Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

Improving the mental health of women intimate partner violence survivors: findings from a realist review of psychosocial interventions

PONE-D-21-29127

Dear Dr. Paphitis,

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,

Michelle L. Munro-Kramer, PhD, CNM, FNP-BC

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Excellent work. It is a pleasure to accept this important piece.

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: Yes

**********

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: 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 for the opportunity to review such important work. The authors have conducted an exceptional review of elements of effective interventions for survivors of intimate partner violence. The manuscripts consolidates much of what we know to be useful to survivors and will be a great resource for practitioners and those who offer services to survivors.

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript entitled Improving the mental health of women intimate partner violence survivors: findings from a realist review of psychosocial interventions. Using a realist perspective to conduct a “review of reviews” examining the theories and mechanisms of IPV interventions to improve mental health resulted in a potentially very useful manuscript. Systematically providing both a conceptual model of mechanisms and components and a snapshot of how existing programs fit within that model provides a helpful tool for researchers in understanding the state of the science. This allows the authors to highlight important gaps, such as the ways that highly vulnerable women may lack access to such interventions. I am concerned, however, that the authors overreach in describing these mechanisms. This analysis provides no evidence for the actual effectiveness/efficacy of the various mental health outcomes nor can the authors prove that the described mechanisms are the cause of the outcomes. It would be useful for the authors to acknowledge this limitation and to soften their language in this area.

**********

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