams, education hub) to improve influenza vaccination? - In paragraph 4 of this section, last sentence should become two. This paragraph seems to be the crux of your argument—that MCHPs are uniquely positioned to affect uptake of influenza vaccine. - For paragraph 6, you don’t really bring this theme out in your thematic analysis in the results section - For paragraph 7, the vaccination champion idea also is not adequate introduced in the results section - In paragraph 8, are you suggesting focusing resources on midwives especially? Would make this clear if this is the case. - In paragraph 9, last sentence is a sentence fragment—would revise Strengths and Limitations: - Clear - Agree that thematic saturation is this study’s greatest strength Conclusion: - The last sentence is a run-on and does not make sense. ********** 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 [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-21-09606R1Views and experiences of maternity healthcare professionals involved in the provision of influenza vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alhendyani, 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 09 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 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, Emma Sacks 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you for your revisions to this manuscript. Reviewer #1 still has some additional minor comments we are hopeful you can address. I also still have some concerns that less common findings (e.g. gang violence) is presented without qualification of how common it might be compared to other findings. While there is no expectation of quantification in qualitative papers, it would still be helpful to emphasise which findings were most common across papers, and which were identified in fewer, specific contexts. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ********** 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 ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ********** 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 ********** 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 ********** 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: Global comments: --Most of section 4.5.1 relates to barriers to ANC in general, not vaccines in particular --Would benefit from more consistent language throughout. The paper focuses on the perspectives of MHCP’s on the influenza vaccine (rather than knowledge, attitude, and beliefs). Among themes emerging from the qualitative studies reviewed are “social, cultural, and environmental influences,” “MHCP’s knowledge and belief” about the vaccines. This extends to the title—might try “Perceptions of Maternal Health Care Providers on …” --The addition of country and study to the included quotes is very helpful. --Still don’t see much critical evaluation of studies included in your discussion section—for example, issues around the heterogeneity of providers included makes the discussion of who is responsible for advocating for influenza vaccine confusing (MD/DO’s believing it is a nurse role) --Would benefit from more classification of findings in discussion: on barriers (workload, time constraints, MHCP’s perceptions of women’s concerns about flu vaccine, lack of knowledge on the part of MHCP re: flu vaccine), facilitators (good rapport, national guidelines, education/training) and suggestions for further intervention (vaccine champions, EMR prompts, systems level informatics regarding who is due for flu shot, free vaccines) --This is a very timely study given the applicability to COVID vaccines in pregnancy—would probably be more explicit about this when it comes to significance—understanding the perspective of MHCP’s on influenza vaccine may shape strategy for educating them about COVID vaccine in pregnancy. Line by line: 26-28 Still unclear: “experience, knowledge, beliefs” of the MHCP’s themselves? Still vague—would reword for clarity, especially in abstract. This is broken down clearly in your thematic analysis so why not say “knowledge and attitude” and “social, cultural, and environmental influences.” 41-42 Same—are you saying that their commitment to provision of flu vaccine was challenged by workload and time constraints? By social, cultural, and environmental influences? By women’s perceived concerns? Perhaps cast these as facilitators: trusting relationships, good communication, knowledge about the vaccine leading to confidence in recommending vaccine, EMR prompts, and presence of national guidelines. And then the barriers: workload, time constraints, MHCP’s perception of pregnant women’s concerns, and social/cultural/environmental influences. 71 Don’t need “however” 83-86 should read: Evidence showed the vaccine offered immunity 90 I think you mean: In 2019-2020 in the US, 61.2% of pregnant women received influenza vaccine, 56.6% received Tdap, and 40.3 received both. 89-96 These statistics seem contradictory—may need a sentence up front suggesting “….heterogeneity globally—from less than 10% coverage in Europe, 50-60% in US, and >95% in Brazil.” 98-101 likely a typo here affecting clarity: I think you are saying “MHCPs knowledge of and beliefs about the influenza vaccine, and their experiences supporting pregnant women, as well as their workload and time constraints, affect their practices in advocating for influenza vaccine during pregnancy. “ 109-110 These are fundamentally different questions, and your study seems to focus on the factors affecting the first of these. It’s an interesting and important point—maybe in focusing on pregnant women’s perspectives, we’re actually missing one of the main problems, which is that they are not being offered (or encouraged to take) the influenza vaccine. It follows then that is essential to understand the perspective of those offering/recommending the vaccine. 178 need a period at the end of this sentence. 198 will need to comment on the heterogeneity of this group in your discussion section 235 4.5.1 None of these particular to vaccine uptake, they all seem more generally related to provision of ante-natal care. (257-260 reference is the exception here). This is obviously not prohibitive in including this section, but would just acknowledge that the barriers here are largely barriers to ANC itself. 374 this is where the heterogeneity of your population is problematic—some of your MHCP are nurses 386 need semi colon between studies; it 386 they is unclear. Would say “vaccine champions” may increase 395: setting a national policy and guidelines, centralizing vaccine information, and providing influence vaccine for free would enhance… 430-433 these need separate sentences—they are all very different ideas. 433 take out “likely” 446 Would re-word for clarity 452 should read “for existing and new vaccines” 467-470 run on sentence 471 don’t need “however” 481 maybe discussion of heterogeneity of providers included in this study goes here, and then highlight role of midwives 484 take out comma after pregnancy 491 YES! Lots of overlap. This helps add validity to your findings (or WHO’s model…) Figure 2 I like this model ********** 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 [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-21-09606R2Views and experiences of maternal healthcare providers on influenza vaccine during pregnancy: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alhendyani, 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 Feb 07 2022 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 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, Emma Sacks 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thanks to the authors for their revisions. Both myself and the reviewer have some additional minor comments. -My biggest concern is that the "views and perspectives" column in Table 3 is not clear. The phrases are too short and the table does not standalone. -I am still concerned that describing coercion or massive power imbalances are described as good rapport (line 306) -The very end indicates that there is a start date to the search strategy, but this is not included in the methods -There may not be consensus about how to assess quality of qualitative papers, but there are methods, including eliminating ones not meeting a certain threshold -I'd still like to see more differentiation between findings from many papers verses one or few papers, and perhaps a bit more clarity between HCP's words themselves and what is ascribed to them -One strength of this paper is the global nature; consider adding "global" to the title -EMR should be spelled out in the abstract -line 113 - "looked for" is not very specific (perhaps identify and analyse?) -table 1: what about health care providers who are also pregnant? -line 190 should be "represented" -GP should be spelled out at first use -line 262 should be "including" -line 289: literacy is not the same as materials (literacy is a skill) -line 357: should be "improved/strengthened" recordkeeping (record keeping should already be happening) -line 384: should be MHCP [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ********** 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 ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ********** 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 ********** 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 ********** 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: The overall organization is much clearer, especially discussion separated into barriers, facilitators, and suggestions to improve vaccination rate. Some specific line by line comments: Title—Would consider “regarding” or “of” rather than “on” influenza vaccination 308 to 311—these are different aspects of the conversation—the 1:1 nature and allowing women to ask questions, and then the use of passive language. Would separate into two sentences and discuss implications of each. Passive language sounds like it belongs in lines 314-318 re emphasizing that is the woman’s choice 423-424 think more “attitudes” than “views” Think casting as barriers and facilitators is makes for much clearer delineation of the findings from the studies 461 “trust and good rapport between MHCP and patient (or pregnant woman), clear national guidelines, and education and training for MHCPs 463-479 Seems like you need to discuss national guidelines in this section, since you included it among facilitators 485 would bold or italicize to mark this as a separate section 538 Would emphasize the importance of the influenza vaccine again here, protecting both mother and fetus. Could also suggest there may be implications for uptake of other, newer vaccines ********** 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 [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 3 |
|
Views and experiences of maternal healthcare providers regarding influenza vaccine during pregnancy globally: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis PONE-D-21-09606R3 Dear Dr. Alhendyani, 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, Emma Sacks Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for your multiple iterations to improve this paper. We thank you for this important contribution to the literature. |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-21-09606R3 Views and experiences of maternal healthcare providers regarding influenza vaccine during pregnancy globally: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis Dear Dr. Alhendyani: 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. Emma Sacks 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 .