Impact of body and orofacial appearance on life satisfaction among Brazilian adults

Lucas Arrais Campos; Juliana Alvares Duarte Bonini Campos; Wanderson Roberto da Silva; Timo Peltomäki; Ary dos Santos Pinto; João Marôco

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275728

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 17, 2022
28 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Manoelito Ferreira Silva Junior, Editor PONE-D-22-14345Impact of body and orofacial appearance on life satisfaction among Brazilian adultsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Marôco, 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 Sep 11 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, Manoelito Ferreira Silva Junior, 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This study received financial support from grants #2018/06739-1, #2019/19590-9, and #2020/13153-3, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP). This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Dear authors, I encourage them to make the corrections requested by the reviewers, for the smooth running of the editorial process of the manuscript. Best Regards. [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: 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: 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: No 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: Manuscript: Impact of body and orofacial appearance on life satisfaction among Brazilian adults Abstract Authors should it clear which form of evaluation, if it occurred through questionnaires. In the results, the authors should add the real value of p in the sentence: “For men, the affective and satisfaction components of BI had a greater impact on life satisfaction than the other factors. For women, both BI and OA had a similar impact.” Introduction The introduction is too long. “…studies aiming to evaluate different body image components...” Missing the studies reference. “Measurement of the body image is challenging, as it requires instruments capable of capturing body valuation from the individual's perception and/or attitudes.” Missing the reference. “However, studies that evaluate body image usually do not include orofacial …” Which studies? “OES assesses satisfaction with orofacial appearance and PIDAQ assesses the impact that dental esthetics have on the individual's life, such as self-confidence, social impact, psychological impact, and concern about the appearance of teeth.” Missing the reference. Methods The information about the measuring scales and sample characterization would be clearer if they were present in tables. Discussion An English grammar review is required throughout the manuscript. Conclusion At the beginning of the conclusion, the authors describe the results. Authors should better structure the conclusion without repeating the results found by the study. Reviewer #2: Dear authors, thank you for the submission. The manuscript is well-written and well-structured, however, there are some points that must be improved, described below. L.69-70: “These behaviors can be enhancers for the onset of mental disorders such as eating disorders [2]” What other disorders are related to the behaviors mentioned? Contextualize with what was reported. L.112-114: “no studies have been published that evaluate this relationship considering both body and facial appearance simultaneously” This is a poor justification of your study. I recommend improving the justification with precise arguments. It seems to me that the narrative described in the previous paragraph is configured as an adequate justification. The methods performed are adequate and realized according to validated questionnaires. However, it was mentioned that one item of ABS assess was excluded and not considered for mean score calculation. Could this exclusion be considered some bias for calculating the mean, and consequently affect the result? L.509-10: “Individuals with higher BMI values had higher levels of the negative components of body image and lower levels of the positive components” Please, insert the classification of BMI in the Methods section. L.526-28: “Thus, we expect that the results of this study could help health care professionals to develop and improve a holistic view of human subjects, which would assist the development of patient-centered treatment plans” This is an important aspect that is absent in the discussion topic. Consider inserting the impact of your findings on the population’s quality of life and the inclusion of public policies or the role of health care for these individuals. ****** 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.0275728.r001
Revision 1
7 Aug 2022 Author Response Dear Dr. Manoelito Ferreira Silva Junior, Academic Editor PLOS ONE Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and considering the study for publication after the requested review. We are submitting a revised manuscript highlighting the changes and a clean version. Please kindly see below our response point-by-point to reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the responses and the revised manuscript address the reviewers' concerns. Sincerely, The Authors 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1 •Abstract Authors should it clear which form of evaluation, if it occurred through questionnaires. -Response: We added this information in the Abstract (methods). •In the results, the authors should add the real value of p in the sentence: “For men, the affective and satisfaction components of BI had a greater impact on life satisfaction than the other factors. For women, both BI and OA had a similar impact.” -Response: We added to the abstract information regarding the impact value (β) and p-value. •Introduction The introduction is too long. “…studies aiming to evaluate different body image components...” Missing the studies reference. “Measurement of the body image is challenging, as it requires instruments capable of capturing body valuation from the individual's perception and/or attitudes.” Missing the reference. “However, studies that evaluate body image usually do not include orofacial …” Which studies? “OES assesses satisfaction with orofacial appearance and PIDAQ assesses the impact that dental esthetics have on the individual's life, such as self-confidence, social impact, psychological impact, and concern about the appearance of teeth.” Missing the reference. -Response: We understand that the introduction may be a bit long, however, our manuscript involves concepts that cross areas of knowledge related to body image, dentistry, psychology, and psychometrics. Since Plos One has a broad readership from many different fields of knowledge, we believe it is important to point out some main concepts that may not be usual for all readers. We added the references in the sentences that the reviewer pointed out. •Methods The information about the measuring scales and sample characterization would be clearer if they were present in tables. -Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Regarding the sample characterization, Table 1 presented in the Results already contained most of the variables. To avoid overlapping information by adding a new table with this same information, we just included all the characterization variables (and their results) in Table 1 and cited this table in Methods - Sample Characterization. Regarding the measured scales, we have removed the psychometric indicators of each scale for each sample from the text (Methods - Scale Measurements). These data have now been presented as supporting information (S1 Table), which also includes the dimension measured by each instrument. •Discussion An English grammar review is required throughout the manuscript. -Response: The language of the manuscript has been revised by Semantix (project number 76018646). •Conclusion At the beginning of the conclusion, the authors describe the results. Authors should better structure the conclusion without repeating the results found by the study. -Response: The conclusion was restructured. Reviewer #2 •Dear authors, thank you for the submission. The manuscript is well-written and well-structured, however, there are some points that must be improved, described below. -Response: Thank you. We changed the issues pointed out by the reviewers to improve the manuscript and make it suitable for publication. We hope we have met them. •L.69-70: “These behaviors can be enhancers for the onset of mental disorders such as eating disorders [2]” What other disorders are related to the behaviors mentioned? Contextualize with what was reported. -Response: The sentence was rewritten adding other mental disorders and contextualizing the relationship. •L.112-114: “no studies have been published that evaluate this relationship considering both body and facial appearance simultaneously” This is a poor justification of your study. I recommend improving the justification with precise arguments. It seems to me that the narrative described in the previous paragraph is configured as an adequate justification. -Response: We rewrite the sentence to describe a justification using the argument presented in the previous paragraph. •The methods performed are adequate and realized according to validated questionnaires. However, it was mentioned that one item of ABS assess was excluded and not considered for mean score calculation. Could this exclusion be considered some bias for calculating the mean, and consequently affect the result? -Response: Thank you. We understand the reviewer's concern. But it is actually the maintenance of this item that could be considered a bias in obtaining a score for attention to body shape (measured by ABS). This is because, after conducting Confirmatory Factor Analysis on the study sample data (results in S1 Table), this item presented low factor loading. In other words, this item presents a possible local fit problem, suggesting that the measured construct (attention to body shape) is not reflected in this item for the study sample. We have therefore decided to exclude this item in order to ensure that the estimates obtained are valid and reliable. In the manuscript (Methods - Measurement Scales - 1st paragraph), we added a sentence justifying that the exclusion of the item was to avoid bias and ensure data validity and reliability. •L.509-10: “Individuals with higher BMI values had higher levels of the negative components of body image and lower levels of the positive components” Please, insert the classification of BMI in the Methods section. -Response: Based on previous studies that evaluated the impact of BMI on well-being (Swami et al. Positive body image is positively associated with hedonic (emotional) and eudaimonic (psychological and social) well-being in British adults. J Soc Psychol. 2018;158(5):541-52. Frederick et al. Correlates of appearance and weight satisfaction in a U.S. National Sample: Personality, attachment style, television viewing, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. Body Image. 2016;17:191-203. Davis et al. The role of body image in the prediction of life satisfaction and flourishing in men and women. J Happiness Stud. 2020;21(2):505-24.), we clarify that in the present study we chose to use BMI quantitatively (Kg/m2) and not considering categories obtained by classification. We added a sentence at the end of the last paragraph of the Methods-Sample Characterization to clarify this information. •L.526-28: “Thus, we expect that the results of this study could help health care professionals to develop and improve a holistic view of human subjects, which would assist the development of patient-centered treatment plans” This is an important aspect that is absent in the discussion topic. Consider inserting the impact of your findings on the population’s quality of life and the inclusion of public policies or the role of health care for these individuals. -Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We added a paragraph discussing what the reviewer pointed out. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275728.r002
22 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Manoelito Ferreira Silva Junior, Editor Impact of body and orofacial appearance on life satisfaction among Brazilian adults PONE-D-22-14345R1 Dear Dr. Joao Marôco, 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, Manoelito Ferreira Silva Junior, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): I thank the authors for the effort to meet all the points of the reviewers, which substantially improved the quality of the manuscript. Therefore, we consider the article suitable for publication in its current format. Best Regards. 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Dear authors, congratulations for your study. The reviews are adequate, so I'm considering this study for publication. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275728.r003
Formally Accepted
27 Oct 2022 Acceptance Letter - Manoelito Ferreira Silva Junior, Editor PONE-D-22-14345R1 Impact of body and orofacial appearance on life satisfaction among Brazilian adults Dear Dr. Marôco: 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. Manoelito Ferreira Silva Junior Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275728.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 .