PONE-D-21-04348

Psychological, Social and Cognitive Resources and the Mental Wellbeing of the Poor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kettlewell,

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 May 11 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,

Abid Hussain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Please address the comments from reviewers.

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. 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 more 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 sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) 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. 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

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: No

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: The authors compare the 1138 individuals in an unusual Australian dataset of homeless people (the Journeys Home data) with the main representative longitudinal panel in Australia (the HILDA). They show how the homeless score worse in every domain imagineable and that only about 25% of the difference in mental wellbeing outcomes can be explained by their extensive battery of demographic and psychological measures. They show how worse degrees of homelessness are related to worse psychosocial characteristics.

The paper is competent and reads well, though is repetitive in places. At heart it is a descriptive paper that cannot make credible claims of causality and thus needs to make as interesting comparisons as possible. I have several recommendations that amount to axing what is of limited use and adding more that is of interest.

1. Axe Section 4.2 Its a re-run of Figure 3 that adds ittle and suffers from the problem that there are only 28 full homeless in the data.

2. Simplify Section 4.1 to show the average differences in important characteristics (pick your favourite 5 to 10) across the different degrees. Also calculate the implied distance between the 4 categories (ie how many times is the difference in a characteristic between secure 'non-trad' versus 'secure trad' the difference between 'non-secure' and 'secure traditional'). That gives the reader a sense of what the special group is and how different the groups really are.

3. Find a way to condense the four figures in Figure 3 to one graph/bar. At present it looks clunky and not memorable. You are trying to sell the Oaxaca decomposition here so make it memorable.

4. Change the labeling of the categories of variables. The word 'resources' is a very poor descriptor because it includes items that have for decades been called different things. Emotional stability and conscientiousness are two of the big-5 personality traits. Sleep is part of the GHQ12 notion of mental wellbeing itself (rather than a resource into it). I would just call them psychological characteristics and outcomes. Similarly, avoid causal language since many items put on the right-hand side could be on the left-hand side (so Figure 3 is a big stretch: why sleep is an input rather than an output is arbitrary).

5. Condense the literature sections. The reader mainly needs to know whether your descriptives are truly new: was it already known how much the homeless differ from the rest of the population in all those psychological dimensions?

I hence like the degree to which the paper informs me about the differences between the homeless and the rest, but I need to be told that this papers adds to what is known about that difference, and the paper needs to be shortened and sharpened to stick to those descriptives.

Reviewer #2: My general evaluation: the manuscript has been well prepared, with its methodological section being crafted sufficiently.

The study provides valuable insights that might contribute to policymaking towards homeless people in Australia. Therefore, I trust that the paper has merit to become a contribution to the literature. Nonetheless, I have some issues with the paper and believe they should be addressed before the paper can be ready for publication.

Please find below my specific comments, which might enable the authors to strengthen the paper and its flow of logic.

The findings are backed with sound methodology and sufficient sample size. And this is a positive aspect of the study. However, the research’s significance and values are not addressed adequately in the text.

The discussion lacks depth and needs further results’ clarification with existing policies regarding homelessness. The rising complexities of the problem have become far more difficult to measure than simplistic results we can see from a theoretical model or two.

I think some critical aspects should not be left out when we discuss the health issues of vulnerable people. Specifically: healthcare disparity (https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301490, https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-015-1279-x), health care system (https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.076190), and healthcare discrimination (https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6963-14-376), to be specific.

As the authors stated, “The way that people perceive the world, process information, and make decisions is shaped by their psychological, social, and cognitive resources” I advise the authors to take a look at the Mindsponge mechanism (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176715000826; https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/global-mindset-integration-emerging-socio-cultural-values-mindsponge-processes-quan-hoang-vuong/e/10.4324/9781315736396-8), which might provide theoretical support for the study’s objectives.

Figure 1’s stacked bar charts should be replaced by clustered bar charts for better clarity

The paper’s structure needs to be revised. Model 1 should be placed in the corresponding section where the main methodological discussions were provided.

Suppose the authors want to present mathematical models together with the results. In that case, I recommend the authors clearly address all the components of the model rather than keeping the general form (like Model 1).

Please specify the high-income country.

Last but not least, the study’s limitations are needed, please refer to this article for modern standards: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01694-x

**********

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: Yes: Quan-Hoang Vuong

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.docx

PONE-D-21-04348R1

Psychological, Social and Cognitive Resources and the Mental Wellbeing of the Poor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kettlewell,

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.

The manuscript has significantly improved after revisions. There is till one outstanding minor issue on the use of term 'resources'. Authors are required to clarify this while responding to reviewer's comments.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 14 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,

Abid Hussain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. 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: (No Response)

**********

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: Partly

**********

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: No

**********

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: The authors have partly done what I asked and have improved the embedding in the literature, kicking out some of the superfluous analyses. I do find the text easier to read now. I appreciate they were not able to condense 4 graphs into one.

My main disagreement remains with the word 'resource'. I find that a misleading term as used in this paper, creating the false impression that differential 'resources' explains between 20-40% of the difference in mental wellbeing between the homeless and the general population. It is simply not true, and we should not want a false headline conclusion to be the take-home message of this paper.

The authors in their reply define 'resources' perfectly adequately. They claim resources are 'the qualities, skills, and support systems that assist people in achieving their goals and dealing with problems effectively" and that "our goal is to document the disparity in the resources that very vulnerable people have at their disposal". This all concords with the classic economic notion of a resource: something that can be drawn upon.

Sleep does not fit any of this. Sleep cannot be drawn upon, nor is it a skill, quality, or support system. It is an outcome that then further affects other parts of the person. So too can one argue that risk orientation is an outcome as extreme poverty changes the calculus on what can be achieved without risks.

If the authors want to retain the 'resources' label, which the authors seem hell-bent on, then they will have to exclude sleep and risk attitudes from that group when they make claims about how much is explained by resources. Of course, cognition and social capital too are affected by housing and the whole trajectory leading up to homelessness, but at least both can still be meaningfully interpreted as qualities and support that can be drawn upon, and hence a resource.

**********

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

[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.

Psychological, Social and Cognitive Resources and the Mental Wellbeing of the Poor

PONE-D-21-04348R2

Dear Dr. Kettlewell,

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,

Abid Hussain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: