Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jun 24;19(6):e0304165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304165

Understanding family-level decision-making when seeking access to acute surgical care for children: Protocol for a cross-sectional mixed methods study

Bria Hall 1, Allison Tegge 1, Cesia Cotache Condor 2,3,4, Marie Rhoads 1, Terri-Ann Wattsman 5, Angelica Witcher 1, Elizabeth Creamer 6, Anna Tupetz 2,7, Emily R Smith 2,3,4,7, Mamata Reddy Tokala 9, Brian Meier 1,8, Henry E Rice 2,3,4,*
Editor: Robert Jeenchen Chen10
PMCID: PMC11195935  PMID: 38913675

Abstract

Background

There is limited understanding of how social determinants of health (SDOH) impact family decision-making when seeking surgical care for children. Our objectives of this study are to identify key family experiences that contribute to decision-making when accessing surgical care for children, to confirm if family experiences impact delays in care, and to describe differences in family experiences across populations (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, rurality).

Methods

We will use a prospective, cross-sectional, mixed methods design to examine family experiences during access to care for children with appendicitis. Participants will include 242 parents of consecutive children (0–17 years) with acute appendicitis over a 15-month period at two academic health systems in North Carolina and Virginia. We will collect demographic and clinical data. Parents will be administered the Adult Responses to Children’s Symptoms survey (ARCS), the child and parental forms of the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) survey, the Accountable Health Communities Health-Related Social Needs Screening Tool, and Single Item Literacy Screener. Parallel ARCS data will be collected from child participants (8–17 years). We will use nested concurrent, purposive sampling to select a subset of families for semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic analysis and integrated with quantitative data to identify emerging themes that inform a conceptual model of family-level decision-making during access to surgical care. Multivariate linear regression will be used to determine association between the appendicitis perforation rate and ARCS responses (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include comparison of health literacy, ACEs, and SDOH, clinical outcomes, and family experiences across populations.

Discussion

We expect to identify key family experiences when accessing care for appendicitis which may impact outcomes and differ across populations. Increased understanding of how SDOH and family experiences influence family decision-making may inform novel strategies to mitigate surgical disparities in children.

Introduction

Background

Disparities in surgical access, delivery, and outcomes differ across many populations in the U.S., including gender, race, socioeconomic status (SES), health literacy, and residence in rural versus urban settings [1, 2]. In childhood conditions such as obesity, asthma, and cancer, parental experiences such as response to childhood symptoms, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), health literacy, and various social determinants of health (SDOH) are associated with delays in care [3, 4]. Despite an increasing recognition of the impact of these experiences on clinical outcomes, there is a limited understanding of how these factors impact families’ decisions to seek care. Most studies have focused on demographic descriptions using population-level data, while the valuable experiences of families themselves remain poorly understood.

Appendicitis is an ideal proxy condition to examine disparities for surgical care of children [5]. Appendicitis is one of the most common pediatric surgical emergencies, with an estimated 70,000 appendectomies performed annually in children in the U.S. [6].Using population-based data, children from low-income households, rural areas, or of ethnic and racial minorities are at increased risk for delays in care with higher rates of perforation, morbidity, and medical costs [2, 710].

Factors contributing to surgical disparities occur across multiple levels, including processes at the system, provider, and family/patient levels [11]. These multiple factors interact across the entire continuum of care, although family-level factors predominate at the point of seeking access to care [12]. While there are efforts to improve health disparities through equitable shared decision-making (SDM) between families and providers, at the point of seeking access to acute surgical care, children and their parents are often autonomous in their decision-making [13]. The drivers of parental decisions about when, where, and how to seek surgical care for children remain poorly defined. Decision-making while seeking surgical care is particularly complicated in young or non-verbal children who may struggle to communicate their symptoms, and children’s perspectives on these processes are poorly described [14]. Understanding the experiences of parents and children using the valuable voices of families themselves and testing preliminary hypotheses for associations may facilitate intervention development that can help support high-quality, equitable surgical care for children.

Objectives

This study will focus on defining family experiences during access to surgical care using the proxy condition of appendicitis at two regional academic children’s centers in North Carolina and Virginia. We hypothesize that family experiences impact decision-making and access to care for children with appendicitis, are associated with increased rates of perforation (a proxy measure for delays in care), and that family experiences differ across populations. To test this hypothesis, we will use a cross sectional, mixed-methods approach to define parental and child experiences when accessing care for appendicitis. The goal of this report is to describe our study design, with the intent to disseminate this information and solicit feedback to enhance study performance. The objective of our study is to define family experiences in children with appendicitis through the following aims:

Aim 1: To describe family experiences and decision-making when accessing care for children with appendicitis. We will first record demographic data, clinical care, and clinical outcomes for consecutive children with appendicitis at two study sites. Second, we will collect quantitative data from parents/guardians of these children using surveys to assess response to childhood symptoms, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), SDOH, and health literacy. Third, we will use nested purposive sampling to select a subset of families for qualitative interviews to explore in-depth key family experiences. We will collect parallel data from older children (ages 8–17 years). Finally, we will integrate all quantitative and qualitative data to inform a novel conceptual model of access to surgical care.

Aim 2: To evaluate if family experiences impact perforation rate in children with appendicitis. Our primary aim will test if parental responses to children’s symptoms are associated with the rate of perforation (as a proxy measure for delays in care) using multivariate linear regression. Secondary aims will compare other parental experiences such a history of ACEs, health literacy, and SDOH on the rate of perforation.

Aim 3: To evaluate if family experiences differ across populations, including race, ethnicity, SES, and geographic location. Our primary aim will test if parental responses to children’s symptoms differ across population groups. Secondary aims will explore if other parental experiences, such as a history of ACEs, health literacy, and SDOH, differ across populations and impact clinical outcomes.

Materials and methods

Theoretical framework and study design

To examine the root causes of surgical disparities in children, we will use the theoretical framework of Torain et al., which outlines the drivers of surgical disparities across multiple levels, including family/patient, provider, systemic, clinical care, and postoperative levels [15]. In line with ethical standards for research with vulnerable populations, we will use a strength-based framework to probe for protective factors associated with family resilience (e.g., social support, community cohesion) as well as identification of risk factors for delays in care and poor clinical outcomes [16].

We will use a prospective, convergent, mixed-methods, cross-sectional design to examine family experiences when accessing care for children with appendicitis (specific aim 1), to confirm if family experiences impact perforation rate (as a proxy measure of delays in care) (specific aim 2), and to compare family experiences across populations (specific aim 3) (Fig 1) [17]. Our mixed-methods design will attribute weight to qualitative data over quantitative data (QUAL + quant). Quantitative data will be based on data collected from medical records as well as standardized surveys for adults and children which examine family experiences which may impact access to care. Qualitative data will be collected from a subset of adult participants and children selected by nested concurrent, purposive sampling for semi-structured interviews to expand on quantitative findings (see nested sampling strategy).

Fig 1. Mixed methods study design to examine family experiences for children with appendicitis.

Fig 1

Participants will include the parent of a child with acute appendicitis and pediatric patients (8–17 years). All eligible adult participants will complete the 1) Adult Responses to Children’s Symptoms (ARCS), 2) the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Health-Related Social Needs Screening Tool which assesses social determinants of health (SDOH), 3) Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) of parent and child, and 4) Single Item Literacy Screener (SILS). Pediatric patients will be administered the child-report form of the Adult Responses to Children’s Symptoms (ARCS) survey and may participate in a dyad interview. Demographic and clinical data will be collected from the child’s electronic medical record and self-reported by the parent/caregiver. Using purposive, nested sampling, a subset of subjects will be selected to participate in semi-structured interviews (SSIs). Data will be analyzed using multivariate linear regression and integration will use triangulation, complementarity, and expansion to identify dominant themes of family experiences. Weight will be primarily attributed to qualitative data over quantitative data.

We will integrate quantitative and qualitative data using a merging approach, in which the quantitative and qualitative datasets are brought together for triangulation and merged analysis. Integrated data will be used to inform a novel conceptual model of family experiences when accessing surgical care.

This study will be conducted according to Equator network guidelines, including Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) [18] and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) [19].

Participants

Enrollment will be offered to parents or legal guardians of consecutive children (ages 0–17 years) with appendicitis (confirmed at appendectomy and/or by radiographic imaging) at both study sites over the 15-month enrollment period. The enrollment period started on August 7, 2023, and is expected to end on November 7, 2024. We will collect additional data from older children (ages 8–17 years) so we can capture perspectives from children who are old enough to participate in research.

Eligible families (Table 1) will be identified by clinical staff, with families approached by study staff for enrollment. Assent and informed consent prior to enrollment will be obtained in person or remotely. Following enrollment, all subjects will be assigned an identifier number to protect their confidentiality. Each participating family will designate one parent to participate in the study. Data collection will conclude within 4 weeks of hospital encounter to optimize recall. In return for their time, each adult participant will receive $20 after survey completion, and participants undergoing interviews will receive an additional $20.

Table 1. Participant eligibility criteria for enrollment.

Inclusion Criteria (Adult and Child)
Primary caregiver (parent, grandparent, legal guardian) of child (age 0–17 years) with appendicitis
Patient with confirmed appendicitis by appendectomy or by radiographic imaging
Patient presents to either study site for definitive management of appendicitis
English or Spanish Speaking
Child eligible for participation in survey & interview if 8–17 years old with appendicitis
Exclusion Criteria
Data collection not completed within 4 weeks after discharge for appendicitis

Ethics approval and consent to participate

If assent is given, parents or legally authorized representatives will provide verbal or written consent, depending on study site, to study team prior to enrollment. All methods will be performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations in observance of the Declaration of Helsinki. Study protocol was approved by the Duke University School of Medicine Research Ethics Board (Pro00106075) and Carilion Medical Center Research Ethics Board (IRB-22-1635). A summary of study results may be shared with participants who opt-in. Findings, including any protocol amendments, will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.

Demographic and clinical data

For all families, we will collect patient data from the electronic medical record (EMR), including patient demographic information using standardized definitions (sex, gender, race, ethnicity, SES, rurality), insurance status, duration of symptoms prior to presentation, diagnosis of perforated vs non-perforated appendicitis (confirmed by pathology and/or radiographic imaging), and dosage of pain (opioid, non-opioid) and other medications during emergency room stay [20]. We will also collect other variables to account for delays in care, including time and settings of healthcare access points prior to definitive presentation and time until surgery. For adult participants, we will collect additional self-reported demographic data (parental income, parental education level, marital status). For definitions of demographic variables, we will use self-reported race and ethnicity according to decennial census classifications from the EMR using definitions outlined by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Minority Health [21]. Rural versus urban categorization will be determined by the patient’s primary address, with an RUCA code ≥4 identified as rural [22, 23].

Categorization of SES will be assigned based on parental self-report, using a combination of metrics including education attainment and family annual income. SES categories will be determined in a method similar as described by Sheffer et al., given its composite index based on granular family-level data, such as, income categories and education attaintment [24]. Education level will be classified into 5 categories with 1 as lowest and 5 as highest (< 12 years, high school graduate or equivalent, 13–15 years, college graduate, > 16 years). Income level will be divided into 7 categories with 1 as lowest and 7 as highest ($0–$9,999, $10,000–$24,999, $25,000–$49,000, $50,000–$74,999, $75,000–$99,999, $100,000–$149,999, or ≥$150,000). A combined score will result in a discrete SES score (range = 2–12). The scale will be divided into 3 SES categories (2–4, 5–8, & 9–12). If preliminary and interim analyses demonstrate that this division of SES results in bias split of the data, we will consider dividing income of participants enrolled in the study into lower and higher groups to balance SES status. As recommended by Braveman et al. [25], we will also collect other variables known to influence SES, such as, parental marital status [26], geographic indices, and subjective perceptions of SES through qualitative interviews [27]. These factors will be systematically considered in analysis, and qualitative findings may highlight unmeasured factors that affect conclusions.

Survey instruments and interview guide

For all enrolled adult participants, we will administer five validated surveys that assess variables which have been associated with delays in care in other childhood health conditions, including asthma, obesity, and cancer [4]. These surveys include: 1) parental and child report forms of the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) questionnaire, which contains 10 items to detail adverse childhood experiences [28]; 2) the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Health-Related Social Needs Screening Tool, which is a widely used SDOH screening tool compiled by the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services which collects information across 13 domains, including housing instability, food insecurity, transportation difficulties, utility assistance needs, interpersonal safety, financial strain, employment, education, family and community support, physical activity, substance use, mental health, and disabilities [29, 30]; 3) the Single Item Literacy Screener (SILS), which rapidly assesses basic health literacy [31], and 4) the adult and child report forms of the Adult Responses to Children’s Symptoms (ARCS) survey [32]. For older child participants (ages 8–17), we will administer the child report form of the Adult Responses to Children’s Symptoms (ARCS). The ARCS is the most widely used instrument for assessing parental behavioral responses to a child’s symptoms across four domains: protect, minimize, monitor, and distract. This survey has been validated in several conditions in children [33]. All surveys will be administered electronically via REDCap or on paper. All survey instruments will be available in English and Spanish, which are the dominant languages in the study settings.

We created a semi-structured interview tool for qualitative data collection in a format similar to Webster et al. [34], focusing on family experiences during access to care (S1 File). Our interview will probe for experiences about disease presentation, sources of health information, choice of hospitals, experiences accessing care, and barriers and facilitators to care. The interview guide will be pilot tested for face and content validity in 4–6 families. Separate questions for child participants will probe for areas of child-caregiver communication, interpretation of pain, and expression of symptoms. We will conduct 30–60-minute semi-structured interviews with the caregiver or caregiver-child dyad. Interviewers will be trained by the principal investigator at each study site.

Nested sampling strategy

Following enrollment, we will use nested concurrent purposive sampling to select a subset of participants for in-depth qualitative interviews, with the goal to use these interviews to expand on findings from quantitative data. We will use a multilayered approach to ensure representative sampling. For example, we will first purposely sample towards perforation status, including at least 20 participants in perforated and non-perforated cohorts. Within each cohort (perforated/non-perforated), we will sample enough participants from each group (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and rurality) to allow for adequate representation of our study population (Fig 2). Note that as participants may have identities across multiple subgroups (i.e., by race, rurality, SES, etc.), we estimate that it will require ~40 total interviews to achieve representation across cohorts. If final analysis suggests a need for additional interviews to achieve data saturation, we will consider adding additional interviews. Depending on time and resources, we may expand the number of classes (e.g., low SES, high SES) within each group; however, we will start with a minimum of two classes within each group in line with existing literature that has illustrated disparities in care across these groups in other childhood health conditions. All interviews will be conducted in person or via video call, then recorded and transcribed.

Fig 2. Sampling strategy for qualitative interviews using nested, purposive sampling.

Fig 2

To compare family experiences across populations, we will interview at least 20 subjects within perforated and non-perforated cohorts (40 participants total). Based on demographics of the first interviewed participants, we will modify further sampling to ensure adequate representation for each group. If additional subjects are needed to attain data saturation for each group, we will conduct further sampling accordingly. SES: Socioeconomic status.

Data storage and management

To protect confidentiality, each adult and child participant will be assigned an alphanumeric study identification code. Only de-identified data, including interview transcripts, will be entered into a secure, joint REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database with separate data access groups for each site [35]. Data definitions in REDCap will help ensure both sites uniformly abstract data from EMR. REDCap export and data analysis will take place on a secure analytic platform accessible only to the analysis team (SPARC, Storage and Programs Accelerating Research Collaborations).

Data integration

We will integrate all qualitative and quantitative data using an organizing matrix to define dominant constructs impacting family experiences during access to surgical care. Weight will be primarily attributed to qualitative findings during data integration (QUAL + quant). We will employ three strategies to integrate qualitative and quantitative data. First, we will use triangulation as described by Farmer et al. [36] to evaluate convergence or divergence of themes from qualitative and quantitative sources. Second, we will compare results for complementarity of survey findings with qualitative interviews to add depth of understanding [37]. Third, we will assess for expansion to evaluate how qualitative data may expand or explain any unanticipated findings in the quantitative results [38].

Data analysis

Specific aim 1

Our hypothesis is that family experiences impact access to care for children with appendicitis. To describe family experiences when accessing care for children, we will collect clinical, quantitative surveys, and semi-structured interviews as described above. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated to inform a novel conceptual model of access to care and summarize how challenges are experienced differently across population groups.

Note that our qualitative data analysis is designed to define dominant themes which impact access to care. For example, we may identify parents of children with perforated appendicitis who report transportation as a major barrier. Of those parents of children with perforated appendicitis living in urban areas, they may identify reliability of public transportation as a concern.

For analysis of Likert-scale surveys, we will use the Mann-Whitney U non-parametric test. Cronbach’s alpha will be calculated for each survey subscale, scale, and overall survey results to ensure internal consistency and reliability of interpretation of survey data [39]. To analyze qualitative interview data, we will perform thematic content analysis using coding, memo writing, and theme sorting. Thematic codes will be inductively and separately developed by two researchers based on the first 3–6 interviews to help develop a codebook for analysis. Codebook development will follow a three-cycle coding method [40]. The first cycle will use open, exploratory coding and verbatim coding to characterize participants’ experiences. The second cycle will help develop axial codes by categorical, conceptual, and thematic organization of the array from first-cycle codes. Finally, focused coding will identify the most frequent and significant codes to inform salient data categories. NVivo will be used for data organization and the software and version reported.

To ensure durability of themes, two reviewers will independently assess transcripts from one interview and compare them with themes outlined by the researchers. An audit trial will be recorded with any changes in SSI questions and codebook. An additional study team member will code 20% of the interviews to ensure data quality in final coding. Intercoder reliability will be assessed and adjudicated to ensure a minimum kappa statistic of at least 0.8 (80% agreement). Integrated quantitative and qualitative data may inform subsequent participant checking or follow-up examination of outliers, significant results, or unexpected findings. A conceptual framework of patient and family-level factors impacting decision-making will be developed and summarized in an organizing matrix.

Specific aim 2

Our hypothesis is that key family experiences increase the rate of perforation in children with appendicitis. To confirm if family experiences impact the perforation rate (as a proxy measure of delays in care), our primary aim will test if parental responses to children’s symptoms (ARCS survey) are associated with an increased rate of perforation. Secondary aims will compare other family experiences as measured in other quantitative surveys on the rate of perforation. We chose to assess responses to childhood symptoms as our primary aim given the importance of recognition of early symptoms for the prompt diagnosis and care of appendicitis.

We will create multivariate linear regression models to the effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between the rate of perforation (primary exploratory variable) and results of the parental ARCS survey (outcome variable). Covariates will include multiple confounding factors known to impact disparities in surgical care and delays in care, including patient-level (age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance status, etc.) and neighborhood-level (rurality, income, etc.) SDOH variables. An exhaustive model selection will be performed to determine the optimal model as defined by that with the lowest Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). All analyses will be conducted using Excel and SPSS, SAS, or R and the software and version will be reported.

Specific aim 3

Our hypothesis is that family experiences for children with appendicitis differ across populations, including race, ethnicity, SES, and geographic location. Our primary aim will test if parental responses to children’s symptoms differ across population groups using multivariate modeling using the analysis model as described in specific aim 2. Secondary aims will confirm if other parental experiences, such as a history of ACEs, health literacy, and SDOH, differ across populations.

Power calculations

To evaluate if parental responses to children’s symptoms impact the rate of perforation in children with appendicitis (specific aim 2) or differ across populations (specific aim 3), we conducted a priori power calculations to determine the minimum number of participants to achieve each aim. To determine if ARCS scores differ between parents of children with perforated appendicitis and non-perforated appendicitis (specific aim 2), our calculations determined that 172 adult subjects of the total enrolled (86 children with perforated appendicitis and 86 children with non-perforated appendicitis) would provide 90% power to detect differences in ARCS responses (protect, monitor, minimize, and distract) with α set at 0.05 (Cohen d = 0.5) using unmatched t test. To detect a difference in ARCS responses between and across all population groups (perforated/non-perforated, race, ethnicity, SES, rurality) (specific aim 3), our power calculations determined that 242 adult subjects (121 children with perforated appendicitis and 121 children with non-perforated appendicitis) would provide 90% power with the α set at 0.01 (Cohen d = 0.5) using unmatched t test [41]. Accounting for 5% attrition (due to missing data), we will enroll a maximum of 256 adults across both sites. Between the 2 study sites, clinical estimates report approximately 400 children receive an appendectomy each year.

For qualitative data, we expect 70% of thematic codes to be generated in the first 6 interviews and 92% after 12 interviews [37, 42]. We will perform an interim analysis at the halfway point to ensure there is sufficient data within and across groups.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, our project is the first to use mixed methods to assess family experiences and decision-making while accessing surgical care for children. The innovative impact of this project is both practical and academic. From a practical standpoint, research on family experiences during access to surgical care can help clinicians and policymakers improve surgical equity for children. From an academic standpoint, the use of a mixed-methods design should markedly advance our understanding of the complex family experiences and decision-making processes when accessing surgical care for children and how these experiences differ across populations.

Mixed methods design

The use of mixed methods offers several advantages over the use of quantitative data or qualitative approaches alone when examining family experiences during access to surgical care for children. The triangulation of findings on family experiences from multiple quantitative and qualitative sources enhances the convergent validity of any findings as the results (i.e., that the findings are not simply a by-product of any single quantitative or qualitative method) [43]. By focusing on (quantitative) patterns of social determinants of health as well as (qualitative) explanations of how families access surgical care, we will capture the complexity inherent in family experiences when accessing care, and how the multiplicity of individual contexts influence[s] these experiences by different populations. The integration of quantitative and qualitative data will allow us to define how context and individual differences interact to influence the experiences of families of a child who requires surgical care, and how the processing of these experiences and impact on clinical outcomes may differ.

Choice of primary outcome

Although many family experiences impact decisions to access surgical care, we chose to assess the parental response to childhood symptoms (ARCS survey) on the rate of perforation (specific aim 2) and how those responses differ across populations (specific aim 3) as our primary outcome given the importance of parental recognition of symptoms for the prompt diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis. As delays in care are directly related to an increased rate of perforation and adverse clinical outcomes, early recognition of symptoms of appendicitis is critical and represents a potential opportunity for the development of strategic interventions to reduce delays in care. We may find that parental responses as measured by the Adult Responses to Children’s Symptoms (ARCS) survey show that parents who score higher on protective domain sub-scales (e.g., When you have abdominal pain, how often do your parent(s) pay more attention to you than usual?) present to the hospital more quickly after onset of symptoms and their child may have better outcomes [33, 44]. In qualitative interviews, parents may describe being more likely to seek care once the illness is perceived as severe; however, factors which influence perceived disease severity and response will likely differ according to the age of the child [14]. We anticipate qualitative data from the children about their interpretation of pain and communication to caregivers will help define the key factors that influence a parent’s response to surgical illness.

Nested sampling design

We chose to use a concurrent, purposive sampling strategy to guide qualitative data collection. Our goal is to use qualitative interviews to expand on findings from quantitative data through a structured data integration process [38]. This design allows us to interview a representative study population that can provide insight into these experiences. We will obtain representation across vulnerable demographic groups who have been shown in prior literature to experience disparities in other areas of pediatric care. In addition to purposive selection based on perforation status and demographics, we may also select additional participants for interviews based on significant quantitative results, outliers, or other exemplars of extreme cases to help explain findings of the quantitative data [43, 45]. Use of a combination of sampling strategies is often used in mixed-method studies of comparisons across populations and will allow us to examine important findings from the quantitative data in an in-depth, explanatory fashion [17].

Novel conceptual framework

Overall, our goal is to understand key family experiences to help inform a novel conceptual model of family experiences and decision-making when accessing acute surgical care for children. An increased understanding of parental and child’s values, experiences, and factors that influence decision-making processes during access to care can help develop evidence-based interventions to help guide families during access to care.

For example, we may find factors that inform improved shared decision-making between patients, family members, and health care providers to help with the provision of timely and high-quality surgical care for children, such as early discussion of options, risks, and benefits for imaging strategies. We recognize that shared decision-making is gaining increasing support among policy makers in many childhood conditions and is recommended by several pediatric expert bodies and regulatory organizations [46].

Several factors make health decision-making during access to care for children different from adults, particularly for acute surgical conditions such as appendicitis. Children’s developmental context (e.g., biological, cognitive, psychosocial) as well as acute pain may limit their participation in health care decisions for surgical conditions [47]. Pediatric decision-making is also complicated by the inclusion of multiple drivers on health decisions, such as the child themselves, family members, extended social networks, social media, health care providers, etc. [48]. When faced with making decisions to seek surgical care on their child’s behalf, parents must act as a surrogate, often deciding without full knowledge of “what would my child want?”.

Limitations

There are several challenges in this study. First, this analysis captures drivers at a single level of the family/child, although we will use family experiences to provide insights into drivers of health disparities across multiple levels, including the provider-level (e.g., implicit bias) or systemic-level (e.g., institutional policies, racism). Second, this study will be conducted using a single surgical condition at only two centers, which limits the generalizability of findings. Third, there is a risk of recall bias and post-hoc rationalization as families may not remember all the details of their experiences; however, we hope to minimize these risks by collecting all data within 4 weeks of hospital discharge. Fourth, there are always risks of observer biases conducting qualitative interviews. To mitigate these risks, we aim to have an interviewer matched to one of the participant’s demographic groups (e.g., race, ethnicity, etc.). Fifth, the use of non-random purposive sampling may adversely affect the external validity (i.e., generalizability) of findings [17]. However, most quantitative research uses non-random sampling, and this approach enhances our ability to compare family experiences across populations. Sixth, we recognize that an individual’s identity crosses multiple identifiers, and our design limits an intersectoral analysis. Finally, we recognize concerns of “patient blaming” when examining how social determinants of health influence family experiences, although our analysis will use the voices of families themselves in concert with SDOH measures to help define the barriers to surgical care.

Conclusions

Our study should help identify key family experiences that impact decision-making when accessing care for appendicitis and explore if these experiences are associated with delays in care or differ across populations. Increased understanding of family experiences when seeking surgical care for children may inform novel strategies to mitigate surgical disparities in children, such as decision-making support tools or risk-tailored health information. Although beyond the capacity of our current study, our findings may lead to identification of implementation challenges for programs to improve care for children with surgical conditions. Potential barriers may include provision of high-quality health information, recognition of the patient’s pain, low provider trust, and importance of power relations. We will incorporate these challenges into our conceptual framework to inform novel strategies to mitigate surgical disparities in children by identifying opportunities that are responsive to parents and children’s needs.

Supporting information

S1 File. Adult/child dyad semi-structured interview guide.

(PDF)

pone.0304165.s001.pdf (50.5KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Stacy Murray, Cara Spivey, Kimberly Turnage, Allison McKell, Leslie LaConte, Michael Dieu, Hannah Zelinger, Emmy Duerr, and Thomas Shen for their support with regulatory and enrollment coordination at study sites.

List of abbreviations

ARCS

Adult Responses to Children’s Symptoms

ACE

Adverse Childhood Experiences

CONSORT

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

COREQ

Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research

EMR

Electronic Medical Record

QUAL

Qualitative

QUANT

Quantitative

REDCap

Research Electronic Data Capture

SES

Socioeconomic status

SDM

Shared Decision-Making

SDOH

Social Determinants of Health

SILS

Single Item Literacy Screener

SSI

Semi-structured Interview

STROBE

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this paper as no datasets were generated or analyzed. All relevant data from this study, that is not ethically restricted, will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

BH and MR received the standard graduate student funding from Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine to support subject compensation for this study (see funding letter for reference). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.AHRQ. 2021 National healthcare quality and disparities report. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.; 2022. Available: https://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhqdr21/index.html [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Willer BL, Mpody C, Tobias JD, Nafiu OO. Association of race and family socioeconomic status with pediatric postoperative mortality. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5: e222989. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.2989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Washington DM, Curtis LM, Waite K, Wolf MS, Paasche-Orlow MK. Sociodemographic factors mediate race and ethnicity-associated childhood asthma health disparities: a longitudinal analysis. J Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. 2018;5: 928–938. doi: 10.1007/s40615-017-0441-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.McKay S, Parente V. Health disparities in the hospitalized child. Hospital Pediatrics. 2019;9: 317–325. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2018-0223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jablonski KA, Guagliardo MF. Pediatric appendicitis rupture rate: a national indicator of disparities in healthcare access. Popul Health Metrics. 2005;3: 4. doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-3-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Short HL, Sarda S, Travers C, Hockenberry JM, McCarthy I, Raval MV. Trends in common surgical procedures at children’s and nonchildren’s hospitals between 2000 and 2009. J Pediatr Surg. 2018;53: 1472–1477. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.11.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ingram M-CE, Calabro K, Polites S, McCracken C, Aspelund G, Rich BS, et al. Systematic review of disparities in care and outcomes in pediatric appendectomy. Journal of Surgical Research. 2020;249: 42–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.12.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mpody C, Willer B, Owusu-Bediako E, Kemper AR, Tobias JD, Nafiu OO. Economic trends of racial disparities in pediatric postappendectomy complications. Pediatrics. 2021;148: e2021051328. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-051328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zwintscher NP, Steele SR, Martin MJ, Newton CR. The effect of race on outcomes for appendicitis in children: a nationwide analysis. Am J Surg. 2014;207: 748–753; discussion 753. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.12.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Papandria D, Goldstein SD, Rhee D, Salazar JH, Arlikar J, Gorgy A, et al. Risk of perforation increases with delay in recognition and surgery for acute appendicitis. J Surg Res. 2013;184: 723–729. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Haider AH, Dankwa-Mullan I, Maragh-Bass AC, Torain M, Zogg CK, Lilley EJ, et al. Setting a national agenda for surgical disparities research: Recommendations from the National Institutes of Health and American College of Surgeons Summit. JAMA Surg. 2016;151: 554–563. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.0014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Levine AA, de Jager E, Britt LD. Perspective: Identifying and addressing disparities in surgical access: A health systems call to action. Annals of Surgery. 2020;271: 427–430. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lipstein EA, Brinkman WB, Britto MT. What is known about parents’ treatment decisions? A narrative review of pediatric decision making. Med Decis Making. 2012;32: 246–258. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11421528 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nicholson E, McDonnell T, De Brún A, Barrett M, Bury G, Collins C, et al. Factors that influence family and parental preferences and decision making for unscheduled paediatric healthcare–systematic review. BMC Health Services Research. 2020;20: 663. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05527-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Torain MJ, Maragh-Bass AC, Dankwa-Mullen I, Hisam B, Kodadek LM, Lilley EJ, et al. Surgical disparities: A comprehensive review and new conceptual framework. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223: 408–418. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.04.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mollard E, Hatton-Bowers H, Tippens J. Finding strength in vulnerability: ethical approaches when conducting research with vulnerable populations. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2020;65: 802–807. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.13151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Onwuegbuzie A, Collins K. A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report. 2007;12: 281–316. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1638 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Elm E von Altman DG, Egger M Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC Vandenbroucke JP. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335: 806–808. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007;19: 349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2016;1: 2. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.US Department of Health and Human Services O of MHUS Department of Health and Human Services O of MH. Data collection standards for race, ethnicity, sex, primary language, and disability status. [cited 3 May 2022]. Available: https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/data-collection-standards-race-ethnicity-sex-primary-language-and-disability-status
  • 22.Long JC, Delamater PL, Holmes GM. Which definition of rurality should I use?: The relative performance of 8 federal rural definitions in identifying rural-urban disparities. Med Care. 2021;59: S413–S419. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001612 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mueller KJ, Coburn AF, Knudson A, Lundblad JP, MacKinney AC, McBride T, et al. Considerations for defining rural places in health policies and programs. Iowa City, Iowa: Rural Policy Research Institute (U.S.); 2020. May. Available: https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101771118-pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sheffer CE, Stitzer M, Landes R, Brackman SL, Munn T, Moore P. Socioeconomic disparities in community-based treatment of tobacco dependence. Am J Public Health. 2012;102: e8–e16. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Chideya S, Marchi KS, Metzler M, et al. Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all. JAMA. 2005;294: 2879–2888. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.22.2879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Casey JA, Pollak J, Glymour MM, Mayeda ER, Hirsch AG, Schwartz BS. Measures of SES for electronic health record-based research. Am J Prev Med. 2018;54: 430–439. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cheng TL, Goodman E, The committee on Pediatric Research, Cheng TL, Bogue CW, Chien AT, et al. Race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status in research on child health. Pediatrics. 2015;135: e225–e237. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-3109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zarse EM, Neff MR, Yoder R, Hulvershorn L, Chambers JE, Chambers RA. The adverse childhood experiences questionnaire: Two decades of research on childhood trauma as a primary cause of adult mental illness, addiction, and medical diseases. Schumacher U, editor. Medicine Cogent. 2019;6: 1581447. doi: 10.1080/2331205X.2019.1581447 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services The Accountable Health Communities Health-Related Social Needs Screening Tool. Available: https://innovation.cms.gov/files/worksheets/ahcm-screeningtool.pdf
  • 30.Billioux A, Verlander K, Anthony S, Alley D. Standardized screening for health-related social needs in clinical settings: The Accountable Health Communities Screening Tool. NAM Perspectives. 2017. doi: 10.31478/201705b [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Morris NS, MacLean CD, Chew LD, Littenberg B. The single item literacy screener: Evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability. BMC Family Practice. 2006;7: 21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-7-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Noel M, Palermo TM, Essner B, Zhou C, Levy RL, Langer SL, et al. A developmental analysis of the factorial validity of the parent-report version of the Adult Responses to Children’s Symptoms in children versus adolescents with chronic pain or pain-related chronic illness. J Pain. 2015;16: 31–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.10.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Noel M, Alberts N, Langer SL, Levy RL, Walker LS, Palermo TM. The sensitivity to change and responsiveness of the Adult Responses to Children’s Symptoms in children and adolescents with chronic pain. J Pediatr Psychol. 2016;41: 350–362. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsv095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Webster F, Christian J, Mansfield E, Bhattacharyya O, Hawker G, Levinson W, et al. Capturing the experiences of patients across multiple complex interventions: a meta-qualitative approach. BMJ Open. 2015;5: e007664. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2009;42: 377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott SJ, Eyles J. Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res. 2006;16: 377–394. doi: 10.1177/1049732305285708 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lindsay S. Five approaches to qualitative comparison groups in health research: A scoping review. Qual Health Res. 2019;29: 455–468. doi: 10.1177/1049732318807208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bergman MM. Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications. SAGE; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2: 53–55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Raskind IG, Shelton RC, Comeau DL, Cooper HLF, Griffith DM, Kegler MC. A review of qualitative data analysis practices in health education and health behavior research. Health Educ Behav. 2019;46: 32–39. doi: 10.1177/1090198118795019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.El-Behadli AF, Gansert P, Logan DE. Racial differences in parental responses to children’s chronic pain. Clin J Pain. 2017;33: 503–508. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Guest G, Namey E, Chen M. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLOS ONE. 2020;15: e0232076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Creamer EG. An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2018. doi: 10.4135/9781071802823 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Heathcote LC, Williams SE, Smith AM, Sieberg CB, Simons LE. Parent attributions of ambiguous symptoms in their children: A preliminary measure validation in parents of children with chronic pain. Children (Basel). 2018;5: 76. doi: 10.3390/children5060076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Thøgersen-Ntoumani C, Fox KR. Physical activity and mental well-being typologies in corporate employees: A mixed methods approach. Work & Stress. 2005;19: 50–67. doi: 10.1080/02678370500084409 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Boland L, Graham ID, Légaré F, Lewis K, Jull J, Shephard A, et al. Barriers and facilitators of pediatric shared decision-making: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2019;14: 7. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0851-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gabe J, Olumide G, Bury M. “It takes three to tango”: a framework for understanding patient partnership in paediatric clinics. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59: 1071–1079. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lipstein EA, Brinkman WB, Fiks AG, Hendrix KS, Kryworuchko J, Miller VA, et al. An emerging field of research: challenges in pediatric decision making. Med Decis Making. 2015;35: 403–408. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14546901 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Robert Jeenchen Chen

1 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-24866Understanding family-level decision-making when seeking access to acute surgical care for children: protocol for a cross-sectional mixed methods studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rice,

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 revise.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 15 2024 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,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

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 note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "BH and MR received the standard graduate student funding from Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine to support subject compensation for this study (see funding letter for reference)."

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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

5. 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

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: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

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: The is very useful and comprehensive study proposal with a well defined study design. The tools that will be used for data collection are well explained with the respect to the research questions.

However the authors should mention why data analysis plan for establishing the SES classification should be based on the work done by Sheffer et al (2012), reference 25

Reviewer #2: It is a very well-designed protocol and I agree that the mixed methods design will enhance the results of the study.

I don't know how the primary care is given in the 2 centers or if the patient's caregivers may consult a family practice or pediatrician before going to the emergency room.

Suppose the patient may seek for consulting early, but the primary-care physician delays the access to specialized care. In that case, it may be a confounding factor that is not evaluated in the protocol. So, maybe, besides the perforation rate it would be helpful to add another variable: the "time since symptoms began to first medical consulting".

Another factor that may influence perforation is an in-hospital delay of surgery. Suppose that, for any reason, the patient is not operated on promptly and the appendix may rupture. That’s not on the family experiences.

Other than that, it is a very good protocol, and I will be looking to find the results.

**********

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: Eduardo Bracho-Blanchet

**********

[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.

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 24;19(6):e0304165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304165.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Apr 2024

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

Manuscript format has been corrected to meet style requirements.

2. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

Thank you for this note. This has been amended.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"BH and MR received the standard graduate student funding from Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine to support subject compensation for this study (see funding letter for reference)."

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.

The funders had no role in this study, and as advised, the amended Role of Funder statement is now included in our cover letter.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Corrected. Ethics statement moved to the methods section of manuscript.

5. 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.

Reference list has been revised for completeness and proper formatting. Changes noted below:

References added:

Reference for race and ethnicity definitions: US Department of Health and Human Services O of MH. Data collection standards for race, ethnicity, sex, primary language, and disability status. [cited 3 May 2022]. Available: https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/data-collection-standards-race-ethnicity-sex-primary-language-and-disability-status

Reference for framework of SES data collection and analysis: Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Chideya S, Marchi KS, Metzler M, et al. Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all. JAMA. 2005;294: 2879–2888. doi:10.1001/jama.294.22.2879

Reference on development and domain description of SDOH screening tool: Billioux A, Verlander K, Anthony S, Alley D. Standardized screening for health-related social needs in clinical settings: The Accountable Health Communities Screening Tool. NAM Perspectives. 2017. doi:10.31478/201705b

REDCap citation: Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2009;42: 377–381. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

Reference removed:

Erroneous remnant of a SDOH assessment tool that was considered but not incorporated into the protocol: Gottlieb L, Hessler D, Long D, Amaya A, Adler N. A randomized trial on screening for social determinants of health: the iScreen study. Pediatrics. 2014 Dec;134(6):e1611-1618.

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: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

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: The is very useful and comprehensive study proposal with a well defined study design. The tools that will be used for data collection are well explained with the respect to the research questions.

However the authors should mention why data analysis plan for establishing the SES classification should be based on the work done by Sheffer et al (2012), reference 25

Response: Great point. We have expanded on why we chose this SES classification for this population in the “demographic and clinical data section”. As illustrated in the manuscript text, we chose the composite index of SES using the method described by Shaffer et al (2012) due to its granular, family-level factors of income categories based on US Census Bureau median household income and discrete levels of educational attainment. Income, education level, and occupation are family-level measures commonly used in SES indices in the literature; however, Shaffer's approach incorporate the practical benefit of discrete categories to protect patient privacy (as opposed to direct income reporting) and allow for reconstruction of SES indices if interim analysis illustrates that the division resulted in a bias split of the data. Broader, population level measures of SES were considered, such as the Area Deprivation Index (ADI); however, as our study is not a large-scale epidemiological study, we chose to focus on SES status driven by family- level data. Lastly, Braveman et al (2005) highlighted the importance of analyzing individual socioeconomic factors in analysis when also using composite SES scores, as such, we are collecting other variables known to impact SES and will systematically account for this during analysis. Qualitative interviews will expand on subjective definitions of SES and may identify key unmeasured factors.

Reviewer #2: It is a very well-designed protocol and I agree that the mixed methods design will enhance the results of the study.

I don't know how the primary care is given in the 2 centers or if the patient's caregivers may consult a family practice or pediatrician before going to the emergency room.

Suppose the patient may seek for consulting early, but the primary-care physician delays the access to specialized care. In that case, it may be a confounding factor that is not evaluated in the protocol. So, maybe, besides the perforation rate it would be helpful to add another variable: the "time since symptoms began to first medical consulting".

Another factor that may influence perforation is an in-hospital delay of surgery. Suppose that, for any reason, the patient is not operated on promptly and the appendix may rupture. That’s not on the family experiences.

Other than that, it is a very good protocol, and I will be looking to find the results.

Response: We agree with this suggestion, and it will be important to adjust for these factors in the analysis. We accounted for this in the protocol, although not previously articulated in the manuscript, and are collecting several time-related variables, including family-reported variables (i.e., time onset of symptom, time to initial healthcare access point) and EMR-reported variables (i.e., ED arrival time, time of surgery, discharge time). These variables will enable our analysis team to adjust for other factors that drive delays in care. We are also collecting the contexts of “initial healthcare access point(s)” before ED presentation (pediatrician, outside emergency room, urgent care). We have further detailed the collection of these variables in our methods section, lines 233-235.

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: Eduardo Bracho-Blanchet

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0304165.s002.docx (24.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Robert Jeenchen Chen

8 May 2024

Understanding family-level decision-making when seeking access to acute surgical care for children: Protocol for a cross-sectional mixed methods study

PONE-D-23-24866R1

Dear Dr. Rice,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

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: The authors have responded to reviewers' comments with acceptable explanation. The explanation have been added in the text and are useful for the readers.

Reviewer #2: With the writen response from the authors, I have no concerns and the protocolo should be accepted in my opinion.

**********

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: Eduardo Bracho-Blanchet

**********

Acceptance letter

Robert Jeenchen Chen

13 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-24866R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rice,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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

Dr. Robert Jeenchen Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Adult/child dyad semi-structured interview guide.

    (PDF)

    pone.0304165.s001.pdf (50.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0304165.s002.docx (24.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data sharing is not applicable to this paper as no datasets were generated or analyzed. All relevant data from this study, that is not ethically restricted, will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES