Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Sep 1;16(9):e0256927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256927

Physicians’ knowledge about palliative care in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study using digital social media platforms

Jheelam Biswas 1,2,*, Palash Chandra Banik 1, Nezamuddin Ahmad 2
Editor: Arista Lahiri3
PMCID: PMC8409647  PMID: 34469497

Abstract

Introduction

Palliative care is still a new concept in many developing countries like Bangladesh. Basic knowledge about palliative care is needed for all physicians to identify and provide this care. This study aims to assess the preliminary knowledge level and the misconceptions about this field among physicians.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted among 479 physicians using a self-administered structured questionnaire adapted from Palliative Care Knowledge Scale (PaCKs) on various digital social media platforms from December 2019 to February 2020. Chi-square, Fisher’s extract test, and the Monte Carlo extract test was done to compare the knowledge level with the study subjects’ demographic variables.

Results

An almost equal number of physicians of both genders from four major specialties and their allied branches took part in the study (response rate 23.9%). The majority (71%) of the respondents had an average to an excellent level of knowledge about palliative care, with a median score of 11.0. Although most physicians had average knowledge about the primary goals and general concepts of palliative care, misconceptions are highly prevalent. The commonly present misconceptions were that palliative care discourages patients from consulting other specialties (88.9%), refrains them from taking curative treatments (83.1%), and this care is only for older adults (74.5%), cancer patients (63%), and the last six months of life (56.4%). Age, educational qualifications, and specialties had significant relationships (P<0.05) with the level of knowledge.

Conclusion

Despite having average or above knowledge about palliative care, the physicians’ prevailing misconceptions act as a barrier to recognizing the need among the target populations. So, proper education and awareness among the physicians are necessary to cross this field’s barrier and development.

Background

In recent years, the world has experienced a shift in the disease pattern, and the prevalence of incurable life-limiting diseases is increasing [1]. Palliative care is an approach to prevent and provide relief to the patients’ physical, psychosocial, and spiritual sufferings and their families with such illness [2]. Early identification and referral to palliative care have been proven to improve patients’ quality of life with terminal illnesses and their families as well as minimize the health care expenditure [35]. About 40 million people need palliative care worldwide, but only about 14% are currently receiving it [6]. Although palliative care is not a new concept, access to this care is still inadequate and neglected in developing countries [7, 8].

Several studies have identified various barriers to accessing palliative care, one of which is the lack of proper knowledge and misconceptions among the general populations and healthcare providers alike [911]. Although palliative care is an integral part of the United States’ healthcare system, less than half of the general population knows about it [12]. Most people from developing countries like India, Pakistan, and Nigeria did not even hear of palliative care [1315]. The situation is slightly better with the health care providers, but still not great. Several studies showed that, though most (62.61%) of the physicians have average knowledge about palliative care’s general concepts, they also harbor misconceptions [11, 16, 17]. Many physicians associate palliative care only with pain management [16]. Other general misconceptions about palliative care among physicians are palliative care discourages patients from taking other curative treatment, and it was suitable only for the last three months of life [18].

The field of palliative care in Bangladesh is still new and in the stage of continued development. Approximately 0.6 million patients need palliative care in Bangladesh, but less than 4000 people had received this care until now [19, 20]. Very few studies were done to assess the knowledge level about palliative care in Bangladesh. A study among non-medical students of life science found that one-fourth of the participants are not aware of palliative care [21]. Another study found that only 10% of the practicing Bangladeshi physicians have knowledge about pain management in terminally ill patients [22]. However, no study has yet to provide a clear picture of the knowledge level or the prevailing misconceptions about palliative care among Bangladeshi physicians. As the demand for palliative care is rising, all physicians need to acquire proper knowledge about this field. Now it is high time to explore this knowledge gap.

This paper aims to assess the knowledge level and the misconceptions about palliative care among Bangladeshi physicians to understand the situation better and raise awareness.

Methods

Study design and setting

This cross-sectional study was conducted among Bangladeshi physicians of various disciplines throughout the country using a convenient sampling technique. Many Bangladeshi physicians are very active in social media like Facebook, Viber, and WhatsApp and use these platforms to exchange professional views with peers and communicate with general people. This group of physicians was targeted as they were often in touch with other disciplines and general people and easy to contact. Data collection was done from December 2019 to February 2020.

Sample size and criteria

The estimated sample size was 299 (considering familiarity with palliative care among Bangladeshi nonmedical students 75.2%) [21]. Registered physicians from any discipline and not directly associated with palliative care were included in the study. Initially, 2000 physicians who fulfilled the necessary inclusion criteria showed interest after learning about the study’s objectives and purpose, but 479 returned with the complete response (response rate 23.9%).

Data collection procedure

Data were collected by a self-administered structured questionnaire adapted from Palliative Care Knowledge Scale (PaCKs), a validated tool for measuring preliminary knowledge about palliative care [23]. English version of the questionnaire was used. It contains 13 items about various aspects of palliative care to be answered via “True” or “False” responses. To avoid guessing, we included a third option, “I do not know.” This modified version was adapted from a study done by Kozlov E et al. (2017) [12]. A pilot study was done to validate the tool among 50 physicians, which yielded almost the same result. A notice was posted in all known physicians’ social media groups simultaneously about the study’s objectives and purpose and requested to send e-mail addresses if interested. After checking the details of the interested persons’ social media profiles with the respective owners’ permission to avoid fake profiles and duplication, the questionnaire was sent to the provided e-mail addresses and requested to return with their responses. Data was collected via the Google form platform, and an informed consent statement was added to the 1st section as a mandatory field.

Data analysis

The PaCKs knowledge score was calculated using Microsoft Excel 2010 and entered in SPSS version 22.0; editing and logical checking were done and analyzed. Each correct answer was given the score "1" and incorrect responses were scored as "0”. The third option, "I do not know" was included to avoid guessing, was also considered and merged with incorrect responses and scored “0”. The PaCKs items were divided into two groups: General conceptions about palliative care (item no 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13) and Common misconceptions about palliative care (item no 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11). We did a descriptive analysis (frequency, percentage, median and interquartile range) for categorical and quantitative variables.

Knowledge level about palliative care was categorized into three categories according to the interquartile ranges and median. The value below the 25th quartile was categorized as poor, the range between the 25th and 75th quartile was categorized as average, and the value above the 75th quartile was categorized as excellent knowledge about palliative care.

Chi-square, Fisher’s extract test, and the Monte Carlo extract test was done to compare the knowledge level with the study subjects’ demographic variables setting the α level at 0.05.

Ethical considerations

This study was performed following the Declaration of Helsinki, and no invasive procedures were involved. Verbal permission was taken from the head of the Department of Palliative Medicine, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, and ethical clearance from the Ethical Review Committee (ERC) of the Center for Noncommunicable diseases Prevention Control Rehabilitation & Research (Approval no: CeNoR/EA/1903, date: 05/10/2019). An informed consent statement was attached at the 1st section of the Google form platform as a mandatory field. Interested participants were allowed to move to the next steps of the questionnaire and submit only after agreeing with the consent statement.

Results

Almost equal numbers of physicians from both genders took part in the study of mean age 28.9±3.6 years. The majority (78.5%) of the respondents belonged to 20–30 years. Only one-third (34.9%) of the physicians had specialist postgraduate degrees or post-graduation courses. Aside from general practitioners and interns who were almost half (44.1%) of the total respondents, physicians from four primary specialties and their allied branches (Medicine, Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, Basic Medical Sciences, and Public Health) participated in the study. Almost all (96.2%) of the physicians were familiar with the term "palliative care"(Table 1).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the respondents (n = 479).

Variables n (%) 95% CI
Lower bound Upper bound
Sex
Men 263 (54.9) 50.4 59.4
Women 216 (45.1) 40.6 49.6
Age, years
Mean ± SD 28.9±3.6
20–30 376 (78.5) 74.8 82.2
31–40 98 (20.5) 16.9 24.1
>40 5 (1.0) 0.1 1.9
Qualifications
Graduate (Medical and Dental) 312(65.1) 60.8 69.4
Postgraduate or in course 167 (34.9) 30.6 39.2
Specialties
Basic medical sciences* 24 (5.0) 3.0 7.0
Medicine and allied branches 128 (26.7) 22.7 30.7
General practitioners 136 (28.4) 24.4 32.4
Gynecology and Obstetrics 17 (5.6) 3.5 7.7
Interns 75 (15.7) 12.4 19.0
Surgery and allied branches 57 (11.9) 9.0 14.8
Public health 32 (6.7) 4.5 8.9
Familiarity with the term palliative care
Yes 461 (96.2) 94.5 97.9
No 18 (3.8) 2.1 5.5

*Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Microbiology, Pathology

The knowledge about palliative care score ranged from as low as 0 to the perfect score of 13, with a median score of 11.0. The proportion of average to excellent knowledge about palliative care was 71% (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Levels of knowledge regarding palliative care (n = 479).

Fig 1

Most of the physicians gave correct answers to all the questions regarding general conceptions about palliative care. Most (91.4%) of them recognized palliative care as a team-based approach. They were also aware of the functions and primary goals of palliative care, such as dealing with psychological issues of the patients (76%), improving patients’ daily activities (89.6%), addressing the stress of the illness and side effects of other treatments (72.2%), and helping the families to cope (94.2%). Unfortunately, most of the physicians thought the misconceptions about palliative care as accurate. The most prevailing misconceptions were that palliative care discourages patients from consulting other specialties (88.9%) and refrains them from taking curative treatments (83.1%). Eight out of ten (83.3%) physicians believed that palliative care is a hospital-based care (83.3%) only for older adults (74.5%) and cancer patients (63%). More than half (56.4%) of the respondents thought palliative care is exclusively for the last six months of life, and one-fifth (20.9%) were confused with the idea. The highest correctly scored item was "Palliative care is a team-based approach", and the lowest correctly scored item was "Palliative care is a hospital-based care”.(Table 2).

Table 2. Knowledge regarding palliative care according to PaCKs items (n = 479).

Variables True n (%) False n (%) Don’t Know n (%)
General conceptions about Palliative Care
Team based approach 438 (91.4) 12 (2.5) 29 (6.1)
Deals with psychological issues 364 (76.0) 72 (15.0) 43 (9.0)
Helps better understanding of the treatment options 340 (71.0) 83 (17.3) 56 (11.7)
Improves patient’s daily activities 421 (89.6) 24 (5.0) 35 (5.4)
Manages side effects of other treatments 346 (72.2) 78 (16.3) 55 (11.5)
Addresses stress from serious illnesses 405 (84.6) 24 (5.0) 50 (10.4)
Helps families to cope 451 (94.2) 11 (2.3) 17 (3.5)
Common misconceptions about palliative care
Exclusively for the last six months of life 270 (56.4) 109 (22.8) 100 (20.9)
Only for the cancer patients 302 (63.0) 146 (30.5) 31 (6.5)
Only for the older adults 357 (74.5) 88 (18.4) 34 (7.1)
Only hospital-based care 399 (83.3) 52 (10.9) 28 (5.8)
Encourages to stop taking curative treatments 398 (83.1) 46 (9.6) 35 (7.3)
Encourages to stop consulting other specialties 426 (88.9) 24 (5.0) 29 (6.1)

The older physicians had significantly better knowledge than younger ones (P = 0.01). Though the physicians with postgraduate trainings also have significantly better knowledge (P = 0.01), nearly half (42.6%) of the physicians with graduate degree also had average knowledge level. The knowledge level also varied significantly, according to specialties (P = 0.01). Nearly half of the respondents from each specialty had average knowledge. Still, four out of ten (44.5%) physicians from medicine and allied branches and five out of ten (48.1%) from gynecology and allied branches had excellent knowledge about palliative care (Table 3).

Table 3. Level of knowledge about palliative care based on demographic characteristics (n = 479).

Variables Level of knowledge, n (%) Test statistics P-value
Poor Average Excellent
Sex ***
Men 79 (30.0) 98 (37.3) 86 (32.7) 0.2 0.9
Women 60 (27.8) 83 (38.4) 73 (33.8)
Age *
20–30 115 (30.6) 144 (38.3) 117 (31.1) 7.2 0.01
31–40 23 (23.5) 37 (37.8) 38 (38.8)
>40 1 (20.0) 0(0.0) 4 (80.0)
Qualifications ***
Graduate 93 (29.8) 133 (42.6) 86 (27.6) 14.2 0.01
Postgraduate or in course 46 (27.5) 48 (28.7) 73 (43.7)
Specialties **
Basic medical sciences 15 (62.5) 03 (12.5) 06 (25.0) 32.7 0.01
Medicine and allied branches 29 (22.7) 42 (32.8) 57 (44.5)
General practitioners 40 (29.4) 54 (39.7) 42 (30.9)
Gynecology and Obstetrics 5 (18.5) 09 (33.3) 13 (48.1)
Interns 27 (36.0) 32 (42.7) 16 (21.3)
Surgery and allied branches 15 (26.3) 29 (50.9) 13 (22.8)
Public health 8 (25.0) 12 (37.5) 12 (37.5)

*Fisher’s Extract test;

**Monte Carlo extract test;

***Chi square test;

p value <0.05 considered as significant

Discussion

Palliative care is currently considered an integral part of medical care rather than a sub-specialty. Palliative care has also been recognized as a part of basic medical qualification by World Health Organization [24]. The current study reveals the preliminary results of the knowledge level of Bangladeshi physicians about this field.

Although the concept of palliative care is still new in Bangladesh, our study found that the majority (96.2%) of the physicians are familiar with this field without being directly associated. This situation is hopeful compared to the nonmedical science students, where only one-fourth of them are familiar with this term [16]. The situation is much improved than in other countries like Pakistan and Vietnam, where only half of the medical professionals know this field [25, 26]. Aside from the familiarity with this field, the basic knowledge level of palliative care among the Bangladeshi physicians mostly (71%) ranged from average to excellent. This percentage is higher than the physicians and nurses with good or above knowledge about palliative care from countries like Pakistan (55.7%), Ethiopia (69.5%), Vietnam (64.9%), and Thailand (55.7%) where palliative care is also a new concept [2527]. But the percentage is slightly lower than the neighboring country India (89.9%), with a relatively developed palliative care system [28]. In this study, most physicians without being directly associated with palliative care have fundamental knowledge about the general concepts and basic philosophy of palliative care, such as addressing psychological issues, including family members, coping, and team-based approaches. Overall, the situation casts a ray of hope for a country like Bangladesh, where palliative care is still developing and not included in the national health care delivery system or undergraduate medical curriculums. Patients do not directly seek palliative care here before consulting with other medical specialties. So, good knowledge about the fundamental concepts of palliative care among the physicians, especially the general physicians, might help recognize the need and delivery of this care to the patients from all specialties and subspecialties.

Our study also explored the prevailing common misconceptions about palliative care among physicians. The most prevailing misconceptions are that, palliative care discourages patients from consulting other specialties and refrains them from seeking curative treatment. This misconception is on par with the general people from a country with highly developed palliative care like United States [12]. This misconception may lead physicians not to advise their patients about seeking palliative care in the early state of the disease when curative treatment might be considered an option. These may lead to increased unnecessary treatment burdens and psychological and social sufferings and act as barriers to early access to palliative care.

Another widely prevailing misconception is about the target populations of palliative care. It is mostly believed that palliative care is only for the elderly or cancer patients and patients in the last six months of life. Different studies suggest that this misconception exists among health care professionals and general people worldwide [12, 18, 29]. Due to this misconception, physicians often fail to recognize many patients who need palliative care but do not belong to any of the groups mentioned earlier. This acts as a barrier to widespread access to palliative care. On that note, most physicians of Bangladesh consider palliative care as a hospital-based care, while home-based care is also an option. This leads to unnecessary hospitalization and hospital deaths which contradicts some philosophy of palliative care.

It is also noticeable from the study that knowledge level varies with the physicians’ age and postgraduate training, most likely due to experience and a broader range of study. It is also evident that, among the younger physicians, the percentage of above-average basic knowledge about palliative care is comparatively low, indicating the less importance of this field at the undergraduate level. This situation is unique in Bangladesh and common among other countries like Pakistan, Vienna, and Brazil [24, 25, 30]. The excellent knowledge level in medicine and gynecology and their allied branches indicates that more emphasis is given on palliative care in this sector. Simultaneously, all specialties need to have a basic idea of palliative care because it is a multisectoral approach.

One limitation of this study is that it was conducted using only digital social media platforms. Although many physicians are active in these platforms, a vast group of physicians is left behind who do not use these platforms, especially older physicians. We have not included medical students who may not reflect the undergraduate level. There is a chance of non-response bias as the response rate of this study is very low (23.9%). Although it is close to an average response rate of internet-based studies (20.4%) and both the respondents and non-respondents were from similar backgrounds, it does not eliminate the possibility of this bias [31]. Also, we did not have complete control over the respondents, so the true denominator of the outcome remains undetermined. Using only PaCKs questionnaire, which is a valid tool to assess palliative care’s most fundamental knowledge level, it lets out some in-depth and widely discussed concepts like pain management, opioid use, breaking bad news, communication, the idea of death and dying, etc. This study would benefit from replication in a broad platform outside digital social media and including additional questions addressing the in-depth concepts of palliative care.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study found that although having fairly good knowledge about goals and basic concepts of palliative care, misconceptions are also highly prevalent in Bangladeshi physicians. These misconceptions act as a barrier to the development of this field. Our finding emphasizes the need to include the basic concept of palliative care in the medical curriculum and raise awareness among the physicians first to identify the need among target populations first.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. PaCKs questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All the data relevant to this manuscript can be found at Mendeley Data, DOIs 10.17632/dc2nsmyfr3.1.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases country profile. 2014
  • 2.World Health Organization. WHO definition of palliative care. 3 May 2019. https://www.who.int/cancer/palliative/definition/en/.
  • 3.Riley GF, Lubitz JD. Long-term trends in Medicare payments in the last year of life. Health Serv Res. 2010; 45:565e576. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01082.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Singh D. Quality of life in cancer patients receiving palliative care. Indian J Palliat Care. 2010;16(1):36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Temel J, Greer J, Muzikansky A, Gallagher E, Admane S, Jackson V et al. Early Palliative Care for Patients with Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Eng J Med. 2010;363(8):733–742 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1000678 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.World Health Organization. Palliative Care. Who.int. 2018 [Accessed 29 January 2020]. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care
  • 7.Grant L, Brown J, Leng M, Bettega N, Murray S. Palliative care making a difference in rural Uganda, Kenya, and Malawi: three rapid evaluation field studies. BMC Palliat Care. 2011;10(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Onyeka TC. Palliative care in enugu, Nigeria: challenges to a new practice. Indian J Palliat Care. 2011May;17(2):131–6. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Akiyama M, Hirai K, Takebayashi T, et al. The effects of community-wide dissemination of information on perceptions of palliative care, Knowledge about opioids, and sense of security among cancer patients, their families, and the general public. Support Care Cancer. 2016; 24(1):347–356. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2788-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cagle JG, Van Dussen DJ, Culler KL, et al. Knowledge about hospice: exploring misconceptions, attitudes, and preferences for care. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2016; 33(1):27–33. doi: 10.1177/1049909114546885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bhadra K, Kumar G, Manir K, Manna A, Sarkar S, Adhikary A. Awareness of palliative care among doctors of various departments in all the four teaching medical colleges in a metropolitan city in Eastern India: A survey. J Med Soc. 2013;27(2):114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kozlov E, McDarby M, Reid M, Carpenter B. Knowledge of Palliative Care among Community-Dwelling Adults. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2017;35(4):647–651. doi: 10.1177/1049909117725725 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Joseph N, Jayarama S, Kotian S. A comparative study to assess the awareness of palliative care between urban and rural areas of Ernakulum district, Kerala, India. Indian J Palliat Care. 2009;15(2):122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shah S, Qaisar F, Azam I, Mansoor K. Perceptions, Knowledge and attitudes towards the concept and approach of palliative care amongst caregivers: a cross-sectional survey in Karachi, Pakistan. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;19(1). doi: 10.1186/s12904-020-00688-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Badru A, Kanmodi K. Palliative care awareness amongst religious leaders and seminarians: a Nigerian study. Pan Afr Med J. 2017;28. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2017.28.259.14010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fadare J, Obimakinde A, Afolayan J, Popoola S, Adegun P, Aduloju T. Healthcare workers knowledge and attitude toward palliative care in an emerging tertiary centre in South-West Nigeria. Indian J Palliat Care. 2014;20(1):1. doi: 10.4103/0973-1075.125547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fernando G, Prathapan S. What do young doctors know of palliative care; how do they expect the concept to work? BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wu X, Zhang X, Zhang J, Cui X. Analysis of Knowledge, attitude, and behavior of oncology medical staff in palliative care. Ann Palliat Med. 2020;9(3):985–992. doi: 10.21037/apm-20-851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rahman A. and Ahmad N. Palliative Care: We should begin to Think. J Bangladesh Coll Phys Surg. 2011;29(1) [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ahmad N. Bangladesh lags behind in palliative care. The Daily Star. 2015 [Accessed 8 Aug. 2019]. https://www.thedailystar.net/city/bangladesh-lags-behind-palliative-care-154720
  • 21.Pavel O, Ahmad N, Islam S. Assessing the Knowledge Pattern Regarding the Palliative Care among the Nonmedical Life Science Students in Bangladesh. J Life Sci. 2017;3(4):1110–1113. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Khan F, Ahmad N, Iqbal N, Kamal A. Physicians knowledge and attitude of opioid availability, accessibility and use in pain management in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull. 2014;40(1):18–24. doi: 10.3329/bmrcb.v40i1.20324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kozlov E, Carpenter BD, Rodebaugh TL. Development and validation of the Palliative Care Knowledge Scale (PaCKS). Palliat Support Care. 2016; 27:1–11. doi: 10.1017/S1478951516000997 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pohl G, Marosi C, Dieckmann K, Goldner G, Elandt K, Hassler M et al. Survey of Palliative Care Concepts among Medical Students and Interns in Austria: A Comparison of the Old and the New curriculum of the Medical University of Vienna. Palliat Care: Res. 2008;2: PCRT.S925. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Arain AN, Ghaffar ZA, Naveed-ur-Rehman, Siddiqui MN, Rehman R. Knowledge and understanding of medical students about radiotherapy and palliative care. Professional Med J. 2014;21(2): 325–332. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Vu H, Nguyen L, Nguyen T, Nguyen T, Nguyen T, Nguyen H et al. Knowledge and Attitude Toward Geriatric Palliative Care among Health Professionals in Vietnam. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2019;16(15):2656. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16152656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kassa H.; Murugan R.; Zewdu F.; Hailu M. Woldeyohannes D. Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice and associated factors towards palliative care among nurses working in selected hospitals, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Palliat. Care. 2014, 13, 6. doi: 10.1186/1472-684X-13-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Anila G.D.; Haseena T.A. Knowledge and attitude of staff nurses regarding palliative care. Intern J Sci Res. 2015, 4, 1790–1794. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nnadi D, Singh S. Knowledge of palliative care among medical interns in a tertiary health institution in Northwestern Nigeria. Indian J Palliat Care. 2016;22(3):343. doi: 10.4103/0973-1075.185080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Conceição M, Vasconcelos M, Telino C, Guedes E, Pimentel D. Knowledge of palliative care among residents of a university hospital. Revista Bioética. 2019;27(1):134–142. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Deutskens E, de Ruyter K, Wetzels M, Oosterveld P. Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study. Marketing Letters. 2004;15(1):21–36. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Arista Lahiri

26 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-09118

Physicians' Knowledge about Palliative Care in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study using digital social media platforms

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Biswas,

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.

The authors have attempted to describe the physicians' knowledge on Palliative Care in Bangladesh. However, there are certain major concerns regarding the article in its current form. The comments are appended below. Please address all the comments in a point-by-point manner.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 10 2021 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: http://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,

Dr. Arista Lahiri, MBBS, MD

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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors have conducted a study on the physician's knowledge on Palliative Care in Bangladesh. But there are certain issues that needs to be addressed apart from the reviewers' comments.

1. I am concerned about the representativeness of the sample. It appears that the authors did not have any control while collecting the data, because the dissemination was uncontrolled as it is commonly seen in social media-based studies. The main concern here thus lies regarding the denominator for the outcome.

2. The authors have reported a substantially high non-response. Were the respondents and non-respondents similar in terms of background characteristics? This information is important to justify the results given the non-response.

3. The sample size calculation should incorporate proper reference.

4. The authors need to provide information regarding reliability and validity of the study tool used. The authors themselves included a third option in the questionnaire as stated by them. This further warrants validation data on the modified tool. How did they handle this third option during analysis that also needs to be detailed.

5. The authors stated that this was a web-based survey. In this context how did they obtain informed consent from the participants?

6. The authors state that the physicians not involved with palliative care were included, that implies that those involved with palliative care were excluded. So no need to repeat what is written in the exclusion criteria, because again undergraduate students are not registered physicians. (P-4, L112-114). The authors need to elaborate on their selection criteria without repeating them.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Physicians' Knowledge about Palliative Care in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study using digital social media platforms

Decision: The article is not suitable to be published in PLOS One.

Comments:

1. “The field of palliative care in Bangladesh is still in its infancy” – then naturally the physician’s knowledge about this care will be limited.

2. In most of the knowledge based study, it is found that the knowledge base is poor, which necessitates further intervention. Thus the research hypothesis is already known.

3. “The estimated sample size was 299 (considering familiarity with palliative care among Bangladeshi nonmedical students 75.2%).” – reference is missing.

4. “Knowledge level about palliative care was categorized into three categories following the Bell Curve theory by mean±1SD.” – did you check about the normality distribution of the data set? If data set is found to be skewed then there is no scope of applying this mean and SD concept. This statement is missing.

5. Table 1: Uniformity is not maintained while writing percentages. Although N (%) is written as caption then there is no necessity of writing –18(3.8%) in the last row.

6. Table 2: Footnote: what does this asterix means? Missing in the table.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for presenting this important topic in developing country setting. For improvement of the manuscript, I would like to suggest the following points.

1. In the “Background”, at line 79 the reference number becomes 20-22. I think it should be 13-15 according to the previous reference number. So you need to check the references in your text and update accordingly.

2. For description of your study’s aim at the end of “Background”, it would be better to write the respective text from line 93 to 101.

3. In “sample size and criteria”, for calculated number of participants, it would be good to put the reference in the text (line 112).

4. And I think the response rate can be reported in this section instead of reporting in the first part of “Result” (line 154-155).

5. For data analysis, I am not sure that one way ANOVA can be used for assessing the relationship between each item score and respective responses (line 144-5).

6. In “Results”, description about “Figure 1” (line 181), “Though seven out of ten (68.7%)…….”, could you please rewrite this sentence simply?

7. At line 199, 20.9% is not “one-fourth”. It would be “one-fifth”. I think it is spelling error.

8. For description of table 2, the comment is mentioned in comment 5.

9. For presentation of data in table 3, how about to omit the column of “Total”? Any more information cannot be given to the readers by putting it. Please mindful about the decimal place of p-values in table 3 (2 or decimal places).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Indranil Saha

Reviewer #2: No

[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. 2021 Sep 1;16(9):e0256927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256927.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Jun 2021

Additional Editor’s comments to the authors-

Comments 1: I am concerned about the representativeness of the sample. It appears that the authors did not have any control while collecting the data, because the dissemination was uncontrolled as it is commonly seen in social media-based studies. The main concern here thus lies regarding the denominator for the outcome.

Reply 1: Thank you for your comments; we have revised the whole manuscript. As it was an internet based study we did not have any control regarding respondents. So we did not find the true denominator, which has been addressed in the limitation part of the Discussion. However we expressed our outcome as proportion in the result section instead of prevalence. The proportion of average to excellent knowledge level was found to be 71%.

Changes in the text:

• Discussion:

Line 293-294: Also we did not have complete control over respondents, so the true denominator of the outcome remained undetermined.

• Result:

Line 189-190: The proportion of average to excellent knowledge about palliative care was 71%(Figure 1).

Comment 2: The authors have reported a substantially high non-response. Were the respondents and non-respondents similar in terms of background characteristics? This information is important to justify the results given the non-response.

Reply 2: Thank you for adressing the issue. The non-response rate is quite high which may lead to non response bias. In the revised manuscript we have discussed the issue in the limitation part of the discussion section. However the average resopnse rate in web based studies is about 20.4% (Deutskens E et al 2004, reference 31), and in our study it is quite close to the number(23.95%) Our respondents and non respondents were from similar backgrounds, however it does not completely eliminate the possiblity of non resonse bias. We have also adressed this in the sample size and criteria.

Changes in the text:

• Discussion:

Line 289-292: There is a chance of non response bias as the response rate of this study is very low (23.95%). Although it is close to average response rate of internet based studies (20.4%), as well as the respondents and non respondents were from similar backgrounds, but it doesn’t eliminate the possibility of this bias31

• Methods:

Sample size and criteria:

Line 129: Initially, 2000 physicians who fulfilled the necessary inclusion criteria showed interest after learning about the study's objectives and purpose, but 479 returned with the complete response (response rate 23.95%).

Comment 3: The sample size calculation should incorporate proper reference.

Reply 3: Thank you. Proper reference has been added to the revised mauscript (reference no 21).

Changes in the text:

• Methods:

Sample size and criteria:

Line 126-127: The estimated sample size was 299 (considering familiarity with palliative care among Bangladeshi nonmedical students 75.2%)[21]

• References:

21. Pavel O, Ahmad N, Islam S. Assessing the Knowledge Pattern Regarding the Palliative Care among the Nonmedical Life Science Students in Bangladesh. J Life Sci. 2017;3(4):1110-1113

Comment 4: The authors need to provide information regarding reliability and validity of the study tool used. The authors themselves included a third option in the questionnaire as stated by them. This further warrants validation data on the modified tool. How did they handle this third option during analysis that also needs to be detailed.

Reply 4: Thank you for pointing out the issue. The modified version was adapted from a study done byKozlov E et al (2017), which has been mentioned with proper reference in the Data collection procedure part of the Methodology section of the revised manuscript. Also a pilot study was done among 50 physicians which yielded almost same resopnse. During scoring and analysis the total kowledge scores answers to 3rd option was considered and merged with the incorrect responses for each item, and scored as “0” as in the original scoring system which is mentioned in the Data analysis part of the revised manuscript.

Changes in the Text:

• Methods:

Data collection procedure:

Line 138-140: This modified version was adapted from a study done by Kozlov E et al (2017) [12]. A pilot study was done for the purpose of validation of the tool among 50 physicians which yielded almost same result.

Data analysis:

Line 152-153: The third option "I do not know" which was included to avoid guessing was also considered and merged with incorrect responses and scored “0”.

Comment 5: The authors stated that this was a web-based survey. In this context how did they obtain informed consent from the participants?

Reply 5: Thank you for mentioning the issue. The data was collected via Google form. An informed consent statement was attached at the beginning of the form as a mandatory field. The rest of the questionnaire was available and allowed to be submitted only after clicking “Yes” on the informed consent part. This issue has been mentioned in the Ethical consideration part of the revised manuscript and data collection procedure.

Changes in the text:

Methods:

• Ethical considerations:

Line 171-174: An informed consent statement was attached at the 1st section of the Google form platform, which was a mandatory field. Interested participants were allowed to move to the next steps of the questionnaire and submit only after agreeing with the consent statement.

• Data collection procedure:

Line 145-147: Data was collected via Google form platform and informed consent statement was added to the 1st Section as a mandatory field.

Comment 6: The authors state that the physicians not involved with palliative care were included, that implies that those involved with palliative care were excluded. So no need to repeat what is written in the exclusion criteria, because again undergraduate students are not registered physicians. (P-4, L112-114). The authors need to elaborate on their selection criteria without repeating them.

Reply 6: Thank you. The the exclusion and inclusion criteria was corrected in the revised manuscript.

Changes in the text:

• Methods:

Sample size and criteria:

Line 127-128: Registered physician from any discipline and not directly associated with palliative care was included in the study.

Reviewer#1’s comments to the authors-

Comment 1: “The field of palliative care in Bangladesh is still in its infancy” – then naturally the physician’s knowledge about this care will be limited.

Reply 1: Thank you. The line has been revised and changed in the revised manuscript

Changes in the text:

• Background:

Line 101: The field of palliative care in Bangladesh is still new and in the stage of continued development.

Comment 2: In most of the knowledge based study, it is found that the knowledge base is poor, which necessitates further intervention. Thus the research hypothesis is already known.

Reply 2: Thank you. However the aim of the study is to explore the current state of knowledge about palliative care among Bangladeshi physicians. There is no specific hypothesis in the study. As we found the though initial knowledge is average to excellent, but misconceptions are more prevent too.

Comment 3:“The estimated sample size was 299 (considering familiarity with palliative care among Bangladeshi nonmedical students 75.2%).” – reference is missing.

Reply 3: Thank you for pointing the issue. The reference has been added in the revised manuscript.

Changes in the text:

• Methods:

Sample size and criteria:

Line 126-127: The estimated sample size was 299 (considering familiarity with palliative care among Bangladeshi nonmedical students 75.2%)[21]

• Reference:

21. Pavel O, Ahmad N, Islam S. Assessing the Knowledge Pattern Regarding the Palliative Care among the Nonmedical Life Science Students in Bangladesh. J Life Sci. 2017;3(4):1110-1113

Comment 4: “Knowledge level about palliative care was categorized into three categories following the Bell Curve theory by mean±1SD.” – did you check about the normality distribution of the data set? If data set is found to be skewed then there is no scope of applying this mean and SD concept. This statement is missing.

Reply 4: Thank you for pointing the issue out. We have reanalyzed the data set and found the distribution is skewed. So we re-catagorized the knowledge level according to inta quatrile range (IQR) and median.The value below the 25th quartile was categorized as poor, the range between 25th and 75th quartile was categorized as average, and the value above 75th quartile was categorized as excellent. Necessary changes made according to the new catagorization in the Table 3 and Figure 1, as well as in resultand in discussions.

Changes in the text:

Methods:

Data analysis:

• Line 156: Descriptive analysis (frequency, percentage, median and intra quartile range) was done for categorical and quantitative variables.

• Line 158-162: Knowledge level about palliative care was categorized into three categories according to the intra quartile ranges and median. The value below the 25th quartile was categorized as poor, the range between 25th and 75th quartile was categorized as average, and the value above 75th quartile was categorized as excellent Knowledge about palliative care.

Result:

• Line 188-190: The Knowledge about palliative care score ranged from as low as 0 to the perfect score of 13, with the median score 11.0. The proportion of average to excellent knowledge about palliative care was 71% (Figure 1).

• Line 212-213: Though the physicians with postgraduate trainings also have significantly better knowledge (p=0.01), nearly half (42.6%) of the physicians with graduate degrees also had average knowledge level.

• Line 214-218: The knowledge level also varied significantly, according to specialties (p= 0.01). Nearly half of the respondents from each specialty had average Knowledge, but four out of ten (44.5%) physicians from medicine and allied branches and five out of ten (48.1%) from gynecology and allied branches had excellent Knowledge about palliative care (Table 3).

Discussions:

• Line 235-239: Aside from the familiarity with this field, the basic knowledge level of palliative care among the Bangladeshi physicians mostly (71%) ranged from average to excellent. This percentage is higher than the physicians and nurses with good or above knowledge about palliative care from countries like Pakistan (55.7%), Ethiopia (69.5%), Vietnam (64.9%), and Thailand (55.7%) where palliative care is also a new concept[25-27]

• Line 274-276: It is also noticeable from the study that knowledge level varies with the physicians' age and postgraduate training, most likely due to experience and broader range of study.

• Line 280: The excellent knowledge level in medicine and gynecology and their allied branches indicates that more emphasis is given on palliative care in this sector.

Comment 5: Table 1: Uniformity is not maintained while writing percentages. Although N (%) is written as caption then there is no necessity of writing –18(3.8%) in the last row.

Reply 5: Thank you for pointing out the. The error in the Table 1 has been corrected in the revised manuscript.

Comment 6: Table 2: Footnote: what does this asterix means? Missing in the table.

Reply 6: Thank you for pointing out the error. The footnote has been deleted from table 2 in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer#2 comments to the author-

Comment 1: In the “Background”, at line 79 the reference number becomes 20-22. I think it should be 13-15 according to the previous reference number. So you need to check the references in your text and update accordingly.

Reply 1: Thank you for pointing the issue out. The reference numbers has been updated in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: For description of your study’s aim at the end of “Background”, it would be better to write the respective text from line 93 to 101.

Reply 2: Thank you. The part regarding the aim of the study at end of the background has been revised and rewritten in the revised manuscript.

Changes in the text:

Background:

Line 103-115: Very few studies were done to assess the knowledge level about palliative care in Bangladesh. A study among non-medical students of life science found that one-fourth of the participants are not aware of palliative care[21]. Another study found that only 10% of the practicing Bangladeshi physicians have knowledge about pain management in terminally ill patients[22]. However, no study has yet to provide a clear picture of the knowledge level or the prevailing misconceptions about palliative care among Bangladeshi physicians. As the demand of palliative care is rising, all physicians need to acquire proper knowledge about this field. Now it is high time to explore this knowledge gap.

This paper aims to assess the knowledge level and explore the misconceptions about palliative care among Bangladeshi physicians to understand the situation better and raise awareness.

Comment 3: In “sample size and criteria”, for calculated number of participants, it would be good to put the reference in the text (line 112).

Reply 3: Thank you. The reference has been added in the revised manuscript.

Changes in the text:

• Methods:

Sample size and criteria:

Line 126-127: The estimated sample size was 299 (considering familiarity with palliative care among Bangladeshi nonmedical students 75.2%)[21]

• Reference:

21. Pavel O, Ahmad N, Islam S. Assessing the Knowledge Pattern Regarding the Palliative Care among the Nonmedical Life Science Students in Bangladesh. J Life Sci. 2017;3(4):1110-1113

Comment 4: And I think the response rate can be reported in this section instead of reporting in the first part of “Result” (line 154-155).

Reply 4: Thank you. The response rate has been added to the end to “Sample size and criteria”as per your suggestion.

Changes in the text:

• Methods:

Sample size and criteria:

Line 129-131: Initially, 2000 physicians who fulfilled the necessary inclusion criteria showed interest after learning about the study's objectives and purpose, but 479 returned with the complete response (response rate 23.95%)

Comment 5: For data analysis, I am not sure that one way ANOVA can be used for assessing the relationship between each item score and respective responses (line 144-5)

Reply 5: Thank you. After reanalyzing the data, and found one way ANOVA in table 2 does not add any new significance in the result. So we excluded one way ANOVA from the revised manuscript form both table 2 and result section.

Comment 6: In “Results”, description about “Figure 1” (line 181), “Though seven out of ten (68.7%)…….”, could you please rewrite this sentence simply?

Reply 6: Thank you. After reanalyzing the data, the sentence has been rewritten accordingly.

Changes in the text:

• Result:

Line 189-190: The proportion of average to excellent knowledge about palliative care was 71%(Figure 1).

Comment 7: At line 199, 20.9% is not “one-fourth”. It would be “one-fifth”. I think it is spelling error.

Reply 7: Thank you. The error is corrected in the revised manuscript.

Changes in the text:

• Result:

Line 206: More than half (56.4%) of the respondents thought palliative care is exclusively for the last six months of life, and one-fifth (20.9%) were confused with the idea.

Comment 8: For description of table 2, the comment is mentioned in comment 5.

Reply 8: Thank you. The description of Table 2 has been corrected as in mentioned in reply 5.

Comment 9: For presentation of data in table 3, how about to omit the column of “Total”? Any more information cannot be given to the readers by putting it. Please mindful about the decimal place of p-values in table 3 (2 or decimal places).

Reply 9: Thank you. We have excluded the column ‘Total” in table 3, and corrected the p value issue. We have also updated the whole table after re-analyzing and re-catagorizing the data.

Dear Reviewer, we are grateful for your kind time and substantial review; we believe now the manuscript is more improved, which will satisfy you.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Arista Lahiri

8 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-09118R1

Physicians' knowledge about palliative care in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study using digital social media platforms

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Biswas,

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 consider incorporating the comments of reviewer 1. The revisions made are satisfactory.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 22 2021 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: http://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,

Arista Lahiri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please consider incorporating comments of reviewer 1 in the manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article needs following clarifications:

1. Abstract: Introduction: Last line: Better to replace the word ‘explore’ by ‘assess’. Same corrections needed at the end of background.

2. Better to mention the year of the study in the abstract too

3. Table 3: Better to mention test statistics along with P value

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the reviewers' comments. I would like to give some minor comments for the accuracy of the manuscript.

1. For decimal points, you used 1 decimal points. So it would be great to use 1 decimal point for response rate in line 45 and line 131; mean age in line 177 and table 1.

2. Typing errors in 156 and 159 (it should be "interquartile range"); line 163 and 223 (the tests must be "Fisher's exact test, and the Monte Carlo exact test").

**********

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: Yes: Indranil Saha

Reviewer #2: No

[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. 2021 Sep 1;16(9):e0256927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256927.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Aug 2021

Additional Editor’s comments to the authors-

Comment: Please consider incorporating comments of reviewer 1 in the manuscript.

Reply: Thank you for your comments; we have revised the whole manuscript. We have considered and incorporated the revisions suggested by reviewer 1.

Reviewer#1’s comments to the authors-

Comment 1: Abstract: Introduction: Last line: Better to replace the word ‘explore’ by ‘assess’. Same corrections needed at the end of background.

Reply 1: Thank you. The line has been revised and changed in the revised manuscript

Changes in the text:

• Abstract : Introduction

Line 35: This study aims to assess the preliminary knowledge level and the misconceptions about this field among physicians.

• Background:

Line 112: This paper aims to assess the knowledge level and the misconceptions about palliative care among Bangladeshi physicians to understand the situation better and raise awareness.

Comment 2: Better to mention the year of the study in the abstract too

Reply 2: Thank you. The year of the study has been incorporated in the methods section of the abstract.

Changes in the text:

• Abstract : Methods

Line 38-41: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 479 physicians using a self-administered structured questionnaire adapted from Palliative Care Knowledge Scale (PaCKs) on various digital social media platforms from December 2019 to February 2020.

Comment 3: Table 3: Better to mention test statistics along with P value

Reply 3: Thank you for pointing the issue. The test statistics is mentioned in the Table 3 of revised manuscript in the column titled “Test statistics”.

Reviewer#2 comments to the author-

Comment 1: For decimal points, you used 1 decimal points. So it would be great to use 1 decimal point for response rate in line 45 and line 131; mean age in line 177 and table 1.

Reply 1: Thank you.The issue has been corrected in the revised manuscript body and also in Table 1.

Changes in the text:

• Abstract: Results

Line 45: Almost equal number of physicians of both genders from four major specialties and their allied branches took part in the study (response rate 23.9%).

• Methods: Sample size and criteria:

Line 128-130: Initially, 2000 physicians who fulfilled the necessary inclusion criteria showed interest after learning about the study's objectives and purpose, but 479 returned with the complete response (response rate 23.9%).

• Results:

Line 176-177: Almost equal numbers of physicians from both genders took part in the study of mean age 28.9±3.6 years.

• Discussion:

Line 289-290: There is a chance of non-response bias as the response rate of this study is very low (23.9%).

Comment 2: Typing errors in 156 and 159 (it should be "interquartile range"); line 163 and 223 (the tests must be "Fisher's exact test, and the Monte Carlo exact test")..

Reply 2: Thank you. The typing error has been corrected in the line 156. Regarding the name of the tests performed in the line 162 and 223, we have conducted 3 tests. For the variables ‘Sex’ and ‘Qualifications’ we have performed ‘Chi square test’; the variable ‘Age’ we performed ‘Fisher’s exact test’; and for the variable ‘Specialties’ we performed ‘Monte Carlo exact test’. The name of all three tests has been also corrected and mentioned in the Table 3 of the revised manuscript.

Changes in the text:

• Methods: Data analysis

Line 155-156: Knowledge level about palliative care was categorized into three categories according to the intraquartile ranges and median.

Line 162-164: Chi-square, Fisher's extract test, and the Monte Carlo extract test was done to compare the knowledge level with different study subjects' demographic variables setting the α level at 0.05.

Line 223: *Fisher’s Extract test; **Monte Carlo extract test; ***Chi square test; p value <0.05 considered as significant

Journal requirement comments to the authors-

Comment: 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.

Reply: Thank you. We have checked the reference list carefully and found the journal mentioned in the reference no 7 has been retracted. The retracted journal was “Merriman A. In the darkness of the shadow of death: a ray of hope: the story of Hospice Africa. J Palliat Care. 1993 Autumn;9(3):23-4. PMID: 8271102.”

So, we have replaced the above mentioned reference with an updated one. Both articles were conducted in almost same study setting and yielded the same conclusion. So we only updated the reference number 7 without any change in the text body.

Changes in the text:

• Reference:

7. Grant L, Brown J, Leng M, Bettega N, Murray S. Palliative care making a difference in rural Uganda, Kenya and Malawi: three rapid evaluation field studies. BMC Palliat Care. 2011;10(1).

Dear Reviewers, we are grateful for your kind time and substantial review; we believe now the manuscript is more improved, which will satisfy you.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Arista Lahiri

19 Aug 2021

Physicians' knowledge about palliative care in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study using digital social media platforms

PONE-D-21-09118R2

Dear Dr. Biswas,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Arista Lahiri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Arista Lahiri

23 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-09118R2

Physicians' knowledge about palliative care in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study using digital social media platforms

Dear Dr. Biswas:

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

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Arista Lahiri

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 Appendix. PaCKs questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All the data relevant to this manuscript can be found at Mendeley Data, DOIs 10.17632/dc2nsmyfr3.1.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES