2 Introduction: The statement New scientific evidence appears incomplete without saying what kind of evidence. > The formation of the study team is now rephrased and edited to make more clear statement. Wonder if the title should not be Description & experiences? In addition, their input shaped methods, plans and processes for recruiting participants and data collection. In addition to above, consider the following to strengthen this manuscript: >> The Table 1 is converted to figure and shifted to methods section. -k. before being sent to te reviewers an editor usually has a quick look at your paper - to see if you meet all the criteria of the journal (e.g. New scientific evidences on healthcare are generated in great volume [1]. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). >> The comment is addressed in the manuscript. What does the status 'under editor evaluation' mean? The investigators DT or AS conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews in Nepali language using a pretested interview guide in a private room of the hospital. Make a request for clarification. That notification is, if anything, a signal to get ready for the next step or use a manuscript writing help that we, for example, offer. var d=new Date(); yr=d.getFullYear();document.write(yr); Institute for Implementation Science and Health, Kathmandu, Nepal, 4 An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. Also, if it had to be negative outcome, it wouldnt take so long for a publisher like Nature to come up with the decision, so you can relax and hope for a positive outcome. If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. The manuscript below has entered the review process. 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). When it comes to repairing work or formatting it according to the demanded style, no one does it better than we. Can I ask the editor to publish a withdrawn manuscript after acceptance? A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. But unless, I have not understood the title It is description & lessons learnt As a reader I dont think I still can clearly pinpoint the lessons learnt unless in the manuscript it is equivalent to benefits & challenges. On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research. The authors should detail how stakeholders were involved in the interpretation of the results. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. We conducted three iterative workshops with the representation of hospital administration, cafeteria managers, cafeteria staff, nutrition department, employee, and researchers. However, there is dearth of literature in the process of stakeholder engagement. This means your paper is undergoing. In the second phase, we used the information from the formative study to develop a culturally appropriate environmental level intervention to promote healthy eating in the cafeteria of the workplace. In the third phase, we tested the effectiveness of the environmental level intervention using a two-step intervention study. Some comments are in the manuscript itself. -What was the outcome of the food testing and how did it inform the intervention? Consumers and chefs raised the concern on acceptability of brown rice in place of white rice. Its also possible that the document will not require any further attention throughout all manuscript writing pages. 5. The link to dataset is https://osf.io/bqsrd/, I think it is important for the reader to know where the project is at the moment- is still being implemented and prospect of sustainability given that its one of the objective of involving stakeholders. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? How do I write an inquiry to the editor about my manuscript's current status? [CDATA[// >>Aim of workshop and approval number are added in the manuscript. Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-05456_R1_A.pdf. Privacy Policy. This led to formation of canteen intervention committee with chairmanship of the hospital administrator and representatives from finance, human resource, nutrition, employee, and researchers. For example, the cafeteria staff emphasized more on the changes in physical structures such as adding culinary. Theres a good chance that after the manuscript has been evaluated by an editor, the following stage will be to review galley proofs. I would believe some stakeholder categories had more than one person. I think it is important for the reader to know where the project is at the moment- is still being implemented and prospect of sustainability given that its one of the objective of involving stakeholders. For example, we formed cafeteria intervention committee based on the suggestion of cafeteria manager in in-depth interview. Who came up with interview questions? 1. Stakeholder engagement helped to shape the methods and plan, and process for participants recruitment and data collection. Additionally, the literature review should be updated to reflect current gaps, as there are several existing articles to date that offer engagement implementation examples, which was stated as a gap and strength of current paper. about navigating our updated article layout. {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03447340","term_id":"NCT03447340"}}. The committee developed a monitoring sheet that the nutritionist and a research team member filled every week to measure the adherence to the defined intervention in all four cafeterias. This also led to initiation of positive changes in cafeterias during the control period before the predetermined intervention date. In addition, it enhanced adherence to intervention, mutual learning, and smooth intervention adoption. on 14 Oct, 2021, This content belongs to the Journal submission & peer review Stage. Cookie Notice In the first hour, the facilitator explained the link between healthy eating and cardiometabolic risks. [CDATA[// >> Its flow is changed according to the suggestion provided. The study was planned and executed in three phases: We conducted a formative study to gather data that is useful to develop and implement an intervention program to promote healthy eating at the worksite. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. -As a reader, I was expecting more details of the FDGs and interviews, but I saw at the end the statement that the results are under consideration for publication elsewhere. We used the iterative process for data collection. An important topic that will contribute to stakeholder engagement in interventions knowledge base. The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of stakeholder engagement and the lessons learned from this process while designing, implementing, and monitoring a study on diabetes and hypertension prevention in workplace settings in Nepal. The information session helped to reach and interact with wider employee group. The identified stakeholders were: customers or employees (patient and the public; purchasers); cafeteria managers, chef and staff (providers); hospital administration and finance department (payers; policy makers); human resource department (policy maker); cafeteria employee, bakery and rice mills (product maker); and research team members (principal investigators). BMJ Open. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. All the best with your manuscript and further work in this field! They suggested to add the healthy items which will demand less time and resources like adding the automated machines such as roti makers. Journals can be very picky about requirements and wont publish a text that doesnt follow the rules. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2659/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK214555/, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols, https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf, http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions, http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Editage Insights offers a wealth of free academic research and publishing resources and is a one-stop guide for authors and others involved in scholarly publishing. How did the research team decide which feedback to implement? I heard that a first editorial decision is likely to be made within a few days after submission. In this case, please consider including more information on the number of interviewers, their training and characteristics; how participants were selected; if a pilot study was tested; how data was coded; if bias issues were considered. [CDATA[> Most importantly, their input was necessary in determining and describing cafeteria intervention. This informs the publisher that you are willing to collaborate and makes your manuscript writing expert aware of what to do exactly with your work.