Supporting Fathers Experiencing Family Breakdown: Practitioner Perspectives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe literature review should be enriched with a grater variety of studies and evidences. Also, it provides evidences from a qualitative analysis, but it should gain scientific rigor in the results to answer the questions of the study.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- Introduction
- It describes the lack of men-inclusive support during all stages of parenting, but it should be more specific about the impact of FBDS on fathers (post- divorce adaptation, fathers’ symptoms after FBDS, co-parenting skills, attitudes to agreements with the ex-partner,...). Also, there is not any review about postdivorce parenting support programs for both mothers and fathers.
In response to this insightful comment, we have now extensively reviewed the introduction, and have included much more information and evidence about the (fairly limited) existing knowledge on effective post separation support for men.
- A variable that could generate confusion is father-centered support programs or men-inclusive parenting programs?
We have now clarified that the comments made are in relation to both of these types of services.
- “When assessing the type of support that is effective for fathers, the need for connection and peer-to-peer support arise as particularly important” (line 72- 73), so the specific support that parents need in these situations is better if it comes from other fathers instead from fathers and mothers? Is there scientific evidence of the benefits of parenting support programs for mothers and fathers who take part in together?
We have reviewed this paragraph and have clarified that this relates to support from other fathers.
- - Barriers for organizations to provide adequate support to fathers could it be related to prejudices about fathers experiencing FBDS, fears or expectations? These possible explanations of the organization barriers are under explored in the literature review and it is also the aim of the study.
This has now been bolstered within the introduction.
- Method
- Which is the expertise of the organization where the participants belong to?
Which is the field of intervention or the general aim of these organizations,
supporting postdivorce parents or just fathers?
Thank you for this query. We have now added a line in the participants section to clarify this.
- - How were the participants contacted? The offer their own participation, their
participation was suggested by organization managers? Was their participation voluntary? Self-selection bias? Did the participants receive any feedback after the group discussion?
Thank you for this query. We have added several sentences in the Materials and Procedure explaining the recruitment process and the reasons for this process.
- - Only coded by one researcher (it is said “the transcript was read multiple times” but I guess it is done only by the same coder). This bias represents a major limitation. It should be coded by two coders. Also, agreement between coders is needed (p.e. calculate krippendorf alpha)
The data was coded and analysed by both the first and second author, and we have now made this clear within the manuscript. In relation to the comment regarding agreement, inter-rater reliability measures such as Krippendorff’s alpha are not typically used in reflexive thematic analysis, as this approach does not assume coding consistency across researchers. Instead, reflexive thematic analysis is grounded in the idea that meaning is actively and subjectively generated by the researcher through engagement with the data, rather than being objectively discovered. Coding is therefore understood as a situated and interpretative act, and divergence between researchers is seen as a source of richness rather than error to be minimized (Braun & Clarke, 2019). In team-based coding within reflexive thematic analysis, dialogue between researchers can be used to develop depth and nuance in theme development, rather than to reach coding consensus or demonstrate reliability in the positivist sense.
- Results
- Results are too extensive and each theme or subtheme may be represented
just by two/three most representative cites and examples
Thank you for this comment. We have now revisited the results and have reworked/streamlined this section significantly.
- Discussion and conclusion
- The general comment such as “the evidence demonstrating that children broadly have more positive outcomes in shared physical parenting arrangements following divorce” should be deepened and analyzed according to the level of interparental conflict or the presence of violence through scientific evidence, otherwise it remains vague and inaccurate.
We thank the reviewer for this prompt, and we have now explored this more fully in the discussion.
It should be added some references about fathers’ impact on children’s wellbeing after FBDS or the impact of joint, and not only (self?)citations of a similar study.
We have now bolstered our discussion of post-separation father involvement and it’s impact on wellbeing.
- - Limitations should include the self-selection bias of the participants
With the addition of the sentence above in the methods regarding selection processes, this should now be addressed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis topic is worth studying, especially the practitioner dimension of their views. We offer some of my comments and hope the authors can review them carefully and reconsider expanding the manuscript.
- For the introduction and literature review, I couldn't find much about precious studies, practitioners' views on this topic, or the difficulties that they faced in providing services for fathers. There is less justification for the theoretical and conceptual framework of the study.
- Is there any difference between mother and father support in this service? Why is father unique and worth discussing?
- Less discussion on methodology and justification of samples. It didn't state the ethical approval records and potential conflict of interest.
- The result part should be a serious expansion; there is no clear explanation of the details of each theme, so what's the justification for setting these themes? Providing the quotes is not enough to justify the theme.
- A table explaining the theme, sub-themes, and definition will be more precise for the readers.
- For the discussion part, expansion of the analysis is needed. For example, is there any cultural factor affecting this phenomenon, and what is the policy implication of your study?
Author Response
- For the introduction and literature review, I couldn't find much about precious studies, practitioners' views on this topic, or the difficulties that they faced in providing services for fathers. There is less justification for the theoretical and conceptual framework of the study.
After an extensive review of the introduction, there is now much more information on previous research relating to practitioner experience supporting separated men – thank you for prompting this change.
- Is there any difference between mother and father support in this service? Why is father unique and worth discussing?
Thank you for this comment. In response we have now made a much stronger case for focusing on father engagement in our introduction, and we hope that his satisfies.
- Less discussion on methodology and justification of samples. It didn't state the ethical approval records and potential conflict of interest.
Ethical approval and conflict of interest statements are included at the end of the manuscript as requested as part of the social sciences template.
- The result part should be a serious expansion; there is no clear explanation of the details of each theme, so what's the justification for setting these themes? Providing the quotes is not enough to justify the theme.
Thank you for this comment. We have now revisited the results, and have provided a much clearer narrative justification for the themes outlined.
- For the discussion part, expansion of the analysis is needed. For example, is there any cultural factor affecting this phenomenon, and what is the policy implication of your study?
Thank you for this comment. We have now bolstered the paragraph in the discussion which explores the implications of this study, as well as adding potential cultural influences to the limitations.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study looked at the experiences and insights of providers who support fathers who experience family breakdown, separation and divorce. The authors used deliberative inquiry with nine practitioners in the UK. Analysis resulted in four primary themes which mirror previous findings with fathers themselves and highlight the challenges faced by organisations supporting them.
The research is valuable and interesting but would require major changes. One of my primary concerns is the heavy reliance of the work of one author: Hine. There are currently nine references to the same author. As I suspect this is the author of the article, this introduces author bias and I suggest removing some of those references and replacing them with other research.
The literature review does not align with the aims of the study (there are also no research questions). The literature review does not specifically talk about practitioners' experiences or family breakdown and fathers' experiences, while these are included in the aims of the study.
More information is needed on data collection and analysis.
See my comments below:
In the abstract, introduce the acronym FBSD in the first sentence, after family breakdown, separation and divorce.
Line 25, references needed
Line 28, date needed after Hine and colleagues (I would recommend using et al.)
Most of the references in the first section are by Hine (total of 9 references in the manuscript to the same author). I would recommend including some other works as I suspect these are works by the author and introduce author bias.
Line 52, same support as? I assume this is ‘same support as women’?
The introduction focuses primarily on the experiences of fathers but the study is on the experiences of providers supporting fathers. It would be helpful to include some literature on the experiences of providers with fathers and father support as this is the focus of the study.
There is also little mentioning in the introduction into fathers’ experiences of FBSD while this is also a focus of the study. In summary, the literature review does not align with the research questions and does not clearly identify a gap in the literature. The literature review would benefit from aligning with the research questions and focus on the experience of health care provides working with fathers, as well as fathers’ experiences of FBSD. These are currently missing from the literature review.
What are the research questions? There is one broad aim but not a specific research question.
How were the participants recruited? How were the organisations identified. More information is needed.
What were the topics of discussion? How were these topics developed?
Line 141: It would be helpful to explain that trint is a transcription service as not everyone is familiar with it.
Who coded the data? How was interrater reliability established?
Line 388, what does BA08LO refer to? All of the other quotes are referred to as PA.
In the discussion, most of the studies referred to are by Hine, which is problematic and other studies need to be included as well.
Author Response
The research is valuable and interesting but would require major changes. One of my primary concerns is the heavy reliance of the work of one author: Hine. There are currently nine references to the same author. As I suspect this is the author of the article, this introduces author bias and I suggest removing some of those references and replacing them with other research.
Most of the references in the first section are by Hine (total of 9 references in the manuscript to the same author). I would recommend including some other works as I suspect these are works by the author and introduce author bias.
We appreciate this comment, and understand that the work of Hine is heavily cited. This is partly a function of the fact that this paper is the 4th and final in a series of work produced by this author for this special issue, as so naturally each manuscript builds on the last and includes references to those. That being said, in line with another reviewers comments, we have extensively reviewed and diversified the supporting literature throughout the manuscript.
The literature review does not align with the aims of the study (there are also no research questions). The literature review does not specifically talk about practitioners' experiences or family breakdown and fathers' experiences, while these are included in the aims of the study.
The introduction focuses primarily on the experiences of fathers but the study is on the experiences of providers supporting fathers. It would be helpful to include some literature on the experiences of providers with fathers and father support as this is the focus of the study.
There is also little mentioning in the introduction into fathers’ experiences of FBSD while this is also a focus of the study. In summary, the literature review does not align with the research questions and does not clearly identify a gap in the literature. The literature review would benefit from aligning with the research questions and focus on the experience of health care provides working with fathers, as well as fathers’ experiences of FBSD. These are currently missing from the literature review.
We have now conducted an extensive review of the introduction, and have included much more detailed information on the previous literature examining effective service provision for separated men.
In the abstract, introduce the acronym FBSD in the first sentence, after family breakdown, separation and divorce.
This has now been added.
Line 28, date needed after Hine and colleagues (I would recommend using et al.)
This line has been reworded to remove the need for this edit.
Line 52, same support as? I assume this is ‘same support as women’?
Yes, and this has now been added.
What are the research questions? There is one broad aim but not a specific research question.
We have now added and clearly articulated our research questions.
How were the participants recruited? How were the organisations identified. More information is needed.
Additional information has now been added to the methods on this point in line with suggestions by another reviewer.
What were the topics of discussion? How were these topics developed?
Information on this has now been added.
Line 141: It would be helpful to explain that trint is a transcription service as not everyone is familiar with it.
This has now been added.
Who coded the data? How was interrater reliability established?
Information on this has now been added to the data analysis section in line with suggestions from another reviewer.
Line 388, what does BA08LO refer to? All of the other quotes are referred to as PA.
Apologies. This is the pseudonym that our participant generated, that had since been updated with a participant number. This has now been rectified as PA7.
In the discussion, most of the studies referred to are by Hine, which is problematic and other studies need to be included as well.
As with the introduction above, we have reviewed the entire manuscript and ensured an appropriate diversity of references to support arguments.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has improved a lot after the first review, especially the description of the method and the inclusion of the interparental conflict and coparenting variables
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors have already addressed my concern。 Thank you
