PONE-D-23-11579Services, models of care, and interventions to improve access to cancer treatment for people who are socially disadvantaged: A scoping review protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Horrill,

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 Aug 13 2023 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,

Portia Janine Jordan, 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 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.

3. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

4. We note that you have referenced (ie. Horrill, T. C., et al. [15]) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Horrill, T. C., et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style 

5. 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. 

6. 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 Dr. Horrill,

We thank you for the submission of your manuscript. The peer review process of your manuscript has now been completed and we have reached a decision regarding your decision.

The manuscript is suitable for publication but needs minor adjustments.

The comments from the two reviewers are attached to the email.

Reviewer 1:

Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript related to a protocol for a scoping review. The following may assist in improving the manuscript further:

Background: Although the concept of people who are socially disadvantaged is well-explained in the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the methodology, perhaps a definition early in the background could be provided as the concept of people who are socially disadvantaged could have different meanings in different contexts.

Objectives: the justification for conducting the scoping review is clear. However, this justification could be strengthened by indicating whether any reviews have been conducted on the topic or related topics and where gaps are.

Methods: although the inclusion and exclusion are well-described in terms of the concept and language, perhaps also to include what type of articles/studies/literature will be searched for.

Limitations: limitations were clearly indicated. Perhaps also to indicate what measures/strategies will be implemented to enhance rigour of the scoping review.

Documentation/reporting: the how of reporting of the review was outlined, however perhaps the reporting tools (e.g. PRISMA flowchart, tables, graphs) could be included.

Reviewer 2:

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS

This scoping review seeks to identify the services, models of care and interventions developed to improve access to cancer treatment for socially disadvantaged people. The study is relevant and can contribute to overcoming the barriers that socially disadvantaged people face.

However, the protocol requires minor modification/revision (specified below) before consideration for publication.

MAJOR ISSUES

Line 146: Indicate whether studies will be included or excluded based on their design and provide a rationale. For instance, will the authors include both experimental and non-experimental interventions that improve access to cancer treatment?

Line 155: Study selection: Describe how duplicate records/studies will be identified and managed.

Line 166: Table 1 (Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria) suggests that the review will focus on adults aged 18 years and older who are socially disadvantaged. This focus must reflect in the background, abstract and possibly the title of the review. Socially disadvantaged people may include children, adolescents or youth etc.

Line 166: Focus of publication: The authors indicated that “Focus is on describing a service, intervention or models of care developed and implemented with the explicit aim of improving access to, receipt of, or adherence to cancer treatment”. The concept “adherence” is introduced here for the first time in the protocol. Adherence to cancer treatment is absent in the review question, purpose or search strategy. Countless services, models of care and interventions (experimental/non-experimental) that “improve adherence to cancer treatment” exist and will considerably expand the scope and resources required of the review.

Consider deleting the “adherence to cancer treatment” component. Otherwise, comprehensively integrate the “adherence to cancer treatment” component into the scoping review.

MINOR ISSUES

Line 36: Review the sentence “A comprehensive search strategy will be developed by an academic librarian will be developed”.

Line 42: Consider removing the open science registration link from the abstract.

Line 55: Review sentence starting with “Evidence also….”

Line 146: Identifying relevant studies: Indicate what action(s) will be taken if the full text of a record/study (other than grey literature and dissertations) is not found.

Table 166: Exclusion criteria: Provide a rationale for studies published in languages other than English language.

Line 166: Consider merging the two population rows.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

**********

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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript related to a protocol for a scoping review. The following may assist in improving the manuscript further:

Background: Although the concept of people who are socially disadvantaged is well-explained in the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the methodology, perhaps a definition early in the background could be provided as the concept of people who are socially disadvantaged could have different meanings in different contexts.

Objectives: the justification for conducting the scoping review is clear. However, this justification could be strengthened by indicating whether any reviews have been conducted on the topic or related topics and where gaps are.

Methods: although the inclusion and exclusion are well-described in terms of the concept and language, perhaps also to include what type of articles/studies/literature will be searched for.

Limitations: limitations were clearly indicated. Perhaps also to indicate what measures/strategies will be implemented to enhance rigour of the scoping review.

Documentation/reporting: the how of reporting of the review was outlined, however perhaps the reporting tools (e.g. PRISMA flowchart, tables, graphs) could be included.

Reviewer #2: COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS

This scoping review seeks to identify the services, models of care and interventions developed to improve access to cancer treatment for socially disadvantaged people. The study is relevant and can contribute to overcoming the barriers that socially disadvantaged people face.

However, the protocol requires minor modification/revision (specified below) before consideration for publication.

MAJOR ISSUES

Line 146: Indicate whether studies will be included or excluded based on their design and provide a rationale. For instance, will the authors include both experimental and non-experimental interventions that improve access to cancer treatment?

Line 155: Study selection: Describe how duplicate records/studies will be identified and managed.

Line 166: Table 1 (Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria) suggests that the review will focus on adults aged 18 years and older who are socially disadvantaged. This focus must reflect in the background, abstract and possibly the title of the review. Socially disadvantaged people may include children, adolescents or youth etc.

Line 166: Focus of publication: The authors indicated that “Focus is on describing a service, intervention or models of care developed and implemented with the explicit aim of improving access to, receipt of, or adherence to cancer treatment”. The concept “adherence” is introduced here for the first time in the protocol. Adherence to cancer treatment is absent in the review question, purpose or search strategy. Countless services, models of care and interventions (experimental/non-experimental) that “improve adherence to cancer treatment” exist and will considerably expand the scope and resources required of the review.

Consider deleting the “adherence to cancer treatment” component. Otherwise, comprehensively integrate the “adherence to cancer treatment” component into the scoping review.

MINOR ISSUES

Line 36: Review the sentence “A comprehensive search strategy will be developed by an academic librarian will be developed”.

Line 42: Consider removing the open science registration link from the abstract.

Line 55: Review sentence starting with “Evidence also….”

Line 146: Identifying relevant studies: Indicate what action(s) will be taken if the full text of a record/study (other than grey literature and dissertations) is not found.

Table 166: Exclusion criteria: Provide a rationale for studies published in languages other than English language.

Line 166: Consider merging the two population rows.

**********

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.

PONE-D-23-11579R1Services, models of care, and interventions to improve access to cancer treatment for adults who are socially disadvantaged: A scoping review protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Horrill,

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. The manuscript requires minor changes as suggested by the reviewer. Please submit the revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 07 2023 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,

AKM Alamgir, PhD

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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing the feedback. I would hereby recommend to accept the manuscript for publication.

Reviewer #3: The authors have identified a very important gap with respect to the need to examine the existing literature on services, models of care and interventions to improve access to cancer treatment for people who are socially disadvantaged through conducting a scoping a review. The protocol is well articulated and fits the aims of the review accordingly. I would just suggest to consider anchoring the definition of the population "socially disadvantaged" which is well done in the methods and population definition in the body of the paper to be done early on in the manuscript in the abstract as well as introduction so that the reader has a very clear understanding of how your population is defined. Another suggestion would be to provide a bit more context to geography and region - we see that the literature will be searched for english language having said that is there an assumption that the context is North America or international in terms of how we define populations globally with respect to socially disadvantaged and cancer screening as the multiple components of how you define social disadvantage cannot be separated from national/geographical and political contexts that may vary globally. Minor detail - the appendices are referred differently in the body - ie. appendix A in the body is actually Appendix B ~

This is a timely scoping review protocol and addresses a gap that is of importance to advancing our understanding of the needs of people experiencing marginalization.

**********

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 #3: Yes: Rosanra Yoon

**********

[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.

Services, models of care, and interventions to improve access to cancer treatment for adults who are socially disadvantaged: A scoping review protocol

PONE-D-23-11579R2

Dear Dr. Tara Horrill,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and is formally accepted for publication.

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,

AKM Alamgir, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: