Workplace interventions to prevent suicide: A scoping review

Nutmeg Hallett; Helen Rees; Felicity Hannah; Lorna Hollowood; Caroline Bradbury-Jones

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301453

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 21, 2023
31 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Dirceu Henrique Paulo Mabunda, Editor PONE-D-23-07980Organisational suicide prevention interventions: A scoping reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hallett, 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 Dec 15 2023 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, Dirceu Henrique Paulo Mabunda Academic Editor 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. 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: N/A 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: The authors conducted a thorough analysis of workplace suicide prevention interventions in the past 20 years. As the school for children and adolescents, the workplace should represent a key setting for implementing mental health promotion and suicide prevention interventions targeting adults. Nevertheless, research in this field is scarce. Therefore, this scoping review is not only relevant but also stimulating. An added value is that the authors examined the interventions using a realist perspective and tried to identify "what works, for whom and in what circumstances", describing the mechanisms of interventions according to a socio-ecological model. The article is well well-written and constructed. Only the references need major revision. Furthermore, I would suggest some improvements to make the article easier to read. I included all the suggestions as comments in the attachment. 1. Adding the word "workplace" somewhere in the title could help the article to show up more easily in a search. 2. A few additional citations could be added in the introduction. 3. The in-text citations and the list of references need to be carefully revised. Many studies included in the review are not in the list of references, or their year of publication differs (between the citation in the tables and the reference). References from 43 to 66 are wrong. 4. Supplementary Tables 1 or 2 should be included as main table. Their structure and organization could be improved using a different order when listing the studies (e.g., alphabetical order), adding the reference number and maybe the sample size. Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting and relevant scoping review of organisational suicide prevention interventions. I just have minor improvements to suggest, as it is well structures and comprehensive. In my opinion, the use of Bronfenbrenner´s ecological model is very appropriate organize the sintesis of results of such a multifactorial problem. My comments are as follow: a) Consider replacing the word "examine" by "map" in objetive both in abstract (p. 1) and introduction (p. 2) b) Also in page 2, inform what databases were reviewed to inform that there aren't other reviews that "have examined the contexts by which workplace suicide prevention interventions produce effect". c) In table 1, the search terms of CINAHL Plus, were not entered. d) According to JBI methodology you should describe inclusion criteria (Type of participants, Concept, context and types of evidence) "as transparent and unambiguous as possible (JBI, 2020: 431). Please improve table 2 (p. 4) e) Detail what data was extracted because readers of the paper might not have read the protocol of this scoping review (p.4) f) The information provided in tables in supplementary data is indispensable to the content of this scoping review and shoud be part of the main text. g) In page 5, under the heading interventions, mention 47 studies, and everywhere else the number of studies mentioned is 46. h) In page 9, a reference in missing after the sentence " Even in industries with rates of suicide higher than general population, suicide is still rare. ****** 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: Yes: Miriam Iosue 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-07980_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301453.r001
Revision 1
20 Nov 2023 Author Response Reviewer comments Authors’ responses Reviewer #1 The authors conducted a thorough analysis of workplace suicide prevention interventions in the past 20 years. As the school for children and adolescents, the workplace should represent a key setting for implementing mental health promotion and suicide prevention interventions targeting adults. Nevertheless, research in this field is scarce. Therefore, this scoping review is not only relevant but also stimulating. An added value is that the authors examined the interventions using a realist perspective and tried to identify "what works, for whom and in what circumstances", describing the mechanisms of interventions according to a socio-ecological model. Thank you for the positive feedback, we appreciate the time you have taken with your review. The article is well-written and constructed. Only the references need major revision. Thank you, I am not sure what happened to the references, they were all correct, but I think something happened with EndNote. It was particularly helpful that you highlighted the incorrect ones. We have gone through and corrected them. Furthermore, I would suggest some improvements to make the article easier to read. I included all the suggestions as comments in the attachment. The comments in the attachment made it easy to address your comments, we appreciate the time you took to do this. 1. Adding the word "workplace" somewhere in the title could help the article to show up more easily in a search. This is a good point, thank you. We have revised the title to ‘Workplace interventions to prevent suicide: A scoping review . 2. A few additional citations could be added in the introduction. We have added detail, with citations, of occupational differences. 3. The in-text citations and the list of references need to be carefully revised. Many studies included in the review are not in the list of references, or their year of publication differs (between the citation in the tables and the reference). References from 43 to 66 are wrong. I am not sure what happened but we have carefully gone through the references and they should all now be correct. 4. Supplementary Tables 1 or 2 should be included as main table. Their structure and organization could be improved using a different order when listing the studies (e.g., alphabetical order), adding the reference number and maybe the sample size. We agree. While we did not want to include such long tables in the main text, we have included the citations in Table 4. ‘Mechanisms of interventions by Socio-Ecological Model (SEM) level’, which is a summary of Supplementary Table 2. We have not changed the order as it is chronological. We have also not included the sample size due to many of the studies not having methods where a sample size was calculated. Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting and relevant scoping review of organisational suicide prevention interventions. I just have minor improvements to suggest, as it is well structures and comprehensive. In my opinion, the use of Bronfenbrenner´s ecological model is very appropriate organize the synthesis of results of such a multifactorial problem. Thank you, we appreciate the positive feedback. My comments are as follow: a) Consider replacing the word "examine" by "map" in objective both in abstract (p. 1) and introduction (p. 2) We have replaced ‘examine’ with ‘map’ in the abstract and introduction. b) Also in page 2, inform what databases were reviewed to inform that there aren't other reviews that "have examined the contexts by which workplace suicide prevention interventions produce effect". While we conducted an initial scoping of the literature before we started this review, we did not do this systematically. However, during our systematic database searching we did not uncover any other reviews. It is my understanding that this would not normally be stated in detail in the introduction. c) In table 1, the search terms of CINAHL Plus, were not entered. Thank you, this was an omission, they are now included. d) According to JBI methodology you should describe inclusion criteria (Type of participants, Concept, context and types of evidence) "as transparent and unambiguous as possible (JBI, 2020: 431). Please improve table 2 (p. 4) We have added definitions of workforce and suicide prevention programmes, which we hope will help. When we applied the eligibility criteria, we looked at whether there was a suicide prevention intervention or programme (concept) aimed at the people working in the organisation (population) and provided within the context of the workplace. We believe this is what is stated in the table. e) Detail what data was extracted because readers of the paper might not have read the protocol of this scoping review (p.4) Thank you, we have added detail about the data that were extracted. f) The information provided in tables in supplementary data is indispensable to the content of this scoping review and should be part of the main text. We agree. While we did not want to include such long tables in the main text, we have included the citations in Table 4. ‘Mechanisms of interventions by Socio-Ecological Model (SEM) level’, which is a summary of Supplementary Table 2. g) In page 5, under the heading interventions, mention 47 studies, and everywhere else the number of studies mentioned is 46.. Thank you for picking this typo up, we have corrected it. There were 46 studies. h) In page 9, a reference in missing after the sentence " Even in industries with rates of suicide higher than general population, suicide is still rare. Reference added. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_Workplace suicide prevention.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301453.r002
18 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Md. Shahjalal, Editor Workplace suicide prevention: A scoping review PONE-D-23-07980R1 Dear Dr. Hallett, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Md. Shahjalal Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: 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: I agree that your manuscript improved after the corrections you made. Congratulations. There is a minor correction to be introduced in figure 1, the PRISMA diagram, where it is stated that the number of included studies is 47, not 46. Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I note that I am reviewing a revision of the initial paper, and also note that the response to the original reviewer/s is satisfactory. This is a well written manuscript covering an important topic. I have no further suggestions and wish you all the best with your paper submission. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301453.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Apr 2024 Acceptance Letter - Md. Shahjalal, Editor PONE-D-23-07980R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hallett, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Md. Shahjalal Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301453.r004

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 .