Dear Dr. Thomson,

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 Nov 26 2025 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.

• 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,

Taiwo Opeyemi Aremu, MD, MPH, 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 in the Competing Interests/Financial Disclosure section:

JL is a now a fulltime employee of AstraZeneca with an honorary contract at Lancaster University. This research was completed prior to her employment at Astra Zeneca and they had no role in research. JL reported receiving personal fees for advisory boards from Novo Nordisk. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

The remaining authors have no conflicts to declare.

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk

a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

4. 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.

5. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set.

Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: N/A

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: I wish to thank the authors for providing the opportunity for me to review their article titled “Differences and commonalities in barriers and facilitators experienced by participants enrolled in an online behavioral weight management program: a qualitative comparison” aimed to understand how factors external to the program (i.e. intrapersonal, interpersonal, environment, and contextual) could influence weight loss during participation using the socio-ecological model framework to synthesise and discuss their findings. The authors found several common barriers and facilitators between ≥5% and <5% weight loss groups as well as some factors differing between them. The topic remains timely and the findings have important relevance. The methodology is well-grounded and appropriate for the proposed objectives. However, before the article can be considered for acceptance, certain aspects—particularly in the Methods section—require revision. The suggestions provided below are intended to contribute to the improvement of the manuscript and enhance its scientific value.

Key clarification

Methods: the authors interviewed the participants 4-8 weeks into the online programme. The categorisation into weight loss groups was added afterwards; but when was weight loss determined? This may be important in explaining the factors or their interactions. For example, an individual with a comorbidity or lifestyle disease may be more driven to achieve a weight goal. Also, an individual who has to achieve a mass media presence may be more driven.

Minor

1. Abstract

a. Kindly include the rationale for using the socio-ecological model in the Abstract.

2. Introduction

a. Should be better organized and paragraphs restructured to present the arguments more coherently. For example, a clearer background and contexts is needed on obesity and its health consequences, role and impact of weight management programmes (WMPs), including BWMPs as well as evidence of success of WMPs compared to BWMPs, which the authors alluded to. Then, the theoretical framework, SEM, need to be clearer; perhaps by clearly identifying the multi-level factors influencing participation in WMPs. For example, in lines 69-80, the example of Boehmer et al given in lines 96-100 could make what constitutes “changes in environment” clearer. Similarly, “changes to social interactions” should be clarified. Also, the phrase “individuals who achieve a ≥5% weight loss” need better emphasis on the significance of that measure and possibly the time frame to achieving it. Although the authors addressed this in methods, I consider it is more appropriate in Introduction where the cutoff was introduced.

b. The aim and objectives are clear.

c. Also the authors stated as follows “Additionally, data collection typically occurs at the program’s conclusion or during a follow-up phase, potentially overlooking essential nuances and meaningful barriers and facilitators experienced during participation.” This does not seem to have been addressed as a finding of this study. I consider that the aspect should be deleted from the Introduction.

3. Methods: Although this section mostly covers the necessary details, I somehow found some part of the section challenging. I believe the current sequencing of information in some parts may be confusing to the readers. Therefore, reorganising the content to reflect the heading or subheadings is important.

a. For example, it is unclear whether the wider mixed-methods project is the Second Nature online BWMP or that a mixed-methods study was conducted to evaluate the Second Nature online BWMP. Please make this clear under Study design and mention the overall study and its objectives to provide context for the qualitative component within the mixed methods design. Although I am uncertain how the Second Nature online BWMP programme fit with the mixed-methods project, I believe it should also be reported under the Study design. I suggest that the authors move ethical consideration details to a separate section because it is reported here and also partly duplicated in Recruitment (I seem to consider “Participants who completed the interview received £20 in form of a shopping voucher as compensation for their time and contribution to the research” an ethical issue than a Recruitment issue); Data collection (“Consent from participants was obtained either through email correspondence or recorded at the start of each interview. ……..audio files were uploaded and stored securely”).

b. The Recruitment section could be changed to “Participant selection and sampling” or a similar broader heading. Although the section has relevant information, it requires more regarding what was the basis for the sample size of 40-50? Is this based on a similar previous study or arbitrary? What type of sampling technique was used, convenient, purposeful, snowballing? Also, some details here would be more appropriate in other sections. For example, I consider “Interviews were conducted during weeks 4 to 8 of the 12-week program.” to be more appropriate in Data collection section where it is already; therefore, please delete. Also “ To prevent bias, coding was completed before the research team accessed participants' weight loss outcomes. Once coding was finalised, each participant's weight loss status (i.e., whether they achieved a 5% reduction) was added to their transcript to enable comparative analysis.” may be more appropriate in data analysis, where it is already, or in strength and limitations.

4. Results/discussions/conclusions:

The presentation of facilitators and barriers is clear and well-organized, providing a balanced overview of participant experiences. The authors added relevant direct participant quotations which strengthens authenticity and insight into the lived experience. The discussion is effective in integrating the findings with existing literature. Conclusions are appropriately drawn, emphasizing practical implications for program management and future research. Consider briefly clarifying about the influence of other unexplored issues e.g. existing health conditions or comorbidities, around how facilitators and barriers may interact or differ by subgroups for added depth.

The article will require editing and proofreading to enhance grammar, punctuation issues, consistency and flow.

Please see a few examples below

Abstract:

Correct punctuations errors: line 18

Grammar: lines 27-29;

Introduction

Incomplete: lines 78-81

Methods

Grammar: lines 244-246

Results;

Lacking clarity/grammar: lines 265-266

Conclusion:

Grammar: lines 700-702

Repetitions

E.g.: lines 187 (Data collection) and lines 255-256 (Results)

Consistency: Behavioral change vs behavior change

Tables should themes be fully capitalised vs not capitalised? E.g. Group Relations; Physiological response

Reviewer #2: Introduction:

The introduction provides a good background and contextualization of Behavioral Weight Management Programs in general. To further enrich the context, you may consider adding the following information:

• What is the average duration of such programs, or what is the minimum length of participation considered as completion?

• What are the exit criteria for these programs?

Results:

(Line 262) — Please justify describing only the female respondents in the descriptive table. It would be helpful to clarify whether this focus was based on sample composition, analytic relevance, or another reason.

Limitations:

(Lines 686–691) — The points raised in this section appear to align more closely with recall bias and the absence of data triangulation. You may wish to reframe them accordingly.

Minor Corrections:

• Please review the placement of the comma on line 18.

• Lines 80–81: Please check and revise these sentences for grammatical accuracy and clarity.

• Lines 92–95: Please review and correct these sentences to ensure coherence and precision.

**********

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

Differences and commonalities in barriers and facilitators experienced by participants enrolled in an online behavioral weight management program: a qualitative comparison.

PONE-D-25-30791R1

Dear Dr. Thomson,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Taiwo Opeyemi Aremu, MD, MPH, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #1: The author has addressed all my concerns. I am happy for the article to be accepted for publication in Plos One

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

**********