Perceptions of people with Parkinson’s and their caregivers of falling and falls-related healthcare services- a qualitative study

Charlotte L. Owen; Christine Gaulton; Helen C. Roberts; Laura Dennison

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276588

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 11, 2021
9 May 2022 Decision Letter - Daswin De Silva, Editor PONE-D-21-25994Perceptions of people with Parkinson’s and their caregivers of falling and falls-related healthcare services- a qualitative studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dennison, 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 Jun 23 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, Daswin De Silva 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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 4. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. 5. 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: No 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: Thank you for the opportunity to read you well written and interesting paper that deals with the important topic of falling and people with Parkinson's disease. This paper addresses a novel perspective, exploring the experiences of participants, including those people with cognitive impairment / dementia and their carers. I only have a few minor comments to make that most likely need addressing: - line 87: spell out HCP as first time use of abbreviation - line 90: possible change "in the setting" to "context" Methods Your paper needs to describe in more detail. with justification, the methodology you used to address your research questions and have a section on research team reflexivity Who developed, and how (based on what), the interview questions. I think the key questions should be in the body of the paper (not in a supplementary file) as they inform the nature of the data collected What experience or training did the interviewers have in qualitative interviewing? When were field notes collected and what sort of field notes were collected? Fra more detail of what methodological approach you used in your data analysis and a more details description of what you actually did in this analysis. Lines 161-162: Why after 18 interviews had been coded ... and not 19 or 20 or ... In gaining consent from caregivers for those participants who had cognitive impairment/dementia, what did you do to affirm that the person agreed with their involvement - did you check with them in some way? Results You should not start a sentence with a number, it should be spell out. Please state how many people volunteered, how many were ineligible etc Your findings and discussion were well presented Reviewer #2: This is an important topic that has not been adequately researched. The qualitative approach with both PwPD and the caregiver was most appropriate and the analysis of the data was sound. Strengths and limitations of the study were appropriately acknowledged. ****** 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:** Leigh Hale Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276588.r001
Revision 1
20 Aug 2022 Author Response Thank you for providing feedback about the journal’s requirements. We have addressed these as described below and have also noted any consequential changes to the manuscript in the table of changes that follows the cover letter. 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 Thank you for this feedback. We have re-read the style requirements in each of the PDFs quoted and are unable to identify any areas where our manuscript does not meet these. Correspondence from yourselves on 24th June 2022 advised that this text is included in all revision decision letters to ensure that PLOS style is adhered to. We feel that our manuscript is in line with PLOS style guidelines and have therefore not made any additional edits here. Please advise us if you do identify any changes that we need to make and we will implement these. 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Dr Charlotte Owen was supported by the University of Southampton NIHR Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) training programme (https://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/nihr-academic-clinical-fellowships-in-medicine-2021/25719), and subsequently went on to be awarded a fellowship by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration (NIHR ARC) Wessex. Work completed during the ACF training programme, and the fellowship formed the research for this manuscript. No grants were awarded for this research, we are sorry that this was unclear from the information provided. In the ‘funding information’ section within the submission system we have still listed Dr Owen’s NIHR ARC fellowship, please advise us if you would like for us to remove the fellowship listing from this section to alleviate any confusion. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. There are ethical restrictions on sharing our de-identified data set, as manuscripts contain potentially sensitive information, as imposed by the University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine ethics committee (ergo@soton.ac.uk, reference 29763). Bona fide researchers, subject to registration may request supporting data via University of Southampton repository https://doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/D2329. We have provided this information on our cover letter alongside their contact details. 4. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. Thank you for highlighting that the corresponding author is not currently employed by the University of Southampton. We have amended the corresponding author (line 6) to Dr Laura Dennison, who is employed by the University of Southampton, and provided her email address on line 13. 5. 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. Thank you for this feedback. We have reviewed all of our references and we cannot locate a reference that has been retracted. Correspondence from yourselves on 24th June 2022 advised that this text is included in all revision decision letters to ensure that PLOS style is adhered to. On reviewing our references we did identify that references 46 and 64 were the same publication (McLaughlin et al.). To rectify this we have removed reference 64 and references after reference 64 have consequently been renumbered. We have also edited our referencing style to adhere to PLOS style; citation numbers in the manuscript are now within square and not round backets. We have outlined how we have addressed the reviewer comments in our 'Response to reviewer' document which we have uploaded to the submission system. These are also listed below. Line references are taken from the marked up copy of the manuscript. line 87: spell out HCP as first time use of abbreviation: Line 87. Change made: Thank you for highlighting this omission. We have now spelt out ‘healthcare professionals’ on first use of the abbreviation ‘HCPs’ line 90: possible change “in the setting” to “context”. Change made: Thank you for highlighting this. We have made this suggested change on line 90. Your paper needs to describe in more detail with justification, the methodology you used to address your research questions and have a section on research team reflexivity. Change made: Thank you for prompting us to provide a more thorough description, with justification, of the methodology used in our research. We have addressed this and included more details of our study design and methodology decisions under the subheading ‘Study Design’ on lines 120-133. Thank you also for highlighting the importance of including a section on research team reflexivity, which we have addressed through the addition of the subsection titled ‘researcher backgrounds and reflexivity’ on lines 211-228. Who developed and how (based on what) the interview questions. I think the key questions should be in the body of the paper (not in a supplementary file) as they inform the nature of the data collected. Change made: Thank you for highlighting that we have not described who, and how, we developed our interview questions. Our questions were developed by CO, LD and HCR, as is now described within the text (lines 162-167). The interview schedule underwent minor changes during data collection as we have now described. As suggested, we have now inserted a figure which details the key interview questions (Figure 1, line 168). What experience or training did the interviewers have in qualitative interviewing? Change made: Thank you for prompting us to describe the training that CO and CG received in qualitative interviewing. We have addressed this by describing the training and supervision that CO and CG received on lines 177-180. When were field notes collected and what sort of field notes were collected? Change made: Thank you for highlighting that we have not described our field notes in detail. We have detailed the field notes that we collected, and how this aided our analysis, on lines 180-185. Far more detail of what methodological approach you used in your data analysis and a more detailed description of what you actually did in this analysis. Change made: Thank you for highlighting that we needed to provide more detail about our methodological approach. We have addressed this by providing additional details to include a description of the subtype of thematic analysis that we used, how we coded our data and how we developed out subthemes and themes (lines 186-210). Line 161-162: why after 18 interviews had been coded ... and not 19 or 20 or ... Change made: Thank you for highlighting that we had not described why we chose this timepoint. We chose this timepoint as during discussions within the research team it became clear that the number of codes was becoming unwieldly, and that many of the current codes could be grouped to support the analysis of the data. This is now described within the manuscript (lines 201-205). In gaining consent from caregivers for those participants who had cognitive impairment/dementia, what did you do to affirm that the person agreed with their involvement - did you check with them in some way? Change made: Thank you for highlighting this important ethical consideration. We asked both PwPD and their caregivers whether they wanted to participate. Consultee declaration forms were completed when the PwPD wished to participate but lacked the capacity to provide informed written consent. We have added these additional details to the manuscript (lines 231-233). You should not start a sentence with a number, it should be spell out. Change made: Thank you for raising this grammatical error. Due to the changes that we have made in response to the reviewer comment below, the sentence no longer starts with ‘38’ Please state how many people volunteered, how many were ineligible etc. Change made: Thank you for highlighting that we had not provided details of the number of people who were eligible to take part in the study. We have addressed this by detailing the number of questionnaires distributed and returned. All PwPD invited to interview using the purposive sampling technique agreed to participate. (lines 147-158). We have added these details into the methods section to eliminate overlap between the methods and results sections. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276588.r002
11 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Daswin De Silva, Editor Perceptions of people with Parkinson’s and their caregivers of falling and falls-related healthcare services- a qualitative study PONE-D-21-25994R1 Dear Dr. Dennison, 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, Daswin De Silva 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 #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: N/A 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: (No Response) 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: I had actually accepted the article previously so only the other reviewers comments really needed to be addressed. ****** 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: Yes: Leigh Hale Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276588.r003
Formally Accepted
13 Oct 2022 Acceptance Letter - Daswin De Silva, Editor PONE-D-21-25994R1 Perceptions of people with Parkinson’s and their caregivers of falling and falls-related healthcare services- a qualitative study Dear Dr. Dennison: 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. Daswin De Silva Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276588.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .