Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-22-23187Predicting Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom: Cross- sectional and Longitudinal ResultsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bennett,

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 10 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,

Professor Lambros Lazuras

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 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

7. 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:

Three independent reviewers thoroughly reviewed your manuscript. One suggested acceptance and the second minor revisions, whereas the third reviewer suggested major revisions. Following my own reading of the manuscript I concur with the first 2 reviewers and recommend minor revisions.

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study investigates the effects of psychological and social factors on resilience in a longitudinal study across the UK and Italy. The study data are part of a larger study of an international research consortium (COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC). The study is written in an excellent, concrete and clear manner. The design and analysis of the data re robust and well-presented. The figures, tables and graphs are informative and address the RQs. The discussion is clear and informative and the conclusions are appropriate. The manuscript could be improved in two main areas:

1. A comprehensive description of "resilience" is missing form the introduction. Although the stance taken in this paper is clearly articulated (low anxiety/depression), there is a need for an overview of resilience as a psychological construct, and how this is depicted in crises (please include relevant examples from other studies - perhaps of natural disasters etc)

2. A more comprehensive discussion of what the findings mean in the context of psychological well being. Approx. 80% of the participants showed resilience in the UK in Wave 5, but what about the 20%, what does it mean in terms societal challenges in the future.

3. A more comprehensive discussion on the negative correlates of resilience (PTSD and loneliness) and the how these barriers to resilience can be overcome - using data from the positive correlates of resilience.

Reviewer #2: I would thank you very much for the opportunity of revising the manuscript.

Abstract

Minor revisions:

Line 58: please, be consistent in reporting "Covid-19" using the uppercase.

Line 60: please, delete the acronym "W3", there is no reason to report it.

Line 61: in my opinion, it is not clear the reason why the authors reported the N referring only to a sample.

Line 62: please, report the full name of the C19PRC or, if you prefer, report this acronym previous, specifically where you mention it for the first time.

Line 67: please, do not report the acronym you never mentioned previously (especially, in the abstract section).

Introduction

The introduction is well written and clear in terms of context, theoretical framework, aims, and scopes of the present study. Moreover, the research questions are well explained, and it is clear the contribution of the present study.

Minor revisions

Line 100: please, report the acronym of Ecological Model of Resilience when you mention the model for the first time if you use EMR along the manuscript (please, see line 114).

Figure 1: could you insert a figure with higher quality? The figure is clear in terms of theoretical reference, but the quality is not excellent.

Lines 116-117: please, could you report the acronym of PHQ and GAD specifying what they refer to? Those who read the manuscript for the first time do not immediately comprehend the meaning of these two acronyms. Moreover, please, do not use parentheses into parentheses, you should separate the text in the parentheses with semicolons.

Line 121: please, add a space between "(3)" and "again".

Line 134: please, add a come after "In the current study".

Line 139: I think you should add a point after "(July 2020)".

Materials and Methods

The methodological section is also well written. The authors well described all the measures, instruments, variables (i.e., both dependent and independent variables), and statistical analyses. Nevertheless, I suggest minor revisions, as follows:

Minor revisions

Line 152: I think you should report the word "wave" using "Wave", as you report in the introduction section. Please, report the present revision along all the manuscript (e.g., line 167).

Line 161: please, consider the same revision regarding the use of the parentheses in the text.

Line 166: please, add the equal symbol (=) between "mean age" and the value you reported.

Line 167: please, report what the value 51.46 refers to. It is the mean age, I guess.

Lines 166 – 169: it is not completely clear, in my opinion, if the final number of respondents in both samples (i.e., cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies)

Lines 177, 178, 180, 182, 186, 206, 2016, 235, 350, 510, 511, 564, etc.: please, consider the same revision regarding the use of the parentheses in the text.

Line 187, 192, and 194: please, be consistent in reporting the zero before the decimal point.

Line 215 - 238: please, could you report an item example for each measure?

Line 227: please, could you add the value of the good reliability and validity or the reference where readers can find this information?

Line 232: please, report the α-value for the SISES.

Lines 236 - 237: please, be consistent with previous measures' descriptions in reporting the response scale range.

Lines 255 - 256: please, be consistent with previous measures' descriptions in reporting the response scale range.

Lines 275 - 276: please, be consistent with previous measures' descriptions in reporting the response scale range.

Line 277: please, moderate the use of the parentheses and verify if you closed the parentheses.

Lines 282 - 283: please, be consistent with previous measures' descriptions in reporting the response scale range.

Line 287 and line 290: please, be consistent with previous measures' descriptions in reporting the response scale range.

Line 295: please, be consistent with previous measures' descriptions in reporting the response scale range.

Line 299: please, add a comma after "e.g.".

Line 300: please, be consistent with previous measures' descriptions in reporting the response scale range.

Line 306: please, be consistent with previous measures' descriptions in reporting the response scale range.

Line 319: please, delete the colon.

Line 335: please, use the Journal's style for reporting citations.

More in general, for all the α-values, please, be consistent in declaring the decimal number in terms of the numbers after the point.

Results

The results are well explained and described. I suggest, the following few modifications.

More in general, please, report the p-values using italics and be consistent in reporting the zero before the decimal numbers. Finally, be consistent in mentioning the name of the variables in terms of uppercase and lowercase.

Minor revisions

Line 349: please, consider deleting one of the two percentages regarding the gender- balance. It is extremely redundant.

Table 1: it is necessary to improve Table 1. Please, it could be necessary to align thousands and hundreds under the same column, use the same font, and add the meaning of all acronyms or abbreviations. I would also suggest not using all this white space.

Line 359: please, do not use italics for the words: "state", "Resilient" and "Non-Resilient", unless there is a reason.

Line 361: I suggest using the acronym ERM.

Table 2: please, add the "notes" to explain the acronyms (e.g., OR, CI, W, y, h.s., etc.) and, in my opinion, it is necessary to report the meaning of the colors (i.e., red and green).

Figure 2 and Figure 3: it is necessary to improve the quality of the imagines.

Figure 3: there are two Figures with the same name (i.e., Figure 3). Please, define better the Figure's names in order to distinguish them.

Table 3: the column with values describes only the number and the percentage for each variable, although the title of this column reports also the Mean and the SD. Please, modify the title or add this information. Moreover, please, add the "notes" to explain the acronyms (e.g., W, DAI, y, etc.).

Line 449: you report 846 participants. Is there an attrition rate? In previous paragraphs, you referred that the number of participants is 847.

Line 480: for me, it is not clear what "+0.003" represent.

Discussion

The discussion is well written, the aims of the study were well summarized, and the results were interestingly explained and discussed. Nevertheless, I highly recommend trying to reduce and streamline the text in order to obtain a text clearer and more pleasant. In this way, I strongly think that the reading would obtain a better flow.

Minor revision:

Line 535: please, add a comma after "UK".

Lines 547, and 589: in my opinion, it is not necessary to use the bold style in the text.

Lines 569 -570: please, revise the citation.

Line 608: please, add a space after the point.

Reviewer #3: The paper is an examining of factors that predict ‘resilience’ from a medium-sized convenience sample. The positives are the large range of psychometric measures, the careful modelling of groupings of variables and the validation of results in two distinct cohorts. The main negative is the extent that ‘resilience’ is well defined and we do not know how biased the sample is.

Before the ecological model of resilience is posited, it would be good to know what is meant by ‘resilience’

Reading on, it looks like resilience is just ‘good mental health’. In which case, I am not sure how the analysis differs from just looking at risk factors for mental health. Could you please clarify?

The term ‘clinical caseness’ is problematic because it implies a diagnosis, however a threshold from a questionnaire is not used to diagnose, by itself, without a clinical review. I suggest using another term.

It is not clear how the sample were recruited, apart from ‘online’. More detail is needed. Also, how representative were they, apart from the variables used to define the sampling strata?

I am not sure what is meant by the term “univariate multiple regression” – is this an adjusted model or not?

I am not clear why extraversion would be negatively associated with resilience, so defined.

**********

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: Federica Galli

Reviewer #3: Yes: Matthias Pierce

**********

[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.

Predicting Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom: Cross- sectional and Longitudinal Results

PONE-D-22-23187R1

Dear Dr. Bennett,

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,

Frantisek Sudzina

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

**********

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

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: The reviewer comments have been addressed adequately and no more changes are needed. The paper focuses on the importance of resilience in the context of COVID-19 and the authors have done a thorough presentation of their findings.

**********

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

**********