Peer Review History
Original SubmissionMarch 2, 2021 |
---|
PONE-D-21-06924 Renal staff understanding of patients’ experiences of transition from peritoneal dialysis to in-centre haemodialysis and their views on service improvement: A multi-site qualitative study in England and Australia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jones, 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 Jun 06 2021 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:
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: http://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, Lucy E. Selman, BA, MPhil, 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 2. Please include a copy of the interview guide used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously. 3. 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. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [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: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: I enjoyed reading this well written and interesting paper, presenting a well conducted study addressing a gap in understanding. I think the paper would benefit from a discussion comparing the findings from this study with those of patients’ perspectives, and I suggest the authors add this to the Discussion section. My detailed comments, questions and suggestions follow. Abstract page 2 line 38 – The word ‘haemodialysis’ is used but later in Conclusions reference is made to ‘in-centre haemodialysis’. If the focus is in-centre HD then please specify this at the outset as transition to HD with a view to doing home HD may be different to transitioning to in-centre HD only. The rest of the paper reads as though in-centre HD is the focus. The term patients is used throughout when ‘people’ might be suitable. ‘People with kidney failure’ may be a preferrable term. Introduction page 4 lines 68/69: ‘Placing patients needing dialysis onto PD first’ – this sentence sounds quite paternalistic. ‘Placing’ suggests the clinical team chooses the treatment modality when this should be at least a shared decision. The phrase ‘needing dialysis’ is also problematic in that ‘dialysis need’ is not something about which there is consensus – with some people with kidney failure choosing conservative care with comparable life-expectancy and better quality of life. Suggest rephrasing this sentence. Introduction page 4 lines 69/79: ‘and cost benefits’ – Please specify whether the cost benefits are for the healthcare provider and / or the patient. Methods page 5 lines 92-94: ‘Hospital sites in the UK and Australia were chosen because of the different models of kidney care adopted in each of these countries’ – Please summarise the key differences in models of care. Please can you explain how the sites within the UK and within Australia were selected. Methods page 5 line 105: You make reference to trying to achieve ‘a representative sample’ but this is a quantitative term, rarely appropriate for use in qualitative research. Qualitative research sampling is not usually intended to achieve ‘a representative sample’ but to achieve a diverse sample capturing all possible different perspectives/views/experiences. In addition there is only one characteristic mentioned with respect to sampling (job/position). Was any attempt made to achieve diversity with respect to e.g. gender, age etc. How was the sample size determined? You mention achieving data saturation but was that determined during data collection and resulted in sampling stopping? Overall further details are required regarding the sampling strategy. Methods page 6 lines 117/118 – Should this sentence ‘were qualified to PhD and Master’s level’ read ‘WHO were qualified to PhD and Master’s level’ ? Methods: Could you expand on how the sampling, data collection and analysis were related? Were they contemporaneous? Iterative? For example was analysis undertaken of a small number of interviews/focus groups, and subsequent sampling determined by early analysis? Or was sampling undertaken, interviews/focus groups completed, and then analysis? Methods page 6 line 143: Were there any differences in coding/themes identified? How were any disagreements resolved? Methods page 7 Data analysis: This section requires clarification. Were all interviews/focus groups inductively coded initially or was a subset of interviews/focus groups inductively coded to generate a framework, which was then used to code the remaining interviews/focus groups? Lines 140-141 please be specific about the % of transcripts used to generate the coding framework – was this 10%? Or 15%? Methods: You’ve included the COREQ checklist but not written in the methods that this report was written with reference to this checklist. Please add this. Methods: There is no discussion of non-participants. What proportion of invited individuals agreed to participation? Were any group of professionals more or less likely to participate compared to others? Results page 8 Table 1: Is there a risk of identification of those individuals who were the only ones recruited from their professional group? e.g. Social worker, Vascular access coordinator, Kidney care coordinator, and Director of kidney care unit. Results page 8 line 156: Remove capital letter from ‘Access’ to ensure consistency with how other themes are presented. Results page 9: Table 2 doesn’t add anything extra to what’s already written in the text. Would it be possible to generate a thematic diagram that illustrates how the themes interact and maybe illustrates the differences between the UK and Australia samples? Results page 9 line 172: Replace ‘its’ with ‘it’s’ Results page 10 lines 198-203: I’m not sure how this text and quote really fits under the theme. Results page 10 line 206: ‘patients’ experienced’ should be ‘patients experienced’. Results page 10 lines 206/207: I find the phrasing ‘when told they need to transition to HD’ problematic. It sounds like patients are instructed to transition to HD, when in reality patients have the choice to not transition, to opt for conservative care, or to try to bring forward a possible living donor transplant. Results page 11 line 220: Please clarify what is meant by the term ‘Consultants’. In this sentence it sounds like you are describing doctors only. If so please specify, as the above quote is by a Consultant Nurse. Results page 11 line 232: ‘In contrast, staff in the UK are, in general, compartmentalised into one kidney therapy modality’ – this sentence isn’t true for all hospitals in the UK. Practice patterns vary significantly. In the centre I work in for example, people with kidney disease stay under a single consultant’s care and are not treated by different consultants depending on their dialysis modality. I therefore think this is not really a difference between the UK and Australia, but rather the centres that you sampled in the UK and Australia. I think that therefore you should rewrite this to say that this difference is between the different models of practice, which may be in place in the UK and in Australia. Results page 15 line 316: Replace ‘needs’ with ‘need’ Discussion: How do the staff perspectives compare to patients perspectives? Are the issues staff have identified as important/challenging etc the same as those identified by patients themselves? Discussion page 17 line 363: Replace ‘psycho social’ with ‘psychosocial’ Discussion page 18 from line 387: As indicated above it is not correct to state that practice in the UK is to change consultant when changing treatment modality. This is not the case at all UK units. This section requires rewriting. Reviewer #2: This is a very clearly written and easy to follow manuscript. Well done and thanks. The only thing I would value would be a little more information relating to the methodological orientation that underpins the study and its relevance to the generation of themes and comparisons drawn between the two settings. All other limitations of the study and manuscript are addressed in the appropriate sections by the authors. Reviewer #3: This is a valuable analysis of renal staffs’ perceptions of patient experiences of transitioning between two renal treatment modalities. This is a well-written manuscript, focusing on the context in England and Australia. My main area of concern/query relates to the method and analysis of data. I didn’t get a strong sense of what the underpinning methodological orientation was: this may be mentioned in the referenced protocol but would benefit from mention here (I had a brief read through ref 15 and couldn’t see a mention of thematic analysis there either?). It would be helpful to mention what type of thematic analysis was done, and how this was done in a stepwise fashion e.g. if a coding framework was developed from reading 10-15% of all transcripts or just a selection of particularly rich transcripts, and how codes were used to build the themes. Were there subthemes? Fleshing this out would be helpful to understand exactly how the analysis was completed – at the moment this feels a little vague. It would be helpful to add information about why/how the specific sites were chosen, and providing some information about the 3 sites in each country. E.g. are these the same hospital or trusts, or different? Table 1: does nursing staff include roles like healthcare assistants? It might be beneficial to include who was in each focus group by demographic and the size of focus groups. Line 103: Perhaps mention that the clinical lead at each site acted as a gatekeeper (this is described but not explicit, but later reflected on in the limitations), and how they were first involved/contacted. Page 15: Staff skills and responsibilities: Table 1 mentions differences between country contexts, but I think this theme presentation only discusses Australian aspects: would be helpful to outline both to be able to see what the differences may be (as in the pathways and access themes). For the quotes used to illustrate themes, I wasn’t sure which no. sites referred to which country (e.g. if 1-3 are Australia, 4-6 England) – apologies if I have missed this somewhere, but this feels like it would be helpful info to have to tease out differences. Line 355: “This echoes the findings made elsewhere in this project in relation to patient experiences.” – can you add a reference for this? I think this manuscript would benefit from more contextual overview of how services generally operate in both countries, and how typical these sites may be (to add to the background/methods), this would help reflect on some of the findings. For example, line 276: in the UK sites where there is no access to services such as psychology is this because the service is overcapacity or non-existent? Likewise, if possible, I would be really interested to know if the idea of case managers specifically came from the Australian model from discussions during data collection, or if this is something independent that came up in focus groups/interviews (this may be hinted at from line 391, but would like to see this explicitly). Furthermore, is it possible to draw on any examples in the literature of English services that have used this model (I believe there are some services that offer hybrid models or where patients stay with their usual consultant)? Typos/grammar: Title: renal staff understanding… I can see this both ways grammatically, but wonder if renal staffs’ understanding is clearer. Line 156: capital on Access – is this needed? Line 276: space needed between site2 Throughout something seems awry with the referencing: citations appear to be added after false stops, at the beginning of the next sentence, and often freestanding without a sentence e.g. line 365, 78, 81 etc. Would be beneficial to check placement of refs throughout (unless this is a ref style I am not familiar with). Otherwise a good overview of the perceptions of renal staff! ********** 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: Yes: Dr Barnaby Hole Reviewer #3: 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. |
Revision 1 |
Renal staffs' understanding of patients’ experiences of transition from peritoneal dialysis to in-centre haemodialysis and their views on service improvement: A multi-site qualitative study in England and Australia PONE-D-21-06924R1 Dear Dr. Jones, 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 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, Lucy E. Selman, BA, MPhil, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-21-06924R1 Renal staffs’ understanding of patients’ experiences of transition from peritoneal dialysis to in-centre haemodialysis and their views on service improvement: A multi-site qualitative study in England and Australia. Dear Dr. Jones: I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Lucy E. Selman 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 .