A Protocol for a Rapid Realist Review of Literature Examining Co-Production in Youth Mental Health Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is a comprehensive and valuable contribution to the field of mental health. It places a well-deserved emphasis on the critical issue of mental health, with its suggested protocol representing an important contribution to the domain. The research questions, designed to steer the co-production approach for youth mental health services, are also highly pertinent. Moreover, the paper offers a thorough definition of the co-production concept, emphasizing equal involvement and power-sharing among stakeholders, including young individuals with lived experiences of mental health issues and mental health professionals.

The breakdown of the proposed protocol into five stages is well-suited to the study's objectives. Furthermore, the suggested timeline of three to four months to complete the entire process, from the initial formulation of the research question to the dissemination of findings, aligns seamlessly with the overarching goal of conducting a rapid realist review.

In summary, this paper not only includes a pragmatical approach but also an important contribution to the broader discourse surrounding mental health.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a review of the “A Protocol for a Rapid Realist Review of Literature Examining Co-production in Youth Mental Health Services”. The authors have some interesting ideas, however,  the manuscript is difficult the read. I have included some comments on the first pages of the protocol, nonetheless, the rest of them should be reworked. 

Title: I suggest not including rapid realist, you are implying that other are not realistic. Also, rapid doesn't mean good or accurate.

Introduction

It doesn't lead the reader to what is the objective of the article. 

You need to focus on a specific geographical place, considering the presence of intrinsic differences. 

Please present specific examples. 

I have the impression that different authors wrote different sections and are not reviewed afterward. Section 1 is not well written. 

Line 94: In this paragraph, you are not clarifying the ideas.

Line 109. It would be necessary to describe youth in a closer manner. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Some specific points

From line 42 there starts to be discussion of previous reviews, it would be good to explore/compare/contrast some of the findings/proposed protocols from these here.  How were these literature reviews identified, using a systematic approach?

Line 67, is there a reference for this description of rapid realist review?

Line 67, check word, should it be herein, not here?

Line 370 – define middle-range theory

General points – please review sentence length and grammar, i.e., comma’s to help with readability

Are there duplicated figures and tables in this doc?

What is the context for this protocol, global? It is mentioned part way through, consider mentioning this up front/in abstract.

Consider the barriers to effective co-production, for example a need to use different approaches across contexts, for example a therapeutic context versus a program evaluation context. This will also impact on this power. How does co-production differ from other similar terms, for example co-design, co-creation, participatory action research approaches?

Who is the audience for this protocol? Consider expanding on this and whether the proposed audience would have the resources/capacity to undertake this sort of study.

What is the impact of literacy levels? Including mental health literacy.

What is the relationship between co-production in mental health services versus suicide prevention programs. There is a lot of work around co-design with young people with lived experience, I would assume there would be substantial crossover.

A lot of these points can be expanded on in the background/intro.

There is a need for protocol on how to undertake this sort of rapid review, specially working with young people and mental health systems, and also across age groups/services. There is value in this paper, however, it would be more beneficial if the protocol was already utilised, i.e. do what it is you are proposing, rather than just saying what you think should be done. This will then provide richer learnings into what your experience was with using the protocol, your findings etc, to then propose a more informed model for other people to use. Given the realist review is already registered, and it appears the team/resources are available, consider undertaking the review and then reporting the findings and proposed protocol based on this.

please review sentence length and grammar, i.e., comma’s to help with readability

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf