Dear Dr. Yusuff,

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 02 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 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,

Ilhem Berrou, 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.  Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[This work was supported by an Undergraduate Research Experience Program (UREP) award [UREP29-092-3-029] from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of The Qatar Foundation). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors.].

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. 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:

Thank you for submitting this interesting and well written manuscript.

In addition to the reviewers comments, please also address the following:

Introduction and literature review

Please shorten this section, succinctly highlighting: the problem of polypharmacy, its prevalence in Qatar, the Middle East comparing to global patterns, why it needs to be addressed including any data relevant to Qatar e.g. prevalence of medicines related problems and how deprescribing can address them.

Clearly defining deprescribing and how it can be done by community pharmacists. Many deprescribing interventions happen already, informally, over the counter in some countries. In others, deprescribing happens more formally following formal protocols and under specific job titles.

What are the barriers to community pharmacists deprescribing in Qatar and other countries.

Please justify the choice of theory.

Discussion

Please shorten this section be more succinct. Please discuss key findings (predictors of readiness to de-prescribe and levels of knowledge) in relation to what was reported in other studies, taking care to succinctly highlight the relevant to Qatari context.

It will be useful to highlight how this learning may feed into a future deprescribing service in community pharmacy in Qatar.

It is noted that the pharmacy workforce is diverse, presented per nationality in the results section. What does this mean in relation to the findings e.g. practices pharmacists bring from their home country.

As a limitation it is important to address the limitations of answering questions about a service that is yet to exist.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for your submission of this research article on the knowledge, confidence and readiness of community pharmacists to implement deprescribing in Qatar which I really enjoyed reading and would be happy to see published pending minor revision

You clearly highlighted the rationale for undertaking this research by using a theoretical framework and undertaking it in a developing country which does not yet have a community pharmacy deprescribing programme. Related to this (and the discussion on page 14 where it is suggested that results may differ by settings), consider briefly describing the scope of community pharmacists in Qatar for the international audience since this differs internationally i.e. Can they prescribe independently? Would they be able to stop/change medicines independently or would this be through a doctor?

The sample size calculation, questionnaire development/testing and statistical approaches (descriptive statistics of IQR/frequency and logistic regression) are all clearly described/justified.

The results of the three questionnaires included support the conclusion drawn that the majority of community pharmacists felt knowledgeable and confident. Related to these results, when Table 2 is described it is said that "However, a sizeable proportion of community pharmacists incorrectly described deprescribing as solely involving medication stoppage (42.5%, 85/200), or initiated only when adverse side effects are encountered by patients (28%; 56/200)" - however these frequencies combine those who answered incorrectly and those who answered don't know - hence rather than saying they incorrectly described deprescribing it would be more correct to say that they were "unable to correctly define".

The logistic regression included supports the conclusion drawn that female sex and exposure to deprescribing at undergraduate level were predictors of readiness to deprescribe. While the consideration of female sex in the literature is discussed, it is not for the other predictor - is there any relevant literature on the impact of deprescribing teaching in undergraduate pharmacy programmes that this could be linked to?

The manuscript is clearly presented and readable but would benefit from editing as there are minor typographical and grammatical errors throughout - some examples include missing words like "a", changing from singular to plural within the same sentence (or vice versa) and some inconsistencies in Tables with missing brackets and sometimes within the same column using a decimal point for a whole number and other times not.

**********

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

Dear Dr. Yusuff,

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.

In the manuscript, you reported that the questionnaire was informed by the situational theory of leadership; however, this was not clearly reflected in the questionnaire development section. You also indicated that the sampling technique used was purposive sampling . From your description, it appears that participants may have been recruited primarily based on ease of access and availability. This approach is generally referred to as convenience sampling rather than purposive sampling.<o:p></o:p>

Please carefully revisit your Methods section to ensure that the sampling technique is accurately described. If you intended purposive sampling, please clarify the specific inclusion criteria and rationale that guided participant selection.<o:p></o:p>

In the Results section, you have reported frequencies in the format (percentage, n/total sample size) . For consistency and clarity, please revise the reporting style to the standard format (n = XX, percentage%) instead of (n/total sample size) . For example, please use (n = 109, 54.5%) instead of (109/200, 54.5%) .<o:p></o:p>

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 23 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 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,

Mohammad Nusair, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. 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.

2. 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:

In the manuscript, you reported that the questionnaire was informed by the situational theory of leadership; however, this was not clearly reflected in the questionnaire development section. You also indicated that the sampling technique used was purposive sampling. From your description, it appears that participants may have been recruited primarily based on ease of access and availability. This approach is generally referred to as convenience sampling rather than purposive sampling.

Please carefully revisit your Methods section to ensure that the sampling technique is accurately described. If you intended purposive sampling, please clarify the specific inclusion criteria and rationale that guided participant selection.

In the Results section, you have reported frequencies in the format (percentage, n/total sample size). For consistency and clarity, please revise the reporting style to the standard format (n = XX, percentage%) instead of (n/total sample size). For example, please use (n = 109, 54.5%) instead of (109/200, 54.5%).

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript which you have clearly put a lot of work into which has strengthened your paper further

Just a couple of comments based on your amendments

Your response -1: We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion and we totally concur with the premise of the suggested correction and it has been done. [Pg 15, 1st paragraph, line 4-7, 2nd Paragraph, 12-18]

Unfortunately didn't make it any clearer for me (or perhaps other international readers) what the the scope of community pharmacists in Qatar is i.e. Can they prescribe independently? Would they be able to stop/change medicines independently or would this only be through a doctor? Please clarify

There are minor typographical and grammatical errors throughout still - again examples include missing words like "a" or "the", changing from singular to plural within the same sentence (or vice versa) and some inconsistencies in Tables etc but the manuscript is still easily readable/understandable. Specific ones I would suggest to change based on your submitted amendments are:

Abstract Line 4 should be "A" theory as at the start of the sentence not "a" theory

Abstract Line 7 - remove "a" before Qatar

Introduction Paragraph 3 - not having two sequential sentences starting with "indeed"

Table 1 CPD - None not to one decimal place like others

Table 2 - Extra bracket in "True" header

References - Not all in same format - one example would be 35 has no year listed for a journal article and not all formatting guidelines have been followed since reference citations are requested to be in brackets in the text as described https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

Reviewer #2: The article is really informative and the topic 'deprescribing' is interesting.

The manuscript covered the basic research structure.

Honestly, I cant find anything to be corrected.

Well done for the research team.

**********

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: Yes: Nasser M Alorfi

**********

[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

Dear Dr. Yusuff,

• The reviewers are pleased with the revised manuscript and provided positive recommendations. However, one of the reviewers has asked for minor revisions that I would like you to address before making a final decision on your submission.

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 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,

Mohammad Nusair, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. 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.

2. 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

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??>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: English Proof reading is required.

I strongly recommend a structural abstract ( Background, method etc .. ). Also, I recommend adding one sentence ( about Self-Report Bias into the limitation section ) that this may lead to inflated confidence scores would make it clearer.

Overall, the manuscript is strong, well-revised, and suitable for publication

**********

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: Yes: Nasser M Alorfi

**********

[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.

Predictors of community pharmacists’ readiness to implement deprescribing of inappropriate medications for older adults in Qatar

PONE-D-25-19691R3

Dear Dr. Yusuff,

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,

Mohammad Nusair, 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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: My comments about ''Predictors of community pharmacists’ readiness to implement deprescribing of inappropriate medications for older adults in Qatar'' were sorted. The manuscript is ready for acceptance.

**********

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: Yes: Nasser M Alorfi

**********