Patterns and predictors of outcome monitoring amongst link workers: Learnings from the National Social Prescribing Link Worker Survey 2025

Daisy Fancourt; Feifei Bu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0346234

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 19, 2025
18 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Souparno Mitra, Editor Dear Dr. Fancourt, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR:-->--> -->-->Please review the reviewer comments. Your manuscript comes well recommended and needs some minor revisions prior to acceptance. Please revise the manuscript and resubmit for further consideration. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2026 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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, Souparno Mitra, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more 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. 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. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 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. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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.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??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: This is a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study by the National Academy for Social Prescribing that was conducted among Social Prescribing Link Workers in Great Britain. The research questions are of high relevance to a wider readership. In principle, the methodology is adequate and the conclusions are justified. However, the sampling might result in important flaws. If more information would be available this could improve transparency and trustworthiness in the results. Further comments: - l. 16 methods could be a bit more informative - l. 32f.: the Conclusions are not really related to the results section. It becomes clearer when reading the discussion, but still it could be a good idea to frame it more in the context of the results. - l. 55 could profit from citations that offer insights into shortcomings of data quality for SP evaluations (i.e. 10.5334/ijic.6472) - l. 90 should not include results (i.e. n) but rather explain the method of participant acquisition. Therefore, the chapter title could be moved to line 77 and l. 90 f. should be moved to the results section. The chapter should be augmented with information on the overall sample size to assess what the response rate was in the results section. - Table 1: A legend with explanations for abbreviations should be included - Tables 2 and 3 could be more concise, as Likert scale is the same. - Rewrite to OR X.X (95% CI) instead of %, i.e. as in the abstract - l. 184 many should be removed. - l. 286 f.: I agree, still l. 210 f. is a highly interesting finding and should be further explored. - Ordinal regression could be moved to the supplement. I do not see the benefit of having it in the main manuscript. - Colour usage in the figures could be optimized, especially for people with visual impairments (i.e. Figure 5). In a future iteration, the amount of time spent on documentation could be an interesting aspect. Reviewer #2: I have reviewed and critiqued some limitations of the study "Patterns and predictors of outcome monitoring amongst link workers: learnings from the national Social Prescribing Link Worker Survey 2025." Please make necessary edits. ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: Yes: Hendrik NapieralaHendrik NapieralaHendrik NapieralaHendrik Napierala Reviewer #2: Yes: Arun PrasadArun PrasadArun PrasadArun Prasad ******** [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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346234.r001
Revision 1
25 Feb 2026 Author Response Dear Editor, We’re pleased the paper has received positive reviews. We have responded to all the changes requested below. Best wishes, The Authors 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 *The paper has been reformatted accordingly. 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. We have confirmed that consent was given online. We already clarify that the data were de-identified. 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more 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. 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. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 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. We have augmented the data availability statement to clarify these details. 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 are unaware of any retracted articles in our reference list. Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: This is a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study by the National Academy for Social Prescribing that was conducted among Social Prescribing Link Workers in Great Britain. The research questions are of high relevance to a wider readership. In principle, the methodology is adequate and the conclusions are justified. However, the sampling might result in important flaws. If more information would be available this could improve transparency and trustworthiness in the results. We are pleased the reviewer feels the paper is so relevant. We have described the sampling in detail in the methods section but have also now provided an additional sentence on this in the limitations paragraph. Further comments: - l. 16 methods could be a bit more informative We have now provided more methods detail in the abstract. - l. 32f.: the Conclusions are not really related to the results section. It becomes clearer when reading the discussion, but still it could be a good idea to frame it more in the context of the results. Thank you for this point. We have provided more linkages between the abstract conclusions and results. - l. 55 could profit from citations that offer insights into shortcomings of data quality for SP evaluations (i.e. 10.5334/ijic.6472) We have added the suggested reference. - l. 90 should not include results (i.e. n) but rather explain the method of participant acquisition. Therefore, the chapter title could be moved to line 77 and l. 90 f. should be moved to the results section. The chapter should be augmented with information on the overall sample size to assess what the response rate was in the results section. This information is not results but rather a description of how we selected the analytical sample. The overall sample size was 412, so there are no other details on response rate that can be provided. - Table 1: A legend with explanations for abbreviations should be included We have now provided all acronyms in full form within the table - Tables 2 and 3 could be more concise, as Likert scale is the same. We considered horizontal tables, but found vertical ones more intuitive for these results - Rewrite to OR X.X (95% CI) instead of %, i.e. as in the abstract We have added the ORs now. - l. 184 many should be removed. Removed - l. 286 f.: I agree, still l. 210 f. is a highly interesting finding and should be further explored. We agree this is an interesting point, but we are wary about over-interpreting at this stage. We’ve already provided half a paragraph on this point so think it is prudent not to interpret further at this stage but rather to test this finding further in future studies where we can probe with additional questions. - Ordinal regression could be moved to the supplement. I do not see the benefit of having it in the main manuscript. We have now made this change. - Colour usage in the figures could be optimized, especially for people with visual impairments (i.e. Figure 5). We have altered the colours to make them starker. In a future iteration, the amount of time spent on documentation could be an interesting aspect. Thank you for this suggestion for future iterations of the survey! Reviewer #2: I have reviewed and critiqued some limitations of the study "Patterns and predictors of outcome monitoring amongst link workers: learnings from the national Social Prescribing Link Worker Survey 2025." Please make necessary edits. *Thank you for your time. We have responded to all the edits. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346234.r002
17 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Souparno Mitra, Editor Patterns and predictors of outcome monitoring amongst link workers: learnings from the national Social Prescribing Link Worker Survey 2025 PONE-D-25-67268R1 Dear Dr. Fancourt, 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 and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact 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, Souparno Mitra, M.D. 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: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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.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 ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Thank you for responding to all my comments. I believe that this manuscript is now ready for publication. Reviewer #2: Thanks for making suggested edits on article " Patterns and predictors of outcome monitoring amongst link workers: learnings from the national Social Prescribing Link Worker Survey 2025." ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: Yes: Hendrik NapieralaHendrik NapieralaHendrik NapieralaHendrik Napierala Reviewer #2: Yes: Arun George PrasadArun George PrasadArun George PrasadArun George Prasad ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346234.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Souparno Mitra, Editor PONE-D-25-67268R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Fancourt, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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. Souparno Mitra Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346234.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 .