‘They Get It, They’ve Been Through It’: How Lived Experience Can Shape Understandings of Peer Parent Advocacy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the possibility to read the revised version of the paper. The manuscript is in my opinion substantially improved. The introduction is informative, and more nuanced bringing in different perspectives on a complex topic. Furthermore, the aim of the paper and the authors contribution and roles are clarified in this draft.  The presentation of findings and discussion is also improved.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Thank you for the possibility to read the revised version of the paper. The manuscript is in my opinion substantially improved. The introduction is informative, and more nuanced bringing in different perspectives on a complex topic. Furthermore, the aim of the paper and the authors contribution and roles are clarified in this draft.  The presentation of findings and discussion is also improved.

Thank you very much. We really appreciate the time you have taken to comment on the paper and feel that it is improved for your suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on your research. A pertinent topic on how child protection intervention could benefit from Peer Parent Advocacy.

Still, I have a few suggestions for improvement:

1 - The title is too long and I think it could be improved;

2- You mention that the article includes contributions from parents and researchers. But who are these researchers? How were they chosen? What about the parents?  Is it possible to have a profile/characterization/explanation of the participants? I think it could be improved/clarified; 

3- The Materials and Methods section could be improved in general. Although the effort to justify why only mothers were interviewed is perceptible, the idea that the participants in the study are the authors of the study is confusing;

4- The subtitles could be improved in the presentation of results, namely: ‘Close to, but separate from, parents’ making them clearer;

Thank you for the opportunity to read your article.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Congratulations on your research. A pertinent topic on how child protection intervention could benefit from Peer Parent Advocacy.

Still, I have a few suggestions for improvement:

1 - The title is too long and I think it could be improved;

Thank you for this. We agree. We have amended this now (see lines 2-3).

2- You mention that the article includes contributions from parents and researchers. But who are these researchers? How were they chosen? What about the parents?  Is it possible to have a profile/characterization/explanation of the participants? I think it could be improved/clarified.

3 of the listed authors are primarily researchers (although some have lived experience of interactions with children’s social care).  The remaining 5 are involved via the research centre’s parents’ public involvement group. We don’t feel it is appropriate to provide profiles of the authors. The members of the PI group have very good reasons for not wanting their profiles provided in the paper and it would be very unusual to expect authors to do this. We have, however, made amendments in lines 46-51, which we hope have made the roles of each party clearer.

3- The Materials and Methods section could be improved in general. Although the effort to justify why only mothers were interviewed is perceptible, the idea that the participants in the study are the authors of the study is confusing.

This paper follows the example of Holland et al. 2025 in that it’s co-authored between researchers and Public Involvement group members. Public Involvement authors were not participants in the fieldwork but they did play an active role in developing interview questions, data analysis and commenting on drafts of the paper. I have added more explanation to the Material and Methods section (particularly at lines 1209-216), which I hope should make this clearer.

4- The subtitles could be improved in the presentation of results, namely: ‘Close to, but separate from, parents’ making them clearer; I’ve rephrased this and the subsequent heading as ‘Boundaries between…’ to make this clearer.

Thank you for the opportunity to read your article.

Thank you very much for your comments, which we hope have added some clarity to this draft of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article entitled, “’They get it, they’ve been through it’: Reflections on how consulting those with lived experience can shape understandings of peer parent advocacy,” describes consultation that took place with parents who have lived experience with child protection services and were part of a public involvement group in England.  Strengths of the study include a focus on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and Peer Parent Advocacy (PPA), partnership between researchers and parents with lived experience in the presentation of the findings, and a focus upon services that parents “would have liked to receive” rather than those that were actually received.  In addition, practices associated with positive relationships between parents and social workers are recognized, and the perspectives of parents with lived experience are presented richly and informatively.  The manuscript describes impressively meaningful and practical implications for policy and practice, and the reflections are clearly expressed, thoughtful, and compelling. This reviewer is highly enthusiastic about the manuscript’s content and appreciates the “Perspectives” format that allows for this type of article (that is not strictly a traditional research study).  The address of the following comments would enhance the reader’s ability to absorb the material and understand the context of the reflections provided.

1. The paper is meant to address 2 questions: “how would parents design advocacy services?” and “how can public involvement inform both the collection and the interpretation of data in a realist-informed study on peer parent advocacy?” As currently structured, these two questions are posed at the beginning of the Materials and Methods section (rather than at the end of the introduction), the results for the first question are in the Results section, and then it seems that the results for the second question are in the Discussion section.  This structure was a bit unexpected and confusing.
2. The Materials and Methods section was at times difficult to follow. For example, it was not always clear if descriptions related to participants vs. methods, or to the parent group vs. research study. Perhaps subheadings would help to organize the information provided.
3. It seems that the parent group reflections for this article came from public involvement meetings, and it would be beneficial to have greater clarity on how these reflections were obtained.
   • For example, what was the format of the public involvement meetings? Were these meetings held for the sole purpose of gathering information on the specific topics of this article?
   • How many of the parent group members, researchers, and any others attended each public involvement meeting?
   • How was the content of these discussions recorded?
   • How were decisions made about what themes/factors to include in the manuscript?
4. Similarly, more information on the 62-participant study would inform readers about the type of research studies and study results that were being compared to the parent group discussions.
   • Little is known about the participants, topics, questions, and/or methodology involved in the interviews, focus groups, and observations.
   • Statements of the research project findings would be better supported by either actual results of quantitative/qualitative analyses or citations of previously published/presented results.
   • In addition, please clarify if the 7 parents in the group reviewed the data from the 62- participant study.
5. Minor points:
   • The authors state that “the parents in the public involvement group had not all experienced advocacy services” (lines 188-189). This seems to suggest that some of these parents had experienced these services. Please specify how many of the 7 experienced these services.
   • Further description of the Family Group Conferences, ICPC, and the relationship between the ICPC and Child Protection plans/Child in Need plans (lines 208-216) would be helpful to increase understanding as well as generalizability of the reflections.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The article entitled, “’They get it, they’ve been through it’: Reflections on how consulting those with lived experience can shape understandings of peer parent advocacy,” describes consultation that took place with parents who have lived experience with child protection services and were part of a public involvement group in England.  Strengths of the study include a focus on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and Peer Parent Advocacy (PPA), partnership between researchers and parents with lived experience in the presentation of the findings, and a focus upon services that parents “would have liked to receive” rather than those that were actually received.  In addition, practices associated with positive relationships between parents and social workers are recognized, and the perspectives of parents with lived experience are presented richly and informatively.  The manuscript describes impressively meaningful and practical implications for policy and practice, and the reflections are clearly expressed, thoughtful, and compelling. This reviewer is highly enthusiastic about the manuscript’s content and appreciates the “Perspectives” format that allows for this type of article (that is not strictly a traditional research study).  The address of the following comments would enhance the reader’s ability to absorb the material and understand the context of the reflections provided.

1. The paper is meant to address 2 questions: “how would parents design advocacy services?” and “how can public involvement inform both the collection and the interpretation of data in a realist-informed study on peer parent advocacy?” As currently structured, these two questions are posed at the beginning of the Materials and Methods section (rather than at the end of the introduction), the results for the first question are in the Results section, and then it seems that the results for the second question are in the Discussion section.  This structure was a bit unexpected and confusing. Thank you for raising this – you’re absolutely right. I’ve moved the research questions to the end of the introduction. I’ve also moved some of what was previously in the discussion section to the results section, under the heading ‘The Role of PPI in Research on Parent Advocacy’.
2. The Materials and Methods section was at times difficult to follow. For example, it was not always clear if descriptions related to participants vs. methods, or to the parent group vs. research study. Perhaps subheadings would help to organize the information provided. Thanks again for this helpful suggestion. I’ve added some of these and a bit more information about the study, particularly in lines 150-171.
3. It seems that the parent group reflections for this article came from public involvement meetings, and it would be beneficial to have greater clarity on how these reflections were obtained.
• For example, what was the format of the public involvement meetings? Were these meetings held for the sole purpose of gathering information on the specific topics of this article?
• How many of the parent group members, researchers, and any others attended each public involvement meeting?
• How was the content of these discussions recorded?
• How were decisions made about what themes/factors to include in the manuscript?

Thank you for these prompts. These points have now all been addressed and further detail provided in the paragraphs of the Materials and Methods section under the heading ‘Public Involvement’ (lines 173-189).

1. Similarly, more information on the 62-participant study would inform readers about the type of research studies and study results that were being compared to the parent group discussions.

• Little is known about the participants, topics, questions, and/or methodology involved in the interviews, focus groups, and observations. I have added some more information about the wider context of the study in lines 148-171.

• Statements of the research project findings would be better supported by either actual results of quantitative/qualitative analyses or citations of previously published/presented results. Thank you for this suggestion. We do not have ‘findings’ as such from the present study as yet, but I have added detail on the stage of the second research project alongside fuller information about the project as a whole in the current draft (see above).
• In addition, please clarify if the 7 parents in the group reviewed the data from the 62- participant study. They did. I’ve added more information on this in the second paragraph of the ‘Parent Advocacy Research Projects’ section in lines 168-171.
1. Minor points:
• The authors state that “the parents in the public involvement group had not all experienced advocacy services” (lines 188-189). This seems to suggest that some of these parents had experienced these services. Please specify how many of the 7 experienced these services. The members of the PI group have good reasons for not wanting specific information about their experiences provided in the paper. Most members of the group have some experience of receiving advocacy either as parents or as children, experience of peer mentoring or experience of being trained as advocates in a range of contexts. I’ve added this context at lines 209-216.
• Further description of the Family Group Conferences, ICPC, and the relationship between the ICPC and Child Protection plans/Child in Need plans (lines 208-216) would be helpful to increase understanding as well as generalizability of the reflections. I’ve added a fuller explanation of these processes at lines 277-284.

We really appreciate the time you have spent reviewing this and believe the current draft is stronger for your suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This is an interesting area of practice and your attention to peer advocacy within children services an important inclusion. I note that this paper is part of a larger study and that may be why, the paper reads as if the reviewer knows the context (this reviewer does not). I would also be interested in understanding what has been achieved in terms of improved outcomes for families and safety for children (who again seem invisible in this paper).

We are not clear how you recruited participants - for non-professional advocates how they were trained etc.  I assume this has been covered in earlier papers - if so, this paper still requires more context setting if it is to be viewed as a 'standalone' paper. 

The paper would also benefit from tighter editing.

Abstract

** I assume a 'public involvement group' is a consultation with people with lived experience, in this instance child protection?

** The abstract needed to identify the purpose, method as an introduction to the study - it implied that the reader knew the context - perhaps this is a 'secondary' paper from the study?

Line 64 - 2016 reference - has nothing changed in past 9 years?

Lines 25-26 - recognized as? sentence incomplete?

Lines 70-72 - other authors e.g. Nicolas suggest children are 'invisible in CP 

Line 109 - systemic rather than systematic level

Line 111 - Saar-Heiman et al. find - should be found

Line 130 - 'spoken data'?

Line 125: What do you mean by "public involvement" this may be a local construct?

Lines 171-172 - incomplete sentence

The results' section appears before the reader understands how you recruited participants, the processes for connecting with the participants etc. 

Author Response

Reviewer 4

 

Dear Authors,

This is an interesting area of practice and your attention to peer advocacy within children services an important inclusion. I note that this paper is part of a larger study and that may be why, the paper reads as if the reviewer knows the context (this reviewer does not).

I would also be interested in understanding what has been achieved in terms of improved outcomes for families and safety for children (who again seem invisible in this paper).

Thank you for raising this important point. Whist the main objective of this paper is not to consider whether parental advocacy help keeps children safe, our previous work on this subject (Authors own 2023, 2024) highlights that when parents have good relationships with social workers then parents are more likely to be honest with social workers and in turn more likely to get the support they really need to improve family dynamics and children’s well being and safety. Our studies on parental advocacy (Authors own 2024, Authors own 2023) evidence that parental advocacy also helps make the system less adversarial which in turn is positive for children.

Core social work values

It is also important to be mindful of core social work values within this debate. Code of Ethics | BASW (2021) state that ‘social workers should respect, uphold and defend each person’s physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual integrity and well- being. They should work towards promoting the best interests of individuals and groups in society and the avoidance of harm.’ Numerous studies have outlined how child protection conferences and the way these are conducted and led by social workers have a very negative impact on parents. We therefore argue that any way in which social workers can work with parental advocates to reduce this harm is very important and in line with core social work values

Impact on children

In terms of Parent Advocacy, outcomes for children are yet to be fully established in the UK. In our preliminary studies, participants have indicated that there are cases where they believe the presence of an advocate has stopped cases escalating to removal. In these cases, de-escalation has happened because parents have been able to engage with meetings and to make the changes social workers have considered necessary to keep the child safe. The assumption we are working on is that children benefit from staying at home if they are in a safe environment. There is lots of research to back this up (e.g. very poor outcomes for children who grow up in care) and our other research in children’s social care tells us that this was an undesirable outcome for many if parents could have been supported to care for them at home. This is likely to be even more marked as the system comes under increasing strain as more children are being removed. Of course there will always be cases where child removal is in the best interests of the child and in these cases, advocates can help parents to understand why this decision has had to be taken. Social workers have a duty to do this, which should be unaffected by the parent being supported by an advocate. No social workers have reported feeling under any pressure to make a decision that is not in the best interests of the child.

In the US, the link between parent advocacy and children staying safely at home has been established more fully (partly because parent advocacy has been established for much longer there). We are developing a bid to look at outcomes, potentially via an RCT (on the understanding that no parents will be denied access to an advocate on the basis of the study). PA services are not established in many places in England, so numbers of parents who have received advocacy are still fairly small. They are expanding, however, which will give us the opportunity to examine outcomes more reliably.

We have asked to interview children of parents who have received advocacy services where appropriate, but there are few who are of an appropriate age and who would benefit from talking to us about this service, since they are already overburdened with the process. Our parents group also includes mothers who themselves grew up in care, and we also have a group of care experienced young people we regularly consult – that’s just not the focus of this paper.

We have, however, added acknowledgement of the importance of the voice of the child at lines 76-79 to make it clear that these things should not be in opposition. In our experience (and the research), parents are more willing to make changes needed when they understand why this is of benefit to their children (see lines 90-91).

We are not clear how you recruited participants - for non-professional advocates how they were trained etc.  I assume this has been covered in earlier papers - if so, this paper still requires more context setting if it is to be viewed as a 'standalone' paper. 

The training of peer advocates varies by local authority. We recruited participants by asking our contacts in the local authorities to facilitate this by asking their advocates, or their advocate coordinators. I have added details on this in the Materials and Methods section at lines 148-153. I have also referred to papers published by the team on previous projects on this topic (lines 158-159).

The paper would also benefit from tighter editing.

Abstract

** I assume a 'public involvement group' is a consultation with people with lived experience, in this instance child protection? The paper is about public involvement in research, rather than in child protection. I’ve added more information on this in lines 28-51 to clarify this.

** The abstract needed to identify the purpose, method as an introduction to the study - it implied that the reader knew the context - perhaps this is a 'secondary' paper from the study? Thank you for noticing this. I agree that this is how the previous draft read. I’ve added two sentences at the beginning of the abstract (lines 5-8) to add a bit of context. This is the first paper from our current study, which is ongoing, so I’ve contextualised it in more general terms.

Line 64 - 2016 reference - has nothing changed in past 9 years? I’ve added a reference from 2022 (now lines 83-83). It’s hard to find evidence of parental non-engagement, but in this study, 22% of parents who engaged with the study (and are therefore more likely to have engaged with social workers) had not attended the ICPC.

Lines 25-26 - recognized as? sentence incomplete?

I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. It is a complete clause in my copy:

The benefits of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) [OBJECT] are increasingly recognized by [VERB] both researchers (Evans et al. 2014) and funders in health and social care [SUBJECT].

I’ve reordered the sentence as follows, in case this makes it easier to read:

Both researchers and funders in health and social care [SUBJECT] increasingly recognise [verb] the benefits of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) [OBJECT]. This is now at lines 27-28.

Lines 70-72 - other authors e.g. Nicolas suggest children are 'invisible in CP 

It is our understanding that adequately meeting the needs of parents is likely to benefit children, and that parent and child advocacy are two sides of the same coin. Some of the parent advocates in our study also work as advocates for children (not in the same cases). I can’t access Nicolas’ book, so I don’t know if she’s talking about ‘invisible children’ (i.e. cases where children aren’t seen enough by social workers) or just the idea that children’s views aren’t heard enough in child protection meetings in general. In research on children who become ‘invisible’, Ferguson (2017),  for example, argues that “The evidence shows how, when children become invisible in casework, a combination of organisational processes and the dynamics of interactions with service users lead social workers to experience emotional and sensory overload and become detached from children and also in significant ways from parents.”

Papers that lament the lack of voice children have in child protection also see child protection processes as inadequately meeting the needs of parents. The McAllister review puts this quite clearly: “The best route to keeping children safe when there is risk of significant harm, is to engage parents effectively in the child protection process. Helping parents to realise and understand risk and supporting them to make change is central to ensuring a child's safety. When parents do not engage, it is harder to monitor, understand and respond to changing risks. Poor parental engagement with services is a key practice theme arising from analysis of serious incidents (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2020).” Similarly, Tobis (2013: 64) argues that  ‘involving parents is not solely a matter of justice or sympathy or a desire to be nice to parents, which is an ideological point of view that we can fight about. But… as a critically important thing to do to help kids’).

I’ve added some of this explanation to the background section at lines 70-86.

Line 109 - systemic rather than systematic level I’ve corrected this now. Thank you!

Line 111 - Saar-Heiman et al. find - should be found This has been changed in the current version. Thank you.

Line 130 - 'spoken data'? This refers to interviews, focus groups and observations of practice, as opposed to written data (e.g. questionnaires, case files). This is stated in the text now at lines 153-155..

Line 125: What do you mean by "public involvement" this may be a local construct? I’ve added an explainer in lines 27-51 and included the use of the term ‘public participation’ in the US to make it clearer that this is a term used in the UK.

Lines 171-172 - incomplete sentence

Again, I’m not sure, but I assume you mean the following sentence:

However, as Shimmin et al. (2017) argue, PPI that excludes groups that experience barriers to accessing health or social care risks reinforcing these barriers.

I’ve rewritten this too, as follows:

However, excluding groups from PPI can risk reinforcing biases in services. For example, those who face barriers to accessing health or social care services cannot redress these barriers if they are not included in PPI groups (Shimmin et al. 2017). This is now at lines 230-233.

The results' section appears before the reader understands how you recruited participants, the processes for connecting with the participants etc. 

Thank you for this. I’ve moved the short explainer at the beginning of the results section to the end of the Materials and Methods section and added a subheading.

We really appreciate the time you have spent reviewing this and believe the current draft is stronger for your suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors were impressively  responsive to my comments, and the manuscript reflects significant effort and change.  Just one very minor final request – to define PI at line 168, which appears to be the first time of its use.  I congratulate the authors on a wonderfully meaningful article that will make an excellent contribution to the literature and to practice.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: "They get it, they’ve been through it: Reflections on how peer parental advocacy can help empower parents"

The manuscript explores the role of Peer Parent Advocacy (PPA) in child protection contexts, focusing on reflections from parents with lived experiences. While the topic is relevant to social work and has the potential to contribute to the field, the manuscript requires significant refinement to clearly establish its unique value and scholarly rigor.

1. Literature Review

• The literature review is underdeveloped and does not adequately reference existing studies on peer parent advocates.
• There are numerous studies, including scoping reviews, detailing the benefits, challenges, and supports provided by peer parent advocates. Incorporating these would strengthen the context and provide a clearer basis for the manuscript's contribution.

2. Study Purpose and Questions

• One of the main weaknesses of the manuscript is that the study lacks a clear research question or purpose. What specific question(s) is the paper attempting to address? Defining these is critical to demonstrating its relevance and contribution.

3. Methodology

• Another significant weakness is that the methodology section is inadequately detailed, making it impossible to evaluate the study's rigor. Specific gaps include:
• Design: What design was used and why?
• Participant Recruitment: How were the seven participants selected? What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria?
• Data Collection and Analysis: What qualitative methods were used (e.g., thematic analysis, grounded theory)? Why were these methods chosen? What questions were asked?
• Participant Demographics: Provide detailed demographic information to contextualize the findings.
• The manuscript mentions triangulation but does not elaborate on its application. Explain how triangulation enhanced the validity of the findings.
• The sample size of seven participants is insufficient to provide robust insights; such a limited number restricts the diversity of perspectives that can be captured, particularly in a field as nuanced as child protection advocacy. Moreover, with such a small cohort, there is a heightened risk of bias, as the experiences and reflections of a few individuals may disproportionately shape the conclusions. Expanding the sample size would enhance the study’s credibility, allowing for a more comprehensive exploration of themes.

4. Findings Section

• The themes presented are loosely grouped and lack coherence, making it difficult to follow the narrative. For example, "supports," advocate roles, supervision, and recruitment are all discussed but appear disconnected. Again, this is due to a lack of clear purpose/focus or research question that the paper is trying to address.
• Only the practical and emotional supports are discussed. Were these the only themes that emerged? What about other critical aspects, such as system navigation and advocacy?
• Examples from the case studies should be more explicitly linked to the findings to enhance their relevance and impact.
• All sections should be logically organized and clearly linked to the research questions.

5. Discussion and Contribution to Knowledge

• The discussion overlaps with the findings section, which should be avoided.
• It is not clear what the unique contribution of this manuscript is to literature. There are already numerous studies describing the supports provided by peer parent advocates. What new insights does this paper offer?
• The conclusion—“parent advocacy is needed”—is overly simplistic and does not add to the discussion. Consider exploring broader implications or offering actionable recommendations.

6. Limitations and Future Research

• The sample is limited to mothers in Wales. While this limitation is acknowledged, the authors should discuss its impact on the generalizability of findings and propose directions for future research to address this gap.
• Future research should also explore areas such as: the emotional toll on peer advocates and strategies for mitigating it; systemic barriers to implementing PPA, particularly in under-resourced areas.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article focuses on a relevant topic within child welfare and for the journals scope. Parents' suggestions for improvement toward a more equitable practice in child welfare services are an essential perspective to highlight in research. However, as the manuscript stands today, there is a need for revisions. I will go through suggestions for improvement chronologically below:

1. Introduction:
   The introduction can be read as a narrative that frames "us versus them" between parents and child welfare workers. This may contribute to a less nuanced understanding of the interaction between child welfare workers and parents, which is often characterized by highly complex relationships as the work involves both help and control. Additionally, there is newer research within this field that should be included in the introduction. The article's research question/aim is also unclear.
2. Method:
   Seven participants constitute a small sample size, and this should be highlighted as a limitation of the study. Ethically, I am also concerned about whether the description of the sample adequately safeguards the informants' need for anonymity. Furthermore, it is unclear in the article who is actually the "author" (line 60).  If this manuscript is written by parents themselves, this should be explicitly stated. A point is made initially about ethnic minorities potentially being particularly wary of child welfare services, but we are not provided any information on whether this was relevant in the sample composition, nor is it made relevant in the discussion. Group dynamics/ power imbalance should also be discussed in the methods section: Were all viewpoints expressed, or did certain voices create a narrative for others?
3. Results:
   As it stands now, this section is too lengthy and could benefit from being condensed, and the findings could be presented more clearly. It is unclear to me whether the findings are based on empirical data or are more general recommendations. Also, check whether the themes "align" with the presented content. In the results section, the "us versus them" theme arises implicitly in the text at line 100, where terms like "real empathy" and "judgment" are mentioned (line 103). Do social workers not demonstrate empathy?
   At line 118, it is stated that social workers focus solely on the children. This could be nuanced in the discussion: Could it be the parents' perception? Could parents have received information that they were unable to fully comprehend? (See, for example, the article "Breaking bad news: Child welfare workers' informing parents of care order proceedings", which describes some of the complexities in these interactions). Lines 173–176 belong in the discussion section.
4. Discussion:
   The discussion is very limited compared to the findings section. It should be expanded, and references to previous research should be included.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on your work, which is extremely relevant and pertinent for everyone concerned with research and intervention in the field of child welfare, particularly in the theme of Peer Parent Advocacy 

However, I would like to share with you a few thoughts:

1-In the abstract you mention: “the potential for parental participation in children's social work research” (line 9), however, there doesn't appear to exist a clear consideration of this issue in your research;

2- In lines 19 and 20 you mention that ‘Our previous research tells us that rumours sometimes circulate that social workers are financially incentivized to separate children from their families’ or in line 28 you write that "On the other hand, social workers often do not trust parents". I suggest you refer to the references that supports this ideas. 

3- I think that Peer Parent Advocacy (PPA) deserves a better theoretical framework, namely with more recent references and a clear definition on what it is and since when it has been in practice. I don't think it's enough just writing that a particular practice is positive or negative, I think you need to explain why because it's the basis on which your article is based. I think that you can improve this point;

4- You mention in line 70 that ‘fathers were also invited to attend’, but you don't explain how this invitation was made and if you know why fathers didn't participate. If you think it's important, I think you could make a brief mention of it.

There are a few points in the article that are very relevant and deserve a better reflection in the presentation of results, namely supported by other investigations. I'll just give you a few examples of what I think that could be better developed in your work:

5- Throughout the presentation of the results, there seems to be a misunderstanding from the group of mothers, between the informal knowledge of advocates and the formal and professional knowledge of social workers. Couldn't this be a way of trying to represent the knowledge of social workers close to "common sense"? 

6- I think that the part of the discussion must be improved and deserves to be developed. After so many comments about Social Workers, maybe it should be important to make some reflections, that emphasizes an almost confrontation between what makes a social worker, what this mothers would like them to do and how much advocates contribute, or not, to this misperception of roles. It seems to me to be an important point that results from the research presented.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to read your article.