Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent paper on an important issue.

Line 82 or 211 - could add something about potential negative considerations of secondary/re-victimisation by utilising experts by experience (although these have not been found in your research)

Could potentially add the significant importance already of campaigners like Sara Payne and advocates like Baroness Lawrence when introducing the topic.

As blind unsure if an expert by experience was involved in co-authorship but I hope so as this would have been nice given your objective.

Some clarity on the distinction (e.g. via initial theme definition table) and any overlap (e.g. via inclusion of the theme map mentioned line 382) between the themes would be worthwhile as at times I found myself unclear of the distinctions between some themes (e.g. subtheme 1 of theme 1 and theme 2; subtheme 2 of theme 2 and theme 3).

The discussion could add a brief sentence regarding what was NOT highlighted ie. from your quotes the power differential between researcher/expert and expert by experience did not seem to surface nor be a barrier to them (despite your questions regarding whether they felt they were experts and asking of barriers). This may be significant as tends to suggest this was not a barrier for them and maybe they did not experience this.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your kind comments and really valuable feedback. These are very much appreciated. On the basis of your suggestions, we have made the following amendments:

Comment: Line 82 or 211 - could add something about potential negative considerations of secondary/re-victimisation by utilising experts by experience (although these have not been found in your research)

Response: We have noted potential negative considerations where we discuss working with experts by experience around line 211.

Comment: Could potentially add the significant importance already of campaigners like Sara Payne and advocates like Baroness Lawrence when introducing the topic

Response: Whilst we appreciate the suggestion, we have discussed this and feel that it’s better to avoid naming any specific individuals as there are so many who are doing a lot of really great work in this area that it would be difficult and perhaps inappropriate to name or refer to a few select examples.

Comment: As blind unsure if an expert by experience was involved in co-authorship but I hope so as this would have been nice given your objective.

Response: No experts-by-experience were included as co-authors. This was primarily because it would not have been practically feasible to include all of those with lived experience involved in the SEEKERS project as co-authors or involve them in the writing process, and we did not want to provide such opportunities unless they could be provided to all and we could be inclusive. It was also deemed more appropriate from them to participate and contribute through their participation rather than to be co-authors, and we recognised that if they were involved in developing and delivering the research then this could have generated biases (we wanted to ensure that it was independent, so that WAITs could refer to it in supporting their own activities, such as developing funding applications etc. We did, though, involve and acknowledge those from the charity who had contributed in any capacity in developing and reviewing the paper.

Comment: Some clarity on the distinction (e.g. via initial theme definition table) and any overlap (e.g. via inclusion of the theme map mentioned line 382) between the themes would be worthwhile as at times I found myself unclear of the distinctions between some themes (e.g. subtheme 1 of theme 1 and theme 2; subtheme 2 of theme 2 and theme 3).

Response: A table has been included at the start of the ‘Findings’ section which summarises the different themes and how they are distinct from one another.

Comment: The discussion could add a brief sentence regarding what was NOT highlighted ie. from your quotes the power differential between researcher/expert and expert by experience did not seem to surface nor be a barrier to them (despite your questions regarding whether they felt they were experts and asking of barriers). This may be significant as tends to suggest this was not a barrier for them and maybe they did not experience this.

Response: A paragraph has been added to the discussion in line with this suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to review. This is a timely and much-needed article. I run an experts by experience group and this is an article we have wanted to write for a long time. It is very well written and understandable for a range of audiences, which given the topic, I think is key! I have very few amendments/ suggestions (which is rather rare).

I wonder if you can include more about the demographics of the group (even the wider group) without compromising anonymity?

I’m not entirely sure all activities can be described as co-production. In places they seem more like consultation, collaborative but still more consultation. This might be due me to not understanding the background of some of the wider/previous events or activities or it might be that there is not enough detail to understand their influence. For example, I would have liked to see the interview schedule be co-produced with the group before its use. Please can you review where co-production is mentioned and ensure it is the correct term.

I really enjoyed reading ALL the quotes from survivors and their words resonated with things women in our group have said in presentations. I was also pleased to see opportunities they have had to undertake additional training or support. LOVED that the final words were from a survivor.

Finally, thank you for keeping the voice of survivors at the heart of your very important work. Long may it continue.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your kind comments and really valuable feedback. These are very much appreciated. 

Comment: I wonder if you can include more about the demographics of the group (even the wider group) without compromising anonymity?

Response: We have reflected on this question extensively. We cannot provide any detailed demographic information (e.g. on age or self-identified ethnicity or ethnic background), as this information was not collected. We have referred to the fact that WAITS specialises in supporting women from minoritised ethnic backgrounds when describing the charity. All of the women who took part in the interviews were in fact from such groups. However, we are not sure that we should indicate this in the paper as we do not want people to focus on this – rather, their views and experiences should be taken to be representative of all DA survivors, regardless of background, age, ethnicity or any other personal characteristics.

Comment: I’m not entirely sure all activities can be described as co-production. In places they seem more like consultation, collaborative but still more consultation. This might be due me to not understanding the background of some of the wider/previous events or activities or it might be that there is not enough detail to understand their influence. For example, I would have liked to see the interview schedule be co-produced with the group before its use. Please can you review where co-production is mentioned and ensure it is the correct term.

Response: We agree with all that you say, and recognise that us having used the term co-production could have been somewhat misleading. We have revised discussion throughout the manuscript to refer to collaboration and consultancy, rather than co-production.