Developing a hope-focused intervention to prevent mental health problems and improve social outcomes for young women who are not in education, employment, or training (NEET): A qualitative co-design study in deprived coastal communities in South-East England

Clio Berry; Julia Fountain; Lindsay Forbes; Leanne Bogen-Johnston; Abigail Thomson; Yelena Zylko; Alice Tunks; Sarah Hotham; Daniel Michelson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304470

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 5, 2023
16 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Ali B. Mahmoud, Editor PONE-D-23-17074Developing a hope-focused intervention to prevent mental health problems and improve social outcomes for young women who are not in education, employment or training (NEET): A co-design study in deprived coastal communities in South-East EnglandPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Berry, 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 31 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, Ali B. Mahmoud, Ph.D. 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. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: No ****** 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 ****** 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 giving me the opportunity to review this article titled ‘Developing a hope-focused intervention to prevent mental health problems and improve social outcomes for young women who are not in education, employment or training (NEET): A co-design study in deprived coastal communities in South-East England. The manuscript was interesting to read, and I commend the authors for their participatory attempt to co-design an intervention for NEET young women. As stated, the co-design approach and the explicit focus on NEET young women contributes to the novelty of the research. However, in its current form I think the article needs more work and I base my opinion on the following issues. Overarching/broader comments 1. The article is well-written and interesting, detailing the iterative developmental approach of identify local population needs and intervention requirements; select and contextualise promising hope-focused practice components; and articulate how a hope-focused intervention might be implemented and scaled up. However, it is currently written in a very linear and rigid IMRAD format, which I do not think makes the results or the process justice. It becomes somewhat descriptive and fragmented, with the key findings being presented (hidden) in tables. Overall, my suggestion would be to write an integrated results and discussion section that narratively describes and elaborates on information in tables 2 (and 3). a. I would like to have seen the main outcome – the ToC – take center stage and then the authors could “move backwards” to explain how it came to be developed building on findings from phases 1 and 2. b. This also means that participant characteristics could preferably be presented and summarised in the participant section while the research questions are removed in favor of a clearly articulated (and novel) aim that relates to the co-design of a hope-focused intervention for NEET young women. 2. The data analysis process should be clarified, especially when it comes to the use of critical realism. For me it is not evident how a “critical realist epistemology” aligns with a framework charting approach and the TIDieR framework, and whether the authors did, in fact, elucidate any demi-regularities. 3. I know that the study is written for an academic audience and aimed at detailing the design process, but the practice and action-oriented focus of the study is somewhat lost since a forthcoming implementation is not mentioned. I would very much like to see at least some reflections about the next steps for HOPEFUL, beyond the statement that future evaluation research is needed (which requires some form of implementation to be possible). Additional comments 4. There is a mixture in reference style, combining Vancover with Harvard (e.g., on page 3). ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304470.r001
Revision 1
1 Feb 2024 Author Response 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 giving me the opportunity to review this article titled ‘Developing a hope-focused intervention to prevent mental health problems and improve social outcomes for young women who are not in education, employment or training (NEET): A co-design study in deprived coastal communities in South-East England. The manuscript was interesting to read, and I commend the authors for their participatory attempt to co-design an intervention for NEET young women. As stated, the co-design approach and the explicit focus on NEET young women contributes to the novelty of the research. However, in its current form I think the article needs more work and I base my opinion on the following issues. Overarching/broader comments 1. The article is well-written and interesting, detailing the iterative developmental approach of identify local population needs and intervention requirements; select and contextualise promising hope-focused practice components; and articulate how a hope-focused intervention might be implemented and scaled up. However, it is currently written in a very linear and rigid IMRAD format, which I do not think makes the results or the process justice. It becomes somewhat descriptive and fragmented, with the key findings being presented (hidden) in tables. Overall, my suggestion would be to write an integrated results and discussion section that narratively describes and elaborates on information in tables 2 (and 3). a. I would like to have seen the main outcome – the ToC – take center stage and then the authors could “move backwards” to explain how it came to be developed building on findings from phases 1 and 2. b. This also means that participant characteristics could preferably be presented and summarised in the participant section while the research questions are removed in favor of a clearly articulated (and novel) aim that relates to the co-design of a hope-focused intervention for NEET young women. Response: We thank the reviewer for the very positive comments about our manuscript. We understand and agree with the need to reduce the sense of fragmentation noted with respect to the presentation of our results. In response, we have moved participant details as suggested from results to the Materials and methods section. We have streamlined the section on the aims of the current research - although we have retained our research questions as these were integral to how we approached the study and the analysis, as detailed. We have combined the findings from phases 1 and 2 in the Results section. We understand the reviewer’s point regarding the rigidity of the IMRAD format. We have retained the presentation of the intervention blueprint and theory of change (we position both as the main outcomes/products of the work) as the culmination of the Results section. To present these products earlier we think risks undermining the clarity with which readers understand the iterative developmental approach we took, which the reviewer also agrees is the strength of this work. We also think these outputs follow logically from the data presented. In keeping with our person-based and partnership ethos, we want to ensure transparency with respect to how we combined the data and our interpretations and moved from these to the products of our research. 2. The data analysis process should be clarified, especially when it comes to the use of critical realism. For me it is not evident how a “critical realist epistemology” aligns with a framework charting approach and the TIDieR framework, and whether the authors did, in fact, elucidate any demi-regularities. Response: We thank the reviewer for identifying this area for development. We have provided further rationale in the Materials and methods section for the analytic approach taken, especially the alignment between a critical realist stance and framework analysis approach. We have additionally clarified in the Materials and methods section that the integration of findings (i.e., Table 3) across study phases, and with prior evidence, was done with the purpose of identifying demi-regularities (i.e., points of convergence across evidentiary sources) and points of divergence. 3. I know that the study is written for an academic audience and aimed at detailing the design process, but the practice and action-oriented focus of the study is somewhat lost since a forthcoming implementation is not mentioned. I would very much like to see at least some reflections about the next steps for HOPEFUL, beyond the statement that future evaluation research is needed (which requires some form of implementation to be possible). Response: We thank the reviewer for identifying this as an important addition. The next step for HOPEFUL is evaluation research. We have provided further detail regarding the design of the intervention with scalable implementation in mind, notable points for implementation, and also regarding practical considerations relevant to this. We have additionally emphasised the relevant wider learning from this study for existing provision for young women. Additional comments 4. There is a mixture in reference style, combining Vancover with Harvard (e.g., on page 3). Response: This has been corrected. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304470.r002
14 May 2024 Decision Letter - Ali B. Mahmoud, Editor Developing a hope-focused intervention to prevent mental health problems and improve social outcomes for young women who are not in education, employment, or training (NEET): A co-design study in deprived coastal communities in South-East England. PONE-D-23-17074R1 Dear Dr. Berry, 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, Ali B. Mahmoud, Ph.D. 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 #1: 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: No ****** 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 ****** 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: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this revised version of the article. The authors have properly addressed my comments and I have nothing further to add besides making them aware of the dublicate in references 69 and 70. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304470.r003
Formally Accepted
20 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ali B. Mahmoud, Editor PONE-D-23-17074R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Berry, 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. Ali B. Mahmoud Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304470.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 .