Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on June 18, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
PEER REVIEW HISTORY
BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to
complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf) and
are provided with free text boxes to elaborate on their assessment. These free text comments are
reproduced below.
ARTICLE DETAILS
TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
AUTHORS
The CORE Study Protocol: a stepped wedge cluster randomised
controlled trial to test a co-design technique to optimise psychosocial
recovery outcomes for people affected by mental illness in the
community mental health setting
Palmer, Victoria; Chondros, Patty; Piper, Donella; Callander,
Rosemary; Weavell, Wayne; Godbee, Kali; Potiriadis, Maria;
Richard, Lauralie; Densley, Konstancja; Herrman, Helen; Furler,
John; Pierce, David; Schuster, Tibor; Iedema, Rick; Gunn, Jane
VERSION 1 - REVIEW
REVIEWER
REVIEW RETURNED
GENERAL COMMENTS
Catherine Briand
Research Center of Institut universitaire en santé mentale de
Montréal (CANADA)
16-Oct-2014
Excellent publication. Very interesting and relevant!
Recommandations:
1-The abstract could be improved to a more conventional form. More
specifically, specify more clearly the objective of the paper in the
summary.
2-Specify more clearly the objective of the article in the section
Objectives. It's very interesting and relevant to present a paper
about a methodological approach. However, you need to specify
more clearly at the beginning of the article.
3-The organization of titles and subtitles to be improved. It seems to
me that we could go for a formula that would facilitate the reading.
The authors too wanted to bring a traditional structure. The content
presented not suitable to the traditional structure, but rather to a
unique and original structure.
4-It seems to me that the text ends too abruptly. The authors could
add a conclusion / discussion includes the issues addressed in the
text. I understand that the discussion is going on throughout the
paper, but it could be at the end of text to conclude on a
methodological reflection of this type of initiatives.
5-There is no return on the limitations of the study.
6-The text is very interesting and relevant. Must publish such
complex and important methodological approach to bring about the
changes in our health systems. That said, we must bring the text to
a text of reflection (not just presentation). I think all the elements are
there. You just rework the organization of ideas (and titles and
subtitles). Add a discussion/conclusion.
Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on June 18, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
VERSION 1 – AUTHOR RESPONSE
Thank you for the helpful and positive comments provided by this reviewer to our manuscript. We
have addressed these suggestions and are pleased to demonstrate where the suggested changes
have been incorporated:
1. We have improved the abstract and clarified the article purpose;
2. The objective of the article has been made clearer through the revisions and we have re-organised
text of different sections to make the paper clearer;
3. We have also included a number of sub-headings following on from the conventional SPIRIT
guidelines for developing study protocols to highlight how our study has needed to address a number
of contextual factors within the trial design. See for example a sub-heading on page 11 added called
accounting for service user characteristics which makes it clearer for the reader the importance of
taking into account these characteristics in the design of our study and on page 12 there is a subheading called the engagement model underpinning the trial - these two sub-headings make the
complexity of the setting and our response to this and study design issues clearer. We have also
added some further contextual information into the study setting section on page 13. The intervention
section from page 16 onward also explains the modifications we have made to gain some efficiency in
the identification of possible service changes and the implementation of these (again these changes
are linked with the contextual issues i.e. people with serious mental illness may drop out from the
intervention if it takes too long and also the published literature indicates a move toward accelerating
the information gathering elements of the co-design process so that issues can be identified and the
solutions co-designed more efficiently). We have also added a number of sub-headings into the
intervention section to make the changes easy to identify and the stages of the intervention clearer for
the reader. To further clarify the text we have included sub-headings to explain the recruitment
process more clearly, this section begins on page 25.
4 and 5. We agree the text ended abruptly as we closely followed the guidelines for reporting study
protocols but there is an obvious need to return to the study limitations and summarise some of the
key discussion points we have made in the article. We have included as per the reviewer's suggestion
a section on discussion/conclusion to re-iterate the key discussion points and returned to the study
strengths and limitations within this.
6. The text has been revised to incorporate the reflections and as per the above we have provided a
number of sub-titles to ensure that guidance is provided to the reader as to why certain elements
have been incorporated.
Again, we thank the reviewer for the considered responses provided.
Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on June 18, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
The CORE study protocol: a stepped wedge
cluster randomised controlled trial to test a
co-design technique to optimise
psychosocial recovery outcomes for people
affected by mental illness in the community
mental health setting
Victoria J Palmer, Patty Chondros, Donella Piper, Rosemary Callander,
Wayne Weavell, Kali Godbee, Maria Potiriadis, Lauralie Richard,
Konstancja Densely, Helen Herrman, John Furler, David Pierce, Tibor
Schuster, Rick Iedema and Jane Gunn
BMJ Open 2015 5:
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006688
Updated information and services can be found at:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/3/e006688
These include:
Supplementary Supplementary material can be found at:
Material http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/suppl/2015/03/24/bmjopen-2014-006
688.DC1
References
This article cites 61 articles, 9 of which you can access for free at:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/3/e006688#BIBL
Open Access
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative
Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which
permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work
non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms,
provided the original work is properly cited and the use is
non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Email alerting
service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
box at the top right corner of the online article.
ErrataAn erratum has been published regarding this article. Please see next
Topic
Collections
page or:
/content/5/7/e006688corr1.full.pdf
Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections
Evidence based practice (698)
Health policy (645)
Mental health (657)
Patient-centred medicine (448)
Public health (2132)
Qualitative research (673)
To request permissions go to:
http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To order reprints go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to BMJ go to:
http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on June 18, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
Notes
To request permissions go to:
http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To order reprints go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to BMJ go to:
http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
Miscellaneous
Correction
Palmer VJ, Chondros P, Piper D, et al. The CORE study protocol: a stepped wedge
cluster randomised controlled trial to test a co-design technique to optimise psychosocial recovery outcomes for people affected by mental illness in the community
mental health setting. BMJ Open 2015;5:e006688. One of the authors’ names in this
paper was misspelt. Konstancja Densely should be Konstancja Densley.
BMJ Open 2015;5:e006688. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006688corr1
BMJ Open 2015;5:e006688. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006688corr1
1