PONE-D-23-41386Interventions Promoting Recovery from Depression for Patients Transitioning from Hospital Psychiatry to Primary Care: A Scoping ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aggestrup,

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 Mar 21 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 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,

Lakshit Jain, 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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

3. 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.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. We note that you have referenced (Young, J. and A.T. Beck, Cognitive therapy scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, 1980.) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Cognitive therapy scale.[Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

6. Please include a copy of Table 6 which you refer to in your text on page 23.

7. 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:

==============================Please respond to comments by the reviewers on a point by point basis.  ==============================

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript adhere to the experimental procedures and analyses described in the Registered Report Protocol?

If the manuscript reports any deviations from the planned experimental procedures and analyses, those must be reasonable and adequately justified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. If the manuscript reports exploratory analyses or experimental procedures not outlined in the original Registered Report Protocol, are these reasonable, justified and methodologically sound?

A Registered Report may include valid exploratory analyses not previously outlined in the Registered Report Protocol, as long as they are described as such.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Are the conclusions supported by the data and do they address the research question presented in the Registered Report Protocol?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the research question(s) outlined in the Registered Report Protocol and on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

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 #1: Yes

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. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Dr. Lakshit Jain,

I have had the honor of reviewing the article titled "Interventions Promoting Recovery from Depression for Patients Transitioning from Hospital Psychiatry to Primary Care: A Scoping Review” submitted to PLOS ONE for peer review.

The manuscript addresses a very important topic, specifically an area of void where there are no studies extending the effectiveness of collaborative care approach in patients who received inpatient care for MDD and on discharge to ensure continuity of care and relapse prevention. To address this the authors took a scoping review approach.

Recommendations based on the review:

On line 84: The authors mentioned “To our knowledge, no studies have investigated collaborative care for patients who have been hospitalized with severe MDD”

Recommendation: Please be specific that the authors are referring for patients with MDD transitioning into the community and the studies that lack are referring to the collaborative care on discharge for relapse prevention.

On line 92: The authors claim the meaning of clinical recovery as “comprises full symptom remission” questionable if this is accurate as partial symptom improvement can also be considered as clinical recovery.

Lines from 109-111: Please restructure the sentence as the existing terminology relays inconsistent and confusing message.

“Hospital psychiatry” term have been repeatedly used throughout the manuscript, recommend others to either change the wording or specify hospital psychiatric meaning inpatient psychiatric care.

Additional limitations as disclosed by the authors include the scoping review methodology itself where the focus is on the range of the literature versus the depth or validity of findings, the limitation of scoping review included inability to assisted equality or bias to provide a systematic assessment of the extreme validity of the evidence. As the others identified most of the literature is originated from Western countries which lacks diversity as it is not representing global population.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. The sample size of 1915 participants is great. I liked the paper but have some concerns.

1. Since there are no studies discussing interventions promoting recovery from depression for patients transitioning from hospital psychiatry to primary care is the title still relevant?

2. The use of different scales to measure recovery in depression makes it difficult to define recovery in the population that was studied.

3. It would be interesting to know which antidepressant medications recovered patients were on.

5. The intervention e.g. CBT varied in terms of methods of delivery and length of delivery. It would be great to see if there is a specific length of time CBT should be delivered that would be conducive to recovery i.e. coming up with standard guidelines and length of treatment.

6. Psychodynamic psychotherapy is a useful modality to explore underlying trauma, conflicts and childhood adverse experiences that drive depression. It would be great to see if it can be used in conjunction with CBT to facilitate long term recovery and address the causes of depression which may be deep rooted in childhood experiences, trauma and unconscious conflicts. It helps by making the patients aware of these unconscious conflicts and promoting lasting change.

Minor mistakes: Row 416 "Versus" should be removed at the end or maybe it is an incomplete sentence and something needs to be added

Row 971, 972: the reference 143 is in a language other than English

Reviewer #3: Strengths of the manuscript:

-The abstract clearly describes the findings of the study.

-The introduction to the article is well laid out.

-Methods and results are clearly explained. The tables included in the manuscript help to review the studies quickly.

-The discussion and conclusion further elaborate on the study findings and suggestions for future research.

Some recommendations are:

-After reading the manuscript title, “Hospital psychiatry,” my initial impression was that the authors are reviewing studies of patients diagnosed with depression transitioning from in-patient settings (e.g., psychiatric hospitals or general hospitals/medical floor, etc.) to outpatient primary care providers. However, the authors use “Hospital psychiatry”, in the title and throughout the manuscript, interchangeably when referring to outpatient and/or in-patient psychiatric care settings, which seems inaccurate. In the study protocol published in 2023, the authors have used the term “outpatient mental health services” in the title. I would appreciate it if the authors could add brief commentary to clarify.

-The authors have primarily included efficacy/effectiveness trials, discussed intervention outcomes, and some studies on variables that may influence intervention outcomes. There are multiple systematic, meta-, and network analyses published comparing different interventions for depression. I will recommend if the authors could add brief commentary discussing how their manuscript is unique compared to previously published studies. The assertion that this is the “first" manuscript to report such findings seems misleading and inaccurate.

-Line 481: typo “...expect for the DBS”

**********

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: Yes: Jasleen Kaur

Reviewer #3: 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.

Interventions Promoting Recovery from Depression for Patients Transitioning from Outpatient Mental Health Services to Primary Care: A Scoping Review

PONE-D-23-41386R1

Dear Dr. Aggestrup,

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 Editorial Manager® 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,

Lakshit Jain, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript adhere to the experimental procedures and analyses described in the Registered Report Protocol?

If the manuscript reports any deviations from the planned experimental procedures and analyses, those must be reasonable and adequately justified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. If the manuscript reports exploratory analyses or experimental procedures not outlined in the original Registered Report Protocol, are these reasonable, justified and methodologically sound?

A Registered Report may include valid exploratory analyses not previously outlined in the Registered Report Protocol, as long as they are described as such.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Are the conclusions supported by the data and do they address the research question presented in the Registered Report Protocol?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the research question(s) outlined in the Registered Report Protocol and on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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 #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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing the comments for the manuscript titled "Interventions Promoting Recovery from Depression for Patients Transitioning from Outpatient Mental Health Services to Primary Care: A Scoping Review” submitted to PLOS ONE for peer review.

All the comments were appropriately addressed, and corresponding changes reflect the reviewers’ recommendations.

Reviewer #3: The authors have adequately answered the questions raised by the reviewers, and it is now suitable for publication.

**********

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 #3: No

**********