Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in Norwegian 10-14-year-olds: Results from a cross-sectional study

Tormod Bøe; Einar Røshol Heiervang; Kjell Morten Stormark; Astri J. Lundervold; Mari Hysing

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248864

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 13, 2020
23 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Ehsan U Syed, Editor PONE-D-20-25358 Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in Norwegian 10-14-Year-Olds: Results from a cross-sectional study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tormod Boe 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 07 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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. 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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ehsan U Syed, MD 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2.Thank you for including your ethics statement: "The study was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics in Western Norway (approval number 062-06) and by the National Data Inspectorate.". Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary). 5.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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 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: 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: No ****** 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: In this paper "Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in Norwegian 10-14 Year-Olds". In this paper, The aim of this study to find prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a Norwegian population-based sample of early adolescent boys and girl. Authors have highlighted limitation of official clinical and administrative registries. Authors also reported prevalence of psychiatric disorder in same cohort between age 7-9 years old in the previous study. I have following concerns about this study. Method section: One of the major limitation of this study only 24% completed the full assessment (DAWDA), while this population base study - but only 1/4 completed the assessment and also who completed have more parents education. Authors already reported that about lower socioeconomic status are under-represented as limitation of administrative registry. So how this sample is more representative? 2nd paragraph, authors report that teachers data from the screening phase is not included. However, in abstract and next paragraph (DAWBA was administered through a web-based system, and parents and teachers provided information), and psychiatric assessment section: authors report teacher report was included. What the rationale of dividing the groups in so close age range? [10.4,11.7), [11.7,12.2), [12.2,12.8), [12.8,13.4) and [13.4,14.2]. Discussion section: Authors reports low prevalence related to methodological issues as sampling procedure and choice of diagnostic instrument. If we have same issues with this study - how it is better and adding to what we already know? Authors also reports that low prevalence may be related to DAWDA time frame "current". However, ADHD is chronic psychiatric disorder and anxiety could be also pervasive in childhood ; so how it is different CAPA, DISC or CIDI. Current time frame in DAWDA is also very vague. Authors themselves highlighted the limitation of DAWBA (....only half the number of DSM-IV diagnoses compared to the other instruments [44]). Knowing that this scale have limitation = not sure how this study is representative of population based prevalence of psychiatric disorder. Minor issues : 2nd paragraph (discussion gender and age difference): Anxiety disorders was higher for girls for anxiety disorders (anxiety disorder twice in a same sentence). ****** 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 [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.] 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248864.r001
Revision 1
10 Feb 2021 Author Response To Editor-in-chief, PLOS ONE. We would like to thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Below you will find our responses to the reviewer’s concerns, our responses in italics. We have uploaded a marked copy of our manuscript, as well as an unmarked version to the submission system, accompanying this rebuttal letter. We would also like to thank the academic editor for extending the deadline for resubmission of our manuscript. Yours sincerely, Tormod Bøe, PhD On behalf of all authors. 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf We have now updated the manuscript according to the PLOS ONE style requirements. 2.Thank you for including your ethics statement: "The study was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics in Western Norway (approval number 062-06) and by the National Data Inspectorate.". Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. (…) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). We have now updated the ethics statement in the manuscript, and in the “Ethics statement” field of the submission form. The revised statement now reads: "The study was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics in Western Norway (approval number 062-06) and by the National Data Inspectorate. Participants gave written informed consent and parents and guardians consented on behalf of their children". 3. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. We apologize for this error; titles are now identical in the submission form and in the manuscript. 4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary). The list of author affiliations has been updated. 5.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. We have updated the Data availability statement to detail the legal restrictions regarding sharing of the data set and also provide this information in the cover letter. The data availability statement now reads: “Data cannot be shared publicly due to privacy restrictions in accordance with the ethical approval for the Bergen Child Study. Norwegian Health research legislation and the Norwegian Ethics committees require explicit consent from participants in order to transfer health research data outside of Norway. In this specific case, ethics approval is also contingent on storing the research data on secure storage facilities located in our research institution. Data are from the Norwegian Bergen Child Study, owned by NORCE Norwegian Research Centre. The authors did not have special access privileges to data from the survey. Data are available from the Bergen Child Study (contact via bib@norceresearch.no) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.” Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: In this paper "Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in Norwegian 10-14 Year-Olds". In this paper, The aim of this study to find prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a Norwegian population-based sample of early adolescent boys and girl. Authors have highlighted limitation of official clinical and administrative registries. Authors also reported prevalence of psychiatric disorder in same cohort between age 7-9 years old in the previous study. I have following concerns about this study. Method section: One of the major limitations of this study only 24% completed the full assessment (DAWDA), while this population base study - but only 1/4 completed the assessment and also who completed have more parents education. Authors already reported that about lower socioeconomic status are under-represented as limitation of administrative registry. So how this sample is more representative? In the authors’ opinions, the strength of the current study is the use of weighting to counter the selective participation by higher educated participants commonly seen in previous literature. By using weights, we use the information about those not participating to estimate what the prevalence would have been if all participants had completed the clinical interview. 2nd paragraph, authors report that teacher’s data from the screening phase is not included. However, in abstract and next paragraph (DAWBA was administered through a web-based system, and parents and teachers provided information), and psychiatric assessment section: authors report teacher report was included. This is correct. Teacher data was not included in the screening phase (see Figure 1), but it was included in the psychiatric assessment phase. In the current study, information from the screening phase is used for weighting (parental education levels, reported by parents) and to indicate representativeness of the sample participating in the psychiatric assessment to the full sample (results described under own heading on page 5). What the rationale of dividing the groups in so close age range? [10.4,11.7), [11.7,12.2), [12.2,12.8), [12.8,13.4) and [13.4,14.2]. The rationale for dividing the age groups in this way were to provide a detailed perspective on the prevalence of different disorders across this narrow age span. As discussed, (p. 6) the prevalence was highly variable depending on how age was categorized, and we therefore also report the main effects of (uncategorized) age (and its interaction with gender) in the manuscript (pp. 6-7). Discussion section: Authors reports low prevalence related to methodological issues as sampling procedure and choice of diagnostic instrument. If we have same issues with this study - how it is better and adding to what we already know? As detailed above, the weighting procedure used in the current study is aimed at alleviating problems with sampling procedures from previous studies. Regarding the use of DAWBA, this is merely a point to consider when interpreting the results from the current study, and when comparing and contrasting this study to previous studies where different instruments may have been used. Authors also reports that low prevalence may be related to DAWDA time frame "current". However, ADHD is chronic psychiatric disorder and anxiety could be also pervasive in childhood ; so how it is different CAPA, DISC or CIDI. Current time frame in DAWDA is also very vague. Authors themselves highlighted the limitation of DAWBA (....only half the number of DSM-IV diagnoses compared to the other instruments [44]). Knowing that this scale have limitation = not sure how this study is representative of population based prevalence of psychiatric disorder. There is no particular threat to the validity of the current study in light of having used the DAWBA as a diagnostic tool. The different time frame may, however, be useful to be aware of when comparing and contrasting prevalence estimates from different studies where other instruments and time frames may have been used. There is no reason to expect that the current estimates are more or less valid than previous estimates. Minor issues : 2nd paragraph (discussion gender and age difference): Anxiety disorders was higher for girls for anxiety disorders (anxiety disorder twice in a same sentence). Thank you for noticing this error. We have now corrected this sentence in the manuscript (page 9). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: rebuttal.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248864.r002
8 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Ehsan U Syed, Editor Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in Norwegian 10-14-Year-Olds: Results from a cross-sectional study PONE-D-20-25358R1 Dear Dr. Boe 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, Ehsan U Syed, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248864.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Mar 2021 Acceptance Letter - Ehsan U Syed, Editor PONE-D-20-25358R1 Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in Norwegian 10-14-Year-Olds: Results from a cross-sectional study Dear Dr. Bøe: 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. Ehsan U Syed Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248864.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 .