Exploring for-profit healthcare providers’ perceptions of inclusion in the Zambia National Health Insurance Scheme: A qualitative content analysis"

PONE-D-21-13577

Dear Dr. Sundewall,

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,

Sabeena Jalal, MBBS, MSc, MSc, SM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Qualitative research articles are far and few. Thank you for submitting this work. This article explored the for-protfit healthcare providers' perceptions of inclusion in the Zambua National Health Insurance Scheme. A qualitative content analysis. I was glad to see in the references a paper by Francis-Xavier et al, PLoS ONE (2019) about Ghana. Literature search was conducted well. I appreciate the limitation of generalization of the findings has been expressed well in line 313. There is at present a debate about private and public providers. It was useful to see this discussed in the paper. Education of the providers and helping them understand the scheme are practical solutions to the on ground problems. Such as unclear communication on ground. This manuscript is addressing an important issue. 

Some people might say that being a qualitative research, this study is weak. however, the reviewers and I feel that this study is needed and it adds to the literature.

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: 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: 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: This is a relevant topic.

Please correct the title: Exploring for-profit healthcare providers’ perceptions of inclusion in the Zambia

National Health Insurance Scheme: A qualitative content analysis"

Was NVIVO used for analysis or only Microsoft word and excel? If NVIVO was not used, please explain in the manuscript why.

Please make a table for the themes identified and the codes.

Please make a word cloud figure for the manuscript.

Please format the paper according to the PLOS One author guidelines. There are at present too many headings, and the PLOS One format has not been followed.

Please add a section on limitations.

Thanks

Reviewer #2: It is an interesting topic. It is well written. This article is well research and will add new information to the available literature. I was particularly interested in private providers need to understand government initiatives that require their engagement. Providers that were undecided or did not want to participate emphasized the need to understand the scheme. On the other hand, those found to be sufficiently aware and decided whether or not to accredit were those in direct contact with NHIMA.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No