Measurement instruments for parental stress in the postpartum period: A scoping review

Anne-Martha Utne Øygarden; Rigmor C. Berg; Abdallah Abudayya; Kari Glavin; Benedicte Sørensen Strøm

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265616

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 30, 2021
4 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Kenta Matsumura, Editor PONE-D-21-27014Measurement instruments for parental stress in the postpartum period: A scoping reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Øygarden, 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 address all the comments pointed out by the reviewers. You will find that the comments are useful to improve the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 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, Kenta Matsumura 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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: 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 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: 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: p.6 1)Selection of relevant studies: Authors mentioned that although alternative terminology such as ‘distress’ was accepted if the instrument measured stress. Is it appropriate? Please explain this reasons. In addition, authors selected literature written in English and Scandinavian language. Please specify which literature was in Scandinavian language in the Table. p.13-14 Table2 The title and content in the right column of Table 2 didn't match well. Title of this column is "Name of instrument, author(year of development), but the author name and development year are not written in the one. Reviewer #2: Introduction: -Please provide rationale that the author selected 1 year after birth as a focus of the study. First few months is very different from the latter half of the first year. -objectives stated in the introduction does not reflect conducted analysis-facilitating the choice of an appropriate stress measure fit for purpose. It was not analyzed or reported in the manuscript. Methods -Selection of relevant studies: children with seriously ill children. What is the definition of serious illness? Results -search results: Please provide information on how many studies were excluded with what reasons. It reported that 3 were excluded due to lack of full text, however, no reasons of excluding other 204 were not provided. Please revise the flow diagram accordingly. Discussion -p19 "stress changes across the first year after birth" Please provide reference to support this statement. -"there exists insufficient evidence to endorse one specific instrument for parental stress measurement" I think this is not the purpose of the author. In the introduction section, it was mentioned that authors wanted to facilitate appropriate choice of instrument to fit the purpose. This also applies to the conclusion section. Conclusion -Also, according to the discussion, there is insufficient data for measuring stress during the first year of parenting. Minor comment -Identification of literature: I addition>In addition ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] 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.0265616.r001
Revision 1
26 Jan 2022 Author Response Thank you for the many constructive suggestions for improvements. For your information, a tidier response is uploaded in the appendix "Response to Reviewers". Here we respond with green text to separate reviewers' feedback from our responses. Response to Reviewers. 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 Templates are followed. Mistakes in file naming are corrected. 2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. All references used are provided in the manuscript. Data in this manuscript is solely articles found in databases and are available through literature search. We apologize for the misunderstandings. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Captions for Supporting Information files are included at the end of the manuscript. 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: Partly The article is reworked, and the comments and suggestions from the reviewers and the editor have been followed. ________________________________________ 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: No Multiple people have carefully read and revised the manuscript. In addition, it is reviewed and proof read by an English language expert. We believe that our paper is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard, correct English. Should the editorial team detect any errors or want any other changes, we are of course happy to oblige. ________________________________________ Reviewer #1: p.6 1) Selection of relevant studies: Authors mentioned that although alternative terminology such as ‘distress’ was accepted if the instrument measured stress. Is it appropriate? Please explain these reasons. Reasons explained on p. 7 in the manuscript: “While we only included studies about instruments that measured stress, because also the word ‘distress’ is used by some researchers in the field, we included this alternative terminology in the search to ensure that we did not miss relevant studies.” Explanation: Our knowledge of the research field has taught us that researchers sometimes use the word ‘distress’ and sometimes the word ‘stress’. This is why the term ‘distress’ was included in the search. In addition, authors selected literature written in English and Scandinavian language. Please specify which literature was in Scandinavian language in the Table. Specified in the result chapter, p. 9: “Three publications were not found in full text and we excluded 198 publications after full text screening. All publications read in full text were in English.” Explanation: While we accepted reports in English and Scandinavian languages, no publications in a Scandinavian language met the criteria for full text screening or for inclusion. p.13-14 Table2 The title and content in the right column of Table 2 didn't match well. Title of this column is "Name of instrument, author (year of development), but the author name and development year are not written in the one. Corrected in Table 2. Explanation: Author and year was moved to numbers as a result of the Vancouver style. Corrected manually. Reviewer #2: Introduction: -Please provide rationale that the author selected 1 year after birth as a focus of the study. First few months is very different from the latter half of the first year. Rationale provided on p. 7: “We chose the whole first year postpartum, because the first year after birth is a crucial period in parents’ lives [8, 9], that represents a major life transition for most parents [9].” Explanation: We agree that there are likely differences in parental distress between the first few months after birth and the last half of the first year, and we recognize that there are different definitions for the postpartum period. We have provided references to further substantiate the claim that the first year after the birth of a child is a crucial period and major life transition for parents. However, we wanted to be inclusive of the first year after birth, and to map broadly, and therefore included the entire first year after birth. We provide differentiation of measurement times in Table 1 (and text in the result section), allowing readers to see and focus on when measurements have been used to map stress among parents. Readers who are specifically interested in the first few months after birth can focus on those studies. -objectives stated in the introduction does not reflect conducted analysis-facilitating the choice of an appropriate stress measure fit for purpose. It was not analyzed or reported in the manuscript. Changes made in result (p. 10), discussion (p. 19) and conclusion (p. 22) chapter. Explanation: There are two objectives in this scoping review stated under objectives, p. 5, this is: [to] provide an overview of available instruments measuring parental stress throughout the postpartum period, and describe their psychometric properties related to the relevant population. In the comment above, reviewer 2 seems to refer to the introduction where it is stated that a scoping review is needed to, among other things, facilitate the choice of an appropriate stress measure fit for purpose. This is still needed. However, we re-examined our presentation of result, discussion and conclusion and made some changes that we believe make the presentation clearer. Methods -Selection of relevant studies: children with seriously ill children. What is the definition of serious illness? Definition provided on p. 7: Serious illness was defined as “a health condition that carries a high risk of mortality and either negatively impacts a person’s daily function or quality of life or excessively strains the caregiver.” (Kelley and Bollens-Lund, 2018). Explanation: We excluded a few articles where measurement was done among parents having an infant at the neonatal infant care unit or where one or two parents were living with HIV. These articles are sorted under wrong population in the PRISMA Flow Diagram, S1_fig.tif Results -search results: Please provide information on how many studies were excluded with what reasons. It reported that 3 were excluded due to lack of full text, however, no reasons of excluding other 204 were not provided. Please revise the flow diagram accordingly. The three articles not found in full text was included in the 201 articles excluded. Therefore, three publications were not found in full text and 198 publications were excluded after full text screening. Reasons for 198 articles excluded + 3 articles not found are now provided in the PRISMA Flow Diagram, see Fig1.tif. We hope this make the presentation clearer. Discussion -p19 "stress changes across the first year after birth" Please provide reference to support this statement. Two reference provided on p. 20: [9, 43, 54] -"there exists insufficient evidence to endorse one specific instrument for parental stress measurement" I think this is not the purpose of the author. In the introduction section, it was mentioned that authors wanted to facilitate appropriate choice of instrument to fit the purpose. This also applies to the conclusion section. Changed on p. 22: Thus, we find that there is still insufficient evidence to endorse one specific instrument for parental stress measurement. Explanation: It was stated in the introduction that a scoping review is needed to, among other things, facilitate the choice of an appropriate stress measure fit for purpose. This last sentence in the discussion is aiming to point towards what research we need in the future. Conclusion -Also, according to the discussion, there is insufficient data for measuring stress during the first year of parenting. Changed on p. 23: We find that there is still insufficient data to recommend one parental stress instrument over another, and further research is warranted. Minor comment -Identification of literature: I addition>In addition Corrected on p. 6. ________________________________________ 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article. If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. We would not like to publish the peer review history of this article. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265616.r002
7 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Kenta Matsumura, Editor Measurement instruments for parental stress in the postpartum period: A scoping review PONE-D-21-27014R1 Dear Dr. Øygarden, 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, Kenta Matsumura Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for your excellent work! 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) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #3: 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 Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: Thank you for your research with valuable information. Parenting stress is a very important issue of Nursing, and the development of research using appropriate scales is important for children and families. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: The authors have sufficiently revised the manuscript, answering all comments that the reviewers provided. The manuscript is worthwhile considering to be accepted. ****** 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 Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265616.r003
Formally Accepted
11 Mar 2022 Acceptance Letter - Kenta Matsumura, Editor PONE-D-21-27014R1 Measurement instruments for parental stress in the postpartum period: A scoping review Dear Dr. Øygarden: 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. Kenta Matsumura Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265616.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 .