https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0595-364X
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJune 6, 2023 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-23-17555Family caregivers’ emotional and communication needs in Canadian pediatric emergency departmentsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Samina Ali, 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 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, Fadwa Alhalaiqa 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 stating in your Funding Statement: "This study was supported by the Women and Children’s Health Research Institute (WCHRI) and the Clinical/Community Research Integration Support Program (CRISP) grant, secured by Dr. Shannon Scott and Dr. Samina Ali (2018-2022)." Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. 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. 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. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada Family Needs Study Group. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address. 6. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file Appendix 1 Family Needs Survey 6jun2023.pdf. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload. 7. 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: Dear Authors Your team effort is really appreciated in writing this paper. However, you need to meet the reviewers feedback [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: 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: Thank you very much for inviting me to read this good manuscript that highlights the importance of doctors and nurses in emergency units and the impact this has on child care providers. I will allow myself to make the following observations to the manuscript to raise its academic quality: Introduction: OK Methods: The described methodology of the manuscript presents several strengths and noteworthy considerations. The study's strengths include its comprehensive approach to data collection and analysis. The sub-study employs a descriptive cross-sectional survey coupled with medical record review, providing a multi-faceted view of caregivers' experiences in pediatric emergency departments (EDs). The utilization of a convenience sample from ten Canadian pediatric EDs enhances the study's external validity, making the findings more generalizable. The rigorous development and validation process of the survey tools, involving expert panel input, pre-testing, pilot testing, and sensibility testing, contribute to the robustness of the measures used to assess caregiver needs and experiences. However, there are also potential challenges and limitations to consider. The use of a convenience sample might introduce selection bias, as participants may not fully represent the diversity of all families visiting pediatric EDs. Despite efforts to ensure robust survey tools, self-reporting may introduce recall or response biases. I recommend that the authors describe in more detail how they did to reduce the risk of bias in the study. Results: OK Discussion: OK Reviewer #2: General: A very well prepared manuscript and clearly laid out methodology. Abstract; Objectives: Note that the objectives in the abstract are not in alignment with the objectives in the article. Abstract; Objectives: Would you say that the findings presented in this article related the findings to the demographic characteristics? Perhaps rework to be in line with the objective presented in the article. Introduction: Consider including a brief description of the term "caregiver satisfaction". This is obviously similar to but not the same as patient satisfaction which is not applicable to this study. The term "team" is utilised quite frequently. And in some instances is referred to as ED team. It would be helpful to the reader to indicate early on who is being referred to when the term "team" is used. In some EDs there may be designated nurse who would be a "constant" throughout the caregiver's time in ED. First and only time the PICU acronym is used. Recommend writing in full. Just a query if this should be ED setting? Page 5; Line 7: What is meant by "Characterizing the emotional and communication needs...."? Page 5; Line 13: The term "satisfaction" is presented alone. It needs qualification. Satisfaction with what? Page 5; Line 14: The term "visit characteristics" also needs elaborating upon Page 7; Line 13: Was the word "permuted" intentional? If yes, maybe change from "missing responses" to "missed responses". Page 8; Line 16: Clarify: satisfaction with what? Page 18; Line 15: Is it to improve the overall patient experience or the overall caregiver experience? - the focus of this study being on the caregiver. Page 18; Line 20: Kindly provide some literature to show whether existing data supports/contradicts these findings. Page 19; Line 1-4: As above, kindly show how existing research supports/contradicts these findings. Page 19; Line 20: Kindly elaborate on/qualify the term satisfaction, i.e. satisfaction with what? Page 20; Line 7-9: Kindly note that anxiety levels and emotional needs are not necessarily the same thing. One may have one's emotional needs met, but anxiety is still present. Rather find another study that refers to emotional needs. However, it is an interesting outcome. Page 22; Line 5: Increase satisfaction with what? It is recommended that the conclusion also includes the many positive outcomes of the findings. For instance, the majority of caregivers had their emotional needs met and the majority of caregivers had their communication needs met. And this is across Canada's pediatric EDs. This is a highly commendable outcome. Page 22; Conclusion, Line 4: Does the word "influence" refer to influence for the better or worse? The apostrophe for caregivers should be after the "s" as caregivers'. And satisfaction with what? Page 23; Conclusion; Last sentence: The phrase "make an impact" - kindly clarify: Make an impact on what? ********** 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 ********** [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 |
|
Family caregivers’ emotional and communication needs in Canadian pediatric emergency departments PONE-D-23-17555R1 Dear Dr. Samina Ali, 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, Fadwa Alhalaiqa Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-23-17555R1 Family caregivers’ emotional and communication needs in Canadian pediatric emergency departments Dear Dr. Ali: 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 Pro Fadwa Alhalaiqa 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 .