Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 6, 2021
Decision Letter - Kingston Rajiah, Editor

PONE-D-21-25433Strategies to Improve Patient Loyalty and Medication Adherence in Syrian Healthcare Setting: The Mediating Role of Patient SatisfactionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. AlOmari,

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. Your manuscript has undergone the peer-review process and the reviewers have provided their comments/suggestions. Kindly address these points/concerns before we make a decision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 16 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,

Kingston Rajiah

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

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. 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.

7. 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. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: No

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: The research is well-designed and served purpose of the study. The aim of study was to examine the relationships between service quality, patient satisfaction, patient loyalty and medication adherence in the Syrian healthcare system.

The work is well-written however; some minor changes are required before acceptance:

• In literature review, compare your work with reported work, highlighting main advantages of your work.

• Conclusion is not comprehensive; it should be precise and targeted the major results obtained.

• In research methodology, a total of 600 questionnaires were distributed, the returned were (410) questionnaires with response rate (68.33%)…….. Why 410 and 68.33% are mentioned in bracket? It makes sense in this sentence…… As depicted in Table 1, there were 106 (33.02%) female and 215 (66.97%) male patients. In all other places modify it.

• Exclusion criteria should be better explained.

• Research implications and recommendations section is too lengthy. Make it short with relevant data.

Reviewer #2: This article is well researched, well written and well analysed. Most details have been explained well. The only problem with the article is a little bit of grammatical mistakes. Other than that it is very fine work.

**********

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: Yash Alok

**********

[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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: comments 2.docx
Revision 1

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

Thank you for giving the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Strategies to improve patient loyalty and medication adherence in Syrian healthcare setting: The mediating role of patient satisfaction”. The manuscript had been revised based on the suggestions given by the Reviewers.

We appreciate the interest that Editor has taken in the submitted manuscript and the constructive comments He has given. However, we will do our utmost to answer any other questions from the Reviewers.

The authors express profound gratitude for providing a full publication fee waiver offered by PLOS.

Regards

Authors

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

Answers- Reviewer A- Comment:

Author would like to take this opportunity to thank Reviewer for the effort and expertise to review manuscript. Author had rewritten the manuscript with accuracy, brevity and clarity. The manuscript had been organized properly, keeping in mind fully incorporate reviewer’s suggestions into a revised manuscript and respect the requirements of the journal.

Answers- Reviewer A- Comment:

The research is well-designed and served purpose of the study. The aim of study was to examine the relationships between service quality, patient satisfaction, patient loyalty and medication adherence in the Syrian healthcare system.

The work is well-written however; some minor changes are required before acceptance:

• In literature review, compare your work with reported work, highlighting main advantages of your work.

Recent previous literatures were added as a foundation and as support for a new insight that we contribute for (2.1 relationship between SQ, PS and PL) and for (2.2 relationship between SQ, PS and MA). The literature reviews also provide a solid background for our research paper’s investigation.

We also highlighted the significance of our research work by clarifying and explaining the main gaps within a specific subject area. For example, the modification of SERVQUAL model, the reason behind including the financial aspect component (we summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of the scholars). The mediating impact of PS on the relationship between SQ and MA.

• Conclusion is not comprehensive; it should be precise and targeted the major results obtained.

The conclusion section had been improved to include all the main results (based on the findings of the proposed hypotheses).

• In research methodology, a total of 600 questionnaires were distributed, the returned were (410) questionnaires with response rate (68.33%)…….. Why 410 and 68.33% are mentioned in bracket? It makes sense in this sentence…… As depicted in Table 1, there were 106 (33.02%) female and 215 (66.97%) male patients. In all other places modify it.

As requested, the brackets were removed from this part: A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed, the returned were 410 questionnaires with response rate 68.33%. However, 89 questionnaires were excluded because of missing data or not correctly filled. While, the brackets in this paragraph were kept (the number outside the bracket reflects the frequency, while the number inside the brackets reflects the percentile): Table 1 reflects the demographic information of the patients who participated in this study. As depicted in Table 1, there were 106 (33.02%) female and 215 (66.97%) male patients. The majority of the patients came from the age group of 41-50 years old (40.81%). Most of them were single 197 (61.37%) whereas 124 (38.63%) of them were married. In addition, most of the patients were visited the hospital for the second time 211 (65.73%) followed by those who had visited hospital for three times 93 (28.97%).

• Exclusion criteria should be better explained.

The exclusion criteria were clarified: During data collection….; Besides, we identified very few outliers, then….; Several procedural techniques were used to minimize non-response….; Besides, we informed the patients….

• Research implications and recommendations section is too lengthy. Make it short with relevant data.

Done.

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

Answers- Reviewer B- Comment:

Author would like to take this opportunity to thank Reviewer for the effort and expertise to review manuscript. Author had rewritten the manuscript with accuracy, brevity and clarity. The manuscript had been organized properly, keeping in mind fully incorporate reviewer’s suggestions into a revised manuscript and respect the requirements of the journal.

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

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-submit.pdf
Decision Letter - Kingston Rajiah, Editor

Strategies to Improve Patient Loyalty and Medication Adherence in Syrian Healthcare Setting: The Mediating Role of Patient Satisfaction

PONE-D-21-25433R1

Dear Dr. AlOmari,

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,

Kingston Rajiah

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kingston Rajiah, Editor

PONE-D-21-25433R1

Strategies to improve patient loyalty and medication adherence in Syrian healthcare setting: The mediating role of patient satisfaction

Dear Dr. AlOmari:

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

Associate Professor Kingston Rajiah

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 .