Correlates of participation in community-based interventions: Evidence from a parenting program in rural China

Yiwei Qian; Yi Ming Zheng; Sarah-Eve Dill; Scott Rozelle

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238841

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 12, 2020
23 Apr 2020 Decision Letter - Muhammad A. Z. Mughal, Editor PONE-D-20-03940 Correlates of participation in community-based interventions: evidence from a parenting program in rural China PLOS ONE Dear Qian, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Reviewer 1 has suggested some minor improvements in data and analysis that would be help improve the manuscript. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 07 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Muhammad A. Z. Mughal Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2.Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section: "SR received funding from the 111 Project (Grant no: B16031). The 111 project is funded by the Ministry of Education, China. The url to the funder information (http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A16/s7062/200608/t20060830_82287.html) is only in Chinese. SR received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 71703083). The url to the funder information can be found at http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/english/site_1/index.html; SR received funding from the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). The grant number in this case is not applicable. The url to the funder information can be found at https://www.3ieimpact.org; SR received funding from the UBS Optimus Foundation. The grant number in this case is not applicable. The url to the funder information can be found at https://www.ubs.com/microsites/optimus-foundation/en.html; SR received funding from the China Medical Board. The grant number in this case is not applicable. The url to the funder information can be found at https://chinamedicalboard.org; SR received funding from the Bank of East Asia. The grant number in this case is not applicable. The url to the funder information can be found at https://www.hkbea.com/html/en/index.html; SR received funding from the HBGDki Initiative. The HBGDki Initiative is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The grant number in this case is not applicable. The url to the funder information can be found at https://www.gatesfoundation.org; The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. " Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist." We note that you received funding from a commercial source:"Bank of East Asia" Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc. Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Review: Correlates of participation in community-based interventions: evidence from a parenting program in rural China Summary: The authors examine which characteristics predict participation in early childhood development programs in rural China. Proximity, social ties, peer participation are each significant predictors. Recommendation: Minor revision General Notes: • Providing parenting centers throughout rural China is a very interesting intervention and participation is an important component of understanding the overall effects and costs/benefits. The emphasis throughout the paper seems to be the effects of distance first, followed by social ties. I would recommend (though not require) reversing this ordering of emphasis. Focusing on the association between participation and distance is less novel because the relationship is self-evident. • The authors make in interesting point in the discussion regarding the role of distance and the mobility of the caretakers: that geographic barriers are not due to distance alone but issues of low mobility. However, the authors do not provide evidence of this. Please add distancegrandparent caretaker to the models of participation in order to support the claim. If supported, this would add to the interest of the geographic point and perhaps justify its emphasis over the social ties. • How was it determined that 3+ interactions = social tie? 3 seems like a high bar and households that interact 1 or 2 times per week would also seem to be socially tied. Sensitivity analyses should be performed around this threshold. Specific Notes: Line 180: Should be “our” not “on” Check for additional typos throughout Reviewer #2: The manuscript collected data of all children in the desired age range and their caregivers in randomly selected 100 village from 20 nationally-designated poverty counties. The statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously，the conclusions has been drawn appropriately based on the data presented and statistical analysis. The data are only available with some restrictions because of the involvement of human participants, data are available for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in very good English. The research is valuable because this paper is one of the first to quantitatively document program participation in a community-based ECD intervention, and is the first paper to examine factors that may predict participation in community-based ECD interventions. ******* 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238841.r001
Revision 1
8 Jul 2020 Author Response Response to Reviewer 1 General Comment 1: The authors examine which characteristics predict participation in early childhood development programs in rural China. Proximity, social ties, peer participation are each significant predictors. Response to General Comment 1: Thank you for your thoughtful read. Comment 1: Providing parenting centers throughout rural China is a very interesting intervention and participation is an important component of understanding the overall effects and costs/benefits. The emphasis throughout the paper seems to be the effects of distance first, followed by social ties. I would recommend (though not require) reversing this ordering of emphasis. Focusing on the association between participation and distance is less novel because the relationship is self-evident. Response to Comment 1. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have reversed the emphasis to describe the role of social ties first. In doing so, we have made structural changes throughout the manuscript. All of these revisions were made with tracked changes in the manuscript for your review. Additionally, we would like to note that we believe both distance and social ties are equally important correlates of participation to study in the context of a community-based early childhood development (ECD) program. To date, there is a general lack of quantitative evidence on the correlates of participation in community-based ECD programs. As such, our findings of both distance and social ties offer a contribution to the literature, particularly in a developing setting such as rural China, where there is a need for increased ECD investment. Comment 2: The authors make in interesting point in the discussion regarding the role of distance and the mobility of the caretakers: that geographic barriers are not due to distance alone but issues of low mobility. However, the authors do not provide evidence of this. Please add distancegrandparent caretaker to the models of participation in order to support the claim. If supported, this would add to the interest of the geographic point and perhaps justify its emphasis over the social ties. Response to Comment 2. Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We have re-performed our correlational analysis with an additional interaction term between distance to the parenting center and grandparents as the primary caregiver. The results are presented in S5 Table (included at the end of this letter to facilitate your review). In our most preferred specification (S5 Table, column 4), we find that distance serves as much greater barrier for participation among grandparents compared. For all households, one kilometer corresponds to a 6.2-percentage-point decrease in participation (row 4). For households in which a grandparent is the child’s primary caregiver, however, a one-kilometer increase in distance corresponds to an additional decrease in participation by 7.8 percentage points (row 5), summing to a 15-percentage-point decrease in participation in total (row 4 plus row 5). This result supports our point that the geographic barriers are not due to distance alone, but also to the low mobility of elderly caregivers. In the revised manuscript, we have added a discussion of S5 Table on Page 23: “To empirically examine whether the low mobility of grandparent caregivers is contributing to the negative correlation between geographic proximity and program participation in our study, we conducted the same multivariate regression as Table 5 with an additional interaction term between “distance to the parenting center” and “grandparent as the primary caregiver.” The results are presented in S5 Table. In our most preferred specification (S5 Table, column 4), we find that distance serves as a much greater barrier for participation among grandparents. For all households, a one-kilometer increase in distance corresponds to a 6.2-percentage-point decrease in participation (row 4). For all households, one kilometer corresponds to a 6.2-percentage-point decrease in participation (row 4). For households in which a grandparent is the child’s primary caregiver, however, a one-kilometer increase in distance corresponds to an additional decrease in participation by 7.8 percentage points (row 5), summing to a 15-percentage-point decrease in total (row 4 plus row 5). Therefore, for community-based ECD programs in rural China, geographic barriers are not only due to distance, but also to issues of low mobility among elderly caregivers, who make up a relatively large share of the primary caregivers in our sample. Considering these barriers, policies or programs that could lessen the physical burden of travel would likely have a significant positive effect on participation.” We also changed the covariate “mother is primary caregiver” to “grandparent is primary caregiver” in Table 5 and S1 Table for consistency in the analysis. The updated results in Table 5 and Table S1 are almost the same as that in Table 5 and S1 Table in the original manuscript. Please find the S5 Table in the revised manuscript or the response to the reviewer letter. Comment 3: How was it determined that 3+ interactions = social tie? 3 seems like a high bar and households that interact 1 or 2 times per week would also seem to be socially tied. Sensitivity analyses should be performed around this threshold. Response to Comment 3. Thank you for this note. We agree with the reviewer that households interacting 1 or 2 times per week might also be deemed “socially tied.” In fact, would like to apologize for a typo in the manuscript regarding our definition of a social tie. In our analysis, households that interacted at least once per week (rather than three times per week) are considered to have a social tie. We have corrected this typo in the revised manuscript, and we have done a careful check for any other typos. In addition, we conducted a sensitivity analysis of the definition of social ties. In S2 Table, we first show the distribution of the number of social ties, with social ties defined as interacting at least once per month (less frequent than the original definition) and interacting at least twice per week (more frequent than the original definition), respectively. Next, in S3 Table and S4 Table, we present the correlates of parenting center participation rates. The results find consistent correlations between the number of social ties and participation in the parenting center, regardless of the definition for a social tie. Thus, in S3 Table and S5 Table, as in Table 5 of the original manuscript, the number of social ties is consistently and positively correlated with participation. When we examine the correlation between the average participation of social ties and individual participation, we find that when we define social ties as interacting at least twice per week (S4 Table), the correlations are significant and positive, consistent with our original Table 5. However, the correlation is not statistically significant when we use a looser definition of social ties (at least once a month; S3 Table), although the coefficient is still positive. These results demonstrate that our original definition of social ties (interacting at least once per week) is an adequate measure. In the revised manuscript, we have added a short discussion of S2, S3 and S4 Tables to confirm the validity of our definition of social ties (page 19): “To check the robustness of our findings, we performed the same multivariate regression analysis as Table 5, using two different definitions social ties. S2 Table shows the distribution of number of social ties in our sample, using two alternative definitions for social ties. Panel A shows the distribution when social ties are defined as interacting at least once per month (less frequent than the original definition), and Panel B presents the distribution when social ties are defined as interacting at least twice per week (more frequent than the original definition). S3 Table and S4 Table present the regression results with social ties defined as interacting at least once per month and defined as interacting at least twice per week, respectively. The results find consistent correlations between the number of social ties and program participation, regardless of the definition of a social tie. However, although correlation between the average participation rate of social ties and individual participation remains significant when we use the stricter definition of a social tie (at least twice a week; S4 Table), the correlation is not statistically significant when we use the looser definition of social ties (at least once a month; S3 Table). Geographic proximity remains significantly correlated to program participation at a similar magnitude in all tables.” Please find the S2 Table, S3 Table and S5 Table in the revised manuscript or the response to the reviewer letter. Response to Reviewer 2 General Comment 1: The manuscript collected data of all children in the desired age range and their caregivers in randomly selected 100 village from 20 nationally-designated poverty counties. The statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously，the conclusions has been drawn appropriately based on the data presented and statistical analysis. The data are only available with some restrictions because of the involvement of human participants, data are available for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in very good English. The research is valuable because this paper is one of the first to quantitatively document program participation in a community-based ECD intervention, and is the first paper to examine factors that may predict participation in community-based ECD interventions. Response to General Comment 1: Thank you for your thoughtful read of this paper and your kind words. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238841.r002
26 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Muhammad A. Z. Mughal, Editor Correlates of participation in community-based interventions: evidence from a parenting program in rural China PONE-D-20-03940R1 Dear Dr. Qian, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Muhammad A. Z. Mughal, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238841.r003
Formally Accepted
28 Aug 2020 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad A. Z. Mughal, Editor PONE-D-20-03940R1 Correlates of participation in community-based interventions: evidence from a parenting program in rural China Dear Dr. Qian: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Muhammad A. Z. Mughal Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238841.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .