PONE-D-21-31849Pregnant women's unmet need to communicate with a health professional during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France: the Covimater cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Doncarli,

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 13 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,

Gabriel O Dida, 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. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Consider only relevant suggested reference sources

[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: Yes

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: 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: I am glad to assess this study entitled, " Pregnant women's unmet need to communicate with a health professional during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France: the Covimater cross-sectional study."

I suggest some minor corrections to check the typo errors in writing to enhance the English quality to reach the scientific merit for the publication of this study. I will this article after the following modifications.

This present study explains that

When the pandemic started, healthcare systems throughout the world rapidly reorganised to respond to what was an unprecedented situation. We aimed to i) describe the unmet need of pregnant women living in France to communicate with health professionals about the pandemic and their pregnancy, ii) assess the socio demographic, medical and contextual factors associated with this unmet need I am in favor of this study and will recommend for publication. However, the authors need to revise the manuscript and work according to my suggestions to enhance the quality. I will accept this paper for publication after these minor changes as suggested below.

Introduction and literation sections

I recommend the authors add suggested articles in the introduction and literature sections. These research articles have identified health-related topics I believe it will improve the quality of your work. I strongly suggested them to improve this section a bit more. I advise authors to revisit their introduction and literature sections of the recommended studies and cite these studies to enhance your research study's quality to reach scientific merit for publication.

Wang, C., Wang, D., Abbas, J., Duan, K., & Mubeen, R. (2021). Global financial crisis, smart lockdown strategies, and the COVID-19 spillover impacts: A global perspective implications from Southeast Asia. Front Psychiatry, 12, 1-14. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.643783

Abbas, J., Hussain, I., Hussain, S., Akram, S., Shaheen, I., & Niu, B. (2019). The Impact of Knowledge Sharing and Innovation upon Sustainable Performance in Islamic Banks: A Mediation Analysis through an SEM Approach. Sustainability, 11(15), 4049. doi:10.3390/su11154049

NeJhaddadgar, N., Ziapour, A., Zakkipour, G., Abolfathi, M., & Shabani, M. (2020, Nov 13). Effectiveness of telephone-based screening and triage during COVID-19 outbreak in the promoted primary healthcare system: a case study in Ardabil province, Iran. Z Gesundh Wiss, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-020-01407-8

Literature

I want to see publish this creative study after some corrections. I have endorsed this study as; it deserves the merit for publication. However, I suggest the authors make minor corrections according to my advice. Please read the suggested studies and cite them in the introduction, literature, and method sections. How corporate social responsibility, innovation and social media and internet use is helpful. Add few lines in the introduction and literature sections. How companies are practicing CSR, business, entrepreneurial networks with innovation and knowledge sharing to improve the business performance and provide better healthcare medicines?

Abbas, J., Raza, S., Nurunnabi, M., Minai, M. S., & Bano, S. (2019). The Impact of Entrepreneurial Business Networks on Firms’ Performance Through a Mediating Role of Dynamic Capabilities. Sustainability, 11(11), 3006. doi:10.3390/su11113006

Azizi, M. R., Atlasi, R., Ziapour, & Naemi, R. (2021). Innovative human resource management strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic narrative review approach. Heliyon, 7(6), e07233. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07233

Abbas, J., Zhang, Q., Hussain, I., Akram, S., Afaq, A., & Shad, M. A. (2020). Sustainable Innovation in Small Medium Enterprises: The Impact of Knowledge Management on Organizational Innovation through a Mediation Analysis by Using SEM Approach. Sustainability, 12(6), 2407. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062407

Azadi, N. A., Ziapour, A., Lebni, J. Y., Irandoost, S. F., & Chaboksavar, F. (2021). The effect of education based on health belief model on promoting preventive behaviors of hypertensive disease in staff of the Iran University of Medical Sciences. Archives of Public Health, 79(1), 69. doi:10.1186/s13690-021-00594-4

Materials and Methods

The results section of the paper presents a good view of the study. This work presents a notable investigation on a selected topic. I suggest the authors to present high quality graphs. By including some graphical presentations will improve the quality of this study. Please see the proposed studies and see the graphical representation. Improve your work like these studies and cite them in this section.

Paulson, K. R., Kamath, A. M., Alam, T., Bienhoff, K., Abady, G. G., . . . Kassebaum, N. J. (2021). Global, regional, and national progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 for neonatal and child health: all-cause and cause-specific mortality findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet, 1-36. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01207-1

Hussain, T., Wei, Z., & Nurunnabi, M. (2019). The Effect of Sustainable Urban Planning and Slum Disamenity on The Value of Neighboring Residential Property: Application of The Hedonic Pricing Model in Rent Price Appraisal. Sustainability, 11(4), 1144. doi:10.3390/su11041144

Abbas, J., Aman, J., Nurunnabi, M., & Bano, S. (2019). The Impact of Social Media on Learning Behavior for Sustainable Education: Evidence of Students from Selected Universities in Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061683

Mubeen, R., Han, D., Abbas, J., & Hussain, I. (2020). The Effects of Market Competition, Capital Structure, and CEO Duality on Firm Performance: A Mediation Analysis by Incorporating the GMM Model Technique. Sustainability, 12(8), 3480. doi:10.3390/su12083480

Discussion

I suggest the authors to discuss the effects of the COVID-19. I suggest you to cite these studies. Read the proposed studies to improve your results and discussion section. See the recommended studies and improve your sections. How companies are practicing CSR, business, entrepreneurial networks with innovation and knowledge sharing to improve the business performance and provide better performance?

Su, Z., McDonnell, D., Wen, J., Kozak, M., Šegalo, S., . . . Xiang, Y.-T. (2021). Mental health consequences of COVID-19 media coverage: the need for effective crisis communication practices. Globalization and Health, 17(1), 4. doi:10.1186/s12992-020-00654-4

Abbas, J., Mahmood, S., Ali, H., Ali Raza, M., Ali, G., Aman, J., . . . Nurunnabi, M. (2019). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmental Factors through a Moderating Role of Social Media Marketing on Sustainable Performance of Firms’ Operating in Multan, Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(12), 3434. doi:10.3390/su11123434

Aqeel, M., Shuja, K. H., Rehna, T., Ziapour, A., Yousaf, I., & Karamat, T. (2021). The Influence of Illness Perception, Anxiety and Depression Disorders on Students Mental Health during COVID-19 Outbreak in Pakistan: A Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey. International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, 14, 1-14.

Abbas, J. (2020). The Impact of Coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) Epidemic on Individuals Mental Health: The Protective Measures of Pakistan in Managing and Sustaining Transmissible Disease. Psychiatr Danub, 32(3-4), 472-477. https://doi.org/10.24869/psyd.2020.472

Conclusion

I suggest you make a separate heading of the conclusion and do not mix it with implications.

Policy Recommendations

I again recommend you to make a separate heading of the Policy Recommendations.

The conclusion section is acceptable. Overall, this presents a good piece of research work. I recommend that authors do a little more work and revise this article accordingly. I suggest the authors check English quality and fix some weak sentences. If you have already taken English editing service, ask them to recheck the quality to meet scientific merit for publication. I endorse this manuscript for publication after minor corrections, as suggested.

Abbasi, K. R., Abbas, J., & Tufail, M. (2021). Revisiting electricity consumption, price, and real GDP: A modified sectoral level analysis from Pakistan. Energy Policy, 149, 112087. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112087

Local Burden of Disease, H. I. V. C. (2021, 2021/01/08). Mapping subnational HIV mortality in six Latin American countries with incomplete vital registration systems. BMC Medicine, 19(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01876-4

Pay attention of English quality to reach scientific merit. I suggest to cite these six studies to improve the quality of the Introduction, Literature and Methods sections. I accept and endorse this manuscript for publication after the suggested minor corrections.

Reviewer #2: Abstract:

- Add a short background explaining the study question.

- The period of the study is confusing "July 2020" and "March to May 2020". Clarify

- Add detailed data about the participants and their criteria.

- The conclusion should be precise. Add the future directions.

Introduction:

- Define "SARS-COV-2 and its negative effects on pregnant women" in detail.

- Explain the measured variables.

- The significance of the study needs more details. What will the study add to the knowledge?

- Add the study hypothesis.

Methods:

- The study design, ethics, and setting are not clear.

- How and who administrates the data collection?

- How did you achieve the validity and reliability of the outcome measures?

- Please, reframe the components (SPICES) for methods

i. Study design, setting, sample size

ii. Participant (inclusion and exclusion criteria"

iii. Issue of interest (exposure)

iv. Comparisons

v. Ethics and endpoint

vi. Statistical analysis

- Mention the settings and locations where the data were collected.

- How was the sample size determined?

- Who enrolled participants?

- Who assigned participants?

Discussion:

- The strengths should be demonstrated in detail.

- Add your recommendations with study implications.

- The main limitation of the study is not demonstrated.

**********

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: Yes: Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

[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.

Pregnant women's unmet need to communicate with a health professional during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France: the Covimater cross-sectional study

PONE-D-21-31849R1

Dear Dr. Doncarli,

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,

Gabriel O Dida, PhD

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Appreciating the authors for their responses to my previous comments. All comments have been addressed. Congrats

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

Reviewer #3: Yes: Navid Rabiee