FROM : A Qualitative Evaluation of Suicide Prevention Course Implemented in the USCG: Results from focus groups of USCG members and affiliates Short title: A Qualitative Evaluation: Suicide Prevention in the USCG

Author response in blue colour:

Alternative Title:- A Qualitative Evaluation of the safe TALK Suicide Prevention Course: Results from the United States CoastGuard. 

We chose to keep the original title, as the aim of the project was to become better informed on implementation of suicide prevention within the USCG community. We also wanted to emphasize that focus groups were used as our method of qualitative research.

There are multiple areas where the language could be improved. For example, even the abstract’s first sentence has a word missing: “…they act as hindrances towards WHO providing and seeking help.”

Completed an overall word check and made any necessary wording/grammer changes.

The introduction section provides some background. There was a complete lack of further detail regarding the safeTALK program. How does it exactly work? How long has it been around?

(Pg. 5)

Added additional information on LivingWords safeTALK that includes its development, structure, overall goals, and connection to the Coast Guard.

Also, it may be helpful to expand out details about the USCG – how many members in the different theatres, its mission, etc. It would also be helpful for you to break up your introduction section into several subsection to help readers. Also, you mention”coasties”-while I know that term means USCG members (since I served withsome), I would expect that term to be outlined.

(Pg. 4)

Added additional information on the U. S. Coast Guard that described its role within the U. S. federal government and its overall mission. Also added further description of the term “Coasties”.

Also, do not be afraid to utilize”e.g” or “viz”.when you are describing the methods/questions used. You may also find it helpful to list of other similar studies that have used the same methodology – you spend a bit oftime talking about John Ward Creswell – but you don’t list off where similar methods had been used Also, your quote at the bottom of page 3/top of page 4 is off.

Cited and discussed research that supported the effectiveness of safeTALK and the utilization of the gatekeeper philosophy.

You have only two references. You should be expecting between 10-20 references to provide context. You also directly quote from Creswell – this needs to include the page number of the source.

Added 11 more references and added the year to the Creswell citation (Pg. 8)

I did not see where you talked about IRB approval prior to the interviews. You did notmention where the participants had the opportunity to volunteer – informed consent, etc. This was completely left out.

(Pg. 8, 9) Added information regarding participation anonymity and verbal assent. Participation was purely voluntary and anonymous, and all participants provided a verbal assent to have the interviews recorded and transcribed.

Added information on project funding. This project is categorized as program evaluation and quality improvement, and therefore was funded through operational and management funds, not research funds.

There is no discussion of how the interview results were protectedand anonymized, if that is what happened.

Added information on the deletion of the focus group recordings.

There needs to be some citations in the introduction, especially where there are assertions of specific information that would not be considered generalized knowledge(such as suicide risk, adverse psychological consequences, etc.)

(Pg. 5)Added additional information and cited research on LivingWorks safeTALK suicide prevention training.

The authors introduce the gatekeeper  philosophy but give too little background and do not tie in this philosophy very well to the work they are doing or the research project.

(Pg. 6)Added information on the gatekeeper philosophy that includes its development, goals, and connection to the U. S. Coast Guard.

This area also needs citations. Add some demographic information about theparticipants. In Theme 1 it will be helpful to discuss what the mixed reactions from participants regarding applicability.

(Pg. 8, 12)Added that participants varied in ethnicity.Added details to Theme 1 that further described the participants “mixed reactions”.

It may be helpful for readability to make the pie chart black and white and reduce the words on the actual chart. Maybe have just the pie chart and then have a discussion below the chart with the quotes(could even be in a table format). As it is now it is very hard to read the pie chart.

We chose to keep the pie chart in color as the color serves a visual purpose. Each theme is color coded to match its respective quotes.