Promoting the health and wellbeing of children: A feasibility study of a digital tool among professionals

Magda Skogberg; Karolina Mackiewicz; Kristel Mänd; Lehte Tuuling; Indra Urdzina-Merca; Sanna Salanterä; Anni Pakarinen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265355

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 27, 2021
2 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Prabhat Mittal, Editor PONE-D-21-30852Promoting the health and wellbeing of children: a feasibility study of a digital tool among professionalsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pakarinen, 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 Jan 16 2022 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: https://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, Prabhat Mittal, Ph.D. 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 " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf" 2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure. 3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files. 4. In the Methods section of the manuscript please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named ethics committee specifically approved or waived this study. 5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. Additional Editor Comments: Refer to the following research Chakraborty, P., Mittal, P., Gupta, M. S., Yadav, S., Arora, A. (2021). Opinion of students on online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(3), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.240 Yadav, S., Chakraborty, P., Mittal, P., Arora, U. (2018). Children aged 6–24 months like to watch YouTube videos but could not learn anything from them. Acta Paediatrica, International Journal of Paediatrics, 107(8), 1461–1466. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.14291 Yadav, S., Chakraborty, P., Mittal, P. (2021). User Interface of a Drawing App for Children: Design and Effectiveness. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 1165, pp. 53–61). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5113-0_4 Yadav, S., Chakraborty, P., Mittal, P. (2021). Designing Drawing Apps for Children: Artistic and Technological Factors. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1926113 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: N/A Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: 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 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 study aimed at evaluating the usability and acceptability of the tool (EmpowerKids tool) from the perspective of professionals in social, health and educational settings. Based on these, it is of paramount benefit to the entire populace globally. The Authors should verify the use of British and US English. Citations should be duly done. Reviewer #2: Dear Author, The manuscript has been well draft but at the same time there are certain observations that i would like to share: 1. The survey instrument has been developed for this research based on literature. As it is a developed scale it needs to be checked for reliability and validity. Expert opinion has been captured as presented in the manuscript but the it is required to summarize the outcome in the manuscript. The scales capturing the constructs needs to be tested and the Cronbach alpha for each construct needs to be quoted in the design section of the manuscript. 2. The constructs to test the feasibility of the instrument have arrived form literature as mentioned in the manuscript. A conceptual framework in the manuscript can further bring clarity to the paper. 3. Appreciate the work done across geographies. The rationale for selection of Latvia etc needs to be justified. 4. Statistical analysis: Mere presentation of mean will not be sufficient. An in depth analysis is required. 5. The statistical outcomes need to be strengthened. The outcomes presented are mere basics. 6. Using smilys to capture data is a good idea. But Likert is a 5 point scale. Only 4 options are presented. Justify with adequate citation. ****** 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: Yes: YAHAYA ABDULLAHI Reviewer #2: Yes:** Smitha Nayak [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: Manuscript.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265355.r001
Revision 1
16 Feb 2022 Author Response Comments with responses: 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" Manuscript has now been checked to meet the PLOS ONE's style requirements 2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure. Ethics statement has now been amended in the Methods section. 3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files. Tables has now been included as part of the manuscript and individual files have been removed. 4. In the Methods section of the manuscript please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named ethics committee specifically approved or waived this study. Ethics statement has now been amended in the Methods section. 5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. We have now uploaded our study’s minimal underlying data set after fully anonymzed the respondents and included the data in the Supporting Information files (S1 and S2). Yadav, S., Chakraborty, P., Mittal, P., Arora, U. (2018). Children aged 6–24 months like to watch YouTube videos but could not learn anything from them. Acta Paediatrica, International Journal of Paediatrics, 107(8), 1461–1466. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.14291 Yadav, S., Chakraborty, P., Mittal, P. (2021). User Interface of a Drawing App for Children: Design and Effectiveness. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 1165, pp. 53–61). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5113-0_4 Yadav, S., Chakraborty, P., Mittal, P. (2021). Designing Drawing Apps for Children: Artistic and Technological Factors. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1926113 Thank you for introducing related and recent literature that is applicable to be referred in this manuscript. We have referred to above-mentioned research in our manuscript. 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: The study aimed at evaluating the usability and acceptability of the tool (EmpowerKids tool) from the perspective of professionals in social, health and educational settings. Based on these, it is of paramount benefit to the entire populace globally. The Authors should verify the use of British and US English. Citations should be duly done. Thank you for the comment. The language of this manuscript has been verified with official translation agency using British English. Citations have now been double checked for consistency of the Journal instructions Reviewer #2: Dear Author, The manuscript has been well draft but at the same time there are certain observations that i would like to share: 1. The survey instrument has been developed for this research based on literature. As it is a developed scale it needs to be checked for reliability and validity. Expert opinion has been captured as presented in the manuscript but the it is required to summarize the outcome in the manuscript. The scales capturing the constructs needs to be tested and the Cronbach alpha for each construct needs to be quoted in the design section of the manuscript. Thank you for the comment. The scale has been used in studies among Finnish population before and we have now extended the description of the validity and reliability of the scale by adding description on the Cronbach alpha of the scale into the methods section. The internal consistency of the SUS measured with the Cronbach's alpha in Finnish population has been high. 2. The constructs to test the feasibility of the instrument have arrived form literature as mentioned in the manuscript. A conceptual framework in the manuscript can further bring clarity to the paper. Thank you for the comment. We have not described enough detailed how the constructs of the feasibility instrument were developed. We have now elaborated more the conceptual framework of the feasibility in the methods section. 3. Appreciate the work done across geographies. The rationale for selection of Latvia etc needs to be justified. Thank you for the comment. This study was conducted during the EmpowerKids project, which was a cross-border collaboration project between stakeholders in Finland, Estonia and Latvia. Project addressed social exclusion and inadequate health information and social advice among the children. Thus, the reason for choosing above-mentioned countries was that the intervention was implemented in the participating countries and enabled the collection of data from the professionals participating to the intervention. 4. Statistical analysis: Mere presentation of mean will not be sufficient. An in depth analysis is required. Thank you for the comment. Analyses have been made according to the instructions by the SUS developer, but we have now included also the standard deviations to the analyses and described more detailed in the results section and in Tables 2 and 4. Adjective ratings are based on mainly used 5. The statistical outcomes need to be strengthened. The outcomes presented are mere basics. Thank you for the comment. We have now strengthened the statistical outcomes as described above. 6. Using smilys to capture data is a good idea. But Likert is a 5 point scale. Only 4 options are presented. Justify with adequate citation. Thank you for the comment. We discussed on the type Likert-scale with the expert team during the development of the EmpowerKids app. While our children users were from age six to age 13, we ended up to a decision to use 4 point Likert scale instead of 5 point Likert scale. This decision was based on the expert opinions and experiences with children, but also to the literature, for example Alan Kabasakal (2020). According to their study: “Children can use 3- and 4-point Likert-type scales, reliability coefficient increased with an increasing number of response options for the scale and validity of 3- and 4-point versions of the scale were appropriate and 2-point version was weak.” The use of 4 option smily scale has been now justified in the intervention description. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response To Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265355.r002
1 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Prabhat Mittal, Editor Promoting the health and wellbeing of children: a feasibility study of a digital tool among professionals PONE-D-21-30852R1 Dear Dr. Pakarinen, 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, Prabhat Mittal, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265355.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Mar 2022 Acceptance Letter - Prabhat Mittal, Editor PONE-D-21-30852R1 Promoting the health and wellbeing of children: a feasibility study of a digital tool among professionals Dear Dr. Pakarinen: 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. Prabhat Mittal Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265355.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 .