Changes in Social Interventions after COVID-19: The Experience of Front-Line Social Workers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It was interesting to read the experiences of social work practitioners in Spain during 2020 and 2021.
My biggest concern about the paper is around originality. What does this research tell the reader that is new? In the discussion, the authors suggest that the strategies used by social workers to cope are new. However, it would be good if the paper went beyond this to clearly and explicitly highlight in what ways this study confirms existing research, provides new knowledge, or differs from existing research.
It would be good to ensure a wide range of contemporary literature is used to do this. And to ensure that this literature is referenced in the background section, so that the reader has a sense of the state of research on the topic before reading the results.
Other comments as follows:
- The authors state on page 2, that the 'main goal of this study is to deepen the experiences of front-line social workers during and after COVID-19 lockdown'. It is important to acknowledge here that the focus is on Spain.
- In the methods section, the authors use the phrase 'qualitative descriptive intentional study'. I'm not sure what is meant by 'intentional'.
- Was ethics approval granted for the study? If so, could details be provided?
- The final research question would be better phrased as 'what is the profile of new users' rather than 'how is the profile...'.
I appreciate the authors submitting this paper. It was certainly interesting to read about the experiences of social workers in Spain during the height of the pandemic and the affects on their practice.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The authors are grateful for all the helpful comments and suggestions received, and for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We have revised it thoroughly, taking into consideration all the comments. In the text the alterations are made with track changes and are explained in detail below. We have made some minor changes throughout the manuscript for clarity (also made with track changes). In the process of reviewing the manuscript we also added a fourth theme, referred to the professional self-care. We hope these answers and the changes made to the original manuscript meet your requests and that it may now be acceptable for publication.
Thank you.
Point 1: My biggest concern about the paper is around originality. What does this research tell the reader that is new? In the discussion, the authors suggest that the strategies used by social workers to cope are new. However, it would be good if the paper went beyond this to clearly and explicitly highlight in what ways this study confirms existing research, provides new knowledge, or differs from existing research.
Response 1: Thank you. We re-wrote the last paragraph in the introduction section, to highlight the contributions of this study (lines 96 to 101)
Point 2: It would be good to ensure a wide range of contemporary literature is used to do this. And to ensure that this literature is referenced in the background section, so that the reader has a sense of the state of research on the topic before reading the results.
Response 2: We added a paragraph (lines 78 to 94) with more literature regarding social workers’ practices during COVID-19 pandemic.
Point 3: The authors state on page 2, that the 'main goal of this study is to deepen the experiences of front-line social workers during and after COVID-19 lockdown'. It is important to acknowledge here that the focus is on Spain.
Response 3: Thanks for your comment. We added “Spanish” (line 96).
Point 4: In the methods section, the authors use the phrase 'qualitative descriptive intentional study'. I'm not sure what is meant by 'intentional'.
Response 4: Thank you, we amended this mistake by deleting the word “intentional” (line 103).
Point 5: Was ethics approval granted for the study? If so, could details be provided?
Response 5: Since this is part of a final degree project, ethics approval is not applicable. We followed the guidelines of the Spanish Law 3/2018 to ensure ethical procedure in the collection of data. We state this now in the methods section (lines 108-113).
Point 6: The final research question would be better phrased as 'what is the profile of new users' rather than 'how is the profile...'.
Response 6: Thank you. We have made this change (line 119).
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, I have made comments directly in the pdf. I hope you find them helpful. Some are rather detailed more to make a point (see ex the aim). You need to check the English (also tempus), work a bit with the structure (you give info during the way that should have been given in the introduction) and provide more context (on Spain's welfare system). You will see I suggest you to differentiate "strategies" aiming at themselves and those aiming at clients. It is a nice study and I hope you feel encouraged.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The authors are grateful for all the helpful comments and suggestions received, and for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We have revised it thoroughly, taking into consideration all the comments. In the text the alterations are made with track changes and are explained in detail below. We have made some minor changes throughout the manuscript for clarity (also made with track changes). In the process of reviewing the manuscript we also added a fourth theme, referred to the professional self-care. We hope these answers and the changes made to the original manuscript meet your requests and that it may now be acceptable for publication.
Thank you.
Point 1: You need to check the English (also tempus),
Response 1: Thank you, the manuscript has been revised by a native English speaker.
Point 2: work a bit with the structure (you give info during the way that should have been given in the introduction)
Response 2: We have placed more information in the introduction and deleted from the other sections
Point 3: and provide more context (on Spain's welfare system).
Response 3: we have introduced more information regarding the Spanish welfare system
Point 4: to differentiate "strategies" aiming at themselves and those aiming at clients
Response 4: we have introduced a fourth theme (self-care)
PDF comments:
Point 1: this is a strong claim. YOu need a reference and/or make it less strong ("in many contries..."). Next sentence. Start the sentence with "In Spain" (to bring the reader to Spain. The reader is still "in the world". use passed tense (empowered. Why parentesis last sentense. It is your focus.
Response 1: Thank you. We added "in many countries" in line 26. Line 27: we start with "in Spain", used past tense (line 28) and eliminate the parentesis (lines 33 and 34).
Point 2: (line 25) Until? I should be "before" I suppose? You need to exåplain what is "primary care in Spain" (is it health care?). You jump back and forth beteen Spain and the world. Keep a track (preferrably, start "in the world, "go to Spain and stay there".
Response 2: Thank you. We have eliminated the reference to the "world". Now this paragraph is related to Spain (lines 35 to 44).
Point 3: (line 41) Welfare state "had to" - sounds as if wfs did respond totally to all needs. Please revise (it did not respond, right? Not clear how you get from "needs" to organisational (use more words so it is clear that you mean responses were organisational).
Response 3: Thank you. We have changed this sentence (lines 41 to 43)
Point 4: (line 52) here it is of interest to know if there is different "groups" (such as elderly, drug users etc) or do they "all get same" services (this is interesting to understand for an international reader like me and others to get the context of your study.
Response 4: We added a paragraph to give more information about the context of the study (lines 55 to 58)
Point 5: (line 55) demanded by whom? or it was set up in order to respond to the demands.
Response 5: We re-wrote this sentence (lines 58-59) After the outbreak of the pandemic, a new organization in social services arose to respond to the current needs of citizenship.
Point 6: (line 60) npt sure this is introduced? A certain body, organisation, authority?
who issued protocols?
Response 6: It is the General Council of Social Work (mistake with the acronym, now solved). It is introduced at the beginning, in line 38.
Point 7: if you mean the international federation you should "sort" the levels of guidance (international, national, regional., professionals themselvers, etc:protocols?
Response 7: Thank you. We re-wrote this paragraph, differentiating international and national level (lines 69 to 75)
Point 8: it would be good to spell out if you are here identifying a lack of knowledge as regards social workers. I recommend you also add Dominelli 2020
[35] L. Dominelli, A green social work perspective on social work during the time of COVID 19, Int. J. Soc. Welfare 30 (1) (2021) 7–16, https://doi.org/10.1111/ ijsw.12469.
Response 8: Thank you. We re-wrote this paragraph, including more literature, and the author that you have suggested (lines 79 to 95)
Point 9 Why "main" (there semes to be no else)
Di you forget the word "knowledge" (deepen the knowledge", right?)
do you mean deepen experience it would take a bit more in the introduction to introduce the idea of experiences (taht you mean can be leart from). It comedes as a surprise.
Response 9: Thank you. We re-wrote this paragraph to include your suggestions (lines 94 and 95)
Point 10: I miss ethical considerations. Need of "approval" under a certain law (and if not applicable, tell us). I suppose you present the material pheudonymised" (not possible to identify)
Response 10: Thank you. We re-wrote this paragraph to include these details (lines 103 to 113)
Point 11: I am not sure N is best used here. As you are interested in social workers, N=12 (as below)
Response 11: we changed this sentence (now is N=12) (line 104)
Point 12: Is it relevant with Bologna? It you do not use it in the analysis it is not needed.
Of course they worked in the setting!! no need to say
Response 12: We have eliminated both aspects in sample subsection (lines 120 and 121)
Point 13: very nice with a table. However, direct after the tabel, the second paragraph cover subtheme 1. What is the first paragraph about? Theme 1? Plus more subthemes?
Response 13: We have re-organized those paragraphs. (starts in line 148)
Point 14: Is 3.1 an title?
Response 14: Yes, we have eliminated the italic format (format mistake) (line 148)
Point 15: the state of alarm (not correct English i think) wa stated in Marsh too? in the Introduction?
Response 15: we have re-phrased this sentence (line 149).
Point 16: it would be better to introduce such informatiom over the Spannish system in the introduction (as it is relevant for the understanding)
Response 16: we have placed this information in the introduction section.
Point 17: I wonder if it would not be better to present "economic vulnerability first" as it is more geneala and the add the two other as more special and grave "cases" (even sub-sub cases)
Response 17: we re-organized this section, beginning with economic vulnerability, and ending with the new profiles of users (starts in line 209).
Point 18: did they get supervison? support from the management (the "boss)?
Again I wonder of the order. As paragraph 2 is more clearly what the title says (service users) start there.. The first paragraph is more "meta"-level (how to be able to, not really a strategy to help). Perhaps a forth theme would be better (self-care, support etc.).
Response 18: following your suggestion, we added a fourth theme (starts in line 268).
Point 19: You need to sort out what info should be given above as your aim is to write above experiences. The experience is to referr to and cooperate (and. The info you give about "some councils" seems more general.
A section on the Spannish context and welfare system whould help the reader (in the introduction)
Response 19: we re-wrote some sentences in this section, to clarify the central idea (cooperation with civil society groups) (lines 269 to 286)
Point 20: the first time you say "social community service"?
Response 20: we state only “basic social services” to be clearer (both in introduction and in discussion and conclusions sections).
Point 21: (line 265) move and take together with team spiriit etc a bit down (not to "jump back and forth")
Response 21: now this paragraph is at the end of this section
Point 22: (line 310) This should be said in the introduction. First time you say crisis
are you sure you want to conclude the need to adress the distress of social workers first?
You introduce totally new issues in this conclusion (the alliance for example). Should that be included (spelt out in the the result?)
Response 22: Thank you for your comment. We have now re-phrased this section (conclusions), eliminating the reference to alliance.
Point 23: connect it to Spain as well. That is, in a certain context and system
Response 23: we changed this sentence to introduce the reference to Spain (line 344)
Point 24: yes, they supported, but they also were supported? (line 333)
Response 24: we have introduced this idea in discussion (line 324) and in conclusions (line 365)
Point 25: I think you even have room to say that there is a lesson to learn for national (institutions) authorities to include and social services more clearly, consider implicatons for practice they have to handle
Response 25: we have re-written the conclusions section, to introduce this suggestion (lines 345 to 374)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript. It has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Social Sciences. Please let me know if you need me to complete the online form or if this email is sufficient.
Author Response
The authors are grateful for all the helpful comments and suggestions received in this “second round”, and for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We have revised it thoroughly, taking into consideration all the comments made by both reviewers. In the text the alterations are made with track changes and are explained in detail in the attachment. We hope these answers and the changes made to the original manuscript meet your requests and that it may now be acceptable for publication.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, I fine your answers good and the manuscripts is absolutely developed. I have used comments in the pdf along my reading to point to some minor remaining issues. Otherwise it is a nice study and interesting to get some insights in the Spanish experiences. Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
