Educator perceptions of the complex needs of young people in Pupil Referral Units: An exploratory qualitative analysis

Dennis Kaip; Nigel Blackwood; Sarah Kew-Simpson; Alice Wickersham; Joel Harvey; Hannah Dickson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310633

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 9, 2024
30 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Cathryn Knight, Editor PONE-D-24-17686Educator perceptions of the complex needs of young people in Pupil Referral Units: An Exploratory Qualitative AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dickson, 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 Sep 13 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, Cathryn Knight 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 you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 3. 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: Thank you for submitting this article which needs some minor revisions before it can be accepted. In particular I would like to draw your attention to point 1, 5 and 6 on the PLOS guidelines for qualitative research: 1) defined objectives or research questions; 2) description of the sampling strategy, including rationale for the recruitment method, participant inclusion/exclusion criteria and the number of participants recruited; 3) detailed reporting of the data collection procedures; 4) data analysis procedures described in sufficient detail to enable replication; 5) a discussion of potential sources of bias; and 6) a discussion of limitations. Please include reference to these points for your next submission. [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 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: Thanks for this well-written article which addresses an under-researched area. The manuscript is well-written and engages with recent relevant literature. I have only some minor comments and these are all suggestions/ things to consider. Line 36 of abstract missing apostrophe at particiapnts’ Line 118 in Methods- you have gender when I think you mean sex (as your labels are male or female) Clear account of methodology although I’d welcome a bit more information on how the interview schedule was developed, and perhaps the schedule made available so future studies could ask the same questions. Range of length of interview from 19 minutes to 47 seems very wide – any patterns in e.g. staff roles of the shorter interviews? Or any other reflection on this wide difference? A bit more detail on the nature of the PRUs these staff work in would be helpful – what ages do they cater for? How many pupil places? Are they stand alone units? Some seem to be explicitly ‘therapeutic’ – what was the approach in others? The analysis process is briefly but clearly reported – and is consistent with expectations for Reflexive thematic analysis Mentions the researcher engaging in conversations with the research team – some clarity on who did what would be useful (e.g. did one author conduct the interviews, transcribe them and analyse them?) The data presented help illuminate the themes which are subsequently linked to existing literature. The findings add to the overall understanding of the challenges facing this sector. L556 there’s a comment about may not be generalisable to other PRUs in different areas….that’s true – but the criteria considered given this type of study ought to be transferability (which will also be limited for the reasons given, but the use of ‘generalisability’ suggests a different kind of research (small-scale, in -depth, qualitative) – though I note the ‘essentialist’ approach to RFA which does point to a realist ontology so I know it isn’t a straightforward distinction, but I still found the ‘generalisability’ a bit jarring. Reviewer #2: Scientific article fits all the criteria. However, the are some unclear cases, for example, 1) the table is separated from its title; 2) The sentence is missed in 251 line, isn't it? 3) Whose participant (3 or 9) thoughts are there (426 line) share in the text? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [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.0310633.r001
Revision 1
22 Aug 2024 Author Response Academic Editor: I would like to draw your attention to point 1, 5 and 6 on the PLOS guidelines for qualitative research: 1) defined objectives or research questions; 2) description of the sampling strategy, including rationale for the recruitment method, participant inclusion/exclusion criteria and the number of participants recruited; 3) detailed reporting of the data collection procedures; 4) data analysis procedures described in sufficient detail to enable replication; 5) a discussion of potential sources of bias; and 6) a discussion of limitations. RESPONSE: We thank the academic editor for reminding us of the PLoS guidelines for reporting qualitative research. In the revised manuscript we have included our research questions. See below for research questions included at the end of the introduction: “The study aimed to answer two research questions: (1) What unmet needs, if any, do young people in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) have? and (2) Is the current service provision in PRUs adequately meeting the needs of these young people?” (lines 103-105) In the discussion we now include a brief discussion on sources of bias and elaborated on our discussion of the study limitations. See below for additions to the discussion section. “This study forms part of a larger body of research using administrative data to examine the educational journeys of individuals interacting with the criminal justice system (CJS). This overarching goal may have shaped the conversations between the interviewer and staff at the PRUs particularly as young people in PRUs are more likely to be involved in the CJS compared to those in mainstream education (5). However, individuals analysing qualitative data are integral to the final product, and ‘bias’ as applicable to quantitative research is not relevant to qualitative research where the researcher cannot step outside their own values or opinions (58).” (lines 572-579) We can also confirm that the revised manuscript complies with PLoS One style requirements and that our reference section is complete. As recommended, we used the COREQ to ensure the comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies, which we acknowledge in the methods section (line 111-112). Additions to the methods based on the COREQ are below: “The interview schedule was developed by authors DK and HD following agreement on the study research questions (see supplementary materials S1 for a copy of the interview schedule). During the interview with author DK participants were asked to share their experiences of working with students in a PRU and to identify the challenges and barriers encountered by staff and students. Interviews were recorded using the “VoiceRecorder” audio app on an iPad.” (lines 133-138) “To ensure that the quality and credibility of the results were upheld, all transcripts were analysed by the first author (DK) and independently checked by one of the co-authors (JH). First author (DK) was an MSc student at the time the study took place but was an experienced qualitative researcher and had previously worked in youth services. Author DK undertook the data analysis under the supervision of authors JK and HD.” (lines 160-165) Reviewer 1: 1. Line 36 of abstract missing apostrophe at participants’ RESPONSE: Amended. 2. Line 118 in Methods- you have gender when I think you mean sex (as your labels are male or female) RESPONSE: Amended. 3. Clear account of methodology although I’d welcome a bit more information on how the interview schedule was developed, and perhaps the schedule made available so future studies could ask the same questions. RESPONSE: Apologies for this omission. We have added the following sentence to the revised manuscript and included the interview schedule in supplementary materials. “The interview schedule was developed by authors DK and HD following agreement of the study research questions (see supplementary materials S1 for a copy of the interview schedule.” (lines 133-135). 4. Range of length of interview from 19 minutes to 47 seems very wide – any patterns in e.g. staff roles of the shorter interviews? Or any other reflection on this wide difference? RESPONSE: When we checked the interview durations, we have realised there was a typo in the original manuscript. The longest interview was actually 56 minutes not 47 minutes although mean interview time does not change. This error in the manuscript has been corrected. Interview durations varied significantly, with shorter interviews (19–30 minutes) occurring across a range of roles, including supportive positions like Learning Support and Learning Mentor, as well as some senior roles like Deputy Head Teacher and Assistant Head Teacher. Potentially suggesting that the length of the interview was not related to the seniority of the position or work experience. However, longer interviews (46–56 minutes) were primarily associated with senior leadership positions such as Head Teachers and specialised roles like Outreach Support Worker. The shortest interview of 19 minutes was with a Deputy Head Teacher and this interview was cut short due to an issue in the PRU itself. To avoid the possibility of participants being able to identify themselves in the manuscript, we have not included these reflections in the revised manuscript. 5. A bit more detail on the nature of the PRUs these staff work in would be helpful – what ages do they cater for? How many pupil places? Are they stand alone units? Some seem to be explicitly ‘therapeutic’ – what was the approach in others? RESPONSE: We have included more information in the method section on the PRUs themselves in the revised manuscript. Please note that we were unable to find information on how pupil places were available in each PRU. “Participants were from five PRUs and three different organisations. One PRU was a therapeutic school for young people of secondary school age supporting their mental health needs. The other four PRUs worked with children and young people excluded from primary and secondary mainstream schools and all offered short- and long-term placements.” (Lines 122-126) 6. Mentions the researcher engaging in conversations with the research team – some clarity on who did what would be useful (e.g. did one author conduct the interviews, transcribe them and analyse them?) RESPONSE: We apologies for this lack of the detail. We have included the following sentences into the method section. “To ensure that the quality and credibility of the results were upheld, all transcripts were analysed by the first author (DK) and independently checked by one of the co-authors (JH). First author (DK) was an MSc student at the time the study took place but was an experienced qualitative researcher and had previously worked in youth services. Author DK undertook the data analysis under the supervision of authors JK and HD.” (lines 160-165) 7. L556 there’s a comment about may not be generalisable to other PRUs in different areas….that’s true – but the criteria considered given this type of study ought to be transferability (which will also be limited for the reasons given, but the use of ‘generalisability’ suggests a different kind of research (small-scale, in -depth, qualitative) – though I note the ‘essentialist’ approach to RFA which does point to a realist ontology so I know it isn’t a straightforward distinction, but I still found the ‘generalisability’ a bit jarring. RESPONSE: We have amended this sentence to reflect the reviewer’s concerns. “A key limitation of this study is that the interviews were conducted in a number of deprived areas across London and Southeast England. However, findings from this study should be broadly applicable to other PRU setting in comparable circumstances in other areas of the UK.” (lines 568-572) Reviewer 2: There are some unclear cases, for example: The table is separated from its title: RESPONSE: Amended The sentence is missed in 251 line, isn't it? RESPONSE: Apologies but I am unclear as to what you mean. There does not appear to be a sentence missing. Whose participant (3 or 9) thoughts are there (426 line) share in the text? RESPONSE: This quote is from participant 3 and we have removed the number 9 from the main text. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310633.r002
5 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Cathryn Knight, Editor Educator perceptions of the complex needs of young people in Pupil Referral Units: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis PONE-D-24-17686R1 Dear Dr. Dickson, 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, Cathryn Knight Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for addressing the feedback promptly and clearly. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310633.r003
Formally Accepted
11 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Cathryn Knight, Editor PONE-D-24-17686R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dickson, 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. Cathryn Knight Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310633.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 .