Co-Designing Tiyanjane, a Participatory Intervention to Promote Parental Involvement in the Education of Children with Disabilities in Malawi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The conclusions are very brief and superficial. Please, improve the paper's conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback.

Comment 1: The conclusions are very brief and superficial. Please improve the paper's conclusion.

Response 1:

We have provided a more detailed conclusion based on our study findings and strengthened the information about moving this study into the next pilot implementation phase.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this excellent work entitled: Co-designing Tiyanjane, A Participatory Intervention to Promote Parental Involvement in the Education of Children with Disabilities in Malawi. This paper discusses the co-design of a participatory group program to promote and enhance parental involvement in supporting the education of children with disabilities in Malawi. The authors are commended on their great work. It is clear that a lot of critical thinking and planning went into this document.

The paper is excellently written and can be accepted as is. It will be a valuable contribution to researchers who want to follow the co-design process for interventions. The information is presented clearly, and other researchers could follow the processes and take note of the challenges experienced in this research by some participants in Stage 7 where they had to select appropriate BCTs that included a Delphi technique.

The only suggestion for change is to relook at the word "likened" on p4 of 19 (line 287). Did you mean "linked"? 

Well done!

Author Response

Thank you for your review, which we are so grateful for.

Comment 1: The only suggestion for change is to relook at the word "likened" on p4 of 19 (line 287). Did you mean "linked"? 

Response 1: We have corrected the spelling to ‘linked’.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important and thoughtfully written article that makes an important contribution to the literature on childhood disability and the role of caregivers in facilitating participation and inclusion, particularly in resource limited settings. The methodological detail and use of theory are particular strengths.

I would like more detail on the Key Components of Tiyanjane (p7). Who are the facilitators and what are they being trained to do? What is the intended content of the ten practical sessions conducted over ten weeks? What is involved in action planning? In the supplementary material the facilitators role is not mentioned and the program is described as being 12 weeks long rather than 10. 

You have mentioned that the project design is attentive to the 'broader structural factors' that influence parental involvement in supporting their child's education, which is really important. I would like to see some discussion of the 'challenges in daily life, workload, and resource constraints' that parents face which mean they tend to deprioritise their child's education, and specifically how the planned intervention addresses these barriers. 

Why was only one parent of a child with an intellectual impairment selected? Can you comment on if/ how their perspective differed from the others?

I would like to know the gender breakdown by participant type - e.g. were women over-represented among the parents?

In the abstract, you could mention that the intervention involved community members and teachers as well as parents. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Our response: Thank you for your review and feedback.

Comment 1: More detail is needed on the Key Components of Tiyanjane (p7). Who are the facilitators, and what are they being trained to do? What is the intended content of the ten practical sessions? What is involved in action planning?

Response 1:
We have strengthened and expanded the section on the key components of Tiyanjane as suggested. We have also clarified the action-planning process to ensure transparency in intervention design. Please see the revised supplementary Table 2.

Comment 2: In the supplementary material, the facilitators’ role is not mentioned, and the program is described as being 12 weeks long rather than 10.

Response 2:
We have corrected the inconsistency in the supplementary material and ensured that the duration of the intervention is consistently stated as 12 weeks across the manuscript. Additionally, we have included details about the role of facilitators.

Comment 3: Could you expand on how the intervention specifically addresses the barriers related to "challenges in daily life, workload, and resource constraints" that parents face?

Response 3:
We have included a section highlighting how the intervention incorporates flexible scheduling, community support mechanisms, and strategies to assist parents (both male and female) in balancing their responsibilities while actively engaging in their children’s education.

Comment 4: Why was only one parent of a child with an intellectual impairment selected? Can you comment on if/how their perspective differed from others?

Response 4:

In the methods section, we included the fact that the selection of participants was grounded in voluntary participation and availability. We have noted the limitations based on a lower number of children with intellectual disabilities in the limitations.

Comment 5: I would like to know the gender breakdown by participant type (e.g., were women over-represented among parents?)

Response 5:
Thank you. We have updated the demographic Table 1 to include the gender breakdown of participants by sex.

Comment 6: In the abstract, you could mention that the intervention involved community members, teachers, and parents.

Response:
We have revised the abstract to explicitly mention that the intervention involved parents, teachers, and community members.

In-text comments made to our manuscript: .

Response:
We thank you for the comments you made directly on a copy of the manuscript. We received them well and have addressed the issues raised. The changes are reflected in the tracked version of our manuscript.

More specifically, we have addressed the following:

• Line 61-62: edited due to culture of discrimination
• We replaced Figure 1 of the BCW with a more explicit version of higher-quality
• We have amended line spacing issues in several places you kindly highlighted.
• Line 159 – we clarified the phases of the intervention development
• Line 199 – removed ultra-poor to reflect living in extremely poor conditions
• Section 2.4.3, lines 398-399, have been revised to more accurately reflect the meaning of our wording and phrasing, which was unclear, as you noted.
• Lines 509 to 514 have been updated as they were unclear and conflicting.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research presented in the publication is undeniably scientifically relevant and practically significant. The research has a solid scientific background. Its scientific concept is a meaningful construct and has clear objectives. Some editorial shortcomings should be addressed, for example, the design of the figure should be improved (see line 117) and the sentence structure should be improved (see line 427).

However, the biggest shortcoming in this case might be the absence of a research question(s). As is known the research question focuses the study by defining what the researcher aims to investigate. It sets boundaries and prevents the research from becoming too broad or scattered. It communicates the purpose of the study to readers, making it clear what specific problem or gap in knowledge the research addresses. A clear research question allows readers and reviewers to evaluate whether the research objectives were achieved and if the conclusions are supported by the evidence. It helps in framing discussions, conclusions, and implications, making the research findings easier to communicate and understand. It is precisely in these areas that the research description needs improvement.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

Comment 1: Some editorial shortcomings should be addressed (e.g., improve the design of Figure, line 117; sentence structure, line 427).

Response:
We have improved the figure design, which now appears on line 121. This includes adding the missing caption as Figure 1 for better clarity and improving sentence structure in the specified sections, specifically on how we utilised elements of Delphi to complement a challenging part of BCW.

Comment 2: The biggest shortcoming might be the absence of a research question(s).

Response:
We have addressed this by clearly stating the research question in the Introduction section – see Section 1.3.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper. The topic is very interesting. One suggestion I have is to use the word ENGAGEMENT instead of inclusion. The word engagement indicates involvement; the word inclusion does not suggest involvement.

There are several APA errors in text. However, when I read your chapter published in 2024, those errors were not present. 

Methodology:

Prior to this study, the researchers conducted a systematic review of parental interventions and a qualitative study of factors impacting parental engagement in the education for their students with disabilities, such as financial difficulties and limited support from the schools.  I found these two prior phases to be very important in the design of an intervention. Knowledge of effective interventions and information of barriers that challenge parental engagement provided critical data for the intervention study described in this manuscript.

This qualitative study took place in the Northern rural region of South Africa, and it involved 23 participants. Its purpose was to co-develop an intervention to engage parents in the educations of their students with disabilities. The intervention was co-designed based on the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) framework, which is flexible and adaptable to different populations. The BCW was a good framework choice because it provides nine intervention functions that deal with capability, opportunity, and motivation deficits. The researchers used the Delphi method to collect consensus data from the participants to decide on effective strategies on how to engage parents of students with disabilities.

The recruitment of a diverse group of participants (e.g., parents, teachers, and community leaders) seemed to have contributed positively to the intervention development.  The five intervention functions included activities to educate and train parents, teachers, and community member, to modify the environment, and to keep everyone motivated to facilitate parental engagement.

Discussion:

The researchers addressed the limitations of their study. They discuss the importance of involvement all stakeholders in the design of the intervention. Unfortunately, implementation of the intervention has not yet occurred.

 

I hope the researchers find funding to accomplish their goal successfully of engaging parents of students with disabilities in their education.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review and feedback.  Below are our responses to your specific suggestions:

Comment 1: Consider using the word "ENGAGEMENT" instead of "inclusion."

Response:

We thank you for this suggestion and have replaced "inclusion" with "engagement" where appropriate to better reflect the active involvement of parents.

Comment 2: There are several APA errors in text. However, when I read your chapter published in 2024, those errors were not present.

Response

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have reviewed our references and ensured consistency. Additionally, we sought support from the Editorial team, which directed us to adopt ACS as the journal's preferred referencing standard.

Comment 3: The methodology is well structured and clearly outlines the prior systematic review and qualitative study, which were critical in shaping the intervention.

Response

We appreciate your positive feedback on the methodology and are pleased you found the approach well-structured.

Comment 4: Discussion: The researchers addressed the limitations of their study. However, implementation of the intervention has not yet occurred.

Response:

We acknowledge that the pilot implementation is beyond the scope of this article. In the conclusion section, we have included a statement mentioning that future research will report on pilot study outcomes and a feasibility study, which is currently in progress.

Comment 5: I hope the researchers find funding to accomplish their goal successfully.

Response: Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The improvements suggested by me are well done. The topic and the experience of its research are essential to the field of education.