Table 2 Data extraction sheet used to extract free text comments from the reviewer’s report

Adding information/detail/nuances

Indicate the number of people who refused to participate in the interviews.

Clarification needed

Not clear if the word “prescriber” refers to GP or pharmacist or health professionals.

Justification required

Justification for why this study is needed.

Further explanation required

The mixed inductive/deductive analysis of data needs further explanation.

Erroneous/inaccurate information

Introduction: UNAIDS isn’t a funding agency

Backing up claims

Evidence that phenomenology was used is missing (except the author’s statement that they did so)

Discrepancy (e.g. between information presented in text and table)

The text describing what the participants spent the money doesn’t jive with Table 2 (e.g. entertainment, dances, supporting parents is in the text but not reflected in the table).

Inconsistency

The research questions at the introduction are different from those at the Methods section

Provision of example(s)

Provide examples to support theme “Evidence”

Confirmation/approval (from reviewer)

The study uses mixed qualitative research methods which, in my opinion, are appropriate.

Inappropriate terminology

Throughout the manuscript the term “elderly” is used, which is inappropriate as some older adults may find this term derogatory.

Internationalisation

Clarify local context to make it understandable for an international readership.

Suggestion for literature

Concrete suggestions for further literature were provided by the reviewer.

Description of table

Table 1 gives a good description of your results, but I would suggest providing a short description of the table in the text with reference to this.

Observation/participant observation

Put here any reviewer comments pertaining to direct or indirect (participant) observation as a data collection technique.

Miscellaneous

Put here any reviewer comments that do not fit anywhere else!

Absence of important background information

I would expect to see an overview of different models of care that use a team-based approach and references to the models that are mostly used in Europe.

Linking studies (‘Introduction’ section)

Make clear link between larger “main” study and current paper (i.e. participants are from a sub-group of a larger study).

Putting information into context (‘Introduction’ section)

The readers need to be aware of the Dutch context, the structure and organisation of the health and welfare system serving the elderly in the Netherlands.

Unclear research question

This research question is unclear. Please rephrase.

Suggestion of what to call the method/methodology

NOT phenomenology BUT descriptive qualitative analysis

Use of methodology-specific terminology

Use of the term “lived experience” in phenomenology.

Lack of theoretical underpinning

Complete absence of any theoretical framework that underpins the study.

Alignment to theory/framework

Bandura’s self-efficacy is mentioned as a term but there is no alignment of the theory with the findings or the discussion section.

Training of researcher(s)

Describe what training has been provided to researchers conducting the interviews

Recruitment of participants

It is not clear exactly how the potential participants were identified and the method of recruitment, i.e., face-to-face, email.

Setting

Setting - it is not clear if the participants are each from a distinct nursing home or not. Perhaps this could be included in Tables 1 and 2, e.g. were all four older people from the same home or each from a different home?

Sampling

The authors need to set clear criteria for their purposeful sampling

Composition of sample

There might be differences between medical and non-medical approaches to advance care planning.

Issues of bias

Coding of transcripts by one researcher might introduce researcher bias

Interview guide (development, pre-test, etc.)

You state that the interview guide was pre-tested on two RNs and one older person. Were data collected from these three individuals included in your final data set? Please include a statement about this in the manuscript.

Data saturation

Saturation of themes/data

Ethical considerations (e.g. ethical approval, etc.)

You need to include something about ethical considerations in the Method section.

Reflexivity/Reflection

Analyst relation to the data, especially relevant to a phenomenological approach (e.g. reflect on the impact of your own biases).

Quality criteria

Issues of trustworthiness/member checking/respondent validation (e.g. participants to check if themes are correct).

Counting in qualitative research

use of relative terms such as “many”, “some”, “few” or “a handful”; attitude that qualitative research does not require counts

Data forcing

Forcing your data to fit themes

Themes/sub-themes are not (sufficiently) supported by data

It seems odd that this theme has no data supporting it from the comments made by older people.

Robust/rich data analysis

Consider “deviant” or “appositional” viewpoints to get a richer analysis (e.g. reporting of “outliers”.

Results are quote heavy

Be more selective about use of examples, i.e., do not provide an example to every theme/sub-theme.

Quotes are inappropriate (e.g. too generic)

The Results contains quite a bit of generic quotes such as “I think the majority of the time doctors don’t [provide enough education] and we’ll do it for them”, which could be applied to most conditions where pharmacists are being asked to play a more important role.

Opposed results

Did you find something in the older people and nurses’ perspectives to be against each other?

Development of a (new) model or framework (‘Results’ section)

The analysis and conceptual development leads to a model of otherness, watchfulness and agency. It would be useful to know more about the process of selecting these three aspects as core. Was consideration given to additional/alternative aspects, and why were these rejected for example.

Relate findings to (wider) literature

Place discussion better within the context of existing research.

Putting information into context (‘Discussion’ section’)

The readers need to be aware of the Dutch context, the structure and organisation of the health and welfare system serving the elderly in the Netherlands.

Highlighting differences in perspectives

That would be fine to highlight differences in perspectives (i.e. older people and nurses’ perspectives) and discuss about them in the discussion.

Development of a (new) model or framework (‘Discussion’ section)

The analysis and conceptual development leads to a model of otherness, watchfulness and agency. It would be useful to know more about the process of selecting these three aspects as core. Was consideration given to additional/alternative aspects, and why were these rejected for example.

Transferability of findings

“Generalisability” of the data if sample included only four participants

Implications for research/practice/ theory/teaching/etc.

Provide implications for clinical nursing.

Recommendations for research/practice/theory/teaching/etc.

Add suggestions for further studies/research.

Add strengths/limitations (of the study)

Some of the quotes suggest to me the presence of social desirability bias, especially around the school attendance and the school - conditioned cash given that they all started out in school and especially since they turned out to be more likely to miss school!. No way to account for this but should be discussed in more detail in the limitations.

Conclusions do not reflect discussion section

Conclusions: This section could be edited to further reflect the comments made above related to the discussion section.

Outdated references

Use of outdated references, thus employ more recent evidence.

`Too few/too many references

I would argue that the citation list is over-labored.

Language editing/proof reading

The manuscript would benefit from English language editing.

Spelling/typos/omissions

Words running into each other. Incomplete references.

Re-wording

Consider re-wording the title.

Re-placing words

For example in line 242 and 243 and I quote “Pharmacists viewed their main role to be providing advice and education to people with gout. Pharmacists demonstrated a good understanding of gout and how it is managed, which could facilitate their greater involvement in the management of people living with gout”. The second pharmacist could be replaced by “They”, considering that the first sentence introduces it.

Readability

Moving content from one place to another to enhance readability (e.g. removing the reference to Table 1 from the Methods and placing it at the beginning of the Results section).

Concise writing

Clear statement of findings/implications.

Structure

I suggest moving the first sentence about the sociological perception of cancer after an objective quantification of the cancer burden and of PCA burden.

Follow journal’s reference style and/or instructions for authors

The paper needs to follow the reference style of the journal as well as the instruction of the authors.

Personalised terms (i.e. subjective/objective style of writing)

There is too much use of personalized terms in the text such as ‘we’ and/or ‘our’.

Mode of representation

Rather than putting it in writing, the information would be better represented as a flow chart.

Lengths of manuscript (i.e. either too long or too short)

Some of the discussion/conclusions becomes a bit verbose/repetitive. Is it possible to cut that down at all without losing the empirical grounding and relevant context?

(Re-)submission of manuscript

Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format. Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.