PONE-D-21-27767Interventions facilitating access to perinatal care for migrant women without medical insurance: a scoping review protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sia,

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 review and address all comments raised by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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:

• 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,

Kelli K Ryckman

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:

“Yes, this project has been funding by the SHERPA University Institute via 2020-2021 annual competition to support researchers of the SHERPA University Institute and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) via SSHRC institutional grants - winter 2021 competition”          

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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

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

“Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank the SHERPA University Institute and The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) for funding the project.

Funding:

This project has been funding by the SHERPA University Institute via 2020-2021 annual competition to support researchers of the SHERPA University Institute and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) via SSHRC institutional grants - winter 2021 competition.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section. Please note that 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:

 “Yes, this project has been funding by the SHERPA University Institute via 2020-2021 annual competition to support researchers of the SHERPA University Institute and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) via SSHRC institutional grants - winter 2021 competition”

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

5. We note that you have referenced (Open Grey, Wholis, unpublished reports]) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (“Open Grey, Wholis, [unpublished reports]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

8. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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: Yes

**********

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a well written scoping review proposal to identify interventions to improve access to perinatal care for migrant women without medical insurance.

A clear structure for the review is given, with a comprehensive search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria given.

I have one main critique:

Within the data analysis section it states in step 4 that they will be: “discussing the implications for future research, clinical practice, and health policy.” The methodological framework for scoping reviews developed by Arksey & O’Malley (2005) specifically states that due to the quality of studies not being assessed within a scoping review that as a result the generalisability and robustness of the studies cannot be determined. Careful consideration therefore needs to be given to the extent to which their scoping review results will lead to implications for policy and practice, or further justification given if they do feel this is appropriate.

All other comments are of a very minor nature:

The sentence in the introduction: “These women also have a high prevalence of postpartum depression6, parasitic7 and other infectious diseases (Hepatitis B; Hepatitis C; HIV) / AIDS) due to the challenges experienced in accessing perinatal care8.” Currently reads as though women are at risk of infectious diseases due to the challenges of accessing perinatal care, but my understanding is that these infections are already present but make accessing care early all the more necessary.

No explanation/justification is given as to why the search begins from the date 2000.

If there are any questions regarding the content of an article, will the article authors be contacted in any way for clarification?

Please ensure correct ordering of Tables / Appendices – ie in the text Table 3 is referred to prior to Table 2 and Appendix 2 prior to Appendix 1 – please reorder correctly.

Please note the abbreviation is incorrect in several places – ie PMWMI has been replaced by the incorrect PMWNI (seen in abstract and introduction – but please check throughout).

Table 3: In English “échappées belles" are normally termed “near misses”. I had to Google for a translation to the above term, so it could help some readers if both terms were used within the table.

Appendix 1: Is it possible to rotate the table by 90 degrees for publication, so that the columns become rows to make it easier for the reader to see what data will be extracted.

Appendix 2: Please add the World Bank reference from the text to the Appendix as well

Figure 1: In the legend it states “4: Time horizon ...” – however this is not added into the actual diagram at present.

Reviewer #2: The authors of this scoping review are seeking to addresses an important issue, and their overall approach is well-suited to the topic of inquiry. It will make an important contribution to the literature on maternity care for migrant women, and it is strengthened by the element of expert consultation which is included. However, the protocol is unclear in places and would benefit from further refining. I would suggest the following points are considered:

Major issues

1. p.3 – In the opening paragraph, the authors make reference to challenges faced by migrant women accessing maternity care in high-income countries. However, listed in Appendix 2 it is stated that both high-income countries as well as low- and middle-income countries will be included in this review, which is a little confusing for the reader and needs to be clarified. In addition, it will be helpful for the authors somewhere in the paper to discuss how they will deal with the differences in findings from the varying contexts of HICS’s vs LMIC’s.

2. p.3 – The introduction paints a picture of catch-all poor perinatal outcomes for migrant women. As the authors correctly acknowledge, migrant women constitute a heterogeneous group and the research is equivocal about obstetric outcomes for some migrant women, citing the healthy migrant effect. A more nuanced introduction would strengthen the introductory section.

3. p.4 – In the ‘population’ paragraph, the authors quote the definition of ‘migrant’ which describes voluntary migration, but then later on state that studies which include asylum seekers will be considered. Although migrant categories are hard to define and overlapping, for the purpose of this scoping review, it would be helpful to clearly outline what the authors are referring to by ‘migrant women’ – is this all categories of migrants, whether forced or voluntary, as the search terms suggest? If so, the definition of ‘migrant women’ which the authors cite needs adapting. Does it include those who migrate within their country (as the International Organization for Migration definition includes)?

4. p.4 – In the ‘intervention’ paragraph, the authors discuss the intervention in the PICO framework as being the actual maternity or newborn care which women receive. However, on p.3 the research question states that the authors are interested in “interventions that facilitate access to perinatal care”. There needs to be further clarity as to whether it’s perinatal care itself or interventions to facilitate access to perinatal care that is the topic of inquiry, which then needs to be reflected in the protocol title and the intervention.

5. p.4 – Newborn care is listed in the ‘intervention’ paragraph but related search terms are not included in the search strategy.

6. p.4 – In the ‘comparator and design’ section, the authors state the study inclusion criteria. From my understanding of this scoping review and according to the PICO framework, there is no ‘comparator’ in this review, so this needs to be reworked.

7. p.4/5 – In the ‘data sources’ paragraph, it is stated that grey literature will be included, but earlier on p.4 in the ‘comparator and design’ section, the authors state that all empirical scientific studies will be included – it would help the reader to understand the inclusion criteria if the authors state whether they are only going to include peer-reviewed published studies or studies that are not peer-reviewed.

Minor issues

p.3 – In the second paragraph of the introduction, the authors state that using a scoping review will allow them to synthesise the interventions, and yet there is not further mention of data synthesis in the paper. Arksey and O’Malley (2005) do not require data synthesis in their approach to scoping reviews – this just needs to be clarified in the manuscript.

This an important piece of work to conduct, and with the above revisions / clarifications, I believe it will lead to a scoping review which will contribute to the corpus of knowledge relating to maternity care for migrant women. However, based on the revisions / clarifications needed, I suggest that this protocol needs major revisions.

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Esther Sharma

[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.

PONE-D-21-27767R1Interventions facilitating access to perinatal care for migrant women without medical insurance: a scoping review protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sia,

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 address the reviewer's additional comments in your revised submission. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 26 2022 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:

• 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,

Kelli K Ryckman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

**********

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 #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to re-review this article. There are still a couple of areas that require clarification before publication to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.

1. There still seems to be some confusion over the inclusion of grey literature. The abstract states “Grey literature will also be searched” and the search strategy states that “(iv) sites of non-governmental organizations (Médecin du monde, Médecin sans Frontières (MSF), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)” will be searched, which would be expected to find grey literature. However, the response to the reviewers states that grey literature has been removed from the data sources. Please ensure the whole manuscript is consistent regarding this, making it explicit whether unpublished studies will be included.

2. The study selection currently appears to read that if the PICO for your review is not clearly identifiable in the title / abstract that you will exclude the study. Within a review it is usual to retain ‘potentially eligible’ studies at this stage too, where aspects of your inclusion/ exclusion criteria for the review are not fully reported in the title / abstract of the retrieved citation but may be reported if the full article is read. The flow chart suggests that studies will be included if the abstract does not provide adequate detail – but the prose needs to reflect this too. eg as stated by Askey and O’Malley (2005) “If the relevance of a study is unclear from the abstract, then the full article will be obtained.”

3. Expert consultation section – states that informed consent will be obtained, but in the ethics declaration it states that consent is not required. Could the ethics statement be updated to better reflect that while consent is not required for the review, consent will be gained for the expert consultation workshops? This will provide better consistency through the manuscript.

4. In the version provided Figure 1 does not states “ye” not “yes” and “exclu” not “exclude”. I presume this would be rectified if we had a copy of the actual Figure?

5. The definition of migrant no longer reads well – it would be better as "a person who has

voluntarily moved or is forced to move, whether within a country or across an international border, temporarily or permanently, and for a variety of reasons …”

6. I agree with the other reviewer that there is lack of clarity over the word ‘synthesize’. The authors need to give a plan for how data will be ‘synthesized’ within the expert consultation. Alternatively, would the word ‘summarize’ better describe the planned process that the word ‘synthesize’? This would also potentially more closely reflect the approach proposed by Askey and O’Malley (2005).

**********

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 #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.

Interventions facilitating access to perinatal care for migrant women without medical insurance: a scoping review protocol

PONE-D-21-27767R2

Dear Dr. Sia,

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,

Kelli K Ryckman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: