PONE-D-21-18663Perception of the use of a telephone interpreting service during primary care consultations: A qualitative study with allophone migrantsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. CORMI,

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 Nov 14 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,

Barbara Schouten

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. 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.

3. 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. 

[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: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

**********

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 very much for a very interesting piece of research. I miss a description of the themes heading each of the corresponding sections.

Further references about video interpreting in healthcare settins are the contributions by de Boe and by Krystallidou in Saalets, Heidi & Gert Brône (eds.) 2020. Linking up with video. Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Reviewer #2: The research paper, number PONE-D-21-18663, falls into the field of health interpreting and deals with a question of interest, yet little explored, that of patients' perception of telephone interpreting. However, the manuscript requires a stronger background to justify the research.

The introduction is indeed rather weak, as it lacks depth and articulation. In the first paragraph, the authors briefly address language barriers and their implications, the need for an interpreter and the two broad categories of interpreter (informal vs. professional). They directly present in the second (and last) paragraph the context of TIS in France and the contextual elements that led to the research. There is no transition in between. The different interpreting techniques and their benefits are missing (see Wang & Fang (2019) for a comparison between telephone interpreting and in-person interpreting in terms of translation quality), as well as the scientific data on TIS. There are at least two systematic review available (Downes, Mervin, Byrnes & Scuffham, 2017; Joseph, Garruba, & Melder, 2018). Lee (2007) and Wang (2018) have also investigated in the perception of interpreters. In addition, the last sentence of the first paragraph needs clarification. What do the authors mean by "qualitative terms" and "economic terms"?

The manuscript would gain in clarity, by reorganizing the structure and content of the Materials and methods section. The authors provided details regarding the population throughout the Method and at the beginning of Result section, while they should all be indicated in the same sub-section. The authors do not present the general topics explored in the interview (referring directly to the Supplementary Material is not sufficient). The sub-section “Telephone interpreting service (TIS)” does not appear necessary. Funding information are already given at the end of the manuscript and details about ISM can directly be included in the introduction. Please group information and be more straightforward.

Results are presented as a series of quotes, which does not do justice to the work involved by a qualitative analysis. The discussion, in its present state, does not bring anything new. The literature has already underlined the implication language barriers can have in primary care, and in mental health. Bauer & Alegria (2010) have for example conducted a literature review on interpreting in mental health.

Language polish is also strongly recommended. There are a number of linguistic typos throughout the manuscript. In the abstract, for example, the setting is presented as being the population, and not the accommodation center. I do not understand the label of the first theme "multiple translations of the language barrier". Can language barriers be translated?

Finally,

• Regarding "Ethics statement": Given the vulnerable status of asylum seekers, did the authors make sure that their research did not fall under a CPP, according to the Jardé Law as revised in 2016?

• Regarding "Data Availability": The authors indicate that there are restrictions on data accessibility but do not specify which ones.

• Regarding the COREQs: I suggest indicating directly information in the table, rather than indicating where in the text it can be found.

• Regarding Vancouver editing reference style: In the text, please use [], not ().

References cited in the review:

Bauer, A.M. & Alegria, M. (2010). Impact of patient language proficiency and interpreter service use on the quality of psychiatric care: a systematic review. Psychiatric Services, 61, 765–773.

Downes, M.J., Mervin, M.C., Byrnes, J.M., & Scuffham, P.A. (2017). Telephone consultations for general practice: a systematic review. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 128.

Joseph, C., Garruba, M., & Melder, A. (2018). Patient satisfaction of telephone or video interpreter services compared with in-person services: a systematic review. Australian Health Review, 2(2):168-177.

Lee, J. (2007). Telephone interpreting, seen from the interpreters’ perspective. Interpreting, 6(2), 231–252.

Wang, J. & Fang, J (2019). Accuracy in telephone interpreting and on-site interpreting. A comparative study. Interpreting, 21(1), 36–61.

Wang, J. (2018). “It keeps me on my toes”, Interpreters’ perceptions of challenges in telephone interpreting and their coping strategies. Target, 30(3), 439–473.

**********

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: Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez

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.

PONE-D-21-18663R1Perception of the use of a telephone interpreting service during primary care consultations: A qualitative study with allophone migrantsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. CORMI,

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 Mar 11 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:

• 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,

Barbara Schouten

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.

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: Thank you to the authors for responding to my comments and the revisions they have made. The manuscript has gained in quality, and I have enjoyed reading this new version. I have a few more, minor comments or questions.

I came across a recent article on TIS over the Christmas vacation, which I believe would back up even more the introduction. It is not referenced in PsycInfo or PubMed, which is why -I’m guessing- neither the authors nor I have seen it before. It is, however, accessible on Researchgate upon request.

--> René de Cotret, F., Beaudoin-Julien, A.-A., & Leanza, Y. (2020). Implementing and managing remote public service interpreting in response to COVID-19 and other challenges of globalization. Meta LXV, 3.

Two other articles from Leanza’s research team also seem relevant for the discussion.

--> For the relational dynamic in interpreted consultation, including issue of trust (cf. lines 262-265) : Brisset, C., Leanza, Y. & Laforest, K. (2013). Working with interpreters in health care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies. Patient Education and Counseling, 91, 131-140.

--> A study conducted in primary care (cf. lines 312-314): Brisset, C., Leanza, Y., Rosenberg, E. et al. (2014). Language barriers in mental health care: A survey of primary care practitioners. Journal of immigrant and minority health, 16(6), 1238-1246.

More specifically,

* Line 44: The authors indicate two themes, while presenting three in the result section.

* Lines 85-86: The authors indicate that interpreters make more strategic additions during TIS. Although I find this results a surprising (and I will not argue on it), the complete sentence seems to me shaky. Strategic additions are a positive thing while the beginning of the sentence (and the following one) emphasizes on negative aspect of TIS.

* Lines 90-93: Would the authors consider moving the connector “Nevertheless” to the beginning of the next sentence?

* Lines 110-113: I wonder whether it is relevant (or not) to mention that the authors have followed the IMRAD structure, as the conducted research is prospective study.

* Lines 135-149: I first wondered here if the authors were able to ensure that it was a different interpreter than the one(s) used during the TIS consultations, which led me to wonder if patients using TIS are actually informed of who the person interpreting for them is…

* Line 184: Is it pertinent to add the %? I know it is a statistical standard but the sample relies on 10 participants…

* Lines 199-200: For table 2, would the authors consider presenting a figure instead of a table? I also found two typos: a lower-case s at “subclusters” instead of a capital S; and there is a lost ”;” at the end of “the lack of an image”

* Lines 214-216: Would the authors considering making two sentences here?

* Line 231: I would change “physician” for “doctor” to be consistent with the rest of the paper.

* Lines 257-206: Striking result which emphasizes the need to inform asylum seekers of their rights…

* Line 286: I would change the title of the sub-heading to “advantage and limitations of the TIS” as this section is not only about limits.

**********

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

[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.

Perception of the use of a telephone interpreting service during primary care consultations: A qualitative study with allophone migrants

PONE-D-21-18663R2

Dear Dr. CORMI,

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,

Barbara Schouten

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE