Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on December 20th, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 11th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 19th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 25th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for your extensive and detailed answer to the remarks and criticisms of the reviewer and for having pruned the Discussion.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

I apologize for the long delay before a decision could be taken. This was due to the necessity to review your paper in depth, including by myself.

I concur with the opinions of the reviewers but would add a few comments. First, your discussion is MUCH too long and often errs in repeating what is in the Introduction and the Results section. A discussion should not be the place to restate what the results are but to critically discuss them. Second, there are many acronyms which makes the reading difficult. Please check and remove those that are not essential and used more than at least 10 times in your manuscript. Lastly, define exactly what are "care givers" (parents, family ..) and health care workers (doctors, pharmacists, nurses...).

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

.

Experimental design

.

Validity of the findings

.

Comments for the author

1. The discussion section would benefit from the inclusion of headings

2. Data collection (92) the inclusion of open--‐ended questions suggests that this has qualitative as well as quantitative components. The section needs to be revisited. Please see below a more detailed explanation of a mixed--‐methods approach: (check title to reflect data collection method). If including qualitative components need section on analysis of the data; did the interviewer record/was consent given.

The combination of quantitative and qualitative data: Mixed methods begins with the assumption that investigators, in understanding the social and health world, gather evidence based on the nature of the question and theoretical orientation. Social inquiry is targeted toward various sources and many levels that influence a given problem (e.g., policies, organizations, family, individual). Quantitative (mainly deductive) methods are ideal for measuring pervasiveness of "known" phenomena and central patterns of association, including inferences of causality. Qualitative (mainly inductive) methods allow for identification of previously unknown processes, explanations of why and how phenomena occur, and the range of their effects (Pasick et al., 2009). Mixed methods research, then, is more than simply collecting qualitative data from interviews, or collecting multiple forms of qualitative evidence (e.g., observations and interviews) or multiple types of quantitative evidence (e.g., surveys and diagnostic tests). It involves the intentional collection of both quantitative and qualitative data and the combination of the strengths of each to answer research questions.

3. See title: the data presented reflects the opinions of HCWs rather than practices rather practice/experience(as per limitations section) Be clear on this throughout and ensure that the discussion reflects this. What percentage had had direct experience of the process?

In addition, see the annotated manuscript for line by line edits

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

.

Experimental design

.

Validity of the findings

.

Comments for the author

The manuscript presents the data of a very important problem. Unfortunately nothing changed since I did my study. The manuscripts confirms the lack of knowledge not only from the parents but also from the HCW site.
The manuscript is well written. I found only two typos: one in the abstract: last sentence the word the was written t he and in the text line 51 I think it should be disclosure with HIV ... rather than to?

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.