Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 14, 2022
Decision Letter - Farooq Ahmed, Editor

PONE-D-22-22781UNDERSTANDING ACTIONS TAKEN BY FEMALE FAMILY CAREGIVERS AND CHALLENGES THEY FACED IN CARING FOR OLDER PEOPLE DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN BELU DISTRICT, INDONESIA: A QUALITATIVE STUDYPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Asa,

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 Mar 16 2023 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,

Farooq Ahmed, PhD

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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: 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: Dear authors,

Thanks for the opportunity to review this paper. This paper presents very important findings about older people who are vulnerable to COVID-19 infection and can inform policy and programs to support this population.

Overall, the manuscript is well-written. All parts have been explained very well by the authors. The gap in knowledge is identified, which justifies the study. I have a few suggestions that hopefully help the authors for further improvement of their manuscript.

1. They need to add a brief explanation or justification about why they chose to conduct the study in Belu.

2. Data saturation: there seems to be a repetition of information about data saturation as it is mentioned in two places.

3. Did face-to-face interviews follow COVID-19 prevention protocols? If yes, please make it clear in the methods section.

4. There is a supplementary file of COREQ checklist but you haven’t mentioned it in the text, please report it stating that you follow the guideline and why.

Reviewer #2: The study explores challenges faced by female caregivers in protecting older adult family members during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings are very interesting and relevant and can be considered for publication.

Some comments to be considered by the authors:

I am wondering whether the authors can provide further explanation about why they included only female caregivers. The authors stated, “Older people in the study setting are cared for predominantly by female family members, especially their daughters, in their private homes”. Does it have something to do with culture or religion? Or something else? Also, it would be good to justify the selection of the study setting.

Do the hospitals or healthcare facilities in the study setting have specific services for older people during the COVID-19 pandemic?

It would be helpful for the readers if the authors can provide some examples of the main research questions used to explore the topic.

What are the implications of your findings for the health department or the government in the study setting? The authors mentioned intervention programs to support both female caregivers and older people. Can you propose any appropriate intervention programs that may have been implemented in other settings? Food support, nutritional supplement support, etc….

**********

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.

Revision 1

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for considering our manuscript " UNDERSTANDING ACTIONS TAKEN BY FEMALE FAMILY CAREGIVERS AND CHALLENGES THEY FACED IN CARING FOR OLDER PEOPLE DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN BELU DISTRICT, INDONESIA: A QUALITATIVE STUDY" to be published in POLOS ONE Journal. Herewith we submit the revised version of our paper.

On behalf of all authors,

Sincerely,

Gregorius Abanit Asa

RESPONSE TO THE JOURNAL

Comment

Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Response

Table 1 has been referred in the text (in the result section prior to the table)

Comment

Please upload a copy of Figure 1 which you refer to in your text. Or if the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

Response

The copy of Figure 1 has been uploaded.

Comment

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response

The manuscript follows the PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

Comment

Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

Response

The study obtained the ethics approval from Health Research Ethics Committee, Duta Wacana Christian University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia (No. 1380/C.16/FK/2022). Each participant was informed about the aim of the study and there would be no consequences if they withdraw from the study without giving any reason. All participant signed and returned a written informed consent form via e-mail or WhatsApp a few days before the interviews. Each interview took 30-50 minutes and was recorded with the consent of the participants. Identification letter and number (e.g. R1, R2) was used for confidentiality purposes.

Comment

Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

Response

Inclusivity in global research form has been filled (see supporting Information file)

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS

REVIEWER 1

Comment

They need to add a brief explanation or justification about why they choose to conduct the study in Belu.

Response

Belu is reported as one of the districts in East Nusa Tenggara province with high number of COVID-19 cases, accounting 536 although it is a small district. Belu is selected because of small size, familiarity, and potential of undertaking the current study.

Comment

Data saturation: there seems to be a repetition of information about data saturation as it is mentioned in two places.

Response

This sentence “The recruitment stopped when the authors felt the data saturation had been achieved” is removed because it is a repetition.

Comment

Did face-to-face interviews follow COVID-19 prevention protocols? If yes, please make it clear in the methods section.

Response

Data were collected using in-depth interviews: face-to-face using masks and via telephone and zoom.

Comment

There is a supplementary file of COREQ checklist but you haven’t mentioned it in the text, please report it stating that you follow the guideline and why.

Comment

The study used consolidated for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ) to guide the report of the methods section of this study. The COREQ checklist contains 32 required items (Fig.1) for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies especially interviews and focus groups.

REVIEWER 2

Comment

I am wondering whether the authors can provide further explanation about why they included only female caregivers. The authors stated, “Older people in the study setting are cared for predominantly by female family members, especially their daughters, in their private homes”. Does it have something to do with culture or religion? Or something else? Also, it would be good to justify the selection of the study setting.

Response

Older people in the study setting are cared for predominantly by female family members, especially their daughters, in their private homes. This role is influenced by cultural values putting expectation to women within the family to look after their parents.

Comment

Do the hospital or healthcare facilities in the study setting have specific services for older people during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Response

All the hospitals in study setting did not have specific services for older people during COVID-19 pandemic.

Comment

It would be helpful for the readers if the authors can provide some examples of the main research questions used to explore the topic.

Response

The interviews were guided by several predetermined main questions and probing questions were developed during the interview. Some examples of the main questions are “What actions did you take to protect older people or parents during COVID-19 pandemic? What challenges have you experienced when protecting older people during COVID-19 pandemic? What is your experience about older people’s adherence to the actions taken to protect them from COVID-19? The decision about the questions was made through the process of formulation, discussion, and revision.

Comment

What are the implications of your findings for the health department or the government in the study setting? The authors mentioned intervention programs to support both female caregivers and older people. Can you propose any appropriate intervention programs that may have been implemented in other settings? Food support, nutritional supplement support, etc….

Response

The results of the study can contribute to developing intervention programs such as providing food support and nutritional supplements for female family caregivers and older people living at home in poor or limited resource settings.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Farooq Ahmed, Editor

UNDERSTANDING ACTIONS TAKEN BY FEMALE FAMILY CAREGIVERS AND CHALLENGES THEY FACED IN CARING FOR OLDER PEOPLE DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN BELU DISTRICT, INDONESIA: A QUALITATIVE STUDY

PONE-D-22-22781R1

Dear Dr. Gregorius Abanit Asa,

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,

Farooq Ahmed, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Farooq Ahmed, Editor

PONE-D-22-22781R1

UNDERSTANDING ACTIONS AND CHALLENGES IN PROTECTING OLDER PEOPLE DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN INDONESIA: A QUALITATIVE STUDY WITH FEMALE CAREGIVERS

Dear Dr. Asa:

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. Farooq Ahmed

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .