Meaningful everyday life situations from the perspective of children born preterm: A photo-elicitation interview study with six-year-old children

Anna Karin Andersson; Lena Almqvist; Katarina Strand Brodd; Maria Harder

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284217

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 11, 2022
6 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Steve Zimmerman, Editor PONE-D-22-19343Meaningful everyday life situations from the perspective of children born preterm: A photo-elicitation interview study with six-year-old childrenPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Andersson, 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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 20 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, Steve Zimmerman, PhD Associate 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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 ****** 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 authors describe well why the child’s perspective is important, but do not specifically explain why exploring such perspectives in children born prematurely but not diagnosed with disabilities is important. The section on ethical parameters should be located earlier in the methods section rather than its current location just before the results section. Putting the ethical section earlier informs the reader of Institutional Review Board approval prior to the recruitment of participants where ethical approval is particularly important. The qualitative design is appropriate for this research. Photo elicitation is an important tool for qualitative research with children given the challenges describing their experiences. This is particularly true for children at age six where the childhood perspective and understanding is narrower than seen at an older age. Using photographs as a prompt provides appropriate support for efforts at eliciting descriptions. The data analysis process is well described. However, what is not included is reference to trustworthiness of the data and triangulation of data collection/data analysis processes. These elements are critical in the discussion of qualitative research where study rigor is a concern. The results section is well documented – the terms listed in the core category, generic categories and subcategories are logical and seem to be supported by the data as illustrated by quotes embedded in the text. The discussion section expands on the categories identified in the results section and does so well. However, references to support findings are in large part those addressing activities and participation in children with disabilities. There are other existing studies addressing activities and participation in neurotypical children which should be woven into the discussion section. These concerns relate to the need to explain why children born prematurely were chosen for this study. The theoretical perspective, Family of Person-related Constructs (fPRC), is mentioned in the discussion section. Using this model or others to guide the study would have generated a more meaningful background for the paper. Rosenberg, L., Pade, M., Reizis, H., & Bar A.M. (2019). Associations between meaning of everyday activities and participation among children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73(6). 7306205030p1–7306205030p10. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2019.032508 Shields, N., Adair, B., Wilson, P., Froude, E., & Imms, C. (2018). Characteristics influencing diversity of participation of children in activities outside school. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 7204205010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2018.026914 ****** 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 ******** [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.0284217.r001
Revision 1
22 Nov 2022 Author Response Thank you for valuable comments that will contribute the manuscript. The responds to the reviewer's and editor's comments are presented in a submitted rebuttal letter. They are also presented here. Journal requirements Revised version according to comments Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming The manuscript meets PLOOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available Respons: Due to the ethical approval, it is not possible to make the interviews fully available. However, we have added a table presenting an overview of the data analysis process from Meaning units to Core category and supporting information files to show the analysis process. 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. Respons: The reference list is reviewed and is complete and correct. Reviewer’s comments Our answer 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Respons: Thank you 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A - 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?Reviewer #1: No Respons: As the data consist of interviews with children we, for ethical reasons; preserve children’s confidentiality, make data fully available. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Reviewer #1: Yes Thank you Reviewer #1. 1. The authors describe well why the child’s perspective is important, but do not specifically explain why exploring such perspectives in children born prematurely but not diagnosed with disabilities is important. Respons: Thank you for your comment. In the Background section we have added arguments for why the perspective of children born preterm not diagnosed with disabilities is of interest. Being born preterm lead to more care and attention and the perception of the child as vulnerable may influence everyday life situations. 2. The section on ethical parameters should be located earlier in the methods section rather than its current location just before the results section. Putting the ethical section earlier informs the reader of Institutional Review Board approval prior to the recruitment of participants where ethical approval is particularly important. Respons: The section Ethical Considerations has been put earlier in the method section. 3. The qualitative design is appropriate for this research. Photo elicitation is an important tool for qualitative research with children given the challenges describing their experiences. This is particularly true for children at age six where the childhood perspective and understanding is narrower than seen at an older age. Using photographs as a prompt provides appropriate support for efforts at eliciting descriptions. Respons: Thank you for this comment. We do very much agree with you. Using photo elicitation made it easier for the children to reflect on their everyday situations. 4. The data analysis process is well described. However, what is not included is reference to trustworthiness of the data and triangulation of data collection/data analysis processes. These elements are critical in the discussion of qualitative research where study rigor is a concern. Respons: Trustworthiness is now discussed in the methodological limitations of the study. 5. The results section is well documented – the terms listed in the core category, generic categories and subcategories are logical and seem to be supported by the data as illustrated by quotes embedded in the text. The discussion section expands on the categories identified in the results section and does so well. However, references to support findings are in large part those addressing activities and participation in children with disabilities. There are other existing studies addressing activities and participation in neurotypical children which should be woven into the discussion section. These concerns relate to the need to explain why children born prematurely were chosen for this study. Respons: Thank you for the suggestion to include studies on typically developed children. We have added studies and discuss our results in relation to studies on neurotypical children and children with disabilities. References have been added; Blencowe et al, 2012; Ballantyne et al, 2016; Elo et al, 2014; Rosenberg et al, 2019; Shields et al, 2018. 6. The theoretical perspective, Family of Person-related Constructs (fPRC), is mentioned in the discussion section. Using this model or others to guide the study would have generated a more meaningful background for the paper. Respons: In the Background section we refer to the Bioecological system theory as a base for our understanding of children’s development. We relate to the fPRC also on the background section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Respons to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284217.r002
2 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Nabeel Al-Yateem, Editor PONE-D-22-19343R1Meaningful everyday life situations from the perspective of children born preterm: A photo-elicitation interview study with six-year-old childrenPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Andersson, 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 Feb 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, Nabeel Al-Yateem, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 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: N/A ****** 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 ****** 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 authors addressed the concern regarding the rationale for studying preterm children nicely. This addition has helped to understand the perspective guiding the study. Incorporating studies of typically developing children does provide a basis for comparison of the information generated from the children born prematurely. The inclusion of the theoretical perspective, the Family of Person-related Constructs, has been added to the introduction as requested and has enhanced the text. Moving the ethical approval section to earlier in the text supports that this study was reviewed by the appropriate authorities prior to the data collection. The authors addressed triangulation and trustworthiness of the methods without using those terms. Given that this is a qualitative study, it is important to include the terms addressing study rigor. The photographs and interviews are two different methods of data collection, thus address triangulation. Using multiple data analysts is another method of researcher triangulation. The efforts made by the authors to ensure that the study participants were able to take, choose, and discuss topics of their own choice does address trustworthiness. It will make the study stronger to include those specific terms. ****** 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 ******** [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.0284217.r003
Revision 2
15 Feb 2023 Author Response Thank you for your comments. The concepts of trustworthiness and triangulation is now added in Methods and Materials and in methodological considerations. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284217.r004
27 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Nabeel Al-Yateem, Editor Meaningful everyday life situations from the perspective of children born preterm: A photo-elicitation interview study with six-year-old children PONE-D-22-19343R2 Dear Dr. Andersson, 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, Nabeel Al-Yateem, PhD 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: The authors provide appropriate justification for interviewing children to learn about what they find enjoyable and meaningful based on both previous studies and a theoretical model, the Family of Person Related Constructs (fPRC). The rationale for addressing children born prematurely is logical. The informed consent process for both children and parents is well-described. A qualitative research design was used in the study incorporating data collection via interviews. The photo-elicitation method was used to elicit those situations that were meaningful to them, as well as to facilitate their involvement in the interviews used in the research process. Details regarding the interview process used were provided. The data analysis processes used and the resulting codes were clearly documented. A few quotes were woven into the results section. More quotes would have supported the codes in more depth, but this is not a pressing concern. A previous concern was the lack of information regarding qualitative rigor processes. That concern has been addressed in this paper, where there is discussion of triangulation in the data analysis process and the data collection process. The use of the photo-elicitation procedure and the strengths and limitations that procedure were well documented and related to the qualitative research process. The manuscript has been strengthened and in my opinion, is appropriate for publication. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which has already undergone two rounds of reviews. The authors have addressed the comments from prior reviews. I have a few suggestions, which the authors can consider. 1. Sharing examples of the exact wording of the questions posed to the children during the interview - this would be helpful to other researchers interested in conducting a photo-elicitation study with young children. 2. Methods - include details about the interviewer. What was their professional background? Prior experience with qualitative research and interviewing? 3. Ensuring the titles of the generic categories are consistent throughout. For example, on line 208 the title is "having significant circumstances" while the title used in Table 4 seems to be "Significant circumstances to do things". 4. Adding a few additional quotes to the manuscript. Some subcategories, but not all, have a sample quote provided in the manuscript. For example, there is only 1 quote provided for the generic category 'To have significant circumstances' (lines 225-226), but this category has 3 subcategories. For generic category 'Desire for significant development', there is a sample quote provided for 2/3 subcategories - could add a quote for 'To have desire for signficant skills'. The tables of supplementary quotes are a great addition, but a few additional quotes in the manuscript would benefit the readers who will not access the supplementary tables. ****** 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: Kristin E. Musselman ******** Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-19343R2 Review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284217.r005
Formally Accepted
3 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Nabeel Al-Yateem, Editor PONE-D-22-19343R2 Meaningful everyday life situations from the perspective of children born preterm: A photo-elicitation interview study with six-year-old children Dear Dr. Andersson: 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. Nabeel Al-Yateem Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284217.r006

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 .