Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0278197. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278197

“I feel I have been taken seriously” Women’s experience of greater trochanteric pain syndrome treatment—A nested qualitative study

Jane Andreasen 1,2,*, Angela Fearon 3, Dylan Morissey 4,5, Laura H Hjørnholm 1, Jens Kristinsson 6, Jens Erik Jorgensen 7, Carsten M Mølgaard 1,4,8
Editor: Rosemary Frey9
PMCID: PMC9704619  PMID: 36441745

Abstract

Background

Women experiencing greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) report high levels of pain and reduced quality of life. Exploring how they manage GTPS in a daily life context can provide important knowledge about individual coping strategies. Education, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and exercise have good group level evidence for efficacy in clinical trials and are increasingly used in routine care for patients with GTPS. Exploring women’s experiences of such treatment may help understand the mechanisms underpinning these positive results and inform treatment strategies. We therefore aimed to explore how women with GTPS experience and manage their daily life, and their experience of the combined treatment of education, ESWT and exercises.

Methods

This qualitative study was nested within a cohort study based in a hospital outpatient clinic and a physiotherapy clinic in Denmark assessing the combined treatment of education, ESWT and exercises. Data was collected from eleven women using in-person, individual, semi-structured interviews which were audio recorded. Transcripts were coded and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach.

Findings

Five themes were identified: (1) Daily life was controlled and structured by pain; (2) The condition was acknowledged and taken seriously by treating professionals; (3) The participants´ experiences of the interventioninformation is key; (4) Improved capability and autonomy in pain management and (5) The women´s perspectives on improving and expanding the intervention. Learning how to manage pain was experienced as the most important element of the program to the women to be able to minimize pain and manage daily life.

Conclusion

Exploration of how women with greater trochanteric pain syndrome experienced and managed daily hip pain, and how they experienced and adapted to treatment are important novel findings that will inform clinical practice. This new knowledge may be used to inform an individualized patient education, treatment and evaluation strategy for women with the painful and debilitating condition of GTPS.

Introduction

Greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) includes disorders of the lateral peri-trochanteric hip area such as trochanteric bursitis, tendinopathy or tears of the gluteus medius and minimus [13]. Participants experience pain and tenderness in the region of the greater trochanter, buttock or lateral thigh [46]. Greater trochanteric pain syndrome is a common condition with a prevalence of 1.6–3.3 per 1000 in primary care [7, 8] with 36% continuing to report symptoms after 1 year and 29% after five years [7]. In the general population the incidence rate is estimated between 10% and 25% [4, 7, 911]. It is more common in women than men, with a higher frequency in post-menopausal women [7].

Participants with GTPS report poor function and high levels of pain and disability [12, 13], lower levels of fulltime employment and lower quality of life than age matched groups [13]. Further, higher pain catastrophizing and depression scores, and lower pain self-efficacy have been demonstrated in participants with severe GTPS [14]. A qualitative study found that participants often had persistent long-term pain and were frustrated that the diagnosis causing their pain was both delayed and confusing [15]. Previous assumptions about GTPS being a mild, self-limiting condition [16, 17] may therefore not be the case and the marked absence of research on interventions and experience is being addressed, as shown by a recent acceleration in the number of randomised controlled trials and qualitative studies [10, 15, 1822].

There is no clear consensus on best practice for GTPS. High quality studies have shown that combining education and exercise is partially effective for most participants in the short, medium and long term [10] while corticosteroid injections can be beneficial in the short term [9]. Recently, high quality trials have shown extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has evidence of efficacy [2325]. A qualitative study including eleven participants (eight males and three females) found that participants with tendinopathies were largely unaware of the mechanism of action in ESWT and that education on how to handle their condition was seen as important or even more important than ESWT therapy [20]. Further, a scoping review reported that enhanced therapeutic alliance between clinicians and patients with musculoskeletal conditions having physiotherapy may have beneficial effects on treatment fidelity [26]. This is important to successfully addressing GTPS, given that all successful interventions have included elements of education and exercise that require active participation, learning and behavior change. Therefore, aspects of therapeutic alliance as a contributor to the experiences of effect and confidence in managing GTPS are important to explore further.

Recent work carried out to inform trial design has begun to explore participants’ understanding of GTPS, their pain and their beliefs regarding activity and exercise [15] but we need to better understand: how they experience their daily life with GTPS, how participation in a multi-modal treatment program is experienced by the women, and how it may improve their situation regarding pain and functional level. Even though exercise, education and ESWT have good evidence of efficacy in clinical trials and are increasingly used approaches in routine care, the experiential mechanisms explaining treatment outcomes have not been explored. The aim of this study was to explore how women with greater trochanteric pain syndrome, participating in a multi-modal treatment program, experience and manage both their daily life and the combined treatment of education, ESWT and exercise.

Methods

Study design

This report was guided by the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research [27]. This qualitative study was nested within a cohort study (N = 60) conducted in an outpatient hospital clinic and a physiotherapy clinic in Denmark. The cohort study was designed to evaluate treatment outcomes and to identify clinical variables associated with treatment efficacy over six months. The participants were recruited from, and examined at, the hospital outpatient clinic by a physiotherapist specialized in musculo-skeletal physiotherapy (CM) at baseline, and after 12 and 26 weeks. CM provided education about the condition, and advice at each assessment point. The ESWT, exercise therapy and additional education and advice was then performed at a physiotherapy clinic with a second physiotherapist specialized in musculo-skeletal physiotherapy (JEJ).

The “treatment package” included i) a pamphlet and conversation about management of pain and everyday stressors with regards to GTPS with concurrent checks of their understanding during each session, ii) ESWT (once a week for three weeks) followed by six weeks with no intervention and finally iii) six weeks of non-supervised exercise after a thorough introduction. This introduction consisted of an explanation regarding the clinical findings and diagnosis of each participant at inclusion by CM. During the first session by JEJ, which included the ESWT intervention, participants were once more informed, including the provision of written information, about the known mechanisms of how GTPS and associated pain may be managed in everyday life. Participants were educated on how to avoid movements and situations causing pain [10, 28]. The education was repeated and individualised for each patient´s experience, during the following two treatment sessions. At the six-week follow up, participant experience was addressed, and any positive or negative pain experiences were used to facilitate further pain management strategies specific for the individual participant. Thereby moving from a “general” education towards a customized “personal” education specific to the individual participant´s daily context and way of life. Five exercises targeting the lateral muscles of the hip, the stabilizing muscles in the hip and lower back region were introduced (See S1 Appendix). We collected the data for the qualitative study using in-person, individual semi-structured interviews [29].

Participants

The last 20 participants enrolled in the cohort study were invited to participate at their six month review appointment. Those who consented were invited to interview in accordance with the purposive sampling strategy, designed to ensure participants of different demographic characteristics, age, severity and chronicity of GTPS were represented in order to elicit nuances and sufficient richness of data [29]. The inclusion criteria were women aged between 35 and 70 years, lateral hip pain for at least 3 months, of an intensity of ≥3/10 on an 11-point numeric rating scale on most days. Exclusion criteria were severe hip arthritis assessed as a Kellgren-Lawrence score >3 [30].

A female qualitative researcher (JA), not previously involved with the participants, conducted all interviews. JA is an associate professor in public health and experienced with qualitative research and specifically the thematic approach to data analysis. The topic guide for the semi-structured interviews (Table 1) was developed a priori and based on both research literature and the research team´s clinical experience [10, 13, 14, 20, 31, 32]. The interview guide included questions and prompts, the latter being used when JA judged it was useful to guide or support the participants. The interviews were performed at the hospital or in the home of the participants depending on the participant’s preference. During the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, one interview was performed using MS Teams teleconferencing platform due to a positive COVID-19 test in the interviewee’s family. The interviews lasted between 40 and 70 minutes. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim using a predefined transcription guide [29], which was finalized before the analysis was initiated.

Table 1. Topics included in the interview guide.

Interview topics
Everyday life with GTPS; the experiences related to work life, private life and leisure time before entering the cohort study
Experiences and reflections upon their participation in the different elements of the cohort study:
  • At the baseline assessment and at the follow-up assessments in the cohort study

  • Advice and guidance

  • SWT: experience of the treatment, symptoms and pain in relation to treatment

  • Home exercises

Adherence, facilitators, barriers to the elements in the intervention
Treatment suggestions for a future treatment plan for GTPS patients; which elements are experienced as important; anything missing in the intervention (in any domain)
Their overall experience after participation in the study

Data analysis

A six-step data-driven thematic analysis was used to analyze the data, as recommended by Braun and Clarke [33, 34]. The theoretical approach was social constructivism to explore insights regarding how people interact with their social world, and focused on the participants’ experiences in their particular contexts [33, 35]. This focus can therefore help us to explore how the women themselves construct their knowledge, understanding and management of their GTPS condition in their everyday life. Primarily, an inductive analysis was used [33, 34]. Firstly, initial readings of the interview transcriptions were performed to familiarize with the data. Thereafter, initial codes were generated, and themes identified and reviewed. Themes were then defined and named, and finally, the results were reported. LHH and JA performed the transcriptions, and the subsequent thematic coding was carried out by hand in Microsoft Word. LHH and JA each independently coded the data, and subsequently conducted the analysis in collaboration. Differences were solved by rereading, reanalysis and dialogue between LHH and JA. The analysis was thereafter discussed, reflected upon and refined with the author group. The interviews were conducted in Danish. After the analysis was conducted the used quotations were carefully translated into English by the authors to ensure the original meaning was maintained.

Ethics

The North Denmark Region Ethics Committee approved the cohort study protocol (N-20180036). The additional qualitative protocol was forwarded to the Committee, although no approval was needed according to Danish law. All participants received written and oral information about the study before written consent was obtained. Participants were informed about confidentiality and anonymity, and the possibility of withdrawal of consent without consequences.

Results

In total, 16 patients accepted the invitation to partake, and 11 were interviewed as three women had situations at home that made it inconvenient, and two women could not be reached. Participants were between 42 and 69 years of age, two participants had retired, one was unemployed, and the rest were employed full- or part-time (Table 2).

Table 2. Participant characteristics, N = 11.

ID Location for the interview Age at inclusion Job situation Symptom duration in months Pain rating*: At the first control at hospital Subjective degree of improvement in pain relief when interviewed#
1 Hospital 59 Unemployed 120 8 No improvement
2 Hospital 68 Retired 7 7 Full or nearly full recovery
3 Hospital 55 Full time 13 3 Considerable improvement
4 Hospital 42 Full time 36 6 Minor to moderate improvement
5 Hospital 58 Full time 96 4 Full or nearly full recovery
6 Hospital 58 Part time protected job 48 7 Considerable improvement
7. Hospital 52 Full time 6 3 Full or nearly full recovery
8. Hospital 47 Full time 6 6 Minor to moderate improvement
9. Own home 58 Full time 36 5 Minor to moderate improvement
10. Interview using the MS Teams teleconferencing platform 45 Full time 12 6 Considerable improvement
11. Own home 69 Retired 24 5 Full or nearly full recovery

*The pain rating was the patients´ subjective usual pain on a Numeric Rating Scale (0–10 points), when entering the cohort study.

# The women were asked how they experienced their degree of improvement, and their response was categorized into one of four categories; no improvement, minor to moderate improvement, considerable improvement or full or nearly full recovery.

Data analysis identified five themes: (1) Daily life was controlled and structured by pain; (2) The condition was acknowledged and taken seriously by treating professionals; (3) The participants´ experiences of the interventioninformation is key; (4) Improved capability and autonomy in pain management and (5) The women´s perspectives on improving and expanding the intervention. The themes were validated by quotations from the participants. Overall, the analysis showed that pain management was the central and most important intervention component as it enabled the women to minimize the impact on everyday life.

Daily life was controlled and structured by pain

The women reported that their life was greatly influenced by pain caused by the lateral hip condition. Prior to participation in the study, they lacked knowledge of the condition, and those who had visited their general practitioner did not feel that they had received the help they needed.

”Just the repeated times at the doctor saying;” Really, it keeps hurting, now I have tried this and have paused for a long time, but then it returns”. In a way you kind of feel a little like a sissy and think”Okay, maybe it is just me.””

(ID4)

Therefore, many had resigned themselves to life with chronic pain and were thrilled to be included in a study targeting their situation. Their expectations upon partaking in the study were primarily to gain an understanding of what was wrong and, hopefully, experience considerable improvement.

The participants had experienced pain for a long time (between six months and ten years) and reported moderate to high levels of pain when it was at its worst. In describing the sensation of the pain, the informants used words as “murmuring”, “deep”, “heavy”, “warm”, “burning” and “radiating”. The sensation did not originate from one specific spot but radiated from the greater trochanteric area.

“It is murmuring and biting and radiating. When it was really bad, I felt it far down my legs. I get tired and feel weak in my legs. And then there is the pain in relation to movement, but also when I am sitting still.

(ID7)

Although the women did not describe the characteristics of the pain identically, they consistently reported suffering from strong and persistent painful sensations over time. The pain was not experienced as a constant pain, rather it varied, changing according to their activity level and the specific position of the hip. One participant described the pain as being as painful as giving birth, while another could not go upstairs in the house when carrying things.

The condition was very painful and for many of the participants influenced almost every part of their daily lives, including sexual intimacy. The informants described that daily life was more cumbersome and that mundane tasks such as vacuuming and playing with their children or grandchildren was difficult. Sitting down or finding rest was also troublesome. This was also reflected in their work capability as the pain caused a need for changing positions, avoiding tasks and finding ways of managing throughout the working day. One woman described how this affected her:

“I got afraid of not being capable of doing my job. Well, I went to my boss and got an agreement that I could lay down when needed, because I found it would be so embarrassing if somebody found me lying on a couch.

(ID7)

Overall, their life situation was affected, and this had consequences for their well-being and surplus energy. One participant described her daily life as being controlled by the pain and if she tried to ignore the pain, it had consequences:

“My everyday life was built around it (the pain) […] I have always been known as the woman in high heels but that was not possible anymore. So…when I wore them, because I did, then I paid the price.

(ID6)

The women structured everyday life and daily tasks to avoid further aggravation by stopping or avoiding aggravating activities. If they ignored the symptoms, they experienced pain for hours or days. In trying to manage the pain they also experienced other personal consequences:

“I had also kind of lost my desire to dance. And I loved it so much. Because I felt I was somehow not included, as I many times had to say “no” to dance […] I am not part of the group anymore, not in the same way, and this has been really hard.

(ID2)

Although the majority expressed having the significant influence of lateral hip pain in their everyday life, not all the informants experienced severe pain during the day:

“It has not bothered me. I have been able to attend to my work and I have also been able to run and perform physically as I’m used to […] with me taking some Ibuprofen […] which took away the pain.

(ID5)

The pain affected not only the participants’ waking hours, but also their sleep. Whilst some describe having difficulties falling asleep due to discomfort in their normal sleeping position, others woke up or slept intermittently.

Generally, the women used different strategies to manage the pain, and it became clear that the fear of pain controlled the participants´ daily life.

The condition was acknowledged and taken seriously by treating professionals

Throughout all the interviews it was evident that after entering the cohort study, the women felt they were taken seriously. They noted that the two physiotherapists (CM, JEJ) not only acknowledged their condition, but were knowledgeable about it:

“I feel I have been taken seriously and then it is easier for me to accept myself as well. I find I have become better at listening to my own body, because at the same time I feel I have been taken seriously and I have been examined and something has been done to treat it.

(ID4)

The element of being taken seriously and acknowledged as an individual was essential to support the active process the participants started. Participants stated that both physiotherapists described what tests and treatments they would perform, and why, and participants reported that this was reassuring.

“I think that JEJ has been so good to talk to. I was out there once a week. I could just ask him all the questions I wanted, and he has been good at answering them.

(ID2)

This open approach made them feel safe and gave them confidence to act upon the information and advice provided. Further, participants appreciated the collaboration and alignment between the two physiotherapists. One called the experience “fantastic” and elaborated: “The collaboration. What CM said was in alignment with what JEJ did […] you know, all the time there was alignment. (ID6)

These alignment experiences were highly valued by the participants who felt encouraged and strived to internalize the guidance and advice. The participants expressed that they used it to continuously guide their daily activities during and after the intervention period. The character of the relationship was also emphasized:

” Well, to me, it is the relational part that counts. Papers and pamphlets are fine as you then can go back [to them], but when it is presented by a real human being and one where you can feel there is knowledge behind, and it seems trustworthy and authentic …That means that I use it.

(ID7)

The women valued the relationship with the physiotherapists and in many ways, it positively influenced their experiences, actions and motivation both during and after the intervention period.

The participants´ experiences of the intervention–information is key

All participants experienced the intervention as informative and helpful regardless of the degree of improvement in symptoms at the time of the interview (See Table 1).

The examinations at baseline and follow ups, especially the clarification and explanation that nothing was wrong, were important elements for the women. Many had silently been worrying about their condition and whether it could be a severe condition e.g. cancer or hip arthrosis.

“Well mentally, what has helped me is that CM both has scanned and taken measurements regarding the muscle strength, where the pain was situated and things like that […] It has also mentally given confidence; that I know; Okay this is not something totally dangerous.

(ID4)

Further, some found it motivating to follow their own development at the follow-ups:

” It has been super to go to JEJ to see that it has become better and better. I can do more and more. And further, that it is not only my own measurement, but that I do the measurement together with him.

(ID2)

Participants strongly valued the dialogues with the physiotherapists, along with the content of the advice and guidance pamphlets.

The practical advice was easy to handle and therefore easy to integrate in daily activities, although some habits could be difficult to change immediately. One participant expressed:

“It is the thing about being attentive on what you do in your daily life. Really, the little things you do in your daily life, how big a significance it makes. This has been a huge eye-opener to me.

(ID6)

Regarding experience of ESWT, the women expressed that the three treatments of ESWT caused strong pain, which seemed to be highest at the first treatment, after which they adapted a little to the sensation. In the aftermath of the ESWT the sensations and reactions differed, some felt something changed in their tissue whilst others felt the pain gradually diminishing. Seven of the women were convinced that ESWT was the significant element making the difference in relation to their pain:

“I had a period of time where I didn´t feel any pain at all after these treatments and I was fine, but it is not totally gone yet […] they (ESWT) have simply done something. I don´t know whether it loosens up or

(ID8)

A few participants felt no relief from the ESWT and did not feel a distinct improvement:

” I don´t think that the shockwaves helped a lot”

(ID4)

The participants had different opinions and experiences regarding the exercises. Few performed all five exercises, some performed some of them regularly, others integrated the exercises in their fitness center program, and others only did them occasionally. Finally, participants avoided the exercises on days of increased pain:

“I have some days, if I have been too hard on myself the day before and the pain is strong, then it goes without saying, that I should not do too many exercises. If it is really bad, then I skip the exercises.

(ID1)

One exercise (“the clam” number 2, S1 Appendix) often provoked renewed pain. Participants found it impossible to perform without provoking strong pain that lasted for hours or days.

Overall, the examinations, advice and ESWT were predominantly experienced as positively contributing elements to the participants´ recovery, whereas the exercises resulted in more heterogeneous experiences.

Improved capability and autonomy in pain management

Most participants became experienced at managing their pain during the intervention and evolved different strategies to cope with their symptoms long term. The most important mechanism for improvement for the patients did not seem to be knowledge and understanding of their GTPS condition but specifically their understanding of how to manage and cope with the pain. One element of achieving capability to manage the pain was the thorough examination, and the knowledge that this was not an uncommon condition. Further, it became evident that participants changed activity patterns following the intervention. A participant reported how she managed pain now if she had provoked it:

“Then I sit down with a book and do not do any more that day […] And I do follow the advice given; I still use it.

(ID11)

Thus, the respect for the pain level and a graduated activity level was adapted in daily life activities. Another participant was asked if her pain level had changed:

“The pain has completely changed character and I have learned to dose my activity level. I have learned to accept some pain and to reduce my activity or do something differently. And I feel calm knowing that I can handle it.

(ID7)

She had learned to manage her level of physical activity and that was the mechanism that gave a feeling of being in control. Not all the participants consistently followed the advice:

“There was one time where JEJ said, that maybe I went for too long walks. I have reduced it a little after that and that is actually the only advice I have listened to.

(ID1)

Some participants were not as successful at managing their activity and pain, frequently coming close to or exceeding their pain threshold. Others did not feel the improvement they had hoped for but had still adapted to the recommended management strategies.

The women reported that the use of the strategies contributed to their adapting their lives and living better. The majority still experienced some degree of pain and consequences such as having to reduce activity levels, but overall, most women felt they now had the tools and felt capable to manage their pain.

The women´s perspectives on improving and expanding the intervention

Even though the participants were predominantly satisfied with the intervention, many had suggestions for improvements, especially with respect to the exercises. These reflections are presented in Table 3 and validated by quotations.

Table 3. Ways of improving care from the participants´ perspective.

Suggestions Quotation validation
The intervention overall:
An overview of the treatment and time plan I have missed an overview of how many times ESWT and how many times to i.e JEJ*. (ID4)
What to do, if GTPS returns In reality, it would be nice with a wrapping up: “Now we are here, if it happens again, then this is the path to go. (ID 3)
The examination:
To have an explanation about the scanning results of the hip I haven´t seen them and I would actually like to have explained”what is happening in there? (ID9)
Role of imaging Personally, I think it was negative to have a scan, which only showed that my muscles and tendons were irritated, and that I knew already.(ID7)
The measurements:
Follow up on individual results Well, you probably have that overview, but I would have liked to know;” Here were you and here are you now”, in numbers. (ID3)
A possibility for repeated guidance I would very much like to have a follow-up in half a year […] Now I work according to this and hope it goes well. But if it doesn´t, the questions I would have… (ID6)
Advice:
Information regarding pain and delayed pain reactions That is probably to tell them, that the pain can arrive the day after and two days after. (ID1)
Exercises:
Group-based exercise training Well, I find that group- based is good, even though it is with individual exercises; that you show up and show up at a specific time point. (ID5)
Group-based exercise training on prescription (training paid by the Danish Government) You should have a”green prescription” telling that you should attend group-based training (paid by government) […] You know, tell people it is a part of a medication. (ID4)
Continuous guidance JEJ* knew it all and I did do them (the exercises) out there. But you know, then you still can have doubts once in a while,”what was it exactly here, should I do more? (ID8)
Fitness-centre adapted training That there was someone who was educated to train with us, so that you had a fitness center. (ID6)
More than one instruction in exercises We did go through it and at that time I could do it. Even though it would have been irritating to drive to the city again, I would have preferred that we had practiced the exercises together again. (ID9)
Shock wave therapy treatment:
Additional ESWT treatments A possibility of having a couple of treatments more, as I already the first time could feel, how much it helped me. (ID8)
A written description of dosage and frequency of ESWT, so that a local physiotherapist can take over the ESWT To know exactly what the treatment is called and what they have done. A description like that I could bring to my own physiotherapist. (ID9)
Information/dissemination in general:
Dissemination to general practitioners and public This is actually why you do a project like this: to publish that you have tried this. So that it becomes visible for others as well. (ID2)
Facebook group for people with GTPS for sharing experiences It could be an idea to start a Facebook group, because there could then be some experience- sharing. Maybe some found out they would train together or other things… (ID10)

JEJ*: The physiotherapist at the private clinic.

Overall, the suggestions varied in relation to each participant´s state, needs and context, as illustrated in Table 3.

Discussion

This qualitative study, nested within a cohort study that assessed the outcomes of a GTPS intervention, is the first to explore how women with GTPS manage daily life and how they experience the combined treatment of education, ESWT and exercise to understand the mechanisms possibly explaining their outcomes. The women described pain as the most severe problem related to GTPS and that pain took control over their daily life and identity, affecting physical, psychological and social domains. Pain education and management was a central element of the intervention for the women; as a measure of success was their ability to minimize pain and manage their daily life, during and after treatment. A mechanism supporting this was the therapeutic alliance between the physiotherapists and participants, as they felt taken seriously by the physiotherapists. Irrespective of the degree of improvement of their GTPS, the majority was satisfied with the intervention and experienced improvement. However, alternatives to the process of care delivery were suggested.

The women had been suffering from lateral hip pain for a long time and were clearly burdened. This is consistent with previous research [10, 15, 36]. Stephens et al. (2020) also showed that life was dominated by the pain and affected many domains in daily life [15]. Our study specifically showed how daily life was planned and structured around pain and this had consequences for their quality of life and different aspects of daily life, e.g. walking even short distances, sitting for a longer period or working for hours were challenging. Previous studies report that GTPS pain affected work, physical activity and quality of life [13, 32, 37]. This was also the case for participants in this study. Therefore, from the women´s perspective the pain severity, duration and tools to self-manage were key elements to the intervention success. Such elements should be addressed early in the clinical care as the vast majority had experienced GTPS pain for years. However, participants did not feel that their physicians had met their needs. This issue does not seem to be specific for women with GTPS as recent qualitative studies exploring other musculo-skeletal conditions also describe similar experiences in their target populations [3840]. But the women in this study also stressed that they felt they had been taken seriously by the physiotherapists which may imply that they had not previously felt taken seriously. However, we did not explicitly ask if their physician had taken them seriously and future research should look into this.

The therapeutic relationship and subsequent alliance were experienced as positive, strong, reassuring and important by the participants. A review by Manzoni et al. (2018) regarding therapeutic alliance and pain relief in relation to physiotherapy treatment for musculoskeletal injuries showed no apparent link between the two [41]. Our findings indicate that a focus solely on pain relief may be too narrow. In our study, the therapeutic alliance provided reassurance and confidence to the participants’ understanding and managing their individual pain patterns. These concepts were key to the participants´ insight about the condition as manageable, with most participants becoming motivated to make an effort to learn how to manage the pain instead of being disappointed that it had not completely disappeared. The therapeutic alliance, characterized by acknowledgement of the individuals’ situation, addressing individuals’ needs, and a secure therapeutic relationship, may be the mechanisms that supported the development of intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy as described by Ryan and Deci [42]. These findings are supported by a scoping review indicating that an enhanced therapeutic alliance may contribute to intervention adherence in musculoskeletal physiotherapy interventions [26]. The women seemingly had achieved a quite high pain self-efficacy due to the intervention elements, where the therapeutic alliance seemed to be of particular importance for their learning. Both physiotherapists in our intervention were experienced specialists in managing GTPS, and the effects may not be directly transferable to other settings where the treating physiotherapists are not specialists in the management of this condition.

The women were concerned about their pain condition, especially wanting to be reassured that nothing serious was wrong with their hip joint such as cancer, severe hip arthritis or the need for surgery. This reassurance seemed to be a key mechanism to their management and recovery. Unlike in Stephens et al. [15] our participants did not express confusion regarding the diagnostic labels or patho-anatomic explanations given. Rather, the women in our study strived to find ways of handling their pain condition when reassured that nothing was seriously wrong. The most important mechanism for improvement therefore did not seem to be the knowledge and understanding of the GTPS condition, but their learning and understanding of how to manage and cope with the pain in daily life. However, as other studies also suggest [15, 20], the condition should be viewed as complex and multi-dimensional and addressed accordingly.

Most participants felt that ESWT had a positive effect. It seemed that the ESWT was the trigger that encouraged them to strive for self-management and control. These findings were not fully supported in a recent qualitative study exploring the subjective experiences of ESWT to patients with tendinopathies in general [20]. Leung and colleagues found that participants felt that self-management measures were equally or more important than ESWT to help treat their tendinopathies [20]; elements which the participants in this study also found important.

The participants described mixed experiences of the exercises in the intervention, and compliance to exercises were mixed. While the pamphlet and the advice provided during the intervention were useful and appreciated by the women, the implementation of the specific exercises caused a recurrence of pain for some participants. A few integrated them in their normal schedule without any side effects, whereas some did not do them very often. The lack of compliance may have been due to an increase in pain related to undertaking the exercises, or the lack of interest for the specific exercise regime. The issues related to non-adherence and low compliance is well-known in general [43] and in physiotherapy as well regarding non-supervised exercises [44, 45] and should be addressed carefully, i.e by a thorough dialogue with the women regarding the type and intensity of pain being acceptable during exercise as well as carefully selecting which and how many exercises to provide to each woman.

Our findings suggest that women with GTPS prefer, and possibly learn and respond best, to an individualized intervention. Exercise and education on how to reduce load in relation to the hip have demonstrated to be effective in two RCTs [10, 18], however women in our study emphasized the value of ESWT and their relationship with the physiotherapists as well. Further, it was demonstrated by the quotes of the women that an individualized approach to the prescribed exercises, as well as the number exercise sessions, ESWTs and maybe even assessments at the hospital should be negotiable in relation to their individual needs. An individualized approach seems necessary to accommodate the needs and options for each woman as there was not one clear approach suggested as optimal to manage the condition.

The course of treatment and the way of including the women with lateral hip pain in the treatment was primarily experienced as positive and meaningful. Therefore, the approach, encompassing a few alterations, could be considered a framework in future trials and treatment strategies. The framework should address the following key elements when developing an individualized approach: i) Emphasis on GTPS as treatable and not severe arthritis or cancer, when explaining the diagnosis, ii) Emphasis on the importance of taking the patients seriously and acknowledging their condition when building up a therapeutic relationship, iii) Alignment in the messages and explanations between health professionals, iv) Emphasis on the learning process to self-managing pain in daily life, instead of a focus solely on recovery, and finally iv) Emphasis in relation to education, ESWT and exercises, that one size does not fit all and individual preferences should be prioritised.

Methodological considerations

The participants met the predefined criteria of variation in age, symptoms and duration. The analytical process was carried out by two authors in the initial phase, first independently and thereafter in collaboration. Subsequently the author group was involved to ensure analytical sensitivity and agreement. This process was performed and presuppositions were reflected upon to achieve trustworthy and credible findings [34]. This rigorous analytical process was considered a strength of the study. Further, the authors included both non-clinical and clinical researchers, thereby possessing knowledge within the clinical as well as the theoretical and methodological field. The 11 interviews provided rich data and views, however, as this was a rather small sample, saturation cannot be guaranteed, neither can it be guaranteed that all viewpoints were expressed. Braun and Clarke (2013) state that the term saturation invokes a more positivist model of qualitative research and the researcher should consider which approach should be taken [34]. Recent papers by Saunders et al. (2018) and Thorne (2020) discuss different approaches to saturation [46, 47]. Thorne problematizes the term and states that it is more important to assess whether there is sufficient depth, richness and coherence within the reported findings to make interpretations and conclusions relevant and credible in relation to complex clinical phenomena. We find the theoretical approach in this study useful as the analysis of the data using this approach helped us to explore and emphasize that the women individually constructed their understanding and management of the GTPS condition in their given contexts. We find that our data and analysis have provided depth, richness and coherence within the findings and that the interpretations and conclusions are relevant and credible in relation to complex clinical field of GTPS. It may be considered a limitation that no interviewees were presented with the results of this qualitative study although this could have validated the findings. A further limitation of the study was that the therapeutic relationship may have been influenced by the context of being in a research study and does therefore not fully mimic a real-life situation and the physiotherapists providing the treatment were specialized within musculo-skeletal conditions. Finally, it should be noticed that the women have experienced symptoms of varying duration and varying pain. Therefore, transferring the findings to other contexts should be done cautiously [34].

Conclusion

This qualitative study, which was nested within a cohort study assessing the outcomes of a treatment intervention, is the first to explore how women with GTPS manage daily life and how they experience the combined treatment of education, ESWT and exercise. Pain was the most severe problem for the women and affected them physically, psychologically and socially. Learning to manage the pain was the most important element for the women so as to be able to minimize pain and manage their daily life. Most participants were satisfied with the intervention and experienced improvements. However, they also suggested alterations to the intervention. These new findings regarding how women with GTPS experienced and managed pain in daily life, and how they experience and adapt to treatment elements, are important additions to the current evidence to inform future clinical practice for women with GTPS alongside evidence of effectiveness and clinicians’ clinical reasoning. This new knowledge may be used to inform individualized patient education, treatment and evaluation strategies for women with the painful and debilitating condition of GTPS.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Home-exercises provided for the participants.

(TIF)

Data Availability

Due to the Danish interpretations of the European GDPR legislation, it is unfortunately not possible to make the interview data public available. However the data are available from Head of Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aalborg University Hospital, H.B. Pedersen (mail hpe@rn.dk) on reasonable request.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Connell DA, Bass C, Sykes CJ, et al. Sonographic evaluation of gluteus medius and minimus tendinopathy. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 1339–1347. doi: 10.1007/s00330-002-1740-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fearon AM, Scarvell JM, Cook JL, et al. Does ultrasound correlate with surgical or histologic findings in greater trochanteric pain syndrome? A pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 1838–1844. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1174-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Redmond JM, Chen AW, Domb BG. Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016; 24: 231–240. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Strauss EJ, Nho SJ, Bryan T. Kelly. Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome. Sport Med Arthrosc Rev 2012; 18: 113–119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Reid D. The management of greater trochanteric pain syndrome: A systematic literature review. J Orthop 2016; 13: 15–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2015.12.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fearon AM, Scarvell JM, Neeman T, et al. Greater trochanteric pain syndrome: defining the clinical syndrome. Br J Sport Med 2013; 47: 649–653. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Riel H, Lindstrøm CF, Rathleff MS, et al. Prevalence and incidence rate of lower-extremity tendinopathies in a Danish general practice: A registry-based study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20: 4–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Albers IS, Zwerver J, Diercks RL, et al. Incidence and prevalence of lower extremity tendinopathy in a Dutch general practice population: A cross sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17: 4–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lievense A, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Schouten B, et al. Prognosis of trochanteric pain in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2005; 55: 199–204. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mellor R, Bennell K, Grimaldi A, et al. Education plus exercise versus corticosteroid injection use versus a wait and see approach on global outcome and pain from gluteal tendinopathy: prospective, single blinded, randomised clinical trial. Br J Sports Med 2018; 52: 1464–1472. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-k1662rep [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Segal NA, Felson DT, Torner JC, et al. Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: Epidemiology and Associated Factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 988–992. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.04.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ebert JR, Retheesh T, Mutreja R, et al. the Clinical, Functional and Biomechanical Presentation of Patients With Symptomatic Hip Abductor Tendon Tears. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2016; 11: 725–737. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fearon AM, Cook JL, Scarvell JM, et al. Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome Negatively Affects Work, Physical Activity and Quality of Life: A Case Control Study. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 383–386. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.10.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Plinsinga ML, Coombes BK, Mellor R, et al. Psychological factors not strength deficits are associated with severity of gluteal tendinopathy: A cross-sectional study. Eur J Pain (United Kingdom) 2018; 22: 1124–1133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Stephens G, O’Neill S, Mottershead C, et al. “It’s just like a needle going into my hip, basically all of the time”. The experiences and perceptions of patients with Greater Trochanteric Pain syndrome in the UK National Health Service. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2020; 47: 102175. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2020.102175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lustenberger DP, Ng VY, Best TM, et al. Efficacy of treatment of trochanteric bursitis: A systematic review. Clin J Sport Med 2011; 21: 447–453. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e318221299c [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Geraci A, Mazzoccato G, Gasparo M. Greater trochanteric pain syndrome: What is this meaning? Timisoara Med J 2011; 61: 74–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ganderton C, Semciw A, Cook J, et al. Gluteal Loading Versus Sham Exercises to Improve Pain and Dysfunction in Postmenopausal Women with Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Women’s Heal 2018; 27: 815–829. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2017.6729 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ganderton C, Semciw A, Cook J, et al. Does menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), exercise or a combination of both, improve pain and function in post-menopausal women with greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS)? A randomised controlled trial. BMC Womens Health 2016; 16: 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Leung R, Malliaropoulos N, Korakakis V, et al. What are patients’ knowledge, expectation and experience of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of their tendinopathies? A qualitative study. J Foot Ankle Res 2018; 11: 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Carlisi E, Cecini M, Di Natali G, et al. Focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy for greater trochanteric pain syndrome with gluteal tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2019; 33: 670–680. doi: 10.1177/0269215518819255 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Alonso Salinas GL, Sanmartin M, Pascual Izco M, et al. Frailty is an independent prognostic marker in elderly patients with myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol. Epub ahead of print 16 July 2017. doi: 10.1002/clc.22749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Romeo P, Lavanga V, Pagani D, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy in musculoskeletal disorders: A review. Med Princ Pract 2014; 23: 7–13. doi: 10.1159/000355472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rompe JD, Segal NA, Cacchio A, et al. Home training, local corticosteroid injection, or radial shock wave therapy for greater trochanter pain syndrome. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37: 1981–90. doi: 10.1177/0363546509334374 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Unzurrunzaga R De, Vetrano M, Albano M, et al. Focused Shockwave Treatment for Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome. 2020; 1305–1311. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 26.Babatunde F, MacDermid J, MacIntyre N. Characteristics of therapeutic alliance in musculoskeletal physiotherapy and occupational therapy practice: A scoping review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res; 17. Epub ahead of print 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2311-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19: 349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Grimaldi A, Fearon A. Gluteal tendinopathy: Integrating pathomechanics and clinical features in its management. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2015; 45: 910–922. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2015.5829 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kvale S, Brinkmann S. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological Assessment of Osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957; 16: 494–502. doi: 10.1136/ard.16.4.494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Stephens G, O’Neill S, French HP, et al. A survey of physiotherapy practice (2018) in the United Kingdom for patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2019; 40: 10–20. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Grimaldi A, Mellor R, Hodges P, et al. Gluteal Tendinopathy: A Review of Mechanisms, Assessment and Management. Sport Med 2015; 45: 1107–1119. doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0336-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London, UK: Sage, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Creswell J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Plinsinga ML, Ross MH, Coombes BK, et al. Physical findings differ between individuals with greater trochanteric pain syndrome and healthy controls: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2019; 43: 83–90. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Fearon A, Neeman T, Smith P, et al. Pain, not structural impairments may explain activity limitations in people with gluteal tendinopathy or hip osteoarthritis: A cross sectional study. Gait Posture 2017; 52: 237–243. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Cotchett M, Rathleff MS, Dilnot M, et al. Lived experience and attitudes of people with plantar heel pain: A qualitative exploration. J Foot Ankle Res 2020; 13: 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Turner J, Malliaras P, Goulis J, et al. ‘it’s disappointing and it’s pretty frustrating, because it feels like it’s something that will never go away.’ A qualitative study exploring individuals’ beliefs and experiences of Achilles tendinopathy. PLoS One 2020; 15: 1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Smith BE, Moffatt F, Hendrick P, et al. The experience of living with patellofemoral pain—Loss, confusion and fear-avoidance: A UK qualitative study. BMJ Open 2018; 8: 1–9. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018624 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Manzoni ACT, de Oliveira NTB, Cabral CMN, et al. The role of the therapeutic alliance on pain relief in musculoskeletal rehabilitation: A systematic review. Physiother Theory Pract 2018; 34: 901–915. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2018.1431343 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-Determinaton Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. Am Psychol 2000; 55: 68–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.WHO. Adherence to Long-term Therapies—Evidence for Action, https://www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/adherence_report/en/ (2003). [PubMed]
  • 44.Bassett S. The assessment of patient adherence to physiotherapy rehabilitation. New Zeal J Physiother 2003; 31: 60–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wright BJ, Galtieri NJ, Fell M. Non-adherence to prescribed home rehabilitation exercises for musculoskeletal injuries: The role of the pa tientpractitioner relationship. J Rehabil Med 2014; 46: 153–158. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1241 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 2018; 52: 1893–1907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Thorne S. Untangling the Misleading Message Around Saturation in Qualitative Nursing Studies. Nurse Author Ed 2020; 30: 1–9. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rosemary Frey

1 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-27762"I feel I have been taken seriously" Women’s experience of greater trochanteric pain syndrome treatment - a nested qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr Andreasen. ,

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 address the methodological issues raised by the reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by  Dec 16 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: 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,

Rosemary Frey

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 amend your Methods section and Ethics Statement to state what form of consent was provided by participants - i.e., written, verbal, etc.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

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. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

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: Thank you to the authors for this study which continues to add to the development of understanding of this condition. Some feedback is provided to improve the clarity of the paper

Abstract

Pg 2, line 22-23 Suggesting adding in ‘for GTPS’ at the end of this sentence

Pg 2, lines 36-37, review this wording for clarity ‘ important element of the programme to the women to be able….’

Introduction

Pg 3, line 62 add supporting references for the RCTs and qualitative studies

Pg 4, line 67 add detail of the sample in the qualitative study e.g. number in study, men and women

Pg 4, line 68 review this wording for clarity ‘was seen as or more important than…’

Pg 4, line 77 suggest alternative clearer wording for ‘improve their situation’

Methods

Pg 4, line 88 what is the specialized physiotherapist specialised in?

Also clarify in relation to the second specialist physio (JEJ)

Pg 5, line 95 what does a ‘thorough introduction mean and entail?

Pg 5, line 10 change ‘Those that’ to ‘Those who’

Pg 5, line 107, can you account for the 5 who agreed to take part, but were not interviewed? Why were they not interviewed?

Pg 5, lines 97-98 suggesting moving the sentence on COREQ guidelines to the start of the methods section.

Pg 6, Table 1- suggest moving Table 1 participant characteristics to the results section.

In column 1 suggest changing heading to ‘location of the interview’

In row 10, is this MS Teams? Suggest being clearer e.g. ‘MS Teams teleconferencing platform’

Pg 6, line 118 add supporting references for the literature on which you based the topic guide

Pg 7, line 122 – does the positive test refer to a positive COVID test?

Pg 7, Table 2: what does ‘private domain’ mean, ‘controls and follow-ups’ also not clear.

Were interviews conducted in the Danish or English language. In relation to the quotations used, were these then translated into English and by whom (how can you ensure that information was not lost in translation?)

Pg 10, line 177 ‘can you clarify what you mean by intimacy- is this referring to sexual intimacy. I would suggest being clearer about this as an important topic.

Results

Pg 13, line 239, the title of this theme is not as clear as the other 3. I wonder if it is possible to elaborate the title to increase clarity?

Pg 13, line 254, I think ‘alfa’ should be spelt ‘alpha’

Pg 14, line 264- how many re you referring to in relation to ‘a substantial number of women’

Pg 7, Table 3. The wording of the items in the first column are not fully clear. Were these ‘themes’ devised by the researchers. Examples which I suggest require some rewording include

• ‘A plan over the treatment element and time schedule

• Plan, if it comes back

• Is a scan necessary ( is this a question?) suggest change to ‘role of imaging’?

• Follow-up on results ( does this refer to individual results or overall study results?)

• What is the difference between ‘group-based exercise training’ and ‘group-based exercise training on prescription’?

• Typing errors on ‘continuous guidance’ – again, not fully clear what this means, compared to the other headings

• Dosage, frequency and intention explicated (not sure what this word means or even exists?)

• Information or dissimilation (not sure what this word means?)

Facebook group – context not clear

Discussion

Pg, 19, in the first line here, it is important to clarify that the experience of GTPS was in the context of a research study ( ie the cohort study), as many of the findings may relate to the effect of being in the study e.g. Hawthorne effect

Pg 20, the therapeutic relationship also may have been influenced by the context of being in a research study and this is worth acknowledging as a limitation of the study, as it does not mimic real life

Pg 20, line 355 review the wording ‘the competent meeting of the individuals needs…’ to enhance clarity

Pg 21, line 362 suggesting changing ‘in the field of GTPS’ to ‘ in the management of GTPS’. In relation to the effects not being transferable to other settings, clarify if this is because is was nested in a cohort study or because of the specialist physiotherapists ( in reality, it could be both).

Pg 21, line 374, in relation to ESWT, do you mean it had a positive effect- please clarify

Pg 21, line 377, add a supporting reference in relation to the qualitative study.

Pg 21, line 377 is the word ‘herem’ a typing error’, please correct.

Pg 21, line 381, review wording ‘dialogues with advice’ for clarity

Pg 22, line 392, change the wording ‘relationship to’ to ‘relationship with’

Pg 22, line 398 what do you mean by ‘the way of approaching women’ – does this refer to recruitment? Please clarify

Pg 22, line 404, it is not surprising that there was alignment between the two physiotherapists’ messaging to patients it this was part of the study. Was there any exploration of the information/explanations received from other health professionals- this is a key difference between this and Stephen’s study and should be acknowledged.

Pg 22, line 416, in relation to saturation, please clarify what you mean. How would you have determined data saturation? Suggest reviewing and referring to recent papers in relation to the concepts/controversies around data saturation.

Pg 23, Please present study limitations more clearly in this section. The heading methodological considerations is not clear. Perhaps changes to study strengths and limitation?

Pg 23, line 417 do you mean the results of this qualitative study or the results of the cohort study, please clarify

The conclusion should explicitly state that the experience of women in this study is nested within a cohort study

Pg 23, review wording ‘are important knowledge…’ to enhance clarity

**********

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: Helen French

[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. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0278197. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278197.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Feb 2022

Response letter to Academic editor Rosemary Frey,

Dear Rosemary Frey,

Thank you very much for the constructive comments from Dr. Helen French and for the opportunity to revise and improve the manuscript. As recommended, we have responded to each point raised by the reviewer before uploading a 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes' as well as a manuscript without track changes labeled 'Manuscript'. All authors have approved the final version of this revised manuscript.

We have addressed each point raised by the reviewer separately with the following structure:

1. Reviewer comment

2. Author response

3. Author actions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

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

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you to the authors for this study which continues to add to the development of understanding of this condition. Some feedback is provided to improve the clarity of the paper

Authors: Thank you very much for your time and constructive comments.

Abstract

Pg 2, line 22-23 Suggesting adding in ‘for GTPS’ at the end of this sentence

Authors: Agree

Changes to text: Education, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and exercise have good group level evidence for efficacy in clinical trials and are increasingly used in routine care for patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS).

____________________

Pg 2, lines 36-37, review this wording for clarity ‘ important element of the programme to the women to be able….

Authors: We have reviewed and changed the wording

Changes to text: Learning how to manage pain was experienced as the most important element of the program to the women to be able to minimize pain and manage daily life.

_____________________

Introduction

Pg 3, line 62 add supporting references for the RCTs and qualitative studies

Authors: We have added the supporting references.

Changes to text: Previous assumptions about GTPS being a mild, self-limiting condition (16,17) have therefore been disproven and the marked absence of research on interventions and experience is being addressed, as shown by a recent acceleration in the number of randomised controlled trials and qualitative studies (10,15,18–22).

_________________

Pg 4, line 67 add detail of the sample in the qualitative study e.g. number in study, men and women

Authors: We have added details of the sample.

Changes to text: A qualitative study including eleven participants (eight males and three females) found that the participants with tendinopathies were largely unaware of the mechanism of action in ESWT and that education was seen as or more important than ESWT

therapy (21).

______________

Pg 4, line 68 review this wording for clarity ‘was seen as or more important than…’

Authors: We have revised the wording.

Changes to text: A qualitative study including eleven participants (eight males and three females) found that the participants with tendinopathies were largely unaware of the mechanism of action in ESWT and that education in how to handle their condition was seen as important or even more important than ESWT therapy (21).

________________

Pg 4, line 77 suggest alternative clearer wording for ‘improve their situation’

Authors: We have rephrased the sentence for clarity.

Changes to text: Recent work carried out to inform trial design has begun to explore participants’ understanding of GTPS, their pain and their beliefs regarding activity and exercise (15) but we need to better understand how they experience their daily life with GTPS, how participation in a multi-modal treatment program is experienced by the women, and how it may improve their situation regarding pain and functional level.

Methods

Pg 4, line 88 what is the specialized physiotherapist specialised in?

Also clarify in relation to the second specialist physio (JEJ)

Authors: We have clarified in relation to both physiotherapists.

Changes to text:… by a physiotherapist specialized in musculo-skeletal physiotherapy (CM) at baseline, and after 12 and 26 weeks.

Changes to text: The ESWT, exercise therapy and additional education and advice was then performed at a physiotherapy clinic with a second physiotherapist specialized in musculo-skeletal physiotherapy (JEJ) .

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬___________________

Pg 5, line 95 what does a ‘thorough introduction mean and entail?

Authors:

Changes to text: The thorough introduction consisted of an explanation to the findings and diagnose of the individual participant at inclusion by CM. During the first session by JEJ, which included the ESWT intervention, the participants were once more informed orally and in writing about the known mechanisms of how GTPS and the pain experienced by GTPS may be managed in everyday life. The education provided was to educate the participants to avoid movements and situations causing pain (10,28). The education was repeated and targeted each patient´s experience, during the following two treatment sessions. At the six-week follow up, participant experience was addressed, and any positive or negative pain experiences were used to facilitate further pain management strategies specific for the individual participant. Thereby moving from a “general” education towards a customized “personal” education specific to the individual participant´s daily context and way of life.

_____________________

Pg 5, line 101 change ‘Those that’ to ‘Those who’

Authors: We have changed the wording.

Changes to text: Those who consented were invited to interview in accordance with the purposive

sampling strategy, designed to ensure participants of different demographic characteristics, age,

severity and chronicity of GTPS were represented in order to elicit nuances and sufficient richness of data (23).

________________

Pg 5, line 107, can you account for the 5 who agreed to take part, but were not interviewed? Why were they not interviewed?

Authors: Yes, we have added this to the manuscript and moved it to the results section.

Changes to text: In total, 16 patients accepted the invitation to partake, and 11 were interviewed as three women had situations at home that made it inconvenient, and two women could not be reached.

___________________

Pg 5, lines 97-98 suggesting moving the sentence on COREQ guidelines to the start of the methods section.

Authors: We have moved the sentence to the start of the methods section.

Changes to text: This report was guided by the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (27). This qualitative study was nested within a cohort study (N=60) conducted in an outpatient hospital clinic and a physiotherapy clinic in Denmark.

___________________

Pg 6, Table 1- suggest moving Table 1 participant characteristics to the results section.

In column 1 suggest changing heading to ‘location of the interview’

Authors: We have moved Table 1 to the results section and changed the wording in column 1.

Changes to text: Results: In total, 16 patients accepted the invitation to partake, and 11 were interviewed. Participants were between 42 and 69 years of age, two participants had retired, one was unemployed, and the rest were employed full- or part-time (Table 1).

Column 1: Location for the interview.

_________________

In row 10, is this MS Teams? Suggest being clearer e.g. ‘MS Teams teleconferencing platform’

Authors: We have clarified.

Changes to text: Interview using the MS Teams teleconferencing platform.

_________________

Pg 6, line 118 add supporting references for the literature on which you based the topic guide

Authors: We have added references

Changes to text: The topic guide for the semi-structured interviews (Table 2) was based on research literature and clinical experience of the research team (10,13,14,20,31,32).

___________________

Pg 7, line 122 – does the positive test refer to a positive COVID test?

Authors: Yes, we have clarified.

Changes to text: During the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, one interview was performed using MS Teams teleconferencing platform due to a positive COVID-19 test in the interviewee’s family.

________________

Pg 7, Table 2: what does ‘private domain’ mean, ‘controls and follow-ups’ also not clear.

Authors: we have altered and clarified the wording

Changes to text: Everyday life with GTPS; the experiences related to work life, private life and leisure time before entering the cohort study.

Changes to text: Experiences and reflections upon their participation in the different elements of the cohort study:

• At the baseline assessment and at the follow-up assessments in the cohort study.

_________________

Were interviews conducted in the Danish or English language. In relation to the quotations used, were these then translated into English and by whom (how can you ensure that information was not lost in translation?)

Authors: We agree this is important to clarify. The author group consists of four researchers with mother- tongue Danish and skilled in English, two researchers with mother-tongue English/Australian and one with bilingual Danish-English tongue. We have inserted a sentence in relation the interviews performed in Danish and one in relation to the translation of the quotations- in the end of the data analysis section.

Changes to text: The interviews were conducted in Danish. After the analysis was conducted the used quotations were carefully translated into English by the authors to ensure the original meaning was maintained.

__________________

Pg 10, line 177 ‘can you clarify what you mean by intimacy- is this referring to sexual intimacy. I would suggest being clearer about this as an important topic.

Authors: Thank you, we agree and have clarified.

Changes to text: As the quotation illustrates, the condition was very painful and for many of the participants influenced almost every part of their daily lives, including sexual intimacy.

__________________

Results

Pg 13, line 239, the title of this theme is not as clear as the other 3. I wonder if it is possible to elaborate the title to increase clarity?

Authors: It is possible to change for clarity of the content. The theme “Participants´ experienced outcomes” has been changed to “The participants´ experiences of the intervention”

Changes to text: “The participants´ experiences of the intervention”

__________________

Pg 13, line 254, I think ‘alfa’ should be spelt ‘alpha’

Authors: Thank you, we have changed the spelling to ”alpha”.

Changes to text: “I have used them 100 %, I would say. Many of the elements, the sleeping on the back, that is alpha and omega for me, and I will never stop that.” (ID10)

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

______________

Pg 14, line 264- how many are you referring to in relation to ‘a substantial number of women’

Authors: We refer to 7 women stating this.

Changes to text: Seven of the women were convinced that ESWT was the significant element making the difference.

___________________

Pg 7, Table 3. The wording of the items in the first column are not fully clear. Were these ‘themes’ devised by the researchers. Examples which I suggest require some rewording include

• ‘A plan over the treatment element and time schedule

• Plan, if it comes back

• Is a scan necessary ( is this a question?) suggest change to ‘role of imaging’?

• Follow-up on results ( does this refer to individual results or overall study results?)

• What is the difference between ‘group-based exercise training’ and ‘group-based exercise training on prescription’?

• Typing errors on ‘continuous guidance’ – again, not fully clear what this means, compared to the other headings

• Dosage, frequency and intention explicated (not sure what this word means or even exists?)

• Information or dissimilation (not sure what this word means?)

* Facebook group – context not clear

Authors: Thank you for the suggestions and comments in relation to Table 3. The “themes” were devised of the suggestions given by the women. We have clarified the wording of the items in the first column.

The difference between ‘group-based exercise training’ and ‘group-based exercise training on prescription’ is that if it is on prescription it would be free of charge for the participants over time and that it is prescribed just like medications from the physician.

Changes to text in the first row of Table 3:

• An overview of the treatment and time plan

• What to do, if GTPS returns

• Role of imaging

• Follow-up on individual results

• A possibility for repeated guidance

• A written description of dosage and frequency of ESWT so that a local physiotherapist can take over the ESWT

• Information or dissemination

• Facebook group for people with GTPS for sharing experiences

_____________________

Discussion

Pg, 19, in the first line here, it is important to clarify that the experience of GTPS was in the context of a research study ( ie the cohort study), as many of the findings may relate to the effect of being in the study e.g. Hawthorne effect

Authors: We agree, thank you for pointing this out.

Changes to text: This qualitative study, nested within a cohort study that assessed the outcomes of a GTPS intervention, is the first to explore how women with GTPS manage daily life and how they experience the combined treatment of education, ESWT and exercise to understand the mechanisms possibly explaining their outcomes.

____________________

Pg 20, the therapeutic relationship also may have been influenced by the context of being in a research study and this is worth acknowledging as a limitation of the study, as it does not mimic real life

Authors: Again, we agree on this point as well. We have added this as a limitation of the study.

Changes to text: A further limitation of the study was that the therapeutic relationship may have been influenced by the context of being in a research study and does therefore not mimic a real-life situation and the physiotherapists providing the treatment were specialized within musculo-skeletal conditions.

_______________________

Pg 20, line 355 review the wording ‘the competent meeting of the individuals´ needs…’ to enhance clarity

Authors: We have used a more precise wording.

Changes to text: the professional meeting of the individuals´ needs.

________________________

Pg 21, line 362 suggesting changing ‘in the field of GTPS’ to ‘ in the management of GTPS’. In relation to the effects not being transferable to other settings, clarify if this is because is was nested in a cohort study or because of the specialist physiotherapists ( in reality, it could be both).

Author: We agree, and we have clarified what was the message in this sentence.

Changes to text: Both physiotherapists in our intervention were experienced specialists within the management of GTPS, and the effects may not be directly transferable to other settings where the treating physiotherapists are not specialists within the condition.

________________________

Pg 21, line 374, in relation to ESWT, do you mean it had a positive effect- please clarify

Authors: We have clarified.

Changes to text: Most women felt that ESWT had a positive effect.

________________________

Pg 21, line 377, add a supporting reference in relation to the qualitative study.

Authors: We have added the reference.

Changes to text: These findings were not fully supported in a recent qualitative study exploring the subjective experiences of ESWT to patients with tendinopathies in general (20).

________________________

Pg 21, line 377 is the word ‘herem’ a typing error’, please correct.

Authors: We have reworded.

Changes to text: Leung and colleagues found that participants felt that self-management measures were equally or more important than ESWT to help treat their tendinopathies (20); elements which the participants in this study also found important.

____________________

Pg 21, line 381, review wording ‘dialogues with advice’ for clarity

Authors: We Have reviewed and changed for clarity.

Changes to text: While the pamphlet and the advice provided during the intervention were useful and appreciated by the women, the implementation of the specific exercises caused a recurrence of pain for some participants.

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬_____________________

Pg 22, line 392, change the wording ‘relationship to’ to ‘relationship with’

Authors: Thank you.

Changes to text: …..however, women in our study emphasized the value of ESWT and their relationship with the physiotherapists as well.

_____________________

Pg 22, line 398 what do you mean by ‘the way of approaching women’ – does this refer to recruitment? Please clarify

Authors: We have clarified.

Changes to text: The course of treatment and the way of including the women with lateral hip pain in the treatment was primarily experienced as positive and meaningful.

_____________________

Pg 22, line 404, it is not surprising that there was alignment between the two physiotherapists’ messaging to patients it this was part of the study. Was there any exploration of the information/explanations received from other health professionals- this is a key difference between this and Stephen’s study and should be acknowledged.

Authors: Yes, some women described experiences where they had consulted a doctor, but had not received the help (added as a quotation to the results section page 10 line 171-173) they needed (page 9 line 169-170), so that is why we have the second and third key element included as recommendations for future practice. We have elaborated a little further on this as we find there may be an issue specifically present for women with GTPS as they specifically stressed that they felt taken seriously by the physiotherapists. We have added a quotation in the result section in the first theme illustrating that the women did not feel their needs were met at the physician and discussed this more in the discussion section.

Changes to text:

Results section: ”Just the repeated times at the doctor saying; ” Really, it keeps hurting, now I have tried this and have paused for a long time, but then it returns”. In a way you kind of feel a little like a sissy and think ”Okay, maybe it is just me”” ID4

Discussion section: However, participants did not feel that their physicians had met their needs. This issue does not seem to be specific for women with GTPS as recent qualitative studies exploring other musculo-skeletal conditions also describe similar experiences in their target populations (38–40). But the women in this study also stressed that they felt they had been taken seriously by the physiotherapists which may imply that they had not previously felt taken seriously. However, we did not explicitly ask if their physician had taken them seriously and future research should look into this.

_____________________

Pg 22, line 416, in relation to saturation, please clarify what you mean. How would you have determined data saturation? Suggest reviewing and referring to recent papers in relation to the concepts/controversies around data saturation.

Authors: We have looked further into the literature and especially the recent controversies regarding saturation in qualitative research that has been discussed, both regarding the many different ways of defining it and whether it is a legitimate argument or an artificial and constructed argument for stopping the data collection (Saunders 2018, Thorne 2020). Braun and Clarke (2013) state that the term saturation invokes a more positivist model of qualitative research and the researcher should consider which approach should be taken (Brown and Clarke 2013). Recent papers by Saunders et al. (2018) and Thorne (2020) discuss different approaches to saturation and especially Thorne problematizes the term and states that it is more important to assess whether there is sufficient depth, richness, detail and coherence within the reported findings to make interpretations and conclusions relevant and credible in relation to complex clinical phenomena. We find that our data and analysis have provided depth, richness and coherence within the findings and that the interpretations and conclusions are relevant and credible in relation to complex clinical field of GTPS. Therefore, we have looked more into data richness and depth, and coherence in the findings.

Changes to text: Braun and Clarke (2013) state that the term saturation invokes a more positivist model of qualitative research and the researcher should consider which approach should be taken (Brown and Clarke 2013). Recent papers by Saunders et al. (2018) and Thorne (2020) discuss different approaches to saturation (Saunders, Thorne). Especially Thorne problematizes the term and states that it is more important to assess whether there is sufficient depth, richness and coherence within the reported findings to make interpretations and conclusions relevant and credible in relation to complex clinical phenomena. We find that our data and analysis have provided depth, richness and coherence within the findings and that the interpretations and conclusions are relevant and credible in relation to complex clinical field of GTPS.

______________________

Pg 23, Please present study limitations more clearly in this section. The heading methodological considerations is not clear. Perhaps changes to study strengths and limitation?

Authors: We have changed the heading and presented the strengths and limitations more clearly.

Changes to text:

Study strengths and limitations.

The participants met the predefined criteria of variation in age, symptoms and duration. The analytical process was carried out by two authors in the initial phase, first independently and thereafter in collaboration. Subsequently the author group was involved to ensure analytical sensitivity and agreement. This process was performed and presuppositions were reflected upon to achieve trustworthy and credible findings (34). This rigorous analytical process was considered a strength of the study. Further, the authors included both non-clinical and clinical researchers, thereby possessing knowledge within the clinical as well as the theoretical and methodological field. The 11 interviews provided rich data and views, however, as this was a rather small sample, saturation cannot be guaranteed, neither can it be guaranteed that all viewpoints were expressed. Braun and Clarke (2013) state that the term saturation invokes a more positivist model of qualitative research and the researcher should consider which approach should be taken (34). Recent papers by Saunders et al. (2018) and Thorne (2020) discuss different approaches to saturation (43,44). Especially Thorne problematizes the term and states that it is more important to assess whether there is sufficient depth, richness and coherence within the reported findings to make interpretations and conclusions relevant and credible in relation to complex clinical phenomena. We find that our data and analysis have provided depth, richness and coherence within the findings and that the interpretations and conclusions are relevant and credible in relation to complex clinical field of GTPS. It may be considered a limitation that no interviewees were presented with the results of this qualitative study although this could have validated the findings. A further limitation of the study was that the therapeutic relationship may have been influenced by the context of being in a research study and does therefore not mimic a real-life situation and the physiotherapists providing the treatment were specialized within musculo-skeletal conditions. Therefore, transferring the findings to other contexts should be done cautiously (34).

_______________________

Pg 23, line 417 do you mean the results of this qualitative study or the results of the cohort study, please clarify

Authors: We have clarified.

Changes to text: No interviewees were presented with the results of this qualitative study, although this could have validated the findings.

The conclusion should explicitly state that the experience of women in this study is nested within a cohort study

Authors: We agree, and we have added a sentence in the start of the conclusion.

Changes to text: This qualitative study, nested within a cohort study assessing the outcomes of a treatment intervention, is the first to explore how women with GTPS manage daily life and how they experience the combined treatment of education, ESWT and exercise to understand the mechanisms possibly explaining their outcomes.

______________________

Pg 23, review wording ‘are important knowledge…’ to enhance clarity

Authors: We have reworded for clarity.

Changes to text: These new findings regarding how women with GTPS experienced and managed pain in daily life, and how they experience and adapt to treatment elements, are important improvements to inform clinical practice for women with GTPS.

________________________________________

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: Helen French

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Rosemary Frey

2 May 2022

PONE-D-21-27762R1"I feel I have been taken seriously" Women’s experience of greater trochanteric pain syndrome treatment - a nested qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr..Andreasen,

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 make the suggested minor revisions.  In particular please take note of the cautions by reviewer one regarding generalizing from your results in your recommendations.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rosemary Frey

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.

[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: (No Response)

**********

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: Partly

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Dear authors, many thanks for submitting this revision and addressing previous feedback. I have some minor suggestions only, some of which are more related to wording/language and grammar, based on some of the additional text added to the revision.

Pg 5, lines 98-100, this sentence which has been added by the authors needs a review in relation to clarity

The thorough introduction consisted of an explanation to the findings and diagnose of the individual participant at inclusion by CM

Suggest (if I understand correctly that this is what you mean?)

'This introduction consisted of an explanation regarding the clinical findings and diagnosis of each participant at inclusion by CM'

The inserted paragraph could be more succinctly written as suggested here

During the first session by JEJ, which included the ESWT intervention, participants were once more informed, including the provision of written information, about the known mechanisms of how GTPS and associated pain may be managed in everyday life. Participants were educated on how to avoid movements and situations causing pain (10, 28). The education was repeated and individualised for each patient´s experience, during the following two treatment sessions. At the six-week follow up, participant experience was addressed, and any positive or negative pain experiences were used to facilitate further pain management strategies specific for the individual participant. Thereby moving from a “general” education towards a customized “personal” education specific to the individual participant´s daily context and way of life.

Table 1: final column heading should read ‘pain relief’ rather than ‘pain relieve’. Were those descriptors based on some form of global rating of change scale? If so, please add a legend to explain it and provide a supporting reference for the scale.

In column 4, job situation, suggest the word unemployed (if that’s what ‘not in job’ means), as used in the text (line 153). Align the legend (line 157) under the table.

Pg 16, I wonder if the term ‘reduce activity levels’ is better here than ‘slow down’ (just a suggestion)

Pg 20, lines 347-349. I think sentence either needs to be two sentences or separated by a semi-colon

'Pain education and management was a central element of the intervention for the women as a measure of success was their ability to minimize pain and manage their daily life, during and after treatment'.

Pg 21, lines 378-381. I don’t think changing the word here to ‘professional’ is appropriate here, unless participants specifically mentioned the professional behaviour of the physiotherapist (which I did not see in any illustrative quotes).

I suggest the following

‘The therapeutic alliance, characterized by acknowledgement of the individuals’ situation, addressing individuals’ needs, and a secure therapeutic relationship, may be the mechanisms that supported the development of intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy as described by Ryan and Deci (42)’.

Pg 22, line 385-387. Suggest rewording that sentence to the following

'Both physiotherapists in our intervention were experienced specialists in managing GTPS, and the effects may not be directly transferable to other settings where the treating physiotherapists are not specialists in the management of this condition.'

Pg 24, line 446, Suggest removing the word ‘Especially’ before ‘Thorne’

Pg 25, line 476, Suggest the wording ‘additions to the current evidence’ is preferred than ‘improvements’

Check all quotes in the text and Table 3 to ensure consistency in formatting e.g. quotation marks, ID number in brackets.

Reviewer #2: Abstract:

Background: change to: “A combination of education, ESWT and exercise are…”. Line 24-26 should not be in the Background section of the abstract. Rather, use this space to explain why the aim is to look at the experiences of ‘their daily life’ (in addition to treatment).

Methods: I would suggest including important qualitative aspects like: were the interviews in-person? Were they video/audio recorded.

Rather than including ‘a six-step approach’, I would suggest spelling out the 6 steps, or change to something like: “transcripts were coded and analysed during a inductive thematic approach.”

Findings: include numbers of themes. (1)xx, (2) xxx, (3) xxx.

Line 36-40 mostly repeats the themes identified in line 33-36. Further, the names of the themes should/could be self-explanatory. I would suggest rewriting this section.

Conclusion: Lin 41-43 suggest that the aim was to explore (1) the experience and management of hip pain, and (2) experience and adapting to treatment. Firstly, I still do not quite understand why authors are exploring: daily living & experiences of treatment. Do authors mean that the daily living is explored as a result of the treatment? Or in general? If it is in general, I think authors should make a clearer rational to why these questions are combined in 1 research question. Secondly, please ensure your background, objectives, results, conclusions align with the specific research aim. Line 43-45: The reviewer would suggest to remove this section, as this is not a conclusion that is closely aligned with your findings.

Introduction

Aim: Line 81-83- objective; do authors mean that they explore experiences, feelings or perceptions of the impact of hip pain due to GTPS on daily life? Authors should be clear in what it is they are assessing. Authors should be clearer in the aim that this study looked at women with GTPS that were included in a cohort study/ after receiving treatment as part of a larger study, and that this qual study mostly reflects on this cohort study.

Methods:

Line 120: could you include more information about the background of the qualitative researcher?

Line 121: was the topic guide developed a priori? What did it include (questions, prompts, both)?

Did recruitment, data collection and analysis proceed concurrently? How did authors ensure data saturation?

Results:

The results section is very long and wordy (page 10-16). The reviewer suggests that authors rewrite the results section by integrating quotes in the theme explanations, to minimise repetition of findings.

Conclusion:

Line 460-461: this study explored experiences, as such, it did not “understand the mechanisms possibly explaining their outcomes”.

Authors should be cautious in inferring that findings can be used as a framework for an individualized patient education, treatment and evaluation strategy. What is this based on?

The conclusion should make clear that findings are in the context of the cohort study, and the specific treatment that the participants received.

**********

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: Helen P French

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. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0278197. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278197.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Jun 2022

Response to reviewers and editor

Thank you very much for the constructive comments from editor, reviewer 1 and reviewer 2, and for the opportunity to revise and improve the manuscript. As recommended, we have responded to each point raised by the reviewers before uploading a 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes' as well as a manuscript without track changes labeled 'Manuscript'.

We have addressed each point raised by the reviewers separately with the following structure:

1. Reviewer comment

2. Author response and actions

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: (No Response)

________________________________________

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: Partly

________________________________________

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

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: Dear authors, many thanks for submitting this revision and addressing previous feedback. I have some minor suggestions only, some of which are more related to wording/language and grammar, based on some of the additional text added to the revision.

Author response and actions: Thank you very much for your response and your suggestions, we have addressed each of your comments below.

Pg 5, lines 98-100, this sentence which has been added by the authors needs a review in relation to clarity

The thorough introduction consisted of an explanation to the findings and diagnose of the individual participant at inclusion by CM

Suggest (if I understand correctly that this is what you mean?)

'This introduction consisted of an explanation regarding the clinical findings and diagnosis of each participant at inclusion by CM'

Author response and actions: Thank you, we have revised as suggested

The inserted paragraph could be more succinctly written as suggested here

During the first session by JEJ, which included the ESWT intervention, participants were once more informed, including the provision of written information, about the known mechanisms of how GTPS and associated pain may be managed in everyday life. Participants were educated on how to avoid movements and situations causing pain (10, 28). The education was repeated and individualised for each patient´s experience, during the following two treatment sessions. At the six-week follow up, participant experience was addressed, and any positive or negative pain experiences were used to facilitate further pain management strategies specific for the individual participant. Thereby moving from a “general” education towards a customized “personal” education specific to the individual participant´s daily context and way of life.

Author response and actions: We agree and have revised as suggested.

Table 1: final column heading should read ‘pain relief’ rather than ‘pain relieve’. Were those descriptors based on some form of global rating of change scale? If so, please add a legend to explain it and provide a supporting reference for the scale.

In column 4, job situation, suggest the word unemployed (if that’s what ‘not in job’ means), as used in the text (line 153). Align the legend (line 157) under the table.

Author response and actions: Thank you, we have changed to “pain relief” and “unemployed”. We did not use a specific global rating scale, we asked the women about it and put them into one of these four categories according to their answers.

We have therefore inserted and aligned the legend under the table with the following:

# The women were asked how they experienced their improvement, and their response was categorized into one of four categories; no improvement, minor to moderate improvement, considerable improvement or full or nearly full recovery.

Pg 16, I wonder if the term ‘reduce activity levels’ is better here than ‘slow down’ (just a suggestion)

Author response and actions: We agree and have revised

Pg 20, lines 347-349. I think sentence either needs to be two sentences or separated by a semi-colon

'Pain education and management was a central element of the intervention for the women as a measure of success was their ability to minimize pain and manage their daily life, during and after treatment'.

Author response and actions: We agree and have inserted a semi-colon.

Pg 21, lines 378-381. I don’t think changing the word here to ‘professional’ is appropriate here, unless participants specifically mentioned the professional behaviour of the physiotherapist (which I did not see in any illustrative quotes).

I suggest the following

‘The therapeutic alliance, characterized by acknowledgement of the individuals’ situation, addressing individuals’ needs, and a secure therapeutic relationship, may be the mechanisms that supported the development of intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy as described by Ryan and Deci (42)’.

Author response and actions: Thank you for your suggestion, we have changed accordingly.

Pg 22, line 385-387. Suggest rewording that sentence to the following

'Both physiotherapists in our intervention were experienced specialists in managing GTPS, and the effects may not be directly transferable to other settings where the treating physiotherapists are not specialists in the management of this condition.'

Author response and actions: Thank you, we have reworded as suggested.

Pg 24, line 446, Suggest removing the word ‘Especially’ before ‘Thorne’

Author response and actions: We agree and have removed ‘Especially’.

Pg 25, line 476, Suggest the wording ‘additions to the current evidence’ is preferred than ‘improvements’

Author response and actions: We fully agree and have reworded the sentence for clarity.

Check all quotes in the text and Table 3 to ensure consistency in formatting e.g. quotation marks, ID number in brackets.

Author response and actions: We have scrutinized to ensure consistency in Table 3 and have put ID numbers in brackets, thank you.

Reviewer #2: Abstract:

Background: change to: “A combination of education, ESWT and exercise are…”. Line 24-26 should not be in the Background section of the abstract. Rather, use this space to explain why the aim is to look at the experiences of ‘their daily life’ (in addition to treatment).

Author response and actions: We have discussed this in the author group, and we find this is an important information in advance. However, we also find it important to explain why the aim is to look at the experiences of their daily life as well and we have therefore added this (The abstract is still less than 300 words).

Methods: I would suggest including important qualitative aspects like: were the interviews in-person? Were they video/audio recorded.

Author response and actions: We have added these aspects.

Rather than including ‘a six-step approach’, I would suggest spelling out the 6 steps, or change to something like: “transcripts were coded and analysed during a inductive thematic approach.”

Author response and actions: We have reworded as suggested.

Findings: include numbers of themes. (1)xx, (2) xxx, (3) xxx.

Author response and actions: We have included numbers of themes as suggested.

Line 36-40 mostly repeats the themes identified in line 33-36. Further, the names of the themes should/could be self-explanatory. I would suggest rewriting this section.

Author response and actions: We agree and have removed most of the text after numbering and naming the themes.

Conclusion: Lin 41-43 suggest that the aim was to explore (1) the experience and management of hip pain, and (2) experience and adapting to treatment. Firstly, I still do not quite understand why authors are exploring: daily living & experiences of treatment. Do authors mean that the daily living is explored as a result of the treatment? Or in general? If it is in general, I think authors should make a clearer rational to why these questions are combined in 1 research question. Secondly, please ensure your background, objectives, results, conclusions align with the specific research aim. Line 43-45: The reviewer would suggest to remove this section, as this is not a conclusion that is closely aligned with your findings.

Author response and actions: We hope our introduction in the abstract does clarify our reasoning – we did take a holistic approach and wanted to include contextual experiences of daily life and how the women managed their condition as the starting point for understanding their experiences with the treatment program. We have chosen to keep the last sentence in the conclusion however we have reworded to align this more with our findings.

Introduction

Aim: Line 81-83- objective; do authors mean that they explore experiences, feelings or perceptions of the impact of hip pain due to GTPS on daily life?

Author response and actions: We hope that our previous explanations clarify that we reasoned that we would achieve more insightful and contextualised knowledge from the women by the approach chosen.

Authors should be clear in what it is they are assessing. Authors should be clearer in the aim that this study looked at women with GTPS that were included in a cohort study/ after receiving treatment as part of a larger study, and that this qual study mostly reflects on this cohort study.

Author response and actions:

We agree that we could clarify this further. In the introduction we write the following that we “need to better understand how they experience their daily life with GTPS, how participation in a multi-modal treatment program is experienced by the women, and how it may improve their situation regarding pain and functional level.”

We have clarified this by adding it to the aim as well: The aim of this study was to explore how women with greater trochanteric pain syndrome, participating in a multi-modal treatment program, experience and manage both their daily life and the combined treatment of education, ESWT and exercise.

Methods:

Line 120: could you include more information about the background of the qualitative researcher?

Author response and actions: We have revised the Methods section and added more information. We have added information about the qualitative researcher to the manuscript.

Line 121: was the topic guide developed a priori? What did it include (questions, prompts, both)?

Author response and actions: The topic guide was developed a priori. The interview guide included questions and prompts were used if necessary, to support or guide the participants. This is added to the manuscript.

Did recruitment, data collection and analysis proceed concurrently?

Author response and actions: Recruitment and data collection was finalized before the analysis was initiated. This is also added to the manuscript.

How did authors ensure data saturation?

Author response and actions: As described in the methods section we strived to ensure rich data descriptions but did not strive for data saturation. We further discuss this in the discussion section. We sincerely hope that our explanations and references clarify this approach, an approach that is accepted within thematic analysis as it is questioned whether it is possible to be sure and as a researcher guarantee that you have covered all aspects of a topic. We have made no further changes to the manuscript after we revised the methodological considerations in the discussion section after the first revision as recommended by reviewer 1.

Results:

The results section is very long and wordy (page 10-16). The reviewer suggests that authors rewrite the results section by integrating quotes in the theme explanations, to minimise repetition of findings.

Author response and actions: We have scrutinized the results section and revised and condensed to some degree, however we find that the validation of the findings is a very important part of the results section as we find that this gives a deeper insight in to the lives of the female participants in the study. Further reviewer 1 has not commented further on the results section after the first revision was submitted to PLOS ONE. We sincerely hope that this approach is accepted.

Conclusion:

Line 460-461: this study explored experiences, as such, it did not “understand the mechanisms possibly explaining their outcomes”.

Author response and actions: Thank you for this comment. We do explore the experiences and perspectives of the women, but we did also use this knowledge to try to understand mechanisms possibly explaining their outcomes. We do state “possibly” as we do not provide any evidence for causal explanations in this nested qualitative study. However, we have revised and removed the last part of the sentence.

Authors should be cautious in inferring that findings can be used as a framework for an individualized patient education, treatment and evaluation strategy. What is this based on?

Author response and actions: Thank you for this response. We agree that we should be a little more cautious than to suggest this knowledge as sufficient evidence to suggest it used as a framework. We have therefore revised the last sentence in the conclusion.

The conclusion should make clear that findings are in the context of the cohort study, and the specific treatment that the participants received.

Author response and actions: We fully agree and have cautiously done this throughout the manuscript. We have made it clear in the abstract, in the aim, in the methods- and discussion section and finally it is stated in the start of the conclusion.

________________________________________

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: Helen P French

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.

________________________________________

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_14062022 .docx

Decision Letter 2

Rosemary Frey

19 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-27762R2"I feel I have been taken seriously" Women’s experience of greater trochanteric pain syndrome treatment - a nested qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr.Andreasen, 

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 submit your revised manuscript by Nov 03 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rosemary Frey

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:

Please make the minor corrections and additions as suggested by Reviewer 3.

[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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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 #3: No

**********

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 #3: 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: I have no further comments- well done to the authors who have addressed previous comments sufficiently.

Reviewer #3: Comments to author

Thank you for this study which adds knowledge about the experiences of women with GTPS.

Abstract

Background: Line 27: in the sentence “Exploring women’s experience … should help understand … “ suggest changing the word should to may

Methods: Line 34: in the sentence “Transcripts were coded and analyse during an …” suggest changing the word during to using

Introduction

Line 50 spell out GTPS in full when at beginning of sentence

Line 60: change the wording of “therefore been disproven” to softer response along the lines of “this may not be the case” recent evidence seems to support this is not the case etc.

Lines 70-74: I can see why you are introducing therapeutic alliance but feel this section needs a little more justification to include here and why it is of interest in your study.

Methods

Line 88: is the protocol for the cohort study published? If so, could reference here.

Line 42: you have chosen social constructive approach. Perhaps more information needed her as to why this was the most appropriate choice rather than others used in qualitative health studies such as qualitative content approach or phenomenological approach.

Lines 170-173: The 5 themes listed. I suggest you consider re-naming themes 3 and 5 as the way they currently are is just a summary of the findings rather than alluding to the direction of the theme. Suggest re-naming 3 and 5 so they better reflect the findings contained within these themes. Eg. theme 3, information helps/reassures/motivates is the general feeling I am getting; theme 5, women want more is the general message I am reading?

Discussion

Line 408: How? Provide some suggestions for the reader for how exercise may be addressed more carefully or some relevant strategies/directions they could take away

Limitations

The sample has experienced symptoms of varying duration ( 6 months – 10 years) and varying pain (3-8 rating) – I would assume this also has impacts upon the findings and may deserve a mention.

Also, a comment in the discussion about whether your theoretical approach was useful or had any limitations may be beneficial?

**********

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: Helen P French

Reviewer #3: 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. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0278197. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278197.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


24 Sep 2022

September 2022

Response letter,

Thank you very much for the constructive comments from the reviewers and for the opportunity to revise and improve the manuscript. As recommended, we have responded to each point raised by the reviewers before uploading a 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes' as well as a manuscript without track changes labeled 'Manuscript'.

We have addressed each point raised by the reviewers separately with the following structure:

1. Reviewer comment

2. Author response and actions

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: I have no further comments- well done to the authors who have addressed previous comments sufficiently.

Response: Thank you very much.

Reviewer #3: Comments to author

Thank you for this study which adds knowledge about the experiences of women with GTPS.

Response: Thank you very much.

Abstract

Background: Line 27: in the sentence “Exploring women’s experience … should help understand … “ suggest changing the word should to may

Response: We have revised to the suggested change

Methods: Line 34: in the sentence “Transcripts were coded and analyse during an …” suggest changing the word during to using

Response: We have revised as suggested

Introduction

Line 50 spell out GTPS in full when at beginning of sentence

Response: Revised

Line 60: change the wording of “therefore been disproven” to softer response along the lines of “this may not be the case” recent evidence seems to support this is not the case etc.

Response: We have revised as suggested to a softer response

Lines 70-74: I can see why you are introducing therapeutic alliance but feel this section needs a little more justification to include here and why it is of interest in your study.

Response: We have added further justification for the focus on therapeutic alliance.

Changes to text: This is important to successfully addressing GTPS, given that all successful interventions have included elements of education and exercise that require active participation, learning and behavior change. Therefore, aspects of therapeutic alliance as a contributor to the experiences of effect and confidence in managing GTPS are important to explore further.

Methods

Line 88: is the protocol for the cohort study published? If so, could reference here.

Response: We agree, but the protocol has not been published. The findings of the cohort study are being processed for publication at the moment.

Line 42: you have chosen social constructive approach. Perhaps more information needed her as to why this was the most appropriate choice rather than others used in qualitative health studies such as qualitative content approach or phenomenological approach.

Response: We have added information on why we find this approach beneficial.

Changes to text:

The theoretical approach was social constructivism to explore insights regarding how people interact with their social world, and focused on the participants’ experiences in their particular contexts (33,35). This focus can therefore help us to explore how the women themselves construct their knowledge, understanding and management of the GTPS condition in their everyday life.

Lines 170-173: The 5 themes listed. I suggest you consider re-naming themes 3 and 5 as the way they currently are is just a summary of the findings rather than alluding to the direction of the theme. Suggest re-naming 3 and 5 so they better reflect the findings contained within these themes. Eg. theme 3, information helps/reassures/motivates is the general feeling I am getting; theme 5, women want more is the general message I am reading?

Response: We have re-named theme 3 and 5 as suggested by the reviewer as we have pointed more to the direction of the theme.

Theme 3: The participants´ experiences of the intervention – information is key

Theme 5: The women´s perspectives on improving and expanding the intervention

Discussion

Line 408: How? Provide some suggestions for the reader for how exercise may be addressed more carefully or some relevant strategies/directions they could take away

Response: We have added suggestions

Changes to text:

The issues related to non-adherence and low compliance is well-known in general (43) and in physiotherapy as well regarding non-supervised exercises (44,45) and should be addressed carefully, i.e by a thorough dialogue with the women regarding the type and intensity of pain being acceptable during exercise as well as carefully selecting which and how many exercises to provide to each woman.

Limitations

The sample has experienced symptoms of varying duration ( 6 months – 10 years) and varying pain (3-8 rating) – I would assume this also has impacts upon the findings and may deserve a mention.

Response: Thank you for this comment, we agree, this deserves a mention. We have added this.

Changes to text:

Finally, it should be noticed that the women have experienced symptoms of varying duration and varying pain.

Also, a comment in the discussion about whether your theoretical approach was useful or had any limitations may be beneficial?

Response: We agree and have added this to the section:

Changes to text:

We find the theoretical approach in this study useful as the analysis of the data using this approach helped us to explore and emphasize that the women individually constructed their understanding and management of the GTPS condition in their given contexts.

On behalf of the author group,

Jane Andreasen

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_24.09.2022.docx

Decision Letter 3

Rosemary Frey

31 Oct 2022

PONE-D-21-27762R3"I feel I have been taken seriously" Women’s experience of greater trochanteric pain syndrome treatment - a nested qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Andreasen,

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 submit your revision by Dec 15 2022 11:59PM. 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,

Rosemary Frey

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:

Please update the theme titles as per the request of reviewer 3.

[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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Thank you for addressing comments.

Please update the new theme titles for consistency throughout the paper - in abstract results section and in paper lines 175-178 where the themes are listed.

**********

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: Helen French

Reviewer #3: 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. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0278197. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278197.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


1 Nov 2022

Dear editor Rosemary Frey and reviewers,

Thank you very much for letting me revise again. I want to apologize for the not fully revised manuscript that I forwarded to you.

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Thank you for addressing comments.

Please update the new theme titles for consistency throughout the paper - in abstract results section and in paper lines 175-178 where the themes are listed.

Response: I apologize once again for the inconvenience and I have revised as suggested, both in the abstract and in the manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jane Andreasen

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response letter_01112022.docx

Decision Letter 4

Rosemary Frey

14 Nov 2022

"I feel I have been taken seriously" Women’s experience of greater trochanteric pain syndrome treatment - a nested qualitative study

PONE-D-21-27762R4

Dear Dr Andreasen, 

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,

Rosemary Frey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: No

**********

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 #3: 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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Rosemary Frey

17 Nov 2022

PONE-D-21-27762R4

“I feel I have been taken seriously” Women’s experience of greater trochanteric pain syndrome treatment - a nested qualitative study

Dear Dr. Andreasen:

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. Rosemary Frey

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. Home-exercises provided for the participants.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_14062022 .docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_24.09.2022.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter_01112022.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Due to the Danish interpretations of the European GDPR legislation, it is unfortunately not possible to make the interview data public available. However the data are available from Head of Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aalborg University Hospital, H.B. Pedersen (mail hpe@rn.dk) on reasonable request.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES