Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0286835. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286835

Study protocol for a systems evaluation of an infant mental health service: Integration of ‘Little Minds Matter’ into the early years system

Sarah Masefield 1, Alison Ellwood 2, Sarah Blower 1,*, Josie Dickerson 2, Rachael H Moss 2, Sara M Ahern 2
Editor: Veincent Christian Pepito3
PMCID: PMC10919861  PMID: 38452100

Abstract

Infant Mental Health relates to how well a child develops socially and emotionally from birth to age three. There is a well-established link between parent-infant relationship quality, Infant Mental Health, and longer-term social and emotional development there is a lack of evidence-based interventions that support the parent-infant relationship and/or protect against poor Infant Mental Health. Little Minds Matter is a specialist Infant Mental Health service developed in Bradford (UK) to support parent-infant relationships by providing training and consultation for professionals and direct clinical work to families. The successful implementation of this intervention depends upon how well it becomes embedded within, or integrated into, the early years system. For the purposes of this study, the early years system includes health, social and education services that support child health and development from conception to primary school entry at age five. This study protocol aims to apply a systems approach to evaluate this service and provide a perspective on the process of embedding a complex service within a healthcare system. Multiple methods will be used to investigate embeddedness within the wider early years system. Routinely collected quantitative data about the service will be used to develop a system map showing interaction with related services. Qualitative data will be collected at two time points through interviews with individuals involved in the design and provision of the service, and professionals working within the early years system. Framework analysis will be used to analyse the data inductively and deductively within a systems approach. The findings from this study will provide evidence to inform the ongoing implementation of the service for providers and commissioning bodies. Exploring the application of a systems approach in this clinical context will have application more broadly for researchers evaluating complex interventions and services within a wider system.

Introduction

Infant mental health (IMH) relates to how well a child develops socially and emotionally from birth to age three [1]. Secure parent-infant relationships are the foundation for protecting IMH [2]. If an infant feels safe and secure, and experiences the world as a consistent, loving place, they are more likely to build a healthy brain and grow into a confident person who enjoys happy relationships [3]. The association between parent-infant relationship quality, IMH, and children’s longer term social and emotional development is well evidenced [2, 4–6]. Despite this, there is a lack of evidence-based interventions that support the parent-infant relationship [3, 7] and/or protect against poor IMH [8].

In their recent evidence report, the Parent-Infant Foundation identified a ‘baby blind-spot’ within current Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) provision in England, with many services not accepting referrals for children under 24 months of age, thereby missing opportunities to intervene at the earliest opportunity [9]. The Parent-Infant Foundation consensus statement recommends improving outcomes in the first 1,001 days of a child’s life, establishing specialist IMH services at a local level and providing care continuity with a skilled workforce [10]. There are currently 45 such specialist parent-infant relationship or IMH teams in the UK offering theoretically grounded interventions in their therapeutic provision [11]. The Parent-Infant Foundation provide guidelines on the design and development of IMH services in line with the existing evidence of effectiveness [12]. To provide support to those families in need, these services need appropriate referrals from professionals working across the early years services who come into contact with families. In this study we define the early years system as consisting of all the health, social and education services that support child health and development from conception to primary school entry at age five. However, identification of issues in the parent-infant relationships by these professionals may be challenging. Whilst National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance highlights the importance of assessing the relationship parents have with their children, there are no assessment tools recommended for use in the critical first 12 months after birth, and those recommended for pre-school children require clinical expertise to complete [13]. Consequently, healthcare professionals working in universal settings with families with young children may lack the confidence and/or ability to assess this relationship [14, 15].

To address these challenges, one such specialist IMH service, Little Minds Matter (LMM), has been designed to provide direct therapeutic support for the parent-infant relationship at any time from pregnancy up to 24 months post birth. LMM has been providing services to families and professionals since April 2018. Prior to this mental health care provision to children in Bradford was often restricted to those above 24 months of age and professionals described a lack of confidence in supporting families with concerning parent-infant relationships. The aim of the service is to influence the wider early years system to raise awareness of IMH in the community and empower professionals to confidently identify issues and support parents within their usual practice. Success of the intervention depends on becoming embedded within the early years system, so that relevant services have an awareness of IMH and are able to utilise the services offered by LMM. By this we mean that relevant projects and services within the system have an awareness of IMH and the services offered by LMM and have support and opportunities at both an organisational and systems level to interact with the service. To explore the concept of embeddedness, or integration, of the service into a wider system, we will look at both how the service and the system have changed over time and the dynamic relationship of these changes. A useful way to conceptualise and examine this influence is by understanding both the extensiveness of the intervention across the system (how far has it reached) and the intensiveness of its integration into routine practice [16]. This will involve exploring both the pre-intervention context as well as the current context in which the service functions.

In 2021 the Medical Research Council updated their guidance for evaluating complex interventions to emphasise the value of understanding the context within which an intervention operates, thus enabling a richer comprehension of the mechanisms required to bring about change [17]. This requires exploration of integration within the existing system and the impact of the intervention upon existing activity, displacement of resources and ongoing relationships across and within the system. In accord with this updated guidance, the aim of this protocol is to describe the process evaluation of the LMM intervention using a systems evaluation approach. Our five objectives are:

  1. to describe what the early years system looked like before LMM was implemented (i.e., the pre-intervention context).

  2. to explore changes that have occurred in the early years system since LMM was first introduced.

  3. to identify and explore the ways in which LMM has become embedded within (i.e., coupled with) the early years system.

  4. to explore factors that have facilitated or hindered the implementation of LMM.

  5. to explore whether LMM has succeeded in increasing the knowledge and understanding of IMH in professionals working within the early years system.

Methods

Design

This is a systems evaluation approach using multi-methods including quantitative and qualitative data and systems mapping.

Study setting

This study is being conducted in Bradford, a large district in the North of England with a young, ethnically diverse population, many of whom live in areas of high deprivation. The early years system is defined as all the services that work with families with young children to promote children’s health and development from conception to primary school entry at age 5. This includes universal care (e.g., midwifery and health visiting), targeted services (e.g., mental health services and social care) and a wide range of voluntary and charitable sector (VCS) organisations delivering support and interventions. Significant to the early years services in Bradford are two large programmes of work providing additional support to the early years system in inner-city areas: Better Start Bradford, a National Lottery Community Fund programme that commissions a number of preventative interventions to improve socio-emotional development, language and communication development and nutrition in children aged 0–3 [18]; and the Reducing Inequalities in Communities programme that funds interventions to reduce inequalities across the life course including the early years [19]. Evaluation of the implementation of these projects was considered important, therefore a team of dedicated researchers, the Better Start Bradford Innovation Hub, have worked alongside projects, routinely monitoring delivery and providing ongoing feedback [18].

The intervention

Little Minds Matter is a specialist IMH service developed to support the parent-infant relationship during pregnancy until the infant is 24 months old. We acknowledge that not all caregivers are parents in a biological or legal sense, for clarity we also include within the scope of this paper parents as those who provide daily care to a child, and act as a ’parent’ whether they are biological parents or not [20]. The service is commissioned by both the Better Start Bradford and Reducing Inequalities in Communities programmes and is delivered by Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust. According to the theory of change for LMM which was produced during the service design process, a key mechanism for an improved parent-infant relationship is mind-mindedness which is defined as the ability of parents to tune in to their children’s thoughts and feelings [21]. The service acts on this mechanism in a number of ways. Firstly, by raising awareness across the early years workforce and wider community of the importance of the parent-infant relationship to later child outcomes. Secondly, by training and supporting the early years workforce who work directly with families to identify and support families with ‘concerning’ relationships. Thirdly, by providing direct clinical work with families in need. The service defines a ‘concerning’ relationship as one where a parent does not appear to be aware of their infant’s feelings and are unable to exhibit mind-mindedness. Practitioners’ ability to identify concerning relationships can be limited, therefore issues of mind-mindedness and poor IMH are likely to be underdiagnosed. Through four strands of activity LMM seeks to raise awareness of the importance of parent-infant relationships and IMH with practitioners and improve access to support for families (see Fig 1: Overview of Little Minds Matter service) to enact change and improve IMH in Bradford. Strand one is delivered by a VCS partner and strands two, three and four are delivered by a team of approximately 10 professionals. This includes Clinical Psychologists, Family Therapists and those with a background in Health Visiting, Midwifery and Social Care settings. This service can be accessed by professionals in the early years system for advice and support and to refer families into the service for therapeutic work. Professionals can access the service by telephone and email, and families can self-refer to the service through a website or telephone contact. The service has undergone a thorough service design process, including development of a theory of change, logic model and agreed implementation targets for each strand for which routine monitoring data is gathered. Further information relating to this design process can be requested from the corresponding author.

Fig 1. Overview of Little Minds Matter service.

Fig 1

A systems approach to evaluation

The 2021 Medical Research Council framework for evaluating complex interventions includes the context within which an intervention operates with specific consideration of the conditions needed to realise the mechanisms for change [17]. In a systems approach to evaluating health interventions, interventions are conceptualised as ‘events in systems that either leave a lasting footprint or wash out depending on how well the dynamic properties of the system are harnessed’ [16]. An essential initial component of a systems approach is exploring and understanding the context into which the intervention is introduced and with which it interacts, essentially the pre-intervention context. Additionally, mapping of the system of interest is often a preliminary and integral part of a systems evaluation. The pre-intervention context and system map are then used as key tools in the systems approach to enable four avenues of inquiry: 1) how the intervention couples with the context; 2) tracking changes in relationships within the system; 3) the distribution and transformation of existing resources; and 4) the displacement of pre-intervention activities [16]. Using this approach, our study will look at how the intervention and the early years system have changed over time in relation to IMH, and the dynamic relationship of these changes. In our study, change over time is explored through data collection at two different time points 9–12 months apart (see objectives outlined in Table 1). Additionally, we have limited capacity to assess the redistribution and transformation of existing resources as we are not accessing financial records as part of this study.

Table 1. Objectives and data processes.

Objective Methodological approach Participants or Data source Time point Data collection method Data analysis method
To describe what the early years system looked like before LMM was implemented (i.e., the pre-intervention context). Qualitative methodology Individuals involved in the development of LMM (group one); individuals employed in roles supporting families with young children (group three) (see Fig 2) Time one Interviews and Focus Groups Framework analysis exploring patterns in the data across groups at time one
To explore changes that have occurred in the early years system since LMM was first introduced (to include the displacement of any pre-intervention activities and transformation of existing resources). Qualitative methodology Individuals involved in the development of LMM (group one); Individuals employed by LMM but not involved in service design (group two); individuals employed in roles supporting families with young children (group three) Time one Interviews and Focus Groups Framework analysis exploring patterns in the data across groups at time one and time two 12 months later
To identify and explore the ways in which LMM has become embedded within (i.e., coupled with) the early years system. Quantitative Methodology Routinely collected data relating to training, consultation and referrals Time one and time two Routinely collected count data plotted onto a system map
Qualitative methodology Individuals employed by LMM but not involved in service design (group two); individuals employed in roles supporting families with young children (group 3) Interviews and Focus Groups Framework analysis exploring patterns in the data across groups at time one and time two 12 months later
To explore factors that have facilitated or hindered the implementation of LMM. Qualitative methodology Individuals employed by LMM but not involved in service design (group two); individuals employed in roles supporting families with young children (group 3) Time one and time two Interviews and Focus Groups Framework analysis exploring patterns in the data across groups at time one and time two 12 months later
To explore whether LMM has succeeded in increasing the knowledge and understanding of IMH in professionals working within the early years system. Qualitative methodology Individuals employed in roles supporting families with young children (group 3) Time one and time two Interviews and Focus Groups Framework analysis exploring patterns in the data across groups at time one and time two 12 months later

Development of a system map

To describe the early years system in Bradford and identify key stakeholders to participate in interviews we will conduct a scoping exercise to identify early years services and projects in Bradford. This scoping exercise will involve exploring existing pathways within the early years system (between these services and LMM) and conversations with stakeholders including health and social care professionals, researchers and those involved in the LMM service design process. From this we will produce a list of services and projects that work with families in the early years system to promote children’s health and development. These services and projects will then be placed into a systems map, with services and projects placed in concentric circles, based upon the degree to which supporting the parent-infant relationship is a core objective of that service’s remit (see example map in Fig 2). This process will be iterative and based on the research team’s extensive understanding of the existing early years system in Bradford and LMM service design documents, which describe the expectations of interaction between LMM and other services. Implementation data is routinely collected about which organisations and professional groups have interacted with LMM via the training, consultation and clinical work strands since the service’s launch. This quantitative data will then be plotted onto the system map to provide a visual description of the way in which services and professionals have engaged with LMM.

Fig 2. Example template map.

Fig 2

Qualitative data collection

The systems map will then be used within qualitative interviews to help elucidate the pre-intervention context, the fit of LMM within the system and the extent of interaction between services and LMM. It will also facilitate other lines of questioning, including developing an understanding of any unintended consequences of introducing the LMM service into the existing early years system. Qualitative data collection will be undertaken with three different groups of stakeholders: group one, individuals involved in the development of LMM; group two, individuals employed by LMM but not involved in service design; group three, individuals employed in roles supporting families with young children (see Table 1 detailing objectives and data processes). Data will be obtained using interviews and focus groups as appropriate. For groups two and three, interviews will be undertaken at two time points to observe change in the system over time. Interviews will take place face-to-face or through online video conferencing depending on the participant’s choice. To report our qualitative findings, we will adhere to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) and the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) [22].

Participants

Study participants are eligible for interview if they are an individual working within the early years system, who is either:

  • Employed by the National Health Service (NHS), social care, Better Start Bradford and related organisations/projects, local authority, and VCS in a service which supports the parent-infant relationship with sufficient oversight of the project to understand engagement with the LMM service, such as team-leaders or managers.

OR

  • Were involved in the design and development of the LMM service.

We aim to recruit between 25–35 participants at each time point: four in group one; approximately seven in group two and 25 in group three. For group one and two these numbers are based upon the number of individuals involved in the design and current provision of LMM. Group one participants are identified by liaising with the Better Start Bradford team and group two participants will be identified by the clinical lead of LMM. Recruitment to group three will be dependent on the services identified in the systems map and interviews with participants in group one and group two. Initial scoping suggests that around 25 services may be included on the Bradford early years system map. This number may be revised and will depend upon the agreement and availability of invited individuals to participate.

Sampling will be purposive, targeting staff working at the team lead or managerial level in organisations that are considered most appropriate to gain organisational oversight and a wider view of service integration and training within the team. In most cases only one person per service will be interviewed and interviews with participants from services with a remit to support the parent-infant relationship will be prioritised (i.e., those in the inner circles of the systems map, see Fig 2). This approach will support data saturation given the range of participation from varied projects.

The study participants will be approached by email from the primary researchers (SM and AE). Email addresses will be accessed through contacts with the Better Start Bradford and LMM teams as well as contacts within the Better Start Bradford Innovation Hub following agreement by the relevant research and development offices. Emails will include the consent form and study information sheet. The information sheet includes details of the full study, indicating which participant groups we intend to approach for a second interview. Written or verbal consent will be taken prior to interview. Participation can be face-to-face or through video call therefore verbal consent will be recorded separately from the interview and stored in a different location on the Bradford Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust’s online secure archive in password protected folders.

Data collection

Data collection will be scheduled to ensure that those involved in the design and commissioning of LMM and LMM staff are interviewed first. This will allow for review of the system map (with any significant omissions added or clarifications made prior to the other interviews) and review of the list of organisations that the researchers intend to invite to interview in group three. Additionally, information will be captured and review of the topic guides for the subsequent interviews with staff from other services in the early years system will be undertaken. At times it may be more viable to collect data through focus groups rather than one-to-one interviews. This decision will be taken pragmatically on a case-by-case basis according to the preference of the participants. At time point one, all three groups will be questioned on a range of subjects as described in Table 1, including their role in the service, understanding of the LMM service, the reach of LMM across the early years system and interaction between LMM, other services and professional groups. For groups one and two, a copy of the draft map will be shared with participants prior to their data collection session. This will enable these participants to review the map in preparation for questions in the interview about which services have existing relationships with LMM, which additional services it would be desirable to establish relationships with and how IMH provision may overlap between different services. Group three will not be asked to review the map as at this time as we are primarily interested in their relationship with LMM and not with other services in the early years system. Group three participants will be questioned at time one and two about their understanding of IMH and how they feel this has changed over the duration of the project. Interviews are expected to last 1–1.5 hours for groups 1 and 2 and 30–45 minutes for group 3, it is hoped that shorter interview times will facilitate involvement from busy individuals.

At time point two, 9–12 months later, participants from groups two and three will be invited to attend a second interview or focus group. Wherever possible this will be the same individuals, agreement to approach participants again will be discussed at the end of their time one interview, but where these people have moved on an alternative appropriate individual will be approached. Again, they will be asked questions about their service, understanding of the LMM service, the reach of LMM into and interaction between LMM, their/other services and professional groups. At this time point group two will also review the map again, which will now include additional data from the time between qualitative data collection periods. The review of the map and interview questions will facilitate exploration of change in the early years system over the intervening period. Separate topic guides have been created for the different groups and will be used by the member of the research team conducting each interview. The topic guides may be amended following interviews with participants in group 1 and 2. With this approach we will achieve a whole-system perspective, including an understanding of the pre-intervention context.

Ethical approval and study governance

Health Research Authority (HRA) approval was granted on 25th August 2022 (IRAS project ID: 311645 REC reference: 22/HRA/3477) for research undertaken within the NHS Trusts and Sponsorship approval received for Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust on 3rd October 2022 and for Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust on 18th October 2022. University of York Department of Health Sciences Research Governance Committee approval was granted for research undertaken with non-NHS trusts via a Chair’s Action letter (30 September 2022).

Data management

Data will be managed confidentially in line with ethical approval. Interviews will be transcribed and anonymised then the recordings deleted. All data related to the map development, transcripts and consent information will be stored in the Bradford Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust online secure archive in password protected folders. Transcripts will be stored separately from identifiable and consent information. Transcripts will be managed on Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) software, NVivo version 14 (Lumivero, 2020) [23]. Transcript data and consents will be stored for ten years after which time they will be destroyed.

Data analysis

Quantitative data

Descriptive statistics will provide counts of the number of professionals and organisations within the early years system who have engaged with each of the strands of the LMM service.

Qualitative data

Framework analysis will be used to analyse the data using Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) software, NVivo. Framework Analysis [24] will be used to organise and analyse the data. This approach is well suited to this study because it is anticipated that a large amount of data will be generated, requiring a structure to manage and reduce the data to respond to the research questions. It uses a matrix format to organise the data into rows or cases (representing participants) and columns (representing codes) to support comparison of data across, as well as within cases [24].

Verbatim transcription will be completed by a transcription service approved by Bradford Institute for Health Research. Where focus groups are undertaken, we will approach the data as a group interview transcript analysed in the same way as the individual interview transcripts. Once transcribed, familiarisation with the data will be increased by reading of the transcripts while listening to the recorded interview. Once familiarised with the data three transcripts will be selected, one from each participant group. Using these three transcripts a coding framework will be developed. Initially codes will be deductively informed from the existing literature, in addition, two researchers will engage in open coding to enable themes to emerge from these three interview transcripts. Therefore, the coding will be both inductively and deductively informed, limiting the extent to which key findings might be missed. Once developed and agreed the framework will be utilised to code the remaining transcripts. As with the coding process, themes will be both inductively and deductively derived through discussion with the wider research team. We will not employ restrictions on coding, such as stopping analysis in response to data saturation because of the variety of professionals and services interviewed, new themes and relevant information may arise in each interview. This process will reduce the potential for bias and enhance the quality of the analysis.

Discussion

This study will use a multi-methods systems approach, integrating implementation data, systems mapping and qualitative data to evaluate the extent and ways in which the LMM service has become embedded within the early years system in Bradford (UK) to improve IMH. The outlined study will make an important contribution to knowledge.

Systems approaches, a defining feature of this study, are relatively new to health research and in keeping with the most recent guidance from the Medical Research Council [17]. The integration of a service into a wider system is often a key factor in the success of the service and the impact it has across the system. The approach outlined in this protocol offers a way to evaluate whether a service has become embedded and is able to influence a system. Such approaches may offer a pragmatic solution to evaluation, given there are often fluctuations in service provision and time limitations upon service providers and researchers. Furthermore, this study will provide future researchers with a valuable example of conducting such an evaluation of a service. The study findings will provide learning for the LMM service and early years commissioners in Bradford to enable them to adapt their service as required. Moreover, findings will provide a comprehensive understanding of the barriers and successes to system change for other similar services to review their practice. The depth of this study will also provide an understanding of the potential for the unintended consequences of implementing a new service into an existing system.

This study will only describe the impact of one service on one system in one location, however the knowledge and understanding gained about IMH services will provide an evidence base for similar service development elsewhere. In particular, this study has particular relevance to the current UK government initiative, the Best Start for Life [4], given the focus this policy has on the first 24 months of life and developing strong parent-infant relationships. A further limitation is that the understanding of the pre-intervention context is being accessed retrospectively by asking participants to reflect on provision before the introduction of LMM. This may impact on the understanding that can be gained about how much change has been brought about by the LMM service into the early years system in Bradford. However, by interviewing people involved in the service design stage we will gain an insight into the pre-intervention and through this approach we are developing the systems approach method and demonstrating how it can be adapted for existing services where it is desirable to explore system change over time.

Conclusion

IMH services appear to be a valuable early years service, but their successful implementation depends upon becoming embedded within the wider early years system. Evaluation of this with a system approach will provide learning for these services on the challenges and successes of embedding a complex service within a healthcare system and make an applied contribution to the understanding of systems approaches.

Data Availability

Data from this study can not be made available due to the qualitative nature of the study and ethical limitations. However, deidentified research data from the BiB and BiBBs cohorts can be made available to those who agree to the terms and conditions of this. Readers who wish to request data from the CiB or BiBBS cohorts should contact this email BorninBradford@bthft.nhs.uk This contact will be stable and these requests can be then forwarded on to the most appropriate person for management.

Funding Statement

This research is funded by two awards. The National Lottery Community Fund (previously the Big Lottery Fund) as part of the A Better Start programme (Ref 10094849). Awarded to JD, SA, SB NIHR Yorkshire and Humber Applied Research Collaboration (ARC-YH; Ref: NIHR200166). Awarded to JD, SB No commercial companies funded the study or provided a salary to the authors of this paper. The study sponsor is Bradford Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust Research Management & Support Office - Bradford Institute for Health Research (bradfordresearch.nhs.uk) The funders did not and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Zeanah CH, editor. Handbook of infant mental health. Guilford Publications; 2018. Oct 4. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fonagy P, Gergely G, Jurist EL, editors. Affect regulation, mentalization and the development of the self. Routledge; 2018. Apr 24. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Barlow J, Schrader‐McMillan A, Axford N, Wrigley Z, Sonthalia S, Wilkinson T, et al. Attachment and attachment‐related outcomes in preschool children–a review of recent evidence. Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 2016. Feb;21(1):11–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.HM Government The best start for life: a vision for the 1,001 critical days: The early years healthy development review report [internet] 2021. [cited 2023 May 16]. Available from: The best start for life: a vision for the 1,001 critical days—GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Van Ijzendoorn MH, Schuengel C, Bakermans–Kranenburg MJ. Disorganized attachment in early childhood: Meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and psychopathology. 1999. Jun;11(2):225–50. doi: 10.1017/s0954579499002035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Geddes H. Attachment and learning–the links between early experiences and responses in the classroom. International Journal of Nurture in Education. 2018;4(1):15–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mascheroni E, Ionio C. The efficacy of interventions aimed at improving post-partum bonding: a review of interventions addressing parent-infant bonding in healthy and at risk populations. Journal of Neonatal Nursing. 2019. Apr 1;25(2):61–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zeanah CH, Zeanah PD. ‘Infant Mental Health: The science of Early Experience’ In: Zeanah CH, editor. Handbook of infant mental health. Guilford Publications; 2018. Oct 4. P5–24 [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Reed J, Parish N. Working for babies. Lockdown Lessons from Local Systems. First. 2021. Sep;1001. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Parent-Infant Foundation. First 1001 Days Movement: Consensus Statement. [Internet] 2020. [cited 2023 May 16]. Available from: 1001 Days—Parent-Infant Foundation (parentinfantfoundation.org.uk) [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Parent-Infant Foundation. Parent-Infant Foundation network-locations. [Internet]. London: Parent-Infant Foundation LTD; [updated 2023; cited 2023 May 16]. Available from: Locations—Parent-Infant Foundation (parentinfantfoundation.org.uk) [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Parent-Infant Foundation. Parent-Infant Foundation [Internet]. London: Parent-Infant Foundation LTD; [updated 2023; cited 2023 August 31]. Available from: Chapter 1—Parent-Infant Foundation (parentinfantfoundation.org.uk) [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Postnatal Care, NG194. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2021 [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wittkowski A, Vatter S, Muhinyi A, Garrett C, Henderson M. Measuring bonding or attachment in the parent-infant-relationship: A systematic review of parent-report assessment measures, their psychometric properties and clinical utility. Clinical Psychology Review. 2020. Dec 1;82:101906. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101906 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bird PK, Hindson Z, Dunn A, de Chavez AC, Dickerson J, Howes J, et al. Implementing the Maternal Postnatal Attachment Scale (MPAS) in universal services: Qualitative interviews with health visitors. medRxiv. 2021. Nov 30:2021–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. American journal of community psychology. 2009. Jun; 43:267–76. doi: 10.1007/s10464-009-9229-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. bmj. 2021. Sep 30;374. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Better Start Bradford Giving children the best start in life [Internet]. Bradford: Better Start Bradford.org; [updated 2023; cited 2023 May 16] Available from: Home | Better Start Bradford [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Abbas S. Reducing inequalities in communities: closing the health gap in central Bradford. 2022. May 25 [cited 2023 May 25]. In: NHS England Website. Blogs [Internet]. London: NHS England. Available from: NHS England » Reducing inequalities in communities: closing the health gap in central Bradford [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Better Care Network. Practitioner Library: Human Resources [Internet]. Better Care Network.org: [updated 2022; cited 2023 May 16]. Available from: Parents and Caregivers (bettercarenetwork.org) [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Meins E. Security of attachment and the social development of cognition. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lumivero (2020) NVivo (Version 13, 2020 R1), http://www.lumivero.com
  • 24.Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC medical research methodology. 2013. Dec;13(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Veincent Christian Pepito

19 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-15381Study protocol for a systems evaluation of an infant mental health service: integration of ‘Little Minds Matter’ into the early years system.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ellwood,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 01 2023 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,

Veincent Christian Pepito

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

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author, thanks for your submission. It looks promising; however, I would like to clarify a few things:

1. I want you to clarify what specific type of "evaluation" you are carrying out. Is it an impact evaluation? Is it a process evaluation? This is to manage expectations for the reader.

2. I want you to give more details about what the intervention is by actually showing its theory of change (i.e., from inputs to process, to output, to outcome, and to impact), instead of just its parts. It would also be helpful what specific parts or aspects of the ToC will you be actually evaluating (which will answer Comment 1).

3. One of the objectives is to assess whether LMM increased knowledge and understanding of IMH (Line 144-145). However, I do not actually see what specific methodology you will use to answer this objective and how you will attribute any change in knowledge to the LMM program instead of other externalities.

4. On a more general note, I would appreciate it if you could specify how you would answer each of the objectives you have listed in Lines 134-145. Who are the respondents, what is the evaluation design used, what frameworks should be used, what analysis methods should be used, etc. I think you will also be using an implementation research framework to answer the facilitators and barriers objective, I surmise?

5. It is exemplary that you want to document how the embedding of the LMM affected the status quo. I want you to scale this up by also describing any assessments of unintended consequences that you would be doing on top of what has been described.

Minor comments:

1. Do not confuse efficacy with effectiveness.

2. Fix referencing.

Please also see the comments of the reviewers and see to it that these are addressed so that we can publish your protocol soon. Thank you.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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?

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Here are some of my comments and questions related to the manuscript:

Introduction:

- The aim of the study states: “To describe the evaluation of LMM intervention using a systems evaluation approach”. Are there specific objectives to the study? In line 131, the authors have explained that it will look into how the system has changed over time and the dynamic relationship of the changes. Lines 136 onwards also lists study objectives. Clarify the general and specific objectives of the study and include these in the introduction.

- The introduction describes the significance of the infant mental health and the program. Since the main objective of the proposal is to evaluate, improve this section with additional literature on the systems based approach to evaluation to help readers better understand the purpose of the protocol.

Methodology:

- Provide an illustration of the conceptual framework of the systems approach to evaluation

- It was difficult to follow what the research group’s methodology is for the data collection. Could this be better supported through a straightforward summary or perhaps illustrated through a diagram? Also the differentiation of the participant groups through a table that summarizes the data to be obtained, data collection tool to be used, type of analysis, etc.

- Outline potential assumptions and describe process more systematically to allow readers, policy-makers and other researchers to understand and even replicate the proposed approach to evaluation

Study setting and The intervention

- Since this is a program that is already running, how long has it been running?

- How is the service availed within the study setting?

Development of a system map

- What is the basis of the system map? Is there a guiding framework being followed particularly the 3 categories for eh core objectives that services remit?

Participants

- Clarify the inclusion criteria (Line 177). Line 189 describes targeting staff working as team lead or in managerial levels. This and other inclusion criteria may be most helpful in understanding the process if it were included in the eligibility list describing the participants.

- The number of respondents for the groups are different. Describe the basis of the sampling.

Data collection / analysis

- Since the group will not be stopping based on data saturation, how will the research team ensure that adequate information has already been gathered?

- The limitation on the pre-intervention context should be supported by secondary literature review.

Conclusion states that the study will evaluate whether a services has become embedded and influences a system. Which areas of the protocol will be answering this objective?

Improve language and grammar of the manuscript to provide a clearer and cohesive narration of the project.

Reviewer #2: - Congratulations on the conceptualization and implementation of the Little Minds Matter Program!! Early childhood matters!

- Before embedding the Little Minds Matter in early years system, its validity as an effective intervention in improving infant mental has to be established. Please provide more information on this, i.e. initial outcomes studies on improvement of parent-infant relationships, etc. after completing the program.

- Line 169. Would it be possible to include recipients of the program as another stakeholder group as it is noted that those interviewed are all service providers

- Line 222. On the contrary, wouldn't it be beneficial for Group 3 to review the service map to see how LMM relates to the other services in the early years system to decrease the chances of it duplicating existing services and also to see how it can work synergistically with other programs?

- Line 295. I am not clear about what your parameters are about LMM being "embedded" and "influencing" the system

**********

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: Yes: Angel Belle Dy

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.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0286835. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286835.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Sep 2023

Bradford Institute for Health Research

Temple Bank House, Bradford Royal Infirmary,

Duckworth Road,

Bradford, BD9 6RJ

PLOS

The Bradfield Centre

184 Cambridge Science Park

Milton, Cambridge CB4 0GA

United Kingdom

Dear Veincent Christian Pepito, Reviewers and Editorial Team,

We thank the reviewers for their comments and think the revisions we have made in response have strengthened this paper considerably. Our responses to the reviewers’ suggestions are given in bold after each statement.

The page/paragraph numbers relate to the file: AEllwood_Little Minds Matter_Revised manuscript with Track Changes

I want you to clarify what specific type of "evaluation" you are carrying out. Is it an impact evaluation? Is it a process evaluation? This is to manage expectations for the reader.

This protocol describes a systems approach to evaluating the process of implementation. Therefore, this would align mostly closely with a process evaluation. The abstract and introduction now make this clearer for the reader in the project/paper aims. (P.2 L.28 and P.5 L.102)

I want you to give more details about what the intervention is by actually showing its theory of change (i.e., from inputs to process, to output, to outcome, and to impact), instead of just its parts. It would also be helpful what specific parts or aspects of the ToC will you be actually evaluating (which will answer Comment 1).

We have added clarity to the section on the intervention by including a more detailed overview of the intervention by amending Figure 1 and a description of the theoretical underpinnings of the different strands of LMM activity, and how it is expected that these strands will enact change across the system. (P.8 L. 154-159 and Figure 1)

One of the objectives is to assess whether LMM increased knowledge and understanding of IMH (Line 144-145). However, I do not actually see what specific methodology you will use to answer this objective and how you will attribute any change in knowledge to the LMM program instead of other externalities.

This objective will be answered by questioning participants of group three about their understanding of IMH, how this has changed over the duration of the project at both time points. Data collected at both times will be used to explore this change. (See added Table of objectives and data processes)

On a more general note, I would appreciate it if you could specify how you would answer each of the objectives you have listed in Lines 134-145. Who are the respondents, what is the evaluation design used, what frameworks should be used, what analysis methods should be used, etc. I think you will also be using an implementation research framework to answer the facilitators and barriers objective, I surmise?

We have developed a table which will add clarity to how the methods will address the objectives. This table replaces figure 3 and should provide more clarity on this. Systems mapping is a young but growing field of evaluation and we are contributing to this by exploring the opportunities and challenges to its implementation via conducting a systems approach in a complex existing service. (See added Table of objectives and data processes)

It is exemplary that you want to document how the embedding of the LMM affected the status quo. I want you to scale this up by also describing any assessments of unintended consequences that you would be doing on top of what has been described.

This is a valuable point, as this study is qualitative in nature the findings will draw out unintended consequences of the intervention in particular by exploring change in the system, including the displacement of resources over the duration of LMM service provision. However, we are unable to conduct any formal assessment of unintended consequences as we do not have access to financial records and we are reliant on representatives of services remembering and reporting these consequences. As with all qualitative research we are relying on services being willing to engage with interviews to disclose this information. (P.19 L.380-382)

Minor comments:

1. Do not confuse efficacy with effectiveness.

2. Fix referencing.

We have adjusted the terminology to reflect the real-world applicability of this implementation evaluation. Therefore, effectiveness and efficacy have been removed from the text throughout the paper. Referencing has been checked and amended.

The aim of the study states: “To describe the evaluation of LMM intervention using a systems evaluation approach”. Are there specific objectives to the study? In line 131, the authors have explained that it will look into how the system has changed over time and the dynamic relationship of the changes. Lines 136 onwards also lists study objectives. Clarify the general and specific objectives of the study and include these in the introduction.

For greater clarity, the distinction between the aim and objectives has been clarified rather than using the language of general and specific objectives. We have revised the submission to reflect this change throughout, but particularly in the introduction and in the objectives table. (P.5 L.104- P6. L113)

The introduction describes the significance of the infant mental health and the program. Since the main objective of the proposal is to evaluate, improve this section with additional literature on the systems-based approach to evaluation to help readers better understand the purpose of the protocol.

Detailed description of the systems approach has been made in the methods sections. Reference has now been included in the introduction to systems-based approaches to introduce this theory prior to detailed description in the methods section. (P.5 L.96-99 and P. 9 L.172-175)

Provide an illustration of the conceptual framework of the systems approach to evaluation

The most appropriate conceptual framework for the systems approach to evaluation is recommended by the Medical Research Council. Explicit reference has been made to this as a framework now. (P. 9 L.172-175)

It was difficult to follow what the research group’s methodology is for the data collection. Could this be better supported through a straightforward summary or perhaps illustrated through a diagram? Also, the differentiation of the participant groups through a table that summarizes the data to be obtained, data collection tool to be used, type of analysis, etc.

Please see the objectives table which replaces Figure 3 as described previously which should provide additional clarity on the objectives and approaches used to address them.

Outline potential assumptions and describe process more systematically to allow readers, policy-makers and other researchers to understand and even replicate the proposed approach to evaluation

Steps have been taken to make the underpinning assumptions of the intervention and the research design clearer to the reader throughout the paper by responding to other comments and feedback. The paper has been closely reviewed by two co-authors to ensure the information necessary for study replication is all contained in the paper without unnecessary duplication. We hope that the addition/revision of the figures also aides this.

Since this is a program that is already running, how long has it been running?

An addition has been made to the introduction to indicate when the LMM service provision began. (P. 4 L.75-76)

How is the service availed within the study setting?

This service can be accessed by professionals through standard processes of contact such as telephone and email. Professionals can contact the service for advice and support and also refer families into the service for therapeutic work. In addition to this families are able to self-refer to the service through a website or telephone contact. (P.8 L162-166)

What is the basis of the system map? Is there a guiding framework being followed particularly the 3 categories for eh core objectives that services remit?

A sentence has been added to show how the system map will be draw up using the team knowledge of the system and the service design documentation given the close relationship that the research team have with the project and wider system. (P.11 L216-219)

Clarify the inclusion criteria (Line 177). Line 189 describes targeting staff working as team lead or in managerial levels. This and other inclusion criteria may be most helpful in understanding the process if it were included in the eligibility list describing the participants.

This addition has been made to the inclusion criteria. (P12 L247-248)

The number of respondents for the groups are different. Describe the basis of the sampling.

The reasons for differing numbers for participant recruitment across the groups is based upon the group definitions, for instance the service design group consisted of a small number of people and LMM is provided by a set number of individuals. Conversely it is anticipated that a large number of services will interact with LMM. Therefore, a large number of participants make up this group when engaging with one member of each team. This may be seen in the example system map, figure 3. Further detail has been added to the methods section to provide clarity. (P.12 L252-260)

Since the group will not be stopping based on data saturation, how will the research team ensure that adequate information has already been gathered?

Data collection is dictated by the number of services identified in the system map, initial scoping suggests that these numbers will enable inclusion of individuals from a range of services in the early years service system. This has been clarified within the ‘participants’ section. (P.12 L252-260)

The limitation on the pre-intervention context should be supported by secondary literature review.

Additions have been made to the introduction to reflect why the intervention was considered a need within the local area and the value of systems approaches examining real world implementations of interventions. (P4. L.75-79)

Conclusion states that the study will evaluate whether a services has become embedded and influences a system. Which areas of the protocol will be answering this objective?

This is the primary aim of the study and therefore the aim will be met by the study. The objectives are now more clearly outlined within the objectives table.

Improve language and grammar of the manuscript to provide a clearer and cohesive narration of the project.

Two co-authors have extensively reviewed the manuscript to check the grammar, clarity and cohesion of the paper.

Before embedding the Little Minds Matter in early years system, its validity as an effective intervention in improving infant mental has to be established. Please provide more information on this, i.e. initial outcomes studies on improvement of parent-infant relationships, etc. after completing the program.

This evaluation is part of establishing evidence for the effectiveness of Infant Mental Health services generally as the existing evidence base is limited. Little Minds Matter has been developed specifically with the local population in mind with stakeholder input. Other Infant Mental Health services in the UK exist as described in the introduction. Additions have been made to this section regarding a gap in provision in Bradford and the design of the intervention in the intervention section. (P4. L.75-79 and P.8 154-159)

Line 169. Would it be possible to include recipients of the program as another stakeholder group as it is noted that those interviewed are all service providers

We acknowledge the value that could be added by including families in understanding the benefits of the service. It is not currently possible to interview the families in receipt of therapy for this systems evaluation and it was outside the scope of this study as we wanted to explore the understanding of professionals within the system of that system. However further evaluation may explore the experience of therapy.

Line 222. On the contrary, wouldn't it be beneficial for Group 3 to review the service map to see how LMM relates to the other services in the early years system to decrease the chances of it duplicating existing services and also to see how it can work synergistically with other programs?

Although it may be beneficial for services to understand the early years system in which they operate it is beyond the scope of this research to facilitate this. The purpose of the interviews is to understand how each service individually interacts with LMM, including any overlap in their remit and provision. Group 2 (those who provide LMM) participants will be expected to describe how their service interacts with the other services using the system map including overlap between their service and others in the wider system. This has been expanded upon the data collection section. Additionally, we also aimed to minimise the burden of participation on group 3 to maximise recruitment, therefore 30-45 minute interviews where key questions were asked rather than using the time to review the map was seen as a priority. We did not expect the participants of group 3 to find time to review the map prior to interview unlike groups 1 and 2 who had more investment in the service and evaluation. The group 1 and 2 interviews were double the length and more in-depth. (P.15 L.297-301)

- Line 295. I am not clear about what your parameters are about LMM being "embedded" and "influencing" the system

These concepts are now defined more clearly within the introduction section. (P.4-L81-92)

We hope that these changes and additions to the paper in line with your valuable feedback and comments are acceptable and await your response.

Please direct all correspondence concerning this manuscript to Alisonellwood@bthft.nhs.uk

Thank-you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely

Alison Ellwood

On behalf of co-authors: Dr. Sarah Masefield, Dr. Josie Dickerson, Dr. Sarah Blower, Dr. Rachael Moss, Dr. Sara Ahern

Bradford Institute for Health Research

Temple Bank House, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Road, Bradford, BD9 6RJ

Attachment

Submitted filename: AEllwood_Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0286835.s001.docx (23.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Veincent Christian Pepito

12 Oct 2023

Study protocol for a systems evaluation of an infant mental health service: integration of ‘Little Minds Matter’ into the early years system.

PONE-D-23-15381R1

Dear Dr. Ellwood,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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,

Veincent Christian Pepito

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations on your work! Few comments on your final draft:

1. Emphasize that this is a process evaluation (not process of evaluation) to manage expectations

2. Review capitalization, grammar, and ensure that the font size, fonts are uniform throughout the manuscript to avoid typesetting errors.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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?

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

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the meticulous work and considerations in revising your manuscript. It has gained a lot more clarity, and I have no further comments.

Reviewer #2: This is a much-improved protocol. It is easier to understand and more cohesive. Congratulations!

Table 1 is a welcome addition as it showed how the objectives will be collected and analyzed.

I suggest you use the active form of sentences for your final draft (ex. Line 325, etc)

Line 329- indicate how the participant will be selected from the group so as to assure non-biased selection

Line 336 - "We will not employ restrictions on coding, such as stopping analysis in response to data saturation because of the variety of professionals and services interviewed..." - please clarify what you mean by not stopping analysis when you have reached data saturation, this might mean redundant results or a lengthy discussion about similar themes.

**********

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: Yes: Angel Belle C. Dy

Reviewer #2: Yes: Lourdes Bernadette Sumpaico-Tanchanco

**********

Acceptance letter

Veincent Christian Pepito

11 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-15381R1

Study protocol for a systems evaluation of an infant mental health service: integration of ‘Little Minds Matter’ into the early years system

Dear Dr. Blower:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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

Mr Veincent Christian Pepito

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: AEllwood_Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0286835.s001.docx (23.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data from this study can not be made available due to the qualitative nature of the study and ethical limitations. However, deidentified research data from the BiB and BiBBs cohorts can be made available to those who agree to the terms and conditions of this. Readers who wish to request data from the CiB or BiBBS cohorts should contact this email BorninBradford@bthft.nhs.uk This contact will be stable and these requests can be then forwarded on to the most appropriate person for management.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES