COVID-19 vaccines and mental distress

Francisco Perez-Arce; Marco Angrisani; Daniel Bennett; Jill Darling; Arie Kapteyn; Kyla Thomas

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256406

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 19, 2021
24 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Chung-Ying Lin, Editor PONE-D-21-16421 COVID-19 Vaccines and Mental Distress PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Perez-Arce, 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. ============================== An expert in this field and I have reviewed your submission. We both agree that your contribution may add something to the literature. However, there are some essential corrections needed before I reevaluate your contribution. Please pay attention to all the comments made by the reviewer and answered them using a point-by-point response letter. Apart from his comments, I would like you to consider my following comments as well. 1. There is a growth of literature on vaccine hesitancy and the relationship between vaccine and mental distress. However, the present study does not provide a comprehensive literature review in this content. The authors are thus recommended to consult the following references to strengthen their literature review. Rajabimajd N, Alimoradi Z, Griffiths MD. Impact of COVID-19-related fear and anxiety on job attributes: A systematic review. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:51-5 Patil ST, Datar MC, Shetty JV, Naphade NM. “Psychological consequences and coping strategies of patients undergoing treatment for COVID-19 at a tertiary care hospital”: A qualitative study. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:62-8 Rieger MO. Willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 might be systematically underestimated. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:81-3 Rieger MO. Triggering altruism increases the willingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Soc Health Behav 2020;3:78-82 Yahaghi, R., Ahmadizade, S., Fotuhi, R., Taherkhani, E., Ranjbaran, M., Buchali, Z., Jafari, R., Zamani, N., Shahbazkhania, A., Simiari, H., Rahmani, J., Yazdi, N., Alijani, H., Poorzolfaghar, L., Rajabi, F., Lin, C.-Y., Broström, A., Griffiths, M. D., Pakpour, A. H. (2021). Fear of COVID-19 and perceived COVID-19 infectability supplement Theory of Planned Behavior to explain Iranians’ intention to get COVID-19 vaccinated. Vaccines, 9, 684. Wang, P.-W., Ahorsu, D. K., Lin, C.-Y., Chen, I.-H., Yen, C.-F., Kuo, Y.-J., Griffiths, M. D., & Pakpour, A. H. (2021). Motivation to Have COVID-19 Vaccination Explained Using an Extended Protection Motivation Theory Among University Students in China: The Role of Information Sources. Vaccines, 9, 380. Yeh, Y.-C., Chen, I.-H., Ahorsu, D. K., Ko, N.-Y., Chen, K.-L., Li, P.-c., Yen, C.-F., Lin, C.-Y., Griffiths, M. D., Pakpour, A. H. (2021). Measurement invariance of the Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale: Comparison between Taiwanese and mainland Chinese-speaking populations. Vaccines, 9(3), 297. Kukreti, S., Lu, M.-L., Lin, Y.-H., Strong, C., Lin, C.-Y., Ko, N.-Y., Chen, P.-L., & Ko, W.-C. (2021). Willingness of Taiwan’s healthcare workers and outpatients to vaccinate against COVID-19 during a period without community outbreaks. Vaccines, 9(3), 246. Alimoradi, Z., Broström, A., Tsang, H. W. H., Griffiths, M. D., Haghayegh, S., Ohayon, M. M., Lin, C.-Y., Pakpour, A. H. (2021). Sleep problems during COVID-19 pandemic and its’ association to psychological distress: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine, 36, 100916. Pramukti, I., Strong, C., Sitthimongkol, Y., Setiawan, A., Pandin M. G. R., Yen, C.-F., Lin, C.-Y., Griffiths, M. D., Ko, N.-Y. (2020). Anxiety and suicidal thoughts during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-country comparison among Indonesian, Taiwanese, and Thai university students. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(12), e24487. 2. The meaning of "Fraction" on Table 1 is unclear. Moreover, what is (1) and (2) in Table 1? Please do not report p at 0.000 because p-value can only be very small but never be 0. Use p < 0.001 instead. The values in the columns of "Never Vaccinated" and "Ever Vaccinated" in Table 1 are unclear what they are. 3. In Table 2, please define what "mild mental distress or higher", "moderate mental distress or higher", and "severe mental distress" are. It is unclear what "mean dependent variable" is in Table 2. 4. In Table 3, please also define what "mild mental distress or higher", "moderate mental distress or higher", and "severe mental distress" are. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Chung-Ying Lin 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. 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 as Supporting Information. 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Q1: In paragraph 1 of introduction part, the author mentioned the dynamic of mental distress experienced of people due to COVID-19 which is up and down. It would be better to explain more why this fluctuated scheme could happen. the authors may include the second paragraph into the first paragraph. Q2: It is questioned that how the authors convinced the readers that vaccine really can improve well-being and mental health? How the vaccine uptake may reduce stress and alleviate fears of passing a COVID-19 infection along to others in social settings? There is no citation at all for the 3rd par which talk about vaccine intake Q3: In the introduction part, there is insufficient reasons why the authors conduct this research? The author may add some crucial information about why the readers will have benefit to know the research result. Q4: The authors should provide the scientific reason why the panelists complete the surveys in the 14 days interval? Q5: There is no information about the validity and reliability of the PHQ-4? Q6: The authors stated “The ever vaccinated and never vaccinated groups differ significantly in their demographic composition as well as in baseline levels of mental health. The differences are likely a result both from the vaccine eligibility rules applicable during the period that we study as well as different levels of vaccine enthusiasm or hesitancy across demographic groups” in result section. Unfortunately, there is no explanation about the occupational background of the respondents, which may explain why they get vaccinated and never vaccinated. For instance the group of health care professionals. Q7: 1. Table 1 the authors should clearly indicate the column label (number and percentage) 2. The authors need provide the information about the total number of the respondents in the table 1 Q8: In figure 1 how the authors determined the time/date of group get vaccinated? Since the vaccination for COVID-19 started in December 23, 2020, so why the authors mentioned the interval was between March 10, 2020 and March 14, 2021? Q9: It was less information in discussion part that the authors may explain deeper interpretation from the result part. For instance, the comparison from each group of different educational background, and ethnics. Q10: There was miss-typed and word redundant ****** 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.0256406.r001
Revision 1
30 Jul 2021 Author Response We are deeply grateful for your and the referee’s review and comments. We have revised the paper accordingly and believe it has substantially improved. In particular, per your first comment, we have now better situated the study in the relevant literature. Below, please find our responses to the individual comments. I. Response to the Editor’s comments An expert in this field and I have reviewed your submission. We both agree that your contribution may add something to the literature. However, there are some essential corrections needed before I reevaluate your contribution. Please pay attention to all the comments made by the reviewer and answered them using a point-by-point response letter. Apart from his comments, I would like you to consider my following comments as well. 1. There is a growth of literature on vaccine hesitancy and the relationship between vaccine and mental distress. However, the present study does not provide a comprehensive literature review in this content. The authors are thus recommended to consult the following references to strengthen their literature review. We agree the original submission was lacking on this respect. We have now better situated the study in the relevant literature, making the connection to the literatures on vaccine hesitancy and mental health effects of COVID-19. For context, it is particularly relevant to show that fear of COVID-19, as well as anxiety in general, are predictors of willingness to vaccinate. Page 4 now discusses this literature, which includes all but one of the references suggested by you as well as a number of other references that we deemed relevant. 2. The meaning of "Fraction" on Table 1 is unclear. Moreover, what is (1) and (2) in Table 1? Please do not report p at 0.000 because p-value can only be very small but never be 0. Use p < 0.001 instead. The values in the columns of "Never Vaccinated" and "Ever Vaccinated" in Table 1 are unclear what they are. We made the change to use percentages instead of fractions which makes Table 1 clearer in our opinion. We also changed the reporting of p-values to p<0.0001 when applicable, and added the missing column numbers –(1) and (2)- to make the table clearer. With these changes, we hope the contents of Table 1 are now clear. 3. In Table 2, please define what "mild mental distress or higher", "moderate mental distress or higher", and "severe mental distress" are. It is unclear what "mean dependent variable" is in Table 2. We now define these variables in the note to Table 2. 4. In Table 3, please also define what "mild mental distress or higher", "moderate mental distress or higher", and "severe mental distress" are. We now define these variables in the note to Table 3. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: Q1: In paragraph 1 of introduction part, the author mentioned the dynamic of mental distress experienced of people due to COVID-19 which is up and down. It would be better to explain more why this fluctuated scheme could happen. the authors may include the second paragraph into the first paragraph. We added a discussion about a possible explanation for the fluctuation (economic deterioration and recovery) and cited a more extensive literature (page 4). Q2: It is questioned that how the authors convinced the readers that vaccine really can improve well-being and mental health? How the vaccine uptake may reduce stress and alleviate fears of passing a COVID-19 infection along to others in social settings? There is no citation at all for the 3rd par which talk about vaccine intake We have added a discussion of the literature with the corresponding citations. In particular, we cited literature that showed that people with more anxiety are more likely to be willing to be vaccinated. It is then possible that getting the vaccine relieved those fears, which may be the channel through which vaccination improved mental health. Q3: In the introduction part, there is insufficient reasons why the authors conduct this research? The author may add some crucial information about why the readers will have benefit to know the research result. We have added a paragraph in the first page of the introduction. The linkage to the literature suggested by the editor also helps to solve this issue. Q4: The authors should provide the scientific reason why the panelists complete the surveys in the 14 days interval? Page 6 now includes an explanation of the rationale for the periodicity of the surveys. Q5: There is no information about the validity and reliability of the PHQ-4? We now cite the validation and reliability study for the PHQ-4 measure (page 7, second paragraph) Q6: The authors stated “The ever vaccinated and never vaccinated groups differ significantly in their demographic composition as well as in baseline levels of mental health. The differences are likely a result both from the vaccine eligibility rules applicable during the period that we study as well as different levels of vaccine enthusiasm or hesitancy across demographic groups” in result section. Unfortunately, there is no explanation about the occupational background of the respondents, which may explain why they get vaccinated and never vaccinated. For instance the group of health care professionals. The dataset we use does not contain occupation data, unfortunately. We agree that occupations are likely to be different across groups, and in indeed the larger proportion of health care professionals among the “ever vaccinated” may indeed at least partly explain the larger percentage of respondents with a college degree in that group. We now state that in the first paragraph of page 10. Q7: 1. Table 1 the authors should clearly indicate the column label (number and percentage). 2. The authors need provide the information about the total number of the respondents in the table 1. The labels in columns 1 and 2 have been added and the total number of respondents is shown in the last row. Q8: In figure 1 how the authors determined the time/date of group get vaccinated? Since the vaccination for COVID-19 started in December 23, 2020, so why the authors mentioned the interval was between March 10, 2020 and March 14, 2021? We agree the statement in the note of Figure 1 was confusing. We change it so that it simply says that the Ever vaccinated are those who received a dose by March 14, and the Never vaccinated are those who had not received any dose by March 14. Q9: It was less information in discussion part that the authors may explain deeper interpretation from the result part. For instance, the comparison from each group of different educational background, and ethnics. We have added a clarification to the description of the heterogeneity analysis. Q10: There was miss-typed and word redundant We revised and corrected the text for typos and redundant words. Response to 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. 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 as Supporting Information. The surveys are publicly available at https://uasdata.usc.edu/page/Covid-19+Documentation. We have added the link to the study. 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. We have added the reference to Tables 1 and 3 in the text. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256406.r002
6 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Chung-Ying Lin, Editor COVID-19 Vaccines and Mental Distress PONE-D-21-16421R1 Dear Dr. Perez-Arce, 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, Chung-Ying Lin Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): I thank the authors carefully reviewed the comments and addressed all of them in this revision. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256406.r003
Formally Accepted
11 Aug 2021 Acceptance Letter - Chung-Ying Lin, Editor PONE-D-21-16421R1 COVID-19 Vaccines and Mental Distress Dear Dr. Perez-Arce: 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. Chung-Ying Lin Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256406.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 .