Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 8, 2019
Decision Letter - Melissa T. Baysari, Editor
Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-19-19259

My Experiences with Kidney Care: A Northern Australian qualitative study of adults living with chronic kidney disease, dialysis and transplantation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Hughes,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: The reviewers raise some valid concerns. I recommend using an appropriate qualitative checklist (e.g. SRQR) to ensure all necessary components of the study are reported.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 31 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Melissa T. Baysari

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified whether consent was written or verbal/oral. If consent was verbal/oral, please specify: 1) whether the ethics committee approved the verbal/oral consent procedure, 2) why written consent could not be obtained, and 3) how verbal/oral consent was recorded.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

JH was supported by an Australia National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship (1092576).

We note that you have provided funding information that is not 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:

JH was awarded the funding for the study, which was funded by Top End Health Services (https://health.nt.gov.au/health-governance/top-end-health-service)

The funder commissioned the work, but had had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

4.  Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

This detail is included in the manuscript:

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: grant funding of the study from Top End Health Services for the submitted work; Hughes, Beaton, Wood, Signal, Majoni and Maple-Brown provide clinical care and/ or are department leaders within the study setting (Top-End Renal Service).  There are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. 

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Cass A.

[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: Partly

**********

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 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: No

**********

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: Hughes et al report their qualitative work on adults with chronic kidney disease based in Darwin, Australia. The work presented describes their methods and their findings, all of which meet the COREQ checklist.

I have a few minor comments:

- the title suggests northern Australia, yet the work was limited to the top-end of the Northern Territory. Do the authors assume that Torres Strait Islanders would report the same or would a more appropriate title reflect precisely the participant population involved?

- The abstract aim states "To describe the experiences of Aboriginal health care users ...", yet only 81% self-identified as Aboriginal and this specificity was dropped in the final paragraph of the introduction. Could the authors please clarify the aim?

- Selection of participants - was the initial approach made in the participant's language (given 86% of Aboriginal participants had English as second or later language and the researchers were not known to participants).

- How does this work relate to similar findings including patient experience measures? For example the discussion around sharing of knowledge and its relationship to Breckenridge's frameworjk for shared-decision making (Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015, 30: 1605)?

Reviewer #2: This manuscript describes the experiences of Aboriginal health care users of the Top End Health Services' renal services in Northern Territory. Although it seemed to be a service improvement exercise, it is important research and findings will inform policy changes. I nonetheless have a few suggestions for the researchers' considerations;

1. I encourage the researchers to use qualitative reporting checklists like the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) or the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) to guide their writing.

2. A detailed description of the Australian Indigenous community's health and services gaps and, in particular, the situation in the Top End are necessary for context for an international audience.

3. The use of a phenomenological approach, face-to-face interviews and focus groups in this case were appropriate but it would still be useful to know the pros and cons of using this as opposed to other methodologies in an Indigenous population and, in particular again, in the Top End.

4. There should be a description of the credentials, occupations, experience and training of each researcher and their relationships with the participants to give a sense of possible biases and assumptions.

5. There was no mention of software used - coding and analysis were all managed manually?

6. It is not clear exactly HOW the analysis occurred. I read reference no. 11 and still did not fully understand whether the FGs were conducted to co-interpret the interview data OR the FGs were also part of the data that was analysed. I suggest rewriting that paragraph in Methods.

7. Also, the researchers said that the second coding round was based on existing theories but did not say WHICH theories and it is not apparent in Results or Discussion that any theory was used.

Data saturation was not achieved in all themes - there was no description of how this was addressed.

8. Please do not use 'n=...' to describe the proportion of respondents in a qualitative paper.

9. Some of the quotes are quite intriguing but they are not identified (eg. by participant no.) and some of the themes are poorly supported by quotes such as the 'Care and supporting environments' theme.

10. Some of the themes are not consistent with the findings or quotes presented. Eg. Communication and Information - this seems to be more about community understanding of their conditions which may or may not be compounded by communication with and information from health care providers; Commitment and Care Proficiency - this does not describe commitment at all but rather competence of staff and continuity of care; Care and supporting environments - this seems to be describing standards of support and confidentiality. The logic of grouping of these themes are also not apparent to me. I actually thought that the 4 factors described in 1st paragraph in Discussion (knowledge gaps, relocation impact, health care providers' quality, service environments) would serve much better and clearer as themes. I also suggest the use of subthemes to further signpost in the Discussion section.

11. Discussion was fairly well-written. But, again, the use of theories, if any, to interpret and synthesize the findings should be discussed.

12. I think the first few lines in Conclusion should summarize the answer to the aim of this research - what are the experiences of renal patients using TEHS' renal services.

13. The last sentence in Conclusion should really be under strengths and limitations. It isn't a conclusion!

**********

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Thankyou for the opportunity to consider to the recommendations for major revisions, which we have now completed.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-S-19-23404_Response to Reviewers.doc
Decision Letter - Melissa T. Baysari, Editor

My Experiences with Kidney Care: A qualitative study of adults in the Northern Territory of Australia living with chronic kidney disease, dialysis and transplantation

PONE-D-19-19259R1

Dear Dr. Hughes,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Melissa T. Baysari

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. 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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: The authors have adequately addressed my comments raised. I recommend 'accept for publication' but do have one suggestion: add a sentence "Strategies were employed to ensure that the methods were respectful to working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; these included guidance from the Indigenous Reference Group and open-coding involving multiple Indigenosu researchers." to the end of the first paragraph in 'Interview guides and interview process' under methods. Being explicit about what worked and why will serve to inform future research.

**********

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 #2: No

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Melissa T. Baysari, Editor

PONE-D-19-19259R1

My Experiences with Kidney Care: A qualitative study of adults in the Northern Territory of Australia living with chronic kidney disease, dialysis and transplantation

Dear Dr. Hughes:

I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

A/Professor Melissa T. Baysari

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 .