Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 13, 2021
Decision Letter - Saeed Ahmed, Editor

PONE-D-21-32823Characteristics of alcohol recovery narratives: systematic review and narrative synthesisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Subhani

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 May 06 2022 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Saeed Ahmed, MD

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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

The review was funded by National Institute for Health Research as part of feasibility randomised control trial titles “Does knowledge of liver fibrosis affect high risk drinking behaviour (KLIFAD)? A feasibility randomised controlled trial”. Funding award ID: NIHR201146. JRM and HK receive salary support from a Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist Fellowship [grant number MR/P008348/1]

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

NO authors have competing interests

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

Reviewers' comments:

**********

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: This review is informative and helps the reader gain an easy understanding about the process of alcohol recovery, as well as the importance of incorporating narratives.

It may be helpful if the authors can add more details about the quality analysis of the studies reviewed. While the use if critical appraisal skills program has been mentioned, for the reader who may not be aware of this tool, a few additional details will help give a clearer picture as to how the quality of the study was assessed.

Reviewer #2: This systematic review is an excellent and balanced overview that includes 32 studies (29 qualitative, 3 mixed-methods, 1055 sample size from Europe and United states, includes multiple databases, spanning 30 years (male predominant, 41 % from AA recovery group), gives an interesting perspective of role of recovery narratives in alcohol recovery. It aims to produce a conceptual framework with multiple dimensions describing the characteristics of alcohol misuse recovery narratives from the available literature. It focuses mostly on Alcoholic Anonymous(AA) or other unstructured formal treatment for alcohol use recovery. It has a good subgroup analysis of all dimensions. Major limitation is, its missing people in lower income countries, as no research literature available in those areas, lacks information who have recovered outside of main services or those who have used services other than AA, and lacks data on females population and ethnic diversity especially in non Caucasian. It does include indigenous population and LGBTQ. Furthermore, this framework will help to identify gaps in knowledge, summarize range of methods, enables developing future research.

They have registered in Prospero, followed Prisma guidelines, is part of NIH grant, did CASP for ROB assessment, Has good Inclusion, exclusion criteria, and approach towards outcomes.

However, I have a suggestions that could be added to the article.

In my opinion, Tabulating all of these dimension definitions in a excel sheet with listing the articles or adding this information to the attached excel sheet would Make it more easy to follow. It will help to improve the flow and readability of the text. If a further subgroup analysis could be added separately to include information on concomitant substance use disorders(drug use) and/or mental health issues, then it would give a good perspective in terms forming a better framework. I recommend the article be published.

Reviewer #4: Nicely written article which identifies a conceptual framework including various aspects of chronic alcohol abuse and dependence, the narrative summarize the characteristics well, more than 1000 patient included and psychosocial aspects were explored which adds value

Reviewer #6: This paper aims to produce a conceptual framework describing the characteristics of alcohol misuse recovery narratives that are in the research literature, to inform the development of research, policy, and practice. The systematic review and data synthesis were well organized and all the elements needed for this type of quantitative research appear to be in place. Much of the tabular information is well summarized in the appendices.

The review may have provided characteristics of alcohol recovery narratives, with implications for both research and healthcare practice. It demonstrated knowledge gaps in relation to alcohol recovery narratives of people living in lower income countries, or those who recovered outside

of mainstream services.

Although the information is descriptive and quantitative, the risk of bias from each study should have been represented in tabular form. This is lacking in Table 1 of the supplemental material. Some comments concerning possible sources of heterogeneity and publication bias should have been addressed, especially with the geographical distribution of the data.

**********

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.

[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.

Revision 1

Dr Saeed Ahmed, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Date: 25/03/2022

Dear Dr Ahmed,

I am writing to address the suggested revisions to our submitted manuscript titled, "Characteristics of alcohol recovery narratives: systematic review and narrative synthesis". Thank you to reviewers for taking the time to provide a comprehensive review.

We have attempted to address editor’s and each of the reviewer's comments, as listed below:

Editor:

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

Thank you very much for your comment. We have now revised the manuscript style and file names as per PLOS ONE guide to make it compliant with PLOS ONE's style requirements.

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Thank you very much for your comment. Apologies for an oversight we have now updated the grant information and have provided with the correct details.

“The review was funded by National Institute for Health Research as part of feasibility randomised control trial under scheme Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB). Funding award ID: NIHR201146. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

The review was funded by National Institute for Health Research as part of feasibility randomised control trial titles “Does knowledge of liver fibrosis affect high risk drinking behaviour (KLIFAD)? A feasibility randomised controlled trial”. Funding award ID: NIHR201146. JRM and HK receive salary support from a Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist Fellowship [grant number MR/P008348/1]

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Thank you very much for your comment. We have now removed funding information from acknowledgment section and from manuscript.

Please add following statement in funding section of online submission form.

“The review was funded by National Institute for Health Research as part of feasibility randomised control trial under scheme Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB). Funding award ID: NIHR201146. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please add following statement in acknowledgement section of online submission form.

“Alison Ashmore, senior research librarian (Nottingham University Libraries) contributed to finalising the search strategy.”

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

NO authors have competing interests

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Thank you very much for your comment. We will be grateful for updating the online submission form on our behalf. Please add following statement

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Thank you very much for your comment. Thanks for highlighting the issue. We have now removed these figures from supplementary material.

6. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

Thank you very much for your comment. We have now provided the tables as part of main manuscript and have uploaded supplementary material as separate files titled " S1 Table, S2 Table, S3 Table, and S4 Table "

Reviewers' comments:

________________________________________

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:

This review is informative and helps the reader gain an easy understanding about the process of alcohol recovery, as well as the importance of incorporating narratives.

Thank you very much for your comment. We hope the article will attract similar attention from the wider audience of the journal.

It may be helpful if the authors can add more details about the quality analysis of the studies reviewed. While the use if critical appraisal skills program has been mentioned, for the reader who may not be aware of this tool, a few additional details will help give a clearer picture as to how the quality of the study was assessed.

Thank you very much for your comment. We have now provided details on quality analysis of included studies as advised by the reviewer. We have included following paragraph in method section of study.

“Quality assessment of qualitative evidence synthesis has been a matter of debate for many decades (1). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group recommendations are to use a tool that takes the multi-dimensional concept of qualitative evidence into account (1).

Keeping this in view, the quality of included studies and risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative research (2). The CASP tool focuses on three domains, study design, results validity, and generalisability. Each domain has a set of questions. Based on the response to these questions the studies were marked as low, medium, or high quality. The studies which provided satisfactory information in all domains were marked as high quality, with missing or unsatisfactory information in one domain as medium quality, and with missing or unsatisfactory information in two or more domains as low quality.”

Reviewer #2:

This systematic review is an excellent and balanced overview that includes 32 studies (29 qualitative, 3 mixed-methods, 1055 sample size from Europe and United states, includes multiple databases, spanning 30 years (male predominant, 41 % from AA recovery group), gives an interesting perspective of role of recovery narratives in alcohol recovery. It aims to produce a conceptual framework with multiple dimensions describing the characteristics of alcohol misuse recovery narratives from the available literature. It focuses mostly on Alcoholic Anonymous(AA) or other unstructured formal treatment for alcohol use recovery. It has a good subgroup analysis of all dimensions. Major limitation is, its missing people in lower income countries, as no research literature available in those areas, lacks information who have recovered outside of main services or those who have used services other than AA, and lacks data on females population and ethnic diversity especially in non Caucasian. It does include indigenous population and LGBTQ. Furthermore, this framework will help to identify gaps in knowledge, summarize range of methods, enables developing future research.

They have registered in Prospero, followed Prisma guidelines, is part of NIH grant, did CASP for ROB assessment, Has good Inclusion, exclusion criteria, and approach towards outcomes.

Thank you very much for your appreciation and taking time to review the manuscript.

However, I have a suggestions that could be added to the article.

In my opinion, Tabulating all of these dimension definitions in a excel sheet with listing the articles or adding this information to the attached excel sheet would Make it more easy to follow. It will help to improve the flow and readability of the text.

Thank you very much for your comment. The detail of individual references with study ID and reference number has been provided in Supporting S2 Table. We have now added S4 Table in supporting information including the references and explanation of individual dimensions.

If a further subgroup analysis could be added separately to include information on concomitant substance use disorders(drug use) and/or mental health issues, then it would give a good perspective in terms forming a better framework. I recommend the article be published.

Thank you very much for your comment. We have now added additional subgroup analysis describing dual diagnosis aspect of alcohol misuse and mental health. The data was insufficient to have sperate subgroup analysis on polydrug use. We have added this as a limitation of the review. The additional subgroup analysis reads as

Alcohol and mental health: Analysis of studies discussing dual diagnosis of alcohol misuse and mental health problems showed participants often suffered with negative self-perceptions, including low self-esteem, lack of love from others, lack of desire to belong, anger, and shame (3-11). Mental health problems often acted as a trigger to drink harmfully (5). Common mental health problems reported were anxiety, depression, obsessive compulsive disorders, post traumatic disorders (mostly due to difficult childhoods), attention seeking behaviours, eating disorders, and emotional instability (3-7, 9). Facilitators to recovery were integrated support from mental health and substance misuse services, a flexible and trustworthy relationship with care providers, individualised treatment pathways, and easy to understand step-by-step support. Whereas barriers to recovery were undiagnosed or unrecognised mental health problems, inadequate support from mental health services, underfunded services, and punitive response to alcohol misuse (9). Participants who had negative recovery experience reported ongoing mental health difficulties comprised of anxiety, depression, and intrusive or disturbing memories. This in turn impacted longevity of sobriety (11).

Reviewer #4:

Nicely written article which identifies a conceptual framework including various aspects of chronic alcohol abuse and dependence, the narrative summarize the characteristics well, more than 1000 patient included and psychosocial aspects were explored which adds value.

Thank you very much for your comment. We hope the article will attract similar attention from the wider audience of the journal.

Reviewer #6:

This paper aims to produce a conceptual framework describing the characteristics of alcohol misuse recovery narratives that are in the research literature, to inform the development of research, policy, and practice. The systematic review and data synthesis were well organized and all the elements needed for this type of quantitative research appear to be in place. Much of the tabular information is well summarized in the appendices.

The review may have provided characteristics of alcohol recovery narratives, with implications for both research and healthcare practice. It demonstrated knowledge gaps in relation to alcohol recovery narratives of people living in lower income countries, or those who recovered outside

of mainstream services.

Thank you very much for your comment and providing the feedback.

Although the information is descriptive and quantitative, the risk of bias from each study should have been represented in tabular form. This is lacking in Table 1 of the supplemental material. Some comments concerning possible sources of heterogeneity and publication bias should have been addressed, especially with the geographical distribution of the data.

Thank you very much for your comment. Sorry for not providing the specific details, we have now added supporting S3 table describing risk of bias and quality assessment for individual studies.

For reviewer convenience we have also included table at end of this document.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr Mohsan Subhani

MBBS, MRCP Medicine, MRCP Gastroenterology

Nottingham Digestive Diseases Biomedical Research Centre (NDDC)

University of Nottingham UK

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc
Decision Letter - Saeed Ahmed, Editor

Characteristics of alcohol recovery narratives: systematic review and narrative synthesis

PONE-D-21-32823R1

Dear Dr. Subhani,

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,

Saeed Ahmed, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: well writing and good frame work

ROB included

Sub group analysis included

Good reading flow

supporting material included

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Good review that provides characteristics of various alcohol recovery narratives. It includes aspects of research and healthcare practice. Managed to elicit knowledge gaps in relation to alcohol recovery narratives of consumers in underprivileged/ low education/ lower income countries, particularly those who recovered outside standard healthcare structures.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Saeed Ahmed, Editor

PONE-D-21-32823R1

Characteristics of alcohol recovery narratives: systematic review and narrative synthesis

Dear Dr. Subhani:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Saeed Ahmed

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .