Media consumption and psychological distress among older adults in the United States

Shawn Bauldry; Kevin Stainback

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279587

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 28, 2022
9 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Michio Murakami, Editor PONE-D-22-26923Media Consumption and Psychological Distress Among Older AdultsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bauldry, 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 Dec 24 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, Michio Murakami 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 [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: No 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: No 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: Interesting paper on an important topic. However, I have major concerns about the analytic strategy and conclusions that need to be addressed: 1) Please justify the use of "adapted" definition of GAD scale which was used for the primary outcome. Exactly what was adapted? 2) The main hypothesis of association of increased media exposure with more distress did not stand correct in the unadjusted or even bivariate analysis. Much of the conclusion is based on multivariate model which is fine. However, I would like to see a sensitivity analysis to confirm this is not just a data fluke. Could you do a logistic regression analysis using top 25th percentile of GAD score as an outcome? 3) In the observational study it is entirely plausible that those more prone to anxiety are reading more? Please state potential bidirectionality of the association as a possibility in the Discussion. Reviewer #2: The title of the research was - Media Consumption and Psychological Distress Among Older Adults and by reading this title the audience would think that the results and the paper would represent the whole globe whereas it represented US only. The authors also have claimed that there were fewer research been made on examining the relationship between COVID-19 news consumption and wellbeing among older adults residing in the US - however there were some good quality papers available which already have explained such issues in depth though it is true that the number of research were few. In addition, the statistical analysis in the paper was not enough to support the hypothesis or the statements made. Moreover the outcomes of the paper are quite well known to the greater audience all through the world and I think such paper will not make a big impact to research world any more. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Dewan Muhammad Nur -A Yazdani ******** [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.0279587.r001
Revision 1
22 Nov 2022 Author Response Reviewer 1 1. Please justify the use of "adapted" definition of GAD scale which was used for the primary outcome. Exactly what was adapted? We appreciate the reviewer’s request for more information about the items used in our measure of psychological distress. The measures come from a combination of one item from the GAD-7 scale (Spitzer et al. 2006) and four items from the CESD-20 scale (Radloff 1977). This set of items has been used in previous studies as a broad measure of psychological distress, which is how we view the items (see, e.g., Cobb et al. 2021; Hearne 2021; Stainback et al. 2020). We have revised our discussion of the measures to be more clear about their origins (see p. 9), we include the specific items in our discussion (see p. 9-10), and we added a table with descriptive statistics for the specific items and their origins to our Appendix (see p. 23). 2. The main hypothesis of association of increased media exposure with more distress did not stand correct in the unadjusted or even bivariate analysis. Much of the conclusion is based on multivariate model which is fine. However, I would like to see a sensitivity analysis to confirm this is not just a data fluke. Could you do a logistic regression analysis using top 25th percentile of GAD score as an outcome? We are uncertain about the reviewer’s concern as there is a bivariate difference in psychological distress between older adults who reported very close versus not very close media consumption surrounding the pandemic. We added bivariate significance tests to Table 1 and discuss the bivariate differences in the first section of our results (see p. 12-13). We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion for a sensitivity analysis and did indeed find a relationship between media consumption and psychological distress at the 25th percentile (adjusted OR = 1.416; p-value = 0.0006) net of the same covariate we use in our primary analysis. In other words, very closely following the news surrounding the pandemic is associated with a 42 percent greater odds of being in the top quartile of psychological distress relative to not very closely following the news net of all other covariates. 3. In the observational study it is entirely plausible that those more prone to anxiety are reading more? Please state potential bidirectionality of the association as a possibility in the Discussion. We agree with the reviewer and indicate the potential for bidirectionality in our theoretical model in a section titled “Psychological Distress and Media Consumption” (see p. 8-9), in our decision to include a self-reported past mental health condition as a covariate (see p. 11), and in our discussion where we acknowledge that we have not fully addressed the possibility (see p. 17). Reviewer 2 1. The title of the research was - Media Consumption and Psychological Distress Among Older Adults and by reading this title the audience would think that the results and the paper would represent the whole globe whereas it represented US only. The reviewer raises a good point about expectations. In the prior draft, we used the language of “older US adults” throughout including in the abstract. We have now revised the title of our manuscript to reference older adults in the United States to create consistency between title and text. 2. The authors also have claimed that there were fewer research been made on examining the relationship between COVID-19 news consumption and wellbeing among older adults residing in the US - however there were some good quality papers available which already have explained such issues in depth though it is true that the number of research were few. The reviewer is correct that there are a few studies that have examined COVID specific media consumption and psychological distress, which we cite in our paper (see p. 4). We conducted an extensive search to determine if we missed any studies since we drafted our original manuscript and found four studies published this year or late last year that explore COVID media consumption and mental health in different areas of the world. We have added citations to these new studies in our manuscript. To our knowledge, however, no past studies of COVID media and distress have focused on older adults, the population most affected by the pandemic, nor have any past studies examined how the relationship between media consumption and psychological distress varies across theoretically informed subpopulations. These two advances represent significant contributions to the research in this area, which we discuss in our introduction (see p. 4) and highlight in our discussion and conclusion (see p. 15-18). 3. In addition, the statistical analysis in the paper was not enough to support the hypothesis or the statements made. We disagree with the reviewer on this point. Our statistical analyses demonstrate two things: (1) there is an association between COVID media consumption and psychological distress net of a variety of sociodemographic factors related to exposure to the pandemic and past mental health conditions (see p. 13; also see note above responding to a comment from Reviewer 1 that the association holds as well for the top quartile of psychological distress) and (2) the relationship is significantly different across racial-ethnic groups along the lines we hypothesized (see p. 13-14). 4. Moreover the outcomes of the paper are quite well known to the greater audience all through the world and I think such paper will not make a big impact to research world any more. As noted above, the focus on older adults and variation in the relationship between media consumption surrounding the pandemic and psychological distress represent significant contributions to research in this area. More generally, this study contributes to the area of research on how media consumption surrounding significant traumatic events (e.g., terrorist attacks and natural disasters) can have a broader impact on population mental health. We highlight this contribution as well in our discussion and conclusion (see p. 17-18). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: cmed-plosone-response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279587.r002
12 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Michio Murakami, Editor Media Consumption and Psychological Distress Among Older Adults in the United States PONE-D-22-26923R1 Dear Dr. Bauldry, 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, Michio Murakami Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: Partly ****** 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: No 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: Interesting topic. The response to my queries is satisfactory in the revisions. No additional concerns. Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed my comments raised in a previous round of review and this manuscript is now acceptable for publication. The manuscript have described a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments have also been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. Moreover, the conclusions was drawn appropriately based on the data presented. ****** 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: Yes: Dewan Muhammad Nur -A Yazdani ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279587.r003
Formally Accepted
19 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Michio Murakami, Editor PONE-D-22-26923R1 Media Consumption and Psychological Distress Among Older Adults in the United States Dear Dr. Bauldry: 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. Michio Murakami Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279587.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 .