Dear Dr. Coventry,

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 Dec 25 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,

Saima Aleem

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. Thank you for stating the following in your manuscript:

[This research was funded by the Centre for Oral Health Research at Newcastle University and NHS Education for Scotland (through the Scottish Dental Practice Based Research Network).]

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[This research was funded by the Centre for Oral Health Research at Newcastle University and NHS Education for Scotland (through the Scottish Dental Practice Based Research Network).

The funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Abstract

I recommend that the authors spell out “NHS” in full at its first mention before using the abbreviation to ensure clarity for all readers.

Introduction

I recommend that the authors spell out “NIHR” in full at its first mention before using the abbreviation to ensure clarity for all readers.

The introduction would benefit from stating potential barriers related to parents not fully understanding the importance of research, and specifically RCTs, in the context of pediatric dental care.

Methods

In the data analysis section, the presentation of multiple analytic approaches (essentialist, contextualist, constructionist thematic analysis, framework method) makes the process difficult to follow. It would be helpful for the authors to clarify which approach was primarily adopted, and how the different methods were integrated or distinguished.

It would be useful to include a participant flow chart for the two study locations. For example, indicating the number of eligible parents at each site, the number who completed the baseline questionnaire, the number of parents contacted, and the number of parents interviewed. This addition would enhance transparency regarding recruitment across sites.

Results

In the participant profile table, it would be helpful to provide further detail on the category “other” for parent ethnicity. Clarifying what this category includes would improve transparency and interpretability of the data.

In the description accompanying the participant profile table, I suggest including the mean age of the parents.

The Results section is at times difficult to follow. For example, under “Dental Health” themes 2 and 3 currently contain relatively little information. It may strengthen the presentation to consider reorganizing or merging these themes in a way that avoids sections with limited content.

Discussion

The discussion section should be made more concise by focusing on the key takeaways that directly relate to the study’s objectives. Emphasizing how these findings connect to the current literature would strengthen the interpretive value and clarity of the manuscript.

Strengths and weakness of the study

Line 669 to 672: The text in this section appears to be incomplete, with some words or parts of sentences missing. Please review and revise for clarity.

The age of the data set (2015) may affect the relevance of the findings. Consider discussing any changes in context since 2015 that might influence interpretation or applicability.

Reviewer #2: This study provides insight into clinical trial recruitment and patient engagement. The methodology along with the findings section provide strong evidence for the validity of the conclusion.

Two main reasons for recommending Minor Revisions:

1- Data Availability: Since this is a qualitative study, full data sharing is not recommended due to participant confidentiality and ethical considerations. It will be helpful to clarify this in the Data Availability Statement. A possible way to phrase it is as follows:

[Qualitative interview transcripts may contain personally identifiable information that cannot be shared with the public. Researchers who meet the criteria for accessing confidential data can access it through the Newcastle University Research Data Service].

2- Rigor: it is important to outline in the Results or Discussion section when saturation was reached. This minor addition will ensure full adherence to qualitative reporting standards [e.g., saturation was reached after the 15th/18th interview].

**********

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Parental attitudes to randomised controlled trials in primary dental care: A qualitative study

PONE-D-25-39208R1

Dear Dr. Coventry,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Saima Aleem

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: