Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 10, 2021
Decision Letter - Hugh Cowley, Editor

PONE-D-21-11952Pregnancy complications and cardiovascular disease risk perception: A qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Andraweera,

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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 14 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,

Hugh Cowley

Senior 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. 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "CTR is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (GNT1174971) "

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.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "NHMRC Peter Doherty Early Career Fellowship awarded to PHA, NHMRC Public Health Early Career Fellowship awarded to ZSL, Robinson Research Institute Innovative Seed Funding project grant awarded to PHA, MAA, ZSL and CTR. CTR is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1174971) and a Matthew Flinders Fellowship from Flinders University."

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: "CTR is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (GNT1174971) "

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

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: A qualitative study of women's understanding of cardiovascular risk following obstetric complications.

I gather that this is a long term study and these women were being interviewed long after their pregnancy. If that is correct, it may have some implications for their answers, can you comment on this?

I note the main finding that women would like to be seen at their hospital for their 6 weeks check as well as a counselling appointment however hospitals in my state do not conduct 6 week checks. What implications does this have for your findings? Perhaps that the information should be provided with the 6 week check wherever it may be?

I note that only face to face options have been considered in this work. DO the authors have any suggestions for virtual appointments? Was this work conducted prior to the pandemic? Might options have changed?

**********

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: Yes: Penelope Sheehan

[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

20th June 2022

PONE-D-21-11952

Pregnancy complications and cardiovascular disease risk perception: A qualitative study

We would like to thank reviewers for their time and effort in appraising our manuscript critically and providing valuable comments for improvements. Please find below our responses to the reviewers comments and a revised paper taking these comments into consideration.

Reviewer #1: A qualitative study of women's understanding of cardiovascular risk following obstetric complications.

I gather that this is a long term study and these women were being interviewed long after their pregnancy. If that is correct, it may have some implications for their answers, can you comment on this?

We agree with the reviewer and have included the following paragraph in the discussion.

“The limitations in our study are: the women were recruited from those taking part in a 10-year postpartum follow-up study, hence the views may be subject to selection bias. The views of women 10 years postpartum may not represent the views of younger women, especially those in the early postpartum period, however, most women who participated in the interviews had had a subsequent pregnancy 3-5 years prior to the interviews” (page 14, lines 311-316 of the revised manuscript).

I note the main finding that women would like to be seen at their hospital for their 6 weeks check as well as a counselling appointment however hospitals in my state do not conduct 6 week checks. What implications does this have for your findings? Perhaps that the information should be provided with the 6 week check wherever it may be?

We agree with the reviewer and have added the sentence below to the discussion.

“If the 6 week health checks of the baby are not conducted in a hospital setting, the CVD screening visit could be organised at a facility that performs the health checks of the baby”. In addition, a telehealth appointment may also provide an alternative approach in order to ensure that regular follow up is maintained”. (page13, lines 295-298 of the revised manuscript).

I note that only face to face options have been considered in this work. DO the authors have any suggestions for virtual appointments? Was this work conducted prior to the pandemic? Might options have changed?

We agree with the reviewer. Please response to above comment.

Additional Editor comment

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

We have now included the interviewer guide as supplementary material

Please see below the funding statement

NHMRC Peter Doherty Early Career Fellowship awarded to PHA (GNT1090778)., NHMRC Public Health Early Career Fellowship awarded to ZSL (GNT1141382), Robinson Research Institute Innovative Seed Funding project grant awarded to PHA, MAA, ZSL and CTR. CTR is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1174971) and a Matthew Flinders Fellowship from Flinders University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Decision Letter - Gaetano Santulli, Editor

Pregnancy complications and cardiovascular disease risk perception: A qualitative study

PONE-D-21-11952R1

Dear Dr. Andraweera,

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,

Gaetano Santulli, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Gaetano Santulli, Editor

PONE-D-21-11952R1

Pregnancy complications and cardiovascular disease risk perception: A qualitative study

Dear Dr. Andraweera:

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

Professor Gaetano Santulli

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 .