PCSY-D-24-00019

Determinants and Facilitators of Community Coalition Diffusion of Prevention Efforts

PLOS Complex Systems

Dear Dr. Moore,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Complex Systems. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Complex Systems'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 within 60 days May 18 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at complexsystems@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcsy/ 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 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pietro Hiram Guzzi

Section Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Journal Requirements:

1. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format. and remove the embedded figures from the manuscript file.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/complexsystems/s/figures

https://journals.plos.org/complexsystems/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Complex Systems’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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

--------------------

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

PLOS Complex Systems 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

--------------------

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: Of course, it is of great significance to truly understand how individual characteristics and network features within community coalitions influence the diffusion of knowledge and engagement in childhood obesity prevention. Relevant researchs on this issue can facilitate the advancement of related work.

The authors used questionnaires to collect data and employed cross-tabulation analysis and other technical methods to derive some results. However, the level of innovation is not particularly notable. Furthermore, the conclusions drawn are not particularly striking. It is highly recommended that the paper makes more effective use of graphics to convey the findings, rather than relying solely on verbose tables and vague text explanations.

Considering the inconsistency between the availability of the data analyzed in this article and the journal’s requirements, I recommend that the authors revise the paper and resubmit it.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting and complex study that I imagine was challenging to conceptualise and communicate. I believe further refinement could make the paper somewhat easier to follow. I suggest overall that the authors try to cut down on their introductory material and get to their methods slightly faster, as the study becomes much easier to follow at this stage. Detailed comments below.

Abstract

Author summary

Introduction

l.63-69 Claims in this paragraph could be evidence with references

l.63 Community prevention could be defined in the text

l. 64 Worth spelling out evidence-based practices here, for readers who may not have read the author summary

l.73-75 “Researchers also speculate that characteristics such as lack of time (6), autonomy (6), and capacity (7), are involved in adoption, but they are rarely built into the research process (7)” – Could this sentence be rephrased to improve clarity? Do a lack of time, autonomy and capacity present barriers to the adoption of EBPs? By ‘rarely built into the research process’, do the authors mean that the role of the dimensions has not been evaluated?

L.80-81 “For instance, research indicates that the composition of a coalition network influences its effectiveness in collaboration.” – Could the authors provide a reference or references for this claim in the text? Could they also provide some examples of what these findings are: what types of composition support effective collaboration? Is it having coalition members from specific sectors, or from different or similar sectors?

L.88-89 Could the authors link to publications or a website where interested readers could learn more about the intervention or wider project?

L.89-90 “While other studies have examined broad factors (e.g., member participation, group cohesion) linked to coalition effectiveness” – Please reference these other studies

Table 1 is somewhat confusing as it seems to include both node-level characteristics and network-level characteristics. Could these be differentiated, perhaps with sections within the table?

L.145-201: Knowledge, engagement and organizational readiness: This section includes relevant content but is challenging to follow. I suggest reorganising to bring Figure 1 earlier and provide an overarching introduction to the intervention and its hypothesised mechanism, stating the three constructs which are the focus of the study: knowledge, engagement and organizational readiness. Each concept could then be described in turn, very briefly. This part of the manuscript could be shortened to leave the detail of the constructs and measures to the methods. At the moment, the level of detail raises questions and confusion that are in fact addressed in the methods.

Figure 1: I think this figure is really fantastic to help the reader understand the logic of the intervention and where this study fits within the wider project. Two queries: (1) The figure visually implies that community context is a precursor to the intervention activities – is this what is intended? Wouldn’t it also impact most of the other elements of the framework, particularly health outcomes? (2) As I understand it, the ‘convene’ box is used to indicate the intervention activities, but the legend doesn’t make this very clear in greyscale. Could it be changed, perhaps to a dotted line around this box, to make it clearer what the legend refers to?

The current study

l.205-207 – “Working with each community separately, a “coalition-committee” was formed by drawing members from existing organizations, various sectors, and often larger coalitions.” – Was there one coalition committee for the project as a whole, or one per community? Please clarify in the text.

l.208-211 – I wonder what this information around network data collection is doing in this part of the text. Isn’t this starting to describe the data collection process, and could therefore be moved to that part of the manuscript?

Table 2: Worth spelling out ‘CCs’ in full

I find the links between the hypotheses and research support in Table 2 hard to follow. RQ1: The ‘research support’ indicates the differences in demographics of individuals typically involved in community coalitions relative to the community they serve. However, why does that mean that having more individuals with these characteristics will make the CC operate more effectively? Similarly, the link between the research support and hypothesis for RQ3 is hard to follow. The research support is also not consistently referenced, as well as using different styles. The authors should consider removing these columns, and just focusing on the research questions and the methods by which they will be answered.

I also find the use of the word ‘audience’ confusing in Table 2 as it suggests the audience for the findings – is this correct? If so, this might be more appropriately introduced as part of the rationale for the work, or in the discussion of its implications. Or is participants/sample meant?

Methods

l.222-223 – The manuscript indicates data was collected over seven years, but the time period (2018-2022) is only five years. Please correct. Also, why and how were these six communities chosen out of the nine communities where the intervention was implemented?

l.224-227 – Please reverse the description of Table 3 so that it follows how that table presents the information – the community first, followed by the committee – or reverse the contents of the table.

Table 3 – Is the race and ethnicity information for the community? If so, could the table be rearranged so that this is clearer, rather than making it seem standalone while the other demographic characteristics are integrated?

l.299 – Thematic analysis often indicates a type of qualitative analysis, which to my understanding was not used here? Could these word be changed to avoid confusion?

l.300 – What are matched respondents? Respondents who are not missing any of the node-level data? Please clarify in the manuscript.

l.302 – What is meant by ‘each analysis’ here? Each indicator? Or the analyses described in the subsequent text?

l.304 – The word ‘theme’ here again suggests qualitative analysis, but no qualitative data were collected. Is the analysis approach used here more akin to pattern identification? Perhaps this could be reworded to avoid confusion.

l.305-306 “that vary based on the level of nesting” – I’m not sure what this means here. Does it mean that characteristics that are important for knowledge, engagement, etc. may vary between be different at the level of members vs committees vs committee networks? Please rephrase in the manuscript to clarify.

l.302-344 – The way the manuscript weaves back and forth between the three steps used to develop the profiles is a bit confusing. Suggestion to align the data analysis section with the results, and present one by one (each with a sub-heading) the analyses done on the members, committees, and committee networks.

l.323-331 – Could this information about the different triads and tetrads be presented in a table? Perhaps with an illustrative figure for each of the types examined, a description, and an explanation of what sort of network properties each configuration tends to indicate.

Results

l.349-351 – The word pattern seems to have replaced the word theme here, which I think makes more sense. Terminology should be used consistently throughout.

Discussion

l.507-509 – I’m not sure what this sentence means, and don’t believe this idea, particularly the idea of global hierarchy, has been introduced prior to the conclusion. If it is a key conclusion, it could be unpacked and clarified in the discussion and clearly justified with reference to the results.

--------------------

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Chloe Clifford Astbury

--------------------

[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.

PCSY-D-24-00019R1

Determinants and Facilitators of Community Coalition Diffusion of Prevention Efforts

PLOS Complex Systems

Dear Dr. Moore,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Complex Systems. The Editors and reviewers are satisfied with the revisions that have been made, but we would like to request a few minor changes prior to acceptance. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the following points:

- Regarding the questionnaire used in the study, please clarify in a response to reviewers file whether the questionnaire was developed from a previously developed questionnaire.

- In the Methods section of your manuscript, please include the full name of the IRB that approved the study.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 10 days . If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at complexsystems@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcsy/ 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 editor. 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hocine Cherifi

Section Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

--------------------

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Complex Systems's publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

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

PLOS Complex Systems 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: Although I feel that the innovation in this article is not very striking, the entire article still has meaning and value. Additionally, I think the author has responded to my questions seriously, so I have no further comments. The article has added some figures, but they are not clear even blurred; I hope to submit clearer images.

Reviewer #2: The authors’ changes to the introduction and methods have made the study much easier to follow and I think the revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript. I have no further comments.

--------------------

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Chloe Clifford Astbury

--------------------

[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.

Determinants and Facilitators of Community Coalition Diffusion of Prevention Efforts

PCSY-D-24-00019R2

Dear Dr. Moore,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Determinants and Facilitators of Community Coalition Diffusion of Prevention Efforts' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Complex Systems.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 complexsystems@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Complex Systems.

Best regards,

Hocine Cherifi

Section Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):