{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,5]],"date-time":"2026-05-05T13:31:47Z","timestamp":1777987907565,"version":"3.51.4"},"update-to":[{"DOI":"10.3310\/nihropenres.14134.1","type":"new_version","label":"New version","source":"publisher","updated":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,21]],"date-time":"2026-04-21T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1776729600000}}],"reference-count":24,"publisher":"National Institute for Health and Care Research","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,21]],"date-time":"2026-04-21T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1776729600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/www.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/doc\/open-government-licence\/version\/3\/"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100000272","name":"National institute of health research","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","award":["NIHR131373"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["NIHR131373"]}],"id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100000272","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"crossref"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["openresearch.nihr.ac.uk"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["NIHR Open Res"],"abstract":"<ns7:p>Background Communities of Practice (CoPs) are recognised as shared learning spaces that situate learning, deepen knowledge, and facilitate the exchange of expertise within a specific domain. While CoPs often emerge organically, they have been widely adopted across health, social care, and education. However, their civic potential, particularly in enabling people with lived experience of social care to collaborate with practitioners to shape practice and drive meaningful change, remains underexplored. The Kent Research Partnership, South-East England (2021-5), aimed to build research capacity in adult social care. As part of its workstreams two CoPs were co-designed with informal carers and people who draw on care and support. The themes (\u2018Complex needs\u2019 and \u2018Workforce\u2019) were co-developed by a prioritisation exercise. Each CoP had monthly online sessions with invited speakers and facilitated discussions. Participants included informal carers, people who draw on care\/support, social care practitioners, researchers, and other people interested in the sector. This study aimed to evaluate the CoPs and their contribution to research capacity building in Kent. Method Using a pragmatic approach, 21 participants were purposively selected and interviewed (Jan-Feb 2025), 16 online and five in-person. Interviews were transcribed and analysed in NVivo using reflexive thematic analysis with an inductive\u2013deductive coding approach. Two researchers independently coded initial transcripts, iteratively refining codes and developing themes, supported by reflective notes and an audit trail. Themes were then mapped onto Cooke\u2019s framework for research capacity building. Results Reflexive thematic analysis generated three key themes: fostering an inclusive and collaborative learning environment; enabling shared learning within and beyond the CoPs; and generating shared impact through influence on policy and practice. These findings were mapped against Cooke\u2019s (2005) framework for building research capacity. Conclusions Participants valued the inclusive and safe learning space, which supported mutual reflection and knowledge exchange. Relationships across roles helped bridge siloed thinking, validate research ideas, and extend learning beyond the CoPs. Time constraints and organisational culture limited frontline social worker participation, despite a recognised need for innovation. Networking was a prominent outcome, generating new knowledge-exchange collaborations. Future research should examine how CoPs can be embedded within organisational systems and how their contributions to practice and policy can be evidenced. Implications for social work practice include protecting time for collaborative learning, strengthening senior leadership support, and harnessing CoPs to integrate research-informed approaches into day-to-day practice.<\/ns7:p>","DOI":"10.3310\/nihropenres.14134.2","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,21]],"date-time":"2026-04-21T10:54:08Z","timestamp":1776768848000},"page":"124","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3310\/nihropenres.crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Using communities of practice in adult social care to build research capacity and foster best practice: a qualitative evaluation"],"prefix":"10.3310","volume":"5","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-1169-9457","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Vanessa","family":"Abrahamson","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Centre for Health Services Studies Canterbury England University of Kent"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-2544-1350","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Ferhana","family":"Hashem","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Centre for Health Services Studies Canterbury England University of Kent"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Sophie","family":"Fournel","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Maidstone Disability Assist, Nimbus Enterprise Park Liphook Way"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Collette","family":"Thornton","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Sittingbourne Kent ME10 1NA Cartref Homes (UK) Ltd"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-1810-791X","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Wenjing","family":"Zhang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"HSCWRU London England King's College London Faculty of Social Science & Public Policy"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Olivia","family":"Trapp","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Innovation & Partnership, Adult Social Care & Health Maidstone Kent ME14 1XX Kent County Council"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-2772-8240","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Rasa","family":"Mikelyte","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Centre for Health Services Studies Canterbury England University of Kent"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Liz","family":"Jones","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Coventry England National Care Forum"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-3597-1061","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Ann-Marie","family":"Towers","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"HSCWRU London England King's College London Faculty of Social Science & Public Policy"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"6221","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,21]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","author":"V Abrahamson","year":"2025","journal-title":"Journal contribution."},{"key":"ref2","article-title":"A qualitative exploration of Communities of Practice within a multi-partner organisation supporting health and care research.","author":"V Abrahamson","year":"2025","journal-title":"Advanced Journal of Professional Practice."},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"86","DOI":"10.1186\/s12961-020-00603-y","article-title":"Communities of practice in Alberta Health Services: advancing a learning organisation.","volume":"18","author":"A Auer","year":"2020","journal-title":"Health Research Policy and Systems."},{"key":"ref4","first-page":"326-343","article-title":"Communities of practice to improve public health outcomes: a systematic review.","volume":"22","author":"L Barbour","year":"2018","journal-title":"Journal of Knowledge Management."},{"key":"ref9","first-page":"1-11","article-title":"A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care.","volume":"6","author":"J Cooke","year":"2005","journal-title":"BMC Family Practice."},{"key":"ref11","first-page":"80-92","article-title":"Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development.","volume":"51","author":"J Fereday","year":"2006","journal-title":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods."},{"key":"ref12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"20-36","DOI":"10.1921\/174661010X537199","article-title":"Developing communities of practice: A strategy for effective leadership, management and supervision in social work.","volume":"14","author":"I Gray","year":"2010","journal-title":"Social Work and Social Sciences Review."},{"key":"ref13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"233-252","DOI":"10.1007\/BF02765185","article-title":"Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry.","volume":"30","author":"E Guba","year":"1982","journal-title":"Educational Technology Research and Development."},{"key":"ref14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"605-619","DOI":"10.1111\/jan.12850","article-title":"Building research capacity and productivity among advanced practice nurses: An evaluation of the Community of Practice model.","volume":"72","author":"J Gullick","year":"2016","journal-title":"Journal of Advanced Nursing."},{"key":"ref15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"43","DOI":"10.3310\/nihropenres.13461.2","article-title":"Our approach to developing communities of practice to foster research capacities for the adult social care workforce.","volume":"3","author":"F Hashem","year":"2024","journal-title":"NIHR Open Research."},{"key":"ref16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"591-608","DOI":"10.1177\/1049732316665344","article-title":"Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough?","volume":"27","author":"M Hennink","year":"2017","journal-title":"Qualitative Health Research."},{"key":"ref17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"741-754","DOI":"10.1080\/07294360.2015.1137881","article-title":"Good CoPs and bad CoPs: facilitating reform in first-year assessment via a Community of Practice.","volume":"35","author":"C Howlett","year":"2016","journal-title":"Higher Education Research and Development."},{"key":"ref18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"259-266","DOI":"10.1177\/089331802237239","article-title":"Knowledge Management in Communities of Practice.","volume":"16","author":"J Iverson","year":"2002","journal-title":"Management Communication Quarterly."},{"key":"ref19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"176-199","DOI":"10.1080\/00909880801923738","article-title":"Communicating knowing through communities of practice: Exploring internal communicative processes and differences among CoPs.","volume":"36","author":"J Iverson","year":"2008","journal-title":"Journal of Applied Communication Research."},{"key":"ref20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/s12961-023-01000-x","article-title":"Exploring the evidence base for Communities of Practice in health research and translation: a scoping review.","volume":"21","author":"J James-McAlpine","year":"2023","journal-title":"Health Research Policy and Systems."},{"key":"ref21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"255-272","DOI":"10.3390\/socsci8090255","article-title":"Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for Social Work research.","volume":"8","author":"V Kaushik","year":"2019","journal-title":"Social Sciences."},{"key":"ref22","article-title":"Explore NVivo 14 with the Experts for New Data Insights.","author":"Lumivero","year":"2025"},{"key":"ref23","article-title":"Involving Experts by Experience in Adult Social Care Research Capacity Building: Impact and Reflections.","author":"R Mikelyte","year":"2025","journal-title":"Research for All. [Preprint]."},{"key":"ref24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1045-1053","DOI":"10.1177\/1077800413513733","article-title":"Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research.","volume":"20","author":"D Morgan","year":"2014","journal-title":"Qualitative Inquiry."},{"key":"ref25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"308-311","DOI":"10.1016\/j.nurpra.2020.01.017","article-title":"Communities of Practice: An Innovative Approach to Building Academic\u2013Practice Partnerships.","volume":"16","author":"B Padilla","year":"2020","journal-title":"Journal for Nurse Practitioners."},{"key":"ref26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"389-409","DOI":"10.1177\/0018726716661040","article-title":"Thinking together: What makes Communities of Practice work?","volume":"70","author":"I Pyrko","year":"2017","journal-title":"Human Relations."},{"key":"ref27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"273","DOI":"10.1186\/1472-6963-11-273","article-title":"How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature.","volume":"11","author":"G Ranmuthugala","year":"2011","journal-title":"BMC Health Services Research."},{"key":"ref28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5751\/ES-03564-1504r01","article-title":"What is Social Learning?","volume":"15","author":"M Reed","year":"2010","journal-title":"Ecology and Society."},{"key":"ref29","article-title":"Facilitators and challenges to implementing a researcher-in-residence model to build research capacity in adult social care.","volume":"24","author":"N Smith","year":"2025","journal-title":"Health Research Policy and Systems."}],"container-title":["NIHR Open Research"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v2\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v2\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v2\/iparadigms","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,21]],"date-time":"2026-04-21T10:54:10Z","timestamp":1776768850000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v2"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,21]]},"references-count":24,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3310\/nihropenres.14134.2","relation":{"has-version":[{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.3310\/nihropenres.14134.1","asserted-by":"subject"}],"has-review":[{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.3310\/nihropenres.15566.r40387","asserted-by":"object"},{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.3310\/nihropenres.15566.r40388","asserted-by":"object"}]},"ISSN":["2633-4402"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2633-4402","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,21]]},"assertion":[{"value":"Indexed","URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v2#article-reports","order":0,"name":"referee-status","label":"Referee status","group":{"name":"current-referee-status","label":"Current Referee Status"}},{"value":"10.3310\/nihropenres.15377.r38940, David Schmidt, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 08 Jan 2026, version 1, indexed","URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v1#referee-response-38940","order":0,"name":"referee-response-38940","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"<b>Vanessa Abrahamson<\/b>; \n<i>Posted: 17 Mar 2026<\/i>; Dear Dr Schmidt,  \n<b>Thank you for your helpful comments which we have addressed as follows (our response in italics):&nbsp;<\/b>  \n<b>Abstract and plain language summary&nbsp;<\/b>are both well-constructed and informative:&nbsp;\n<i>Thank you. We have made some subsequent edits.<\/i> \n<b>Introduction&nbsp;<\/b>section focuses heavily on individuals receiving social care and the use of COP, but does not mention capacity building. While this information is found elsewhere in the paper, it would be good to refer to it here as this is the introduction to the paper overall.&nbsp;\n<i>We have edited the section \u2018Communities of Practice Theory\u2019, under the \u2018Background\u2019, to highlight the alignment between Cooke\u2019s framework and the potential of CoPs to enhance research capacity building<\/i>. &nbsp; The&nbsp;\n<b>background&nbsp;<\/b>section is well described with a logical flow of ideas.&nbsp;Figure 1 provides a visual of the three components of a COP, but it isn't clear what the overlapping portions of the Venn diagram are - is this important?&nbsp;One clarification. The first paragraph on Page 5&nbsp;refers to 51 COPs \u2013 is this 51 meetings of the two COPs? I would assume so, but may need to be made more clear.&nbsp;\n<i>Thanks, we\u2019ve amended the introductory sentence for Fig 1 to:&nbsp;\u2018Figure 1 demonstrates these constituents and the previous terminology. All three constituents are required for the CoP to function effectively (represented by the central overlap), providing the \u2018glue\u2019 or supporting structures, connections and processes that keep CoPs alive and active.\u2019&nbsp;We have amended the sentence to: \u2018Fifty-one meetings, including three joint ones where members of both CoPs were invited, took place between June 2022 and April 2025.\u2019<\/i> \n<b>Methods:&nbsp;<\/b>Pragmatism as a methodology is a good fit for the topic. Methods are well described and steps for ensuring rigour are well established.&nbsp;\n<i>We have added examples to the first paragraph of the methods section to illustrate how we took a pragmatic approach and expanded the Study Design section.<\/i> \n<b>Results<\/b> section is comprehensive. The themes presented are distinct, with the slight exception of the final quote in theme 3 which was linked to theme 2a. The quote doesn't seem to support the theme, and would it be better placed under 2a?&nbsp;\n<i>Good point \u2013 we\u2019ve removed the quote and added it to sub-theme 2a which we have edited.<\/i> The&nbsp;\n<b>discussion&nbsp;<\/b>section again has a logical flow. The intersect of research priorities and communities of practice is an interesting space, It would be interesting to explore the distinction between a COP with a research focus, to a Community of Inquiry. The works of Martha Cleveland-Innes would be helpful here. The issue of measuring the outcomes of a COP may be addressed using Cleveland-Innes' COI Framework.&nbsp;\n<i>We have amended the Sustainability section of the Discussion, in line with comments. This has rather changed the focus and we have:&nbsp;Refocused the section on factors affecting sustainability, rather than on the value of CoPs;&nbsp;Added discussion on maintaining momentum;&nbsp;Expanded on how project\u2011initiated CoPs can be sustained beyond funded periods;&nbsp;Included reflection on whether CoPs may be time\u2011limited, drawing on our previous work showing that smaller, finite CoPs can function effectively;&nbsp;Clarified how wider structural pressures in adult social care shape the feasibility of sustaining learning communities.<\/i>","URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v2#referee-comment-3552","order":1,"name":"referee-comment-3552","label":"Referee Comment","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"10.3310\/nihropenres.15377.r39060, Chinwe U. Nnama-Okechukwu, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 10 Jan 2026, version 1, indexed","URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v1#referee-response-39060","order":2,"name":"referee-response-39060","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"<b>Vanessa Abrahamson<\/b>; \n<i>Posted: 17 Mar 2026<\/i>; \n<b>Thank you for your very helpful comments which we have addressed (in italics) as follows:<\/b>  \n<b>Abstract:&nbsp;<\/b>The abstract is succinct and clearly informs the reader about what to expect in the paper. It would be beneficial to include a brief implication for social work practice in the concluding part of the abstract.&nbsp;\n<i>We have added to this section:&nbsp;\u2018Future research should examine how CoPs can be embedded within organisational systems and how their contributions to practice and policy can be evidenced. Implications for social work practice include protecting time for collaborative learning, strengthening senior leadership support, and harnessing CoPs to integrate research-informed approaches into day\u2011to\u2011day practice.\u2019<\/i> \n<b>The introduction<\/b> is well structured and clearly identifies a gap in knowledge. It is interesting to note that authors used the opening section (Introduction) to explains Wenger\u2019s original discourse (1998) on how communities of practice [COPs] foster coherence within practice communities through mutual engagement, negotiation of joint enterprise and a shared repertoire, I will suggest that the authors strengthen the argument by incorporating more recent literature that builds on Wenger\u2019s foundational work. This is very important to avoid the danger of a single story.&nbsp;\n<i>We have re-worked and added to the introduction and background to take account of these comments, thank you for suggesting<\/i>. \n<b>Methods:&nbsp;<\/b>While the pragmatic research method of qualitative research clearly justice the reason for the authors\u2019 research design, I will suggest that the authors provide a very brief example of how pragmatism informed the evaluation process of this study.&nbsp;\n<i>Good point, we have added examples to the first paragraph of the methods section and expanded the Study Design section.<\/i> \n<b>Methods: <\/b>The Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) section provides concrete examples of engagement across research design, data collection, analysis, and knowledge exchange, thereby strengthening the credibility of the study, as reflected in both the methods and results sections. From the findings, it is evident that PPI demonstrates sustained and meaningful involvement. However, PPI should be explained more concisely for readers, who may not be familiar with the concept, particularly social workers outside the United Kingdom who may wish to contextualise it within their own settings.&nbsp;\n<i>We have added an explanation as follows:&nbsp;\u2018In the United Kingdom, Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) refers to the active partnership of people with lived experience in shaping and conducting research; although terminology varies internationally, it broadly aligns with co\u2011production and participatory approaches used in other countries.\u2019<\/i> \n<b><i>Study design<\/i><\/b>:&nbsp;Please clarify what is meant by the phrase&nbsp;\n<i>\u201cusing in-depth interviews to explore the influence and impact of the CoPs.\u201d<\/i>&nbsp;\n<i>We have re-worded\/amended this paragraph and expanded it. We have also added examples of how we took a pragmatic approach to the first paragraph of the Methods section.<\/i> If online interviews were the preferred format for most participants, it would be helpful to indicate how many interviews were conducted online and how many were conducted face-to-face. This clarification was not clearly evident in the manuscript.&nbsp;\n<i>This is under data collection: \u2018Overall, 21 interviews were carried out (by Author 1) in January and February 2025, with 16 online and five in-person.\u2019 We\u2019ve also added detail to the abstract.<\/i> \n<b><i>Data analysis<\/i><\/b>: The data analysis process is detailed and well explained. The research team should be commended for the clear, step-by-step description provided in this section. However, further clarification is needed regarding \n<b>peer debriefing<\/b>. Please indicate whether peer debriefing was applied as a method of ensuring rigour in this qualitative study. If so, it should be explicitly discussed in the analysis section. If not, the authors should explain the reason for its omission or identify alternative strategies used to ensure research rigour.&nbsp;\n<i>Thank you for raising this point. We did not use peer de\u2011briefing in this study. Instead, we drew on a range of alternative strategies to ensure rigour consistent with Lincoln and Guba\u2019s (1985) criteria for trustworthiness. We have expanded the relevant paragraph in the paper to clarify this.<\/i> \n<b>Results:<\/b> Did the research team conduct interviews with all 21 participants? Some participants appear to be absent from the results section. For example, participants P02, P05, \n<i>P08<\/i>, P011, E01, E03, and \n<i>R05<\/i> were not represented in the narrative, whereas participants P03, P06, P07, P09, E02, E05, and R04 were more prominently featured. Please clarify the reason for this imbalance. \n<i>- Thirst for capturing, co-producing and contributing to knowledge:<\/i>\n<b>&nbsp;<\/b>The authors should provide a brief explanation of what readers are expected to understand from this theme. I also discovered that the voices of practitioners are largely absent from this narrative. Including at least one practitioner\u2019s account would strengthen this theme, particularly in relation to co-production and knowledge contribution. \n<i>- Promoting shared learning within the constraints of the prevailing culture.&nbsp;<\/i>The findings under this section are clearly presented \n<i>- Networking and developing knowledge-exchange collaborations:<\/i>\n<b>&nbsp;<\/b>If researchers valued feedback from care-experienced members to ensure that ideas were relevant and meaningful, it would be important to include the views of these participants under this sub-theme. Their perspectives were not sufficiently represented in the narrative, yet they are key stakeholders in knowledge-exchange collaborations. I suggest this should be included.  \n<i>All 21 participants were interviewed. Thank you for highlighting the uneven representation of transcripts. We agree that this is an important issue. We began our analysis with the intention of presenting all three perspectives (practitioners, researchers and those with lived experience) within each theme. However, as the analysis progressed, it became clear that not all themes were equally salient for all groups. In response to your helpful suggestion, we have reviewed the Findings and incorporated additional quotes where appropriate, to strengthen the representation of different groups and to ensure that each theme reflects a broader balance of voices. P08 (bottom of p18) and R05 (Top of p19) were already represented and we have added from E01, E03 and P02. We have also added an introduction to sub-theme 1b, Thirst for capturing. As above, we have added an example from E03<\/i>.&nbsp; \n<b>Discussion<\/b>:&nbsp;This section is well written. I suggest that the authors include a brief discussion highlighting the key outcomes of the findings as an important area of research focus arising from this study.&nbsp;If the findings suggest that the social care context is characterised by chronic underfunding and workforce pressures, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors should discuss how these challenges can be mitigated to ensure the sustainability of Communities of Practice.&nbsp;I agree with the authors write up on the limitation for the study.&nbsp;\n<i>Thank you. We have added to and amended the section on Sustainability as follows: Refocused the section on factors affecting sustainability, rather than on the value of CoPs;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Added discussion on maintaining momentum;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Expanded on how project\u2011initiated CoPs can be sustained beyond funded periods;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Included reflection on whether CoPs may be time\u2011limited, drawing on our previous work showing that smaller, finite CoPs can function effectively;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Clarified how wider structural pressures in adult social care shape the feasibility of sustaining learning communities.&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>We have also added a paragraph under \u2018Conclusion &amp; implications for practice\u2019 reflecting your points.<\/i> \n<b>Reference<\/b>:&nbsp;Please ensure that references adhere strictly to the journal\u2019s guidelines.&nbsp;\n<i>Thank you, updated references following the journal\u2019s guidelines.<\/i>","URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v2#referee-comment-3553","order":3,"name":"referee-comment-3553","label":"Referee Comment","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"10.3310\/nihropenres.15377.r38947, Kathryn Almack, University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, 16 Jan 2026, version 1, indexed","URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v1#referee-response-38947","order":4,"name":"referee-response-38947","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"<b>Vanessa Abrahamson<\/b>; \n<i>Posted: 17 Mar 2026<\/i>; \n<b>Thank you for your very helpful comments which we have addressed (in italics) as follows:<\/b>  The\n<b> introduction <\/b>starts by saying that \u2018until recently\u2019 Communities of Practice have largely been absent as a forum for learning for people with lived experience \u2013 some indication of what \u2018recently\u2019 means would be helpful. Then, in noting recent developments that have seen a proliferation of COPs that have enabled and encouraged idea exchanges and shared learning between these groups \u2013 some examples or references would also be helpful.&nbsp;\n<i>Good point, thank you. We have expanded and qualified this paragraph. We have also re-worked the introduction and background sections in-line with other comments<\/i>. The \n<b>concept of COPs<\/b> and Wenger\u2019s seminal work is important but could be expanded to deepen the understanding of COPs, which may vary in purpose, structure, facilitation and organisation \u2013 see for example Elbrink et al (2024). How Communities of Practice Generate Knowledge Translation Outcomes to Support Public Health Issues: A Realist Synthesis. Health &amp; Social Care in the Community, 2024(1). There is also a taken for granted assumption that COPs are a good thing and will lead to positive outcomes.&nbsp;\n<i>Thank you for raising this, we have expanded\/edited the introduction and background section to address Wenger\u2019s later literature. Good point that not all CoPs are necessarily effective, we have added to this and referenced<\/i>. &nbsp; The \n<b>methods<\/b> section is clear, in particular the analysis section. Potentially some further detail on how the pragmatic research methodology was woven throughout would be helpful \u2013 it is mentioned as the methodological approach but could be illustrated how this was applied throughout the study.&nbsp;&nbsp;\n<i>Good point, we have added examples to the first paragraph of the methods section to illustrate how a pragmatic approach influenced the evaluation. We have expanded the Study Design section.&nbsp;<\/i> How many \n<b>interviews<\/b> were conducted online \/ face-to-face \u2013 did this impact the quality of data?\n<i>This is under data collection: \u2018Overall, 21 interviews were carried out (by Author 1) in January and February 2025, with 16 online and five in-person.\u2019 &nbsp;We\u2019ve repeated and added detail under \u2018interview participants\u2019 (p14):&nbsp;\u2018Twenty-one interviews, including one care experienced dyad (married couple, E03) were carried out, 16 online and five in-person; participants appeared equally confident to express their opinions online or face-to-face, perhaps reflecting the non-sensitive nature of the topic. Of those, some had more than one role, for example researcher\/practitioner and family carer.<\/i>\u2019 In the \n<b>findings<\/b>, were there any data relating to topics and opportunities to speak that picked up on the fact that none of the care experienced members did any presentations at the COPs meetings? This seems an interesting omission, particularly given the quotes on inclusivity and absence of a hierarchy.&nbsp;It is interesting to note that care-experienced members found the boundaries of the two COPs somewhat artificial \u2013 earlier in the paper we read that these members (or other care-experienced individuals were involved in identifying the focus of the COPs but to what extent were their voices influential in deciding the thematic domains?&nbsp;\n<i>We omitted to make clear that a small number of experts by experience did present at CoPs but we were unable to interview them \u2013 we have added to study limitations. All members were regularly invited to present. We have added\/clarified at the top of p7, under \u2018Background to the CoPs\u2019:&nbsp;\u2018Topics ranged widely, with both CoPs providing a forum for presentations from experts by experience, practitioners\/social care professionals and researchers. For researchers, the CoPs offered an opportunity for wider consultation of prospective project ideas.\u2019&nbsp; Several members had dual roles as family carers and researchers or practitioners but we only included a brief sentence at the start of the Results to protect anonymity, as in the above comment. Care-experienced members were integral to developing the CoPs, including the thematic domains. This is described in an earlier paper, hence we have not repeated details here: Hashem, F. et al. (2024) Our approach to developing communities of practice to foster research capacities for the adult social care workforce, NIHR Open Research, 3, p. 43. Available at: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3310\/nihropenres.13461.2. However, we have clarified in the text, under \u2018Background to the CoPs\u2019 (p8-9).<\/i> Not all \n<b>themes<\/b> provide evidence from the perspectives of all three groups involved (P, R, E members) \u2013 I wondered about the reasons behind this as to whether e.g. practitioners had nothing to say on an inclusive learning environment (theme 1) and then in theme 2 (shared learning) the perspectives of care experienced members are largely absent. This leads to an imbalance in evidencing perspectives across all three groups. Could this be explained or addressed by incorporating other quotes? These points on the findings seem important to address given the conclusion that a central strength of the COPs was their inclusive and egalitarian ethos.&nbsp;\n<i>Thank you for highlighting the uneven representation of lay members, practitioners, and researchers across the thematic sections. We agree that this is an important issue. We began our analysis with the intention of presenting all three perspectives within each theme. However, as the analysis progressed, it became clear that not all themes were equally salient for all groups. Some themes were discussed more by one group than another and presenting all three voices in every theme sometimes resulted in forced repetition or over\u2011extension of themes where certain perspectives were not strongly represented in the data. For example, under 2a) Promoting shared learning within the constraints of the prevailing culture, care experienced members acknowledged the pressures on practitioners but it was the practitioners\u2019 comments that informed this sub-theme. In response to your helpful suggestion, we have revisited the Findings and incorporated additional quotes where appropriate, to strengthen the representation of different groups and to ensure that each theme reflects a broader balance of voices.<\/i> I welcome the \n<b>discussion<\/b> on sustaining COPs but this section does veer off into a discussion of value rather than sustainability. This section could bring in maintaining momentum as an element of sustainability.&nbsp;I noted earlier that attendance of the COP meetings varied between 7 to 28 and it was interesting that the joint COPs had higher attendance. Is there a way to provide further detail of attendance \u2013 did this drop off to 7 or 8 or was attendance variable across the meetings? How might COPs be sustained when set up \u2013 to some extent \u2013 artificially i.e. as part of a project rather than organically emerging. Is there, in any case, an argument for COPs to be time-limited?&nbsp;\n<i>Under \u2018background to the CoPs\u2019 (p9) we\u2019ve added a sentence \u2018Numbers varied over the life of the CoPs, rather than tailoring off over time\u2019.&nbsp; We did not keep exact figures as it was open invitation via emailing a zoom link to which replies (accept\/decline\/tentative) were unreliable. We kept track of public members (to remunerate them) but did not feel it appropriate to keep a register of attendance. In hindsight, it would have been useful for impact tracking. Under Results, 2b (p17) we have added a comment around attendance: Attendance reflected these pressures, but of note was that people felt able to attend the sessions that most interested them and were relevant to their experience: &quot;I think the attendance has been more selective\u2026 that the people we're getting\u2026 each of them are specifically interested in the topics on the agenda for that meeting, as opposed to in the early days \u2013\u2018well, let's go along and see what happens\u2019.&quot; (E01) Under Discussion, we have added to and amended the section on Sustainability as follows:&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Refocused the section on factors affecting sustainability, rather than on the value of CoPs;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Added discussion on maintaining momentum;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Expanded on how project\u2011initiated CoPs can be sustained beyond funded periods;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Included reflection on whether CoPs may be time\u2011limited, drawing on our previous work showing that smaller, finite CoPs can function effectively;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Clarified how wider structural pressures in adult social care shape the feasibility of sustaining learning communities.<\/i> \n<b>Minor points<\/b>:&nbsp;Just for clarity state that there were 51 meetings across the two COPs (otherwise it can read that there were 51 COPs).&nbsp;\n<i>Thanks, we have amended the sentence to:&nbsp;Fifty-one meetings, including three joint ones where members of both CoPs were invited, took place between June 2022 and April 2025.<\/i>","URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v2#referee-comment-3554","order":5,"name":"referee-comment-3554","label":"Referee Comment","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"10.3310\/nihropenres.15377.r39064, Harriet Hunt, University of Exeter, Exeter, 03 Feb 2026, version 1, indexed","URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v1#referee-response-39064","order":6,"name":"referee-response-39064","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"<b>Vanessa Abrahamson<\/b>; \n<i>Posted: 17 Mar 2026<\/i>; \n<b>Thank you for your very helpful comments which we have addressed (in italics) as follows:<\/b>  &nbsp;After the first use, however, the shortened version is COP. I found this a bit of a distraction, and while not inherently wrong, I\u2019d suggest reverting to the conventional shortening of CoP for consistently, ease of reading, and \u2013 if relevant \u2013 accuracy in digital indexing.&nbsp;\n<i>Thanks, we have amended all abbreviations to CoP<\/i>. The \n<b>abstract <\/b>is fair and accurate. In the Conclusions, the only reference to barriers was neutrally worded: \u201cTime constraints and organisational culture affected frontline social worker participation, despite a recognised need for innovation.\u201d. It would be more helpful for the reader if \u2018affected\u2019 could be more directive, e.g. \u2018restrained\u2019 or \u2018limited\u2019.&nbsp;\n<i>Thanks, we agree and have amended the sentence, using \u2018limited\u2019 instead of \u2018affected\u2019.&nbsp;We\u2019ve also changed in PES \u2018harder\u2019 to \u2018hard\u2019: \u2018Some challenges were noted, such as time pressures and workplace culture, which made it hard for some frontline staff to take part.\u2019<\/i> In the \n<b>Introduction<\/b>, the authors state that \u201cCommunities of Practice (COP) have largely been absent as a forum for learning for people with lived experience\u201d. It would be helpful to have references here.&nbsp;\n<i>We have amended\/expanded the Introduction and Background section and better qualified this and other statements<\/i>. \n<b>Background<\/b>: One section could be clarified \u2013 \u201cFifty-one COPs, including three joint ones\u2026\u201d.&nbsp;Throughout the manuscript, COPs are referred to as a conceptual entity (i.e. two COPs), rather than referring to each individual meeting as a COP. Here, however, this seems to have been confused, and the authors refer to the number of meetings. This would benefit from greater clarity in wording.&nbsp;\n<i>We have amended the sentence to:&nbsp;\u2018Fifty-one meetings, including three joint ones where members of both CoPs were invited, took place between June 2022 and April 2025.\u2019<\/i> \n<b>Background<\/b>:&nbsp;The authors also state \u201cMonthly meeting attendance was smaller, between 7\u201323 attendees per meeting for Complex Needs and 8\u201328 for Workforce meetings; joint COPs had larger attendance of 30\u201335.\u201d This is a substantial range but is not revisited in the rest of the manuscript. Given an explicit focus on barriers alongside facilitators under aim 4, this would be worthy of further discussion.&nbsp;\n<i>We have picked this up in the discussion, under Sustainability, which we\u2019ve re-written and have:&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Refocused the section on factors affecting sustainability, rather than on the value of CoPs;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Added discussion on maintaining momentum;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Expanded on how project\u2011initiated CoPs can be sustained beyond funded periods;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Included reflection on whether CoPs may be time\u2011limited, drawing on our previous work showing that smaller, finite CoPs can function effectively;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Clarified how wider structural pressures in adult social care shape the feasibility of sustaining learning communities.<\/i> \n<b>Methods<\/b>: the study design was thin on detail and would benefit from more description of the interview methodology.&nbsp;\n<i>Good point, we have added examples to the first paragraph of the methods section to give examples of how we used a pragmatic approach. We have developed the Study design paragraph.<\/i> \n<b>Methods<\/b>:&nbsp;Similarly, it might be helpful to expand detail on participants\u2019 demography to get a fuller sense of people involved in the COPs.&nbsp;\n<i>We agree that it may be helpful but are mindful of confidentiality with our small sample. Several members had dual roles as family carers and researcher or practitioner but we are concerned that some participants would be identifiable so have decided not to add detail.<\/i> \n<b>NVivo<\/b> is mistyped as Nvivo. The version of NVivo used is reported as v14 once but might benefit from the software reference alongside. The authors could also usefully add who on the team (Author numbers sufficient) carried out the interviews, transcription, and uploading into NVivo. Description of qualitative analysis is helpfully detailed.&nbsp;\n<i>Thanks, we\u2019ve corrected to NVivo and added a reference. We\u2019ve also clarified who did what.<\/i> It is noteworthy that no \n<b>E members<\/b> presented, and this would be interesting to explore further in the text. This also prompted me to question the author statement that \u201cthe COPs brought researchers, practitioners and care experienced members together as equal partners\u201d \u2013 I do not feel this conclusion is explicitly supported and would instead echo the quote that it felt like an inclusive space for one of the Care Experienced interviewees.&nbsp;\n<i>Good points, thank you. We have addressed under:&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Background: the bias towards assuming CoPs are \u2018good\u2019;&nbsp;<\/i>\n<i>Sustainability &amp; momentum (in the Discussion, as above); and a<\/i>\n<i>n added paragraph under Conclusion &amp; Implications relating to structural challenges\/sustainability.<\/i>","URL":"https:\/\/openresearch.nihr.ac.uk\/articles\/5-124\/v2#referee-comment-3555","order":7,"name":"referee-comment-3555","label":"Referee Comment","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) programme (Grant Reference Number NIHR131373). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.","order":8,"name":"grant-information","label":"Grant Information"},{"value":"This open access work is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.","order":0,"name":"copyright-info","label":"Copyright"}]}}