Development of a methodology for measuring the quality of statutory social workers’ complex decision-making

Angela Lilly; Tim Rakow; Jill Manthorpe; Benjamin Gardner

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325432

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 11, 2025
11 Feb 2025 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325432.r001
Decision Letter - Massimo Finocchiaro Castro, Editor Dear Dr. Lilly, 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. Both reviewers agreed on the need to better specify you empirical method and participants selection. Please submit your revised manuscript by 30th of April 2025. 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. 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 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, Massimo Finocchiaro Castro, PhD 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: AL PO65 School for Social Care, National Institute of Health Research https://www.sscr.nihr.ac.uk/ No the funders did not have these roles. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 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. [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? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review your submission. The paper was well written and reflected a methodologically and ethically rigorous research design. The research question and resulting findings are highly significant to the profession. The knowledge created in this work is new and has the potential to positively influence a number of developments, including professional education, policy and future research. I have only minor issues for consideration in revision. The research sets out to develop a measure of decision-making quality. I would like to see some brief comment added to acknowledge that that this measure was based solely on legal principles. The research aims indicate that the study was to develop a methodology to measure quality of decision-making processes 'including' application of legal principles. While these legal principles may incorporate or overlap with other factors in quality (such as taking into account service users' views and preferences) they appear to be the sole basis of the measure, not one which was 'included' in a wider methodology. References to legislation with nationalities in brackets were not explained and could be confusing. E.g. Care Act 2014 (England) or Human Rights Act 1988 (England) appear to be indicating the geographical extent of this legislation but it is not clear. This could be amended or explained to strengthen this minor element of presentation. Reviewer #2: This is an important area of research and the authors give a thorough account of their methods in this paper. I would recommend that the authors state how they are defining complex decision making in the introduction. In lines 88-90, the authors state that, “The profession has defined complex decision-making as arising when an adult’s judgement about their well-being or their wishes about how to promote it put their well-being at risk of harm….”. However, this example is problematic because it reflects one form of complex decision-making in social work, where a range of other complex decisions exist. It is ok to use reference 6 as an example of an important type of complex decision-making, but the authors need to give a clearer definition of this concept, drawing on decision-making literature. A lot of this information is presented in the methods section (lines 163-177), so I would recommend this be sketched out in the introduction with pointers to the methods section. When reading the introduction, I thought that the paper was focussing specifically on adult safeguarding as the examples given in the introduction all pertain to this. You give safeguarding as an example in lines 88-90 and go onto give examples of self-neglect (also categorised as safeguarding under the Care and Support Statutory guidance) and findings from Safeguarding Adults Reviews (lines 106-122). However, it becomes clear later in the paper that the remit for the paper is broader than this focussing on principles of public body decision making / legal principles. Given this, I think your examples given in the introduction should be broader. This problem recurs in the examples given also pertain to safeguarding whilst the focus of the project is broader. I would also suggest this section is amended, so the scope of the project is better represented (lines 643-644). ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325432.r002
Revision 1
29 Apr 2025 Author Response Response to Reviewers 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. We have reviewed the manuscript to ensure that it meets PLOS One style requirements. We have made some minor revisions to the main body and author formatting to ensure compliance – thank you for the guidance on this. 2. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. We have amended the Role of Funder statement as follows (lines 38-43). Funding. This project, including contributions for authors 1 and 3, was funded by the School for Social Care Research, a national research school established by the National Institute of Health and Care Research. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute of Health and Care Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. Thank you for changing the online submission form. 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. We have reviewed the reference list and believe it to be complete and correct, with no retracted papers cited. 4. Reviewer One Comment One The research sets out to develop a measure of decision-making quality. I would like to see some brief comment added to acknowledge that that this measure was based solely on legal principles. The research aims indicate that the study was to develop a methodology to measure quality of decision-making processes 'including' application of legal principles. While these legal principles may incorporate or overlap with other factors in quality (such as taking into account service users' views and preferences) they appear to be the sole basis of the measure, not one which was 'included' in a wider methodology. We are grateful for this feedback and have addressed this throughout the manuscript. For example, we have revised the Abstract to include the statement that: “Central to our methodology was social workers’ consideration of key legal principles.” (lines 61-62) We have revised the Introduction to include the statement that: “Our objectives were to develop a methodology to (1) measure the quality of decision-making processes, (2) insofar as legal principles relevant to local authority adult social care appeared to have been considered in decision-making, and (3) explore underpinning cognitive processes.” (lines 144-145) We have revised the Discussion to include the statement that: “Collaborating with expert professionals, we developed a new methodology to measure the quality of social workers’ decision-making, insofar as key legal principles for the adult social care setting are considered, and investigate underpinning cognitive processes.” (lines 653-654) 5. Reviewer One Comment Two References to legislation with nationalities in brackets were not explained and could be confusing. E.g. Care Act 2014 (England) or Human Rights Act 1988 (England) appear to be indicating the geographical extent of this legislation but it is not clear. This could be amended or explained to strengthen this minor element of presentation. We have addressed this by stating which is the relevant jurisdiction for each Act when first mentioned and thereafter removing the jurisdiction reference. 6. Reviewer Two Comment One I would recommend that the authors state how they are defining complex decision making in the introduction. In lines 88-90, the authors state that, “The profession has defined complex decision-making as arising when an adult’s judgement about their well-being or their wishes about how to promote it put their well-being at risk of harm….”. However, this example is problematic because it reflects one form of complex decision-making in social work, where a range of other complex decisions exist. It is ok to use reference 6 as an example of an important type of complex decision-making, but the authors need to give a clearer definition of this concept, drawing on decision-making literature. A lot of this information is presented in the methods section (lines 163-177), so I would recommend this be sketched out in the introduction with pointers to the methods section. We agree and have revised the Introduction to reflect that this is one type of complex decision-making by including the statement that: “In adult social care, one important type of complex decision-making is the decision-making required when an adult’s judgement about their well-being or their wishes about how to promote it put their well-being at risk.” (originally lines 88-90, now lines 100-102). We have summarised decision-making stages, drawing on decision-making literature, in the Introduction and referred to our expansion on this in our Method section (lines 92-96). 7. Reviewer Two Comment Two When reading the introduction, I thought that the paper was focussing specifically on adult safeguarding as the examples given in the introduction all pertain to this. You give safeguarding as an example in lines 88-90 and go onto give examples of self-neglect (also categorised as safeguarding under the Care and Support Statutory guidance) and findings from Safeguarding Adults Reviews (lines 106-122). However, it becomes clear later in the paper that the remit for the paper is broader than this focussing on principles of public body decision making / legal principles. Given this, I think your examples given in the introduction should be broader. This problem recurs in the examples given also pertain to safeguarding whilst the focus of the project is broader. I would also suggest this section is amended, so the scope of the project is better represented (lines 643-644). We are grateful for this advice and have revised the Introduction by considerably reducing the narrative on safeguarding adults reviews and making clear that, whilst complex decision-making may arise in safeguarding situations, complex decision-making is not at all limited to safeguarding. We have referred to ways in which safeguarding adults reviews might shed relevant light on the quality of complex decision-making, such as better balancing of legal duties, but have moved away from a detailed description of safeguarding adults reviews. We have then referred, as per the original manuscript, to the pressing need for a methodology to measure the quality of decision-making (now lines 113-132). We have also referred to “complex decision-making which may arise when an adult’s judgement about their well-being or wishes about how to promote it may, in the circumstances, put their well-being at risk.”, removing the word harm here and in one or two other places, to emphasise that complex decision-making is broader than safeguarding (line 650). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325432.r003
Decision Letter - Massimo Finocchiaro Castro, Editor Development of a methodology for measuring the quality of statutory social workers’ complex decision-making PONE-D-25-02726R1 Dear Dr. Lilly, 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, Massimo Finocchiaro Castro, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325432.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Massimo Finocchiaro Castro, Editor PONE-D-25-02726R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lilly, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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 Prof. Massimo Finocchiaro Castro Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325432.r005

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 .