Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: Appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021–23

Micaela Gal; Alison Cooper; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Elizabeth Doe; Ruth Lewis; Rebecca Jane Law; Sally Anstey; Nathan Davies; Amy Walters; Robert Orford; Brendan Collins; Lisa Trigg; Chris Roberts; Sarah Meredith; Steven Macey; Andrew Carson-Stevens; Jane Greenwell; Ffion Coomber; Adrian Edwards

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314461

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 21, 2023
6 May 2024 Decision Letter - Jasna Karacic Zanetti, Editor PONE-D-23-22096Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cooper, 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. The insights shared in your manuscript are invaluable, and I appreciate the effort put into documenting this important work. While the manuscript provides a comprehensive overview of the WCEC's activities, there are some areas where additional detail and clarification would enhance its readability and impact. I have summarized the key points from the reviewers' comments below: Enhancement of Methods Section: Reviewers suggested providing more detail on stakeholder engagement, collaborative work processes, and data collection methods to offer readers a clearer understanding of the WCEC's approach. Improvement in Presentation: Incorporating more visuals, simplifying language, and exploring alternative presentation methods such as videos or poems could make the information more accessible and engaging for a wider audience. Streamlining of Content: Streamlining research questions and aligning rapid review processes with publication criteria were recommended to ensure clarity and manage expectations effectively. Stakeholder Engagement: Continued close collaboration with stakeholders, including policy and practice decision-makers, was emphasized to enhance the utilization and impact of evidence reviews. I believe that addressing these suggestions will significantly strengthen the manuscript and amplify its contribution to informing health and social care policy and practice during public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, I would like to propose the inclusion of an article featuring an interview with Prof. Marianna Arvanitakis, the winner of the European Award for the Best Medical Practice in the COVID-19 Pandemic. This article could highlight how recognition of exemplary practices can serve as a valuable resource in crisis situations and inform future health and social care policies. available here: https://globalbioethicsenquiry.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/VP2-JASNA.pdf Thank you for considering these suggestions. I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript and the potential addition of the suggested article. Best regards, 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. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, and congratulations to the WCEC for the important work they completed during the COVID-19 pandemic. I appreciate how difficult these types of reports are to write, as they don't fit into the traditional IMRaD format of our typical scientific papers. Overall, I would like to have more detail within the methods section to better understand what steps the WCEC undertook as part of their work and KM. I have provided some specific examples of this below. Background - Page 4, Lines 100-102 - The authors make an important point that research evidence is not the only factor that decisions should be made on. I think it would be important to note that values/preferences (of individuals and communities) and also resources (financial, human, etc.) also play an important role in decision-making - Page 4, Line 103 - this sentence is a bit awkward (acheiving impact is enabled...) Figure 1: I like the use of the KTA framework, but it would be helpful to have more of the original steps maintained in the figure so the reader can see how the WCEC applied/adapted it for their KM purposes. Methods - It would be helpful for the authors to provide more detail on how the various stakeholder groups (Table 1) were engaged. How were questions identified and prioritized? - I would like to read more about how the WCED and stakeholders worked collaboratively (page 7, Lines 155-162). Were three online meetings completed per review or over the course of the WCEC operations? - What are some concrete examples of capacity building, sharing methodologies, and identifying gaps as part of the "associated activities" - maybe a table listing these would be helpful? - Who were the stakeholders who were invited to take part in the survey? Were there any eligibility criteria set out? How were they invited to participate? - What is meant by "accepted onto the work program" (page 13, line 282-4? Only these questions were taken on by the WCEC or only these questions were evaluated through the survey? - More detail could be added as to how citations were identified, how email and meeting sessions were used to capture data when surveys were incomplete Results - What is meant by "good engagement" - how was this determined vs. poor engagement for example? (page 13, line 294). - Did all stakeholders take part in all steps (lines 295-299) - How many reviews were undertaken in total? How many were evaluated through the survey and how many through the other supplementary data collection methods? - Can you provide demographic data for survey respondents? - I believe the quotations come from the open ended questions in the survey. How was this qualitative data analysed? (it is not mentioned in the methods) - SImilar comment on Page 14, Lines 320, what is meant by "worked well" - how was this determined? Two examples are given, but it may be helpful to have this information collated across all reviews and a summary presented Table 2 - I now see that information on the 51 completed reviews is listed in Table 2 but I think that information should be a key feature in the results - Timeline of completion - is it possible to give a mean or IQR rather than "usually 1 week to 3 months" - The authors refer to different parts of the report, (topline summary, etc.). It would be helpful to have described earlier what a typical report included - This table lists some examples of impact, but it would be more comprehensive if this was collated across reviews, rather than just choosing a few examples (which may be perceived as biasing the anticipated impact) I'm not clear the distinction between survey results and the "feedback and collection of metrics" section 3.5.2 - how was this data collected if not through the survey? Table 6 - how was this list compiled? Was a certain process used, or would this be better placed as part of the discussion? In fact, much of it is repeated in the discussion. Minor suggestions for the authors' consideration - There are a number of longer sentences, particularly in the background which could be broken up to enhance readability. - Page 3, Line 88, spell out the acronym for BRIDGE criteria Reviewer #2: This scoping review focuses on the role of care managers and the knowledge mobilization steps undertaken by the Welsh Centre for Evidence and Dissemination (WCEC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The WCEC engaged closely with stakeholders, utilized the Knowledge to Action framework, and successfully disseminated evidence reviews to inform health and social care decision-making. However, some significant concerns need to be addressed before publication. 1. Incorporate more infographics and visuals to make the information more accessible and engaging for a wider audience. 2. Explore different ways to present findings, such as creating poems or videos to cater to various learning preferences and increase engagement. 3. Enhance Language Accessibility: Simplify language in reports so that key points are clear to all stakeholders, including those with various levels of expertise. 4. Conduct evaluations on different dissemination methods to assess their impact and effectiveness in reaching and engaging stakeholders. 5. Streamline Questions: Formulate more specific and narrow research questions to ensure deliverability and manage expectations throughout the process. 6. Involve stakeholders in the knowledge mobilization plan from the beginning to gather valuable insights and ensure relevance. 7. Continue close collaboration with stakeholders, including public partnership members, to ensure that evidence outputs are targeted, timely, and effectively used. 8. Reflect on the impact requirements for academia and explore ways to align rapid reviews with the peer-reviewed journal publication criteria. 9. Develop more robust and long-term engagement strategies with policy and practice decision-makers to enhance the utilization and impact of evidence reviews. 10. Improve communication with stakeholders at all process stages to manage demand effectively and ensure expectation clarity. ****** 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.0314461.r001
Revision 1
12 Jul 2024 Author Response Dear PLOS ONE Editor, We wish to thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript so carefully and for providing the very helpful suggestions and comments . We have done our best to address all the comments and suggestions of the editor and both reviewers, and believe that this has significantly strengthened the manuscript, and amplified its contribution to informing health and social care policy and practice during public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. The explanations on how we have addressed the editor suggestions and comments are provided below. Thank you for your time and consideration of the revised manuscript. Yours sincerely, Micaela Gal (Note: the references to pages and line numbers given below, refer to the ‘marked up’ version of the manuscript (named: Revised article with changes highlighted)). 1. Editor suggestion: Enhancement of Methods Section: Reviewers suggested providing more detail on stakeholder engagement, collaborative work processes, and data collection methods to offer readers a clearer understanding of the WCEC's approach. Author response: We agree that more detail is needed in the methods section related to stakeholder engagement, collaborative work processes and data collection. We have included more information on each of the suggestions for improving the methods, and provide evidence of this in our responses to Reviewer 1. We have also added 4 additional references (References 18-21) from the Evidence Centre, which cover in-depth the overall approach used by the Centre for stakeholder identification and engagement, identification and prioritisation of the research questions, and how the stakeholders and evidence centre team worked together collaboratively during the evidence review process. 2. Improvement in Presentation: Incorporating more visuals, simplifying language, and exploring alternative presentation methods such as videos or poems could make the information more accessible and engaging for a wider audience. Author response: Incorporating more visuals: We have included 2 additional tables and 2 figures to enhance and explain the text. These are in line with the comments from the reviewers: Table 2. Information contained within the front pages of the Centre reports (page 11) Table 5. Examples of associated activities conducted by the WCEC (page 22) Fig 2. Questions received, prioritised, and accepted onto the Centre work programme (page 9) Fig 4. Evidence Centre rapid review (evidence synthesis) outputs (page 20) Simplifying language: We have reviewed the manuscript and simplified the language used, to make it more accessible. Alternative presentation methods: The suggestions to use alternative methods of presentation such as videos or poems relate to Feedback provided by Reviewer 2. This was helpful and insightful. Indeed, one of our public group members had suggested poetry for one of our Evidence Centre reports, which focused on children and education during the pandemic. We have now included this in the discussion (page 31 lines 590 -595): A suggestion for wider dissemination of findings in a different format was made by a public member (e.g., review findings relevant to children and young people could be made into a poem). We acknowledge that wider dissemination methods such as creating stories, poems or videos would likely be valuable to make findings more accessible and engaging to wider groups. However, this was not possible at the time due to resource constraints (available staff time and additional funding). We have also included an additional reference (40), which refers readers to a public facing legacy report for the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (Wales COVID‐19 Evidence Centre Legacy Report. Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre. June 2023. https://researchwalesevidencecentre.co.uk/sites/default/files/2023-11/Wales_COVID-19_Evidence_Centre_Legacy_Report_June23_ENGLISH.pdf) We have included the following in our Discussion section (page 28, lines 567 to 571): To make the work of the WCEC more widely accessible, the Centre also produced a publicly available legacy report.(40) This report includes information about the Centre structure, methods, reviews, knowledge mobilisation and impact. The lay summaries accompanying each review were written by members of the Centre public partnership group, and together with the infographics, increase accessibility of the review findings. 3. Editor suggestion: Streamlining of Content: (i) Streamlining research questions and (ii) aligning rapid review processes with publication criteria were recommended to ensure clarity and manage expectations effectively. Author response: i. Streamlining research questions: The research questions, which the Centre received from the stakeholders were typically very broad. The Centre had to work with the stakeholders to manage their expectations, and streamline the questions to ensure that the reviews could deliver useful information and be completed within the stakeholder’s timeframe. The streamlining/focusing of the questions was part of the rapid evidence review process, and not part of the knowledge mobilisation processes of the Centre, which were the focus of this manuscript (and so was not described). However, we agree that this point would be of interest to readers of this manuscript. Therefore, we have made reference to this in the Discussion section (Page 28, Lines 523 -525), and included a reference to another Centre manuscript, where the streamlining of research questions for the Evidence reviews is described in detail (below): The responsiveness and involvement of stakeholders and members of the public were key to focusing the research questions, which were usually too broad to be answered in the available amount of time.(23) A bespoke rapid evidence review process engaging stakeholders for supporting evolving and time-sensitive policy and clinical decision-making: reflection and lessons learned from the Wales Covid-19 Evidence Centre 2021-23. Lewis R et al. https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3878814/v1/59d98322-ac9e-492b-aead-afbd02db0b37.pdf?c=1706010939 ii. Aligning rapid review processes with publication criteria: We acknowledge that this is an interesting point and important point. Our rapid review processes including the methodology and report content are aligned to approved methods for conducting rapid reviews. The findings from a number of the rapid reviews have now been published in peer reviewed journals and met the publication criteria needed for these. We have now made reference to this in the discussion (Page 35, Table 8, last box): When producing rapid reviews, the requirements and criteria of peer reviewed journals and the research and impact requirements of academia should be considered. Our review methodology is aligned to recognised rapid review methodology and a number of the reviews have now been published in peer reviewed journals.(23) The method for our rapid review process is also described in a referenced manuscript, which has now been added to our manuscript: A bespoke rapid evidence review process engaging stakeholders for supporting evolving and time-sensitive policy and clinical decision-making: reflection and lessons learned from the Wales Covid-19 Evidence Centre 2021-23. Lewis R et al. https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3878814/v1/59d98322-ac9e-492b-aead-afbd02db0b37.pdf?c=1706010939 4. Editor suggestion: Stakeholder Engagement: Continued close collaboration with stakeholders, including policy and practice decision-makers, was emphasized to enhance the utilization and impact of evidence reviews. Author response: We had already included some information regarding this in the Discussion (page 28, lines 529-536). We have included an additional paragraph this in the manuscript Discussion (page 29 line 537-541). Following the end of funding of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre, we received 5 further years of funding, and are now funded as the ‘Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre (2023-2028). This enables us to continue close collaborations with the stakeholders we have worked with in the COVID-19 Evidence Centre to enhance use of our report findings, and collect and evidence longer term evidence of impact 5. Editor suggestion: Additionally, I would like to propose the inclusion of an article featuring an interview with Prof. Marianna Arvanitakis, the winner of the European Award for the Best Medical Practice in the COVID-19 Pandemic. This article could highlight how recognition of exemplary practices can serve as a valuable resource in crisis situations and inform future health and social care policies. available here: https://globalbioethicsenquiry.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/VP2-JASNA.pdf Author response: We agree that highlighting how examples of exemplary practice during the pandemic should serve as valuable resources and points of learning for future crisis situations, as well as informing health and social care policies going forward. We have made reference to this and added the citation (Page 3, Lines 78-81) There are some valuable examples of exemplary practices during the pandemic. These should serve as a valuable resource and lessons for managing future crisis situations, and to inform future health and social care policies.(3) 5. Editor suggestion: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Author response: We have ensured that the revised manuscript meets PLOS ONE style requirements, including for the naming of the files. We have also used the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, to ensure that figures meet PLOS ONE style requirements. 6. Editor suggestion: Data sharing for the study. 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. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address… Author response: We agree that research data should be made available wherever possible. The anonymised survey data (questions and responses (answer selection and free text) from the Stakeholder survey has now been made avaialble on the repository Figshare (https://figshare.com). The data file can be downloaded here: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Wales_COVID-19_Evidence_Centre_2021-2023_Stakeholder_survey/25912459 Some data and identifiers were removed before adding the data to Figshare (i.e. names. job title, place of work, comments that may identify participants, feedback where participants did not give permission to quote this). This was done to ensure the data was anonymised, as respondents had not consented to have this data shared without anonymisation. We have included this information in the Results section – 3.5.1 Stakeholder survey (Page 24, Line 473-474): The data from the Stakeholder survey are accessible on the data repository Figshare (Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre 2021-2023 Stakeholder survey) The Data Availability statement in the submission form has been updated accordingly. We have shown how we have addressed Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 suggestions and comments detail in our 'Response to reviewers' document, which has been uploaded. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314461.r002
10 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Jennifer Tucker, Editor PONE-D-23-22096R1Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gal, 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. Further to your previous revisions, Reviewer 1 has requested/re-requested some changes to improve the clarity and reporting of your study in this manuscript. Please revise carefully and ensure each comment is addressed in the response to reviewers document submitted with your revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 25 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, Jennifer Tucker, PhD Staff Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) ******** 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: Partly ****** 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 to the authors for their revisisions, the manuscript is much improved. I have a few additional/outstanding comments. 1. Was ethical approval sought or received for this survey? It is not mentioned anywhere 2. There are some inconsistencies in the use of acronyms throughout (e.g., TAC on line 160 and spelled out on line 165). 3. Line 172 - were questions received and prioritized at one time or on a rolling basis? I am guessing the later but it is not clear. 4. Line 182 - what is the collaborating partner review team? 5. Methods - I'm not sure if collaborating and co-production are the appropriate terms based on what is described (which is understandable given the very tight timelines the team was working on). For example, using the IAP2 framework for engagement, what the authors describe sounds more like "consult" or maybe "involve". Perhaps a definition of co-production and collaboration with citation would be helpful. 6. Section 2.4 - the authors mention gaps were "collated" - how was this done, and what was done with this information? are there any examples you can provide? 7. Line 348 seems to be missing something ("agreeing relevant outcomes") 8. The authors define good vs. poor engagement, but this probably fits better in the methods (if it was prespecified) vs. the results 9. Line 359 - n = 21 responded to the survey, how many were invited? 10. The authors have provided more information as to how the qualitative data were collected, but there is no description of data analysis approaches for the qualitative (or quantitative data for that matter) 11. Line 439 - how many of the 21 surveys were incomplete? 12. Table 7 could be integrated with Table 4, perhaps as a row of "policy impacts"; there is already some duplication in the table (e.g., infographics for midwives). 13. With respect to facilitators to the impact or how to better mobilize next time, where did the resources come from to develop this centre? 14. Table 8 - i'm unclear if these are part of the "results" (under the objective to provide recommendations for best practice" or discussion. Perhaps if the authors were more clear on whether these are personal reflections or more informed by data. 15. The strengths/limitations section should focus more on the strengths/limitations of this paper and its evaluation rather than the centre as a whole. 16. Another pass for readability is advised... for example "it is worth noting" is on line 544 and line 551. ****** 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 ******** [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.0314461.r003
Revision 2
23 Oct 2024 Author Response We have uploaded a document 'Response to Editor and Reviewer comments_ October 2024', where we indicate how we have addressed all editor and reviewer comments in detail. This also documents where resulting changes have been made in the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers_October 2024.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314461.r004
12 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Sreeram V. Ramagopalan, Editor Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23 PONE-D-23-22096R2 Dear Dr. Gal, 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, Sreeram V. Ramagopalan 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: 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 ****** 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: The authors have adequately responded to all of the comments provided. I look forward to seeing this paper in print. ****** 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.0314461.r005
Formally Accepted
15 Nov 2024 Acceptance Letter - Sreeram V. Ramagopalan, Editor PONE-D-23-22096R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gal, 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. Sreeram V. Ramagopalan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314461.r006

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 .