PMEN-D-24-00104

Social validity of acceptance-based workplace mental health training for use in a low resource setting. A qualitative study with Ugandan mental health providers

PLOS Mental Health

Dear Dr. Musanje,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Mental Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Mental Health’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 Jun 16 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 mentalhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmen/ 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'.

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,

Nancy Clark, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Mental Health

Journal 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 Mental Health’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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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: Yes

**********

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

PLOS Mental Health 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

**********

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 for submitting your work to Pmen Jr.

The data was analyzed by the writers using a deductive thematic analysis approach. Nevertheless, no particular literature or theory is offered in the method section to clarify the meaning of a deductive thematic approach or the reasons it might be preferred to other approaches. This lack of backing calls into question the rationale and preferences for this kind of approach.

A deductive thematic analysis is a methodical and structured procedure that entails finding and classifying themes or patterns in the data. The data must then be fully explained to readers with references to pertinent literature. The analysis process is guided by an established body of information or predetermined theoretical framework at the outset. For instance, figures, tables, and charts

As I mentioned before, the approach description is included in the theme analysis together with the literature review, but this is not enough support. Before producing an extensive literature review with citations from the most recent to the earlier studies, authors must first distinguish the introduction from the literature review.

Authors must first distinguish the introduction from the literature review in order to improve the support offered by these two techniques. The introduction gives a broad background for the research as well as a succinct summary of the subject. It does not, however, particularly address the goals or research questions that will direct the literature review. Writing the introduction and literature review separately allows authors to make sure each piece does what it is supposed to do.

Writers can concentrate on producing an in-depth literature evaluation after separating the introduction from the review. A comprehensive literature review entails a detailed analysis of the body of existing research on the subject of interest. To give a thorough grasp of the study field, it entails finding pertinent studies, evaluating their major conclusions, and synthesizing this data.

Authors should cite a variety of sources, both historical and contemporary, to guarantee a comprehensive literature assessment. Authors can provide the groundwork for future study and expand on what is already known in the field by utilizing citations from earlier studies. On the other hand, authors can remain current with the most recent advancements and theories in the field by incorporating citations from recent research. Writing from both historical and modern viewpoints allows authors to present a complete picture of the research issue.

Authors should also assess the literature they include in the review critically. This entails evaluating the research's quality, taking into account its methodology, and determining the accuracy and dependability of the data it offers. Authors can make sure that the review offers trustworthy support for the research being done by thoroughly analyzing the literature.

**********

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

**********

[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.

PMEN-D-24-00104R1

Social validity of acceptance-based workplace mental health training for use in a low resource setting. A qualitative study with Ugandan mental health providers

PLOS Mental Health

Dear Dr. Khamisi Musanje

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Mental Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Mental Health’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.

==============================

Thank you for addressing the revisions from reviewer one. There are still minor revisions to be made. Please address the secion on line 45 re deductive analysis. It is not clear how the analysis was deductive, why not inductive given the qualitative participatory nature of the interviews with the workers?

Please clarify line 205 where you discuss "lense of a framework" do you mean social validity framework as in line 516?

thank you for your attention to these details,

Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS Mental Health’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

==============================

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

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,

Nancy Clark, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Mental Health

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:

[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.

Social validity of acceptance-based workplace mental health training for use in a low resource setting. A qualitative study with Ugandan mental health providers

PMEN-D-24-00104R2

Dear Assistant Lecturer Musanje,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Social validity of acceptance-based workplace mental health training for use in a low resource setting. A qualitative study with Ugandan mental health providers' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Mental Health.

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

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 mentalhealth@plos.org.

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

Best regards,

Nancy Clark, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Mental Health

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

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):