Dear Dr. Fabreau,

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 Mar 17 2025 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.

• 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,

Johanna Pruller, Ph.D.

Associate 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.  In the online submission form, you indicated that “Data are available upon request from authors”

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible.

The reviewer has raised a number of concerns that need attention. Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised?

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript, which aims to describe the use of NGT with a diverse refugee patient advisory committee. Given the high levels of global displacement and the need to hear the voices of refugees, this paper adds important insights to the literature on refugee health. Nevertheless, I believe that major revisions are needed to make this paper ready for publication in PLOS ONE.

The authors state that they 'aimed to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of employing these techniques [...]' (p5, l. 110), but the manuscript does not describe the investigation of these two aspects in any detail. I would have expected to learn more about how effectiveness and feasibility were investigated in the methods section and to see corresponding results in the results section. As this is not the case, the conclusion that NGT is effective and feasible seems to be a personal perception rather than the result of a thorough investigation.

The comparatively detailed description of materials and methods seems appropriate for a better understanding of the study setting and process, but some points need clarification:

- p5, l. 120: the month should not be abbreviated

- p5, l. 124: reference [10] refers to an article on cervical cancer screening - please check if this is the appropriate reference at this point and if so, please explain why in your response.

- p6, l. 139: Reference [11] refers to an article about COVID-19 outbreaks among migrant workers - the example of meat processing plants - please check if this is the appropriate reference at this point and if so, please explain why in your answer.

- p6, l.144: You mention that the study started before February 2022, on p.5, l.120 you state that you conducted the study between January 2023 and May 2024 - please clarify.

- - p6, l.144: please elaborate further on your protocol: is it publicly available or could be provided as supplementary material?

- p8, l. 181-192: Additional information is needed to better understand the NGT format and the respective roles and who is referred to as patient advisor, facilitator and participant. e.g.: What is the difference between patient advisor and participant?

- p10, l. 233-238: please provide further information on the member verification step to enable the reader to better understand who is considered a 'member'.

- p10, pg. 242: Who is referred to as a reviewer?

In addition, I see a need for further adjustments in other parts of the manuscript:

- Please elaborate further on data availability, as the PLOS ONE guidelines make clear: “Stating ‘data available on request from the author’ is not sufficient. If your data are only available upon request, select ‘No’ for the first question and explain your exceptional situation in the text box.”

- The title or at least the abstract should indicate the geographical entity in which the study was conducted.

- p1, l. 5: the affiliation of the first author should be clarified, a is not listed in l.9-22

- p12, table 1: the abbreviation IQR needs to be explained

- p16, l.321-322: the citation needs explanation/context

- p16, l.324-325: if this is a (sub)heading, it should not include the reference to figure 3

- please check that all references comply with the reference style

As the results of the study contain relevant findings for both healthcare and research, I would strongly encourage the authors to make the necessary revisions to publish these important results. I will be happy to review a revised manuscript.

**********

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

**********

[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.

Empowering refugee voices: Using Nominal Group Technique (NGT) with a diverse refugee Patient Advisory Committee (PAC) to identify health and research priorities in Calgary, Canada

PONE-D-24-45096R1

Dear Dr. Fabreau,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Adetayo Olorunlana, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear authors, thank you very much for the thorough consideration of my comments. All my comments have been satisfactorily addressed and I have no further requests for revision. Keep up the good work.

**********

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

**********