PONE-D-20-05698

How to support a co-creative research approach in order to generate more impact. The development of a Co-creation Impact Compass for healthcare researchers

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. van Dijk-de Vries,

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 Jul 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paola Iannello

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 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.

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. 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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The main purpose of this study is to highlight how the co-creation process can be a functional method for health researchers by helping them involving all the stakeholders and improving the impact of their researches.

The paper is properly placed in the context of the previous literature by highlighting the potential of co-creation techniques but the lack of a reference framework for health care surveys. The study therefore aims to describe the process of creating a "compass" of co-creation tools and techniques that can be used by researchers in this field in an effective way (which tools/in which moment). However, in the “introduction” I recommend removing the word "demonstrates" from line 82 because this term refers to demonstrating the effectiveness of this tool, which is not the goal of this research, that is to DESCRIBE the creation of this tool.

Moreover, I think that the structure of some parts (especially of methods and results) should be modified in order to ensure consistency and linearity in the reading of the paper . I will resume all the proposed changes here:

1. I would move the "Setting" part to the beginning of the methods for introducing the framework in which the study fits, and specify which of the categories this study falls into.

2. I would remove the sub-paragraph "development process" and integrate it with the design. Too many sub-paragraphs continuously interrupt the reading. In this way, the design part is also linked to subsequent explanations of the various stages of the process.

3. In my opinion some information from the “results” section must be moved to the methods section (e.g. line 179 – 186; 286-290; 324-328 including the box describing the two cases) these are all details referring to the methodology and not to the results of the study), these would help the authors to better clarifies the methodology which is currently not very precise and, on the other hand, it streamlines the results.

4. I find the explanation of BMC unclear, which should be the central point of the paper. For example, what are the nine blocks? What do the nine blocks represent? How are they implemented in the compass?

5. Line 320: personally, I would find a way to put the symbol legend inside the image. Putting the legend inside the article breaks the reading. Rather, in the text, I would put a brief explanation of what you mean by each category.

6. Discussion: look above for the use of the word “demonstrates”

7. As concern line 45-456 since it explains what has been done in this study, I would move them before explaining the advantages (before line 438).

8. I suggest to add a “future direction” section and to merge here what you think are the future implications thanks to the use of this tool

9. In the conclusion section I suggest to highlight better what you mean with “impact”

Reviewer #2: Authors addressed a key topic in interdisciplinary applied research: engagement of all stakeholders and researchers in a specific field, that is, healthcare.

At the beginning of Authors' work, they stated that the aim is to present a "compass" to facilitate such engagement. However, it is not clear what this "compass" is: a tool; a method; a process of intervention? This is the first main weakness of this work: the goal and the nature of their work is not stated clearly.

This obfuscation affects all the other parts of this manuscript:

(i) A clear overview of existing methods and tools previously used to pursue an engagement in applied research is not presented.

(ii) Thus, the added value of Authors' proposal does not emerge. At the same time, the weakesnesses of previous approaches are not reported.

(iii) This, in turn, affects the clarity of Authors' rational. Authors presented a synthetic overview of the "compass" in figure 1. Having a quick look at this image reveals that their proposal consists in: a. analysis of need; b. generation of requirements; c. alpha prototype; d. beta-prototype. This look as a normally-used approach of participatory design where all stakeholders are involved in generation and evaluation of ideas of prototypes. What does Author's idea adds to existing approaches?

For instance, Authors relied on a business model as a theoretical framework. Fine...but why? how? Is it something replicable (I ask this because this choice stems from Authors' analysis of results and is not due to their analysis of existing solutions). Authors stated that they involved different researchers in different evaluation phases. This is fine, but why? Is it just a data-driven approach? To what extent can it be replicable and generalizable and useful compared to previous approaches?

Authors' title is "How to support a co-creative research approach in order to generate more impact". However, impact is not assessed because the real object of their research is not clearly stated.

I recommend Authors to work on their rational and avoid implicit discourse on the underpinnings of their approach. Otherwise, this would look just a mere post-hoc ad hoc analysis of their participatory design approach implementation in the healthcare field, without being a clear and useful information for other researchers or practitioners.

**********

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: No

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.

PONE-D-20-05698R1

How to support a co-creative research approach in order to foster impact. The development of a Co-creation Impact Compass for healthcare researchers

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. van Dijk-de Vries

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration of the revised version, we feel that it does meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria. However, One of the Reviewer raised some minor issues.  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 30th September. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paola Iannello

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: I appreciated all the shape changes made and in my opinion the paper is more linear and tidier in its structure. However, I still have two main concerns:

1) I would modify the abstract (27-33) by stating firstly how the instrument was created (i.e. by combining the business model with tools from design thinking) and only after pointing on the possibility that this tool (compassion) MIGHT help researchers to select valid co-creation tools which can help them to engage stakeholders, etc.

2) Linked to the first comments, given the importance that the tool might have for researchers, I wonder if it would not be appropriate to move the “supplementary material 2” directly into the article so that it can be directly explored (perhaps creating a single table) perhaps by briefly going into the description of the tools (which are a bit poor). If it were a problem with the number of images/tables I would recommend removing image 2 (maybe you can refer back to the original article since the model is now briefly explained in the text).

Reviewer #2: I appreciated Authors clarity and rigor in addressing all my concerns. Now, I feel the manuscript can be accepted.

**********

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: No

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.

How to support a co-creative research approach in order to foster impact. The development of a Co-creation Impact Compass for healthcare researchers

PONE-D-20-05698R2

Dear Dr. Anneke van Dijk-de Vries, 

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,

Paola Iannello

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: