An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the lived experience of sensuality expression among women over 50 years of age in Nigeria

Olubunmi Adeduntan Lawal; Sinegugu Evidence Duma

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285362

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 24, 2022
31 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Grant Rich, Editor PONE-D-22-29372 An interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the lived experience of Sensuality expression among women over 50 years of age in Nigeria. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lawal, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 17 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, Grant Rich, 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. 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 amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical. Additional Editor Comments: Dear author, please read the comments from both reviewers below. The overall recommendation is for Major Revision so revise and resubmit. Please work with a person fluent in English to ensure the writing and grammar is fluent and improved. The article topic is important, and I understand data on such a sensitive issue was hard to collect, and this makes this research especially valuable. REVIEWER ONE said Minor Revision and wrote: “The manuscript is technically sound. The authors provide data that supports the conclusions. These conclusions are drawn appropriately based on the data presented. While the authors conducted a pilot study, I would strongly suggest not to include the pilot study data into the analysis of the study. Perhaps the authors might want to explain the choice of doing that. The sample size is small and the authors acknowledge that. Judgment sampling often does have a possible bias. This may need to be noted in the limitations of the study. Since sensuality can be a taboo subject, we may never know for certain if the participants were being truthful in the interviews. Could stigma around the topic sway the participants’ responses? The authors may need to proof edit the document. I suggest the authors provide a citation to accompany the definition of sensuality. Given the work that the authors have done in this manuscript it may help if they could make more specific recommendations, addressing how this research might help nurses research or how this research helps to fill the research gap. What other research might need to be done to close the gap?” REVIEWER TWO said MAJOR REVISION and wrote “First, the topic of sensuality in middle-aged women in Nigeria is interesting. It provides primary data on groups that are minimally studied and adds to the literature. Nigeria is the most populous nation in the African continent. Comments – 1. Introduction and Study Focus - The authors need to expand on the relevance of this topic and build up a stronger justification for researching this. It is unclear to me the applied value that the researchers aim for. In the abstract, there is a reference to “… the development of age-appropriate healthy-ageing interventions,” but the study is exploratory, and at best, can generate questions for further studies to understand the topic. In addition, in order to hint at the development of “… further sexual health intervention research,” the authors could have included a subgroup of women with sexuality problems in their study. 2. Research Design - This part needs more detail. The IPA methodology for data collection requires further explanation. The primary readers of the study will most likely be those who are versed in qualitative study, but you can expand your readership to include those who may have limited knowledgeable about this type of research design. 3. The manuscript needs editing – see lines 79, 99, 120-122, 157, 509, 598, 625 4. Ln 179 - The Yoruba people in the south western part of Nigeria is an ethnic group with sub-dialects, NOT a sub-tribe. I suggest the authors follow the recommendation of the United Nations and describe groups in Africa in line with how other groups in the global north are described. Different groups in Europe and North America are not referred to as tribes. For an example, nobody refers to people from Wales as the Welch sub-tribe of United Kingdom. 5. References - Why is this reference in upper-case letters (p. 686)? 6. Summary – There is a dearth of research on this focus group and providing primary data on the group, is a plus. I think the manuscript can be strengthened by addressing [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript is technically sound. The authors provide data that supports the conclusions. These conclusions are drawn appropriately based on the data presented. While the authors conducted a pilot study, I would strongly suggest not to include the pilot study data into the analysis of the study. Perhaps the authors might want to explain the choice of doing that. The sample size is small and the authors acknowledge that. Judgment sampling often does have a possible bias. This may need to be noted in the limitations of the study. Since sensuality can be a taboo subject, we may never know for certain if the participants were being truthful in the interviews. Could stigma around the topic sway the participants’ responses? The authors may need to proof edit the document. I suggest the authors provide a citation to accompany the definition of sensuality. Given the work that the authors have done in this manuscript it may help if they could make more specific recommendations, addressing how this research might help nurses research or how this research helps to fill the research gap. What other research might need to be done to close the gap? Reviewer #2: First, the topic of sensuality in middle-aged women in Nigeria is interesting. It provides primary data on groups that are minimally studied and adds to the literature. Nigeria is the most populous nation in the African continent. Comments – 1. Introduction and Study Focus - The authors need to expand on the relevance of this topic and build up a stronger justification for researching this. It is unclear to me the applied value that the researchers aim for. In the abstract, there is a reference to “… the development of age-appropriate healthy-ageing interventions,” but the study is exploratory, and at best, can generate questions for further studies to understand the topic. In addition, in order to hint at the development of “… further sexual health intervention research,” the authors could have included a subgroup of women with sexuality problems in their study. 2. Research Design - This part needs more detail. The IPA methodology for data collection requires further explanation. The primary readers of the study will most likely be those who are versed in qualitative study, but you can expand your readership to include those who may have limited knowledgeable about this type of research design. 3. The manuscript needs editing – see lines 79, 99, 120-122, 157, 509, 598, 625 4. Ln 179 - The Yoruba people in the south western part of Nigeria is an ethnic group with sub-dialects, NOT a sub-tribe. I suggest the authors follow the recommendation of the United Nations and describe groups in Africa in line with how other groups in the global north are described. Different groups in Europe and North America are not referred to as tribes. For an example, nobody refers to people from Wales as the Welch sub-tribe of United Kingdom. 5. References - Why is this reference in upper-case letters (p. 686)? 6. Summary – There is a dearth of research on this focus group and providing primary data on the group, is a plus. I think the manuscript can be strengthened by addressing some of the comments above. ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285362.r001
Revision 1
19 Apr 2023 Author Response REVIEWER 1 NO QUERRY RESPONSE 1. While the authors conducted a pilot study, I would strongly suggest not to include the pilot study data into the analysis of the study. Perhaps the authors might want to explain the choice of doing that. The pilot data were included in the analysis of the main study as the instrument did not change substantially, and there is no potential risk of contamination that could compromise the quality of the findings [25]. This is allowed in qualitative studies where there is no risk of data contamination. (Lines 181– 184). The potential risk identified was possible reluctance to disclose sensitive matters during face-to-face interviews. This was prevented in the main study by assuring participants of confidentiality, and conducting the interviews in safe and supportive environment of the participant’s choice Lines (184 – 187) 2. Judgment sampling often does have a possible bias. This may need to be noted in the limitations of the study. To avoid possible bias, the participants were encouraged to freely give their consent to participate in the study, following adequate information about their expectations. (Line 661 – 663) 3. Since sensuality can be a taboo subject, we may never know for certain if the participants were being truthful in the interviews. Could stigma around the topic sway the participants’ responses? Stigma, defined by Oxford Dictionary as “a mark of disgrace associated with a particular circumstance’’ may not be applicable to this phenomenon. Sensuality; an essential component of sexuality, is an integral part of being human. Though it has been established that society may not readily accept the expression of sexuality by women over 50 years, and that the women themselves oftentimes accept this stereotype; but it is not documented that they feel disgraced or stigmatized as a result of expressing their sensuality. Also, in reference to the structured interview questions asked, there were no perceived stigma attached to these questions (Line 194 – 202). 4. The authors may need to proof edit the document. Done 5. I suggest the authors provide a citation to accompany the definition of sensuality. Done (Line 50) 6. Given the work that the authors have done in this manuscript it may help if they could make more specific recommendations, addressing how this research might help nurses research or how this research helps to fill the research gap. What other research might need to be done to close the gap?” In order to generate more knowledge in this area of study, we suggest a larger study using quantitative methods so as to reach a larger population of women who would relate their lived experiences of this phenomenon. Further qualitative studies may be undertaken to explore other aspects of sexuality of women in this age bracket for the development of deeper and comprehensive nursing framework to address their sensuality. Furthermore, this study covered one state out of the six in the Southwest Geopolitical zone of Nigeria. Replicating this study in the other states in the zone will be more representative of women of that culture (Line 667 – 675). By using their voices, the researchers have broken the silence about the sensuality needs of this group and their perceived invisibility in the eyes of the society (Line 656 – 658). REVIEWER 2 1. Introduction and Study Focus - The authors need to expand on the relevance of this topic and build up a stronger justification for researching this. It is well documented that the subject of sexuality of women above 50 is often overlooked, neglected, and unspoken [3, 4], despite this being a lifelong expression that plays an important role in graceful ageing due to its physiological, psychological and emotional benefits, its contribution to a person’s dignity and social life, and a direct link to increased quality of life [5] (Lines 59 – 62). It is also documented that the stereotype of the sexless older person has continued to influence policy making and research agendas [16] (Lines 91 – 93). This study projects the voice of this group of women as they relay their lived experiences on the expression of their sensuality, thereby providing knowledge and breaking the silence about the peculiar sensuality needs of this group of women, and their perceived invisibility in the society (Lines 105 -108). 7. It is unclear to me the applied value that the researchers aim for. In the abstract, there is a reference to “… the development of age-appropriate healthy-ageing interventions,” but the study is exploratory, and at best, can generate questions for further studies to understand the topic. In addition, in order to hint at the development of “… further sexual health intervention research,” the authors could have included a subgroup of women with sexuality problems in their study. This is not an intervention study. The main focus of this study is to project the voice of this group of women on the expression of their sensuality, thereby breaking the silence about the peculiar sensuality needs of this group of women, and their perceived invisibility in the society. Larger studies may be undertaken to explore other aspects of sexuality of women in this age bracket for the development of deeper and comprehensive nursing framework to address their sensuality (Lines 668 – 672). 8. Research Design - This part needs more detail. The IPA methodology for data collection requires further explanation Further explanation on IPA as a methodology done (Lines 130 – 137). 9. The manuscript needs editing Done 10. The Yoruba people in the south western part of Nigeria is an ethnic group with sub-dialects, NOT a sub-tribe. Corrected (Lines 204 -205) 11. Reference in upper case Corrected (Lines 725 -726, 801) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285362.r002
24 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Grant Rich, Editor An interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the lived experience of Sensuality expression among women over 50 years of age in Nigeria. PONE-D-22-29372R1 Dear Authors, 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, Grant Rich, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors responded well to the reviewers' comments. The paper makes a significant contribution on an understudied topic. I vote to accept the paper. Grant J. Rich, PhD LMT BCTMB LSW President-Elect Society for Peace, Conflict, and Violence (APA D48) President-Elect Society for Media Psychology and Technology (APA D46) Fellow, Association for Psychological Science (APS) Fellow, American Psychological Association (APA) Senior Contributing Faculty, Walden University Juneau, Alaska USA Dr. Rich's SPN Website: http://rich.socialpsychology.org/ Book Website (Rich, Gielen, & Takooshian, 2017) http://www.infoagepub.com/products/Internationalizing-the-Teaching-of-Psychology Book Website (Rich & Sirikantraporn, 2018) https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498554831/Human-Strengths-and-Resilience-Cross-Cultural-and-International-Perspectives# Book Website (Rich, Jaafar, & Barron, 2020) Psychology in Southeast Asia. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Psychology-in-Southeast-Asia-Sociocultural-Clinical-and-Health-Perspectives/Rich-Jaafar-Barron/p/book/9780367492144 Book Website (Rich & Ramkumar, 2022) Psychology in Oceania and the Caribbean, Springer https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-87763-7#editorsandaffiliations Book Website(Rich, Kuriansky, Gielen, & Kaplan, in press) Psychosocial Experiences and Adjustment of Migrants: Coming to the USA, Elsevier https://www.elsevier.com/books/psychosocial-experiences-and-adjustment-of-migrants/rich/978-0-12-823794-6 Book (Rich, Kumar, & Farley, in contract) Handbook of Media Psychology and Technology-The Science and the Practice, Springer https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285362.r003
Formally Accepted
22 May 2023 Acceptance Letter - Grant Rich, Editor PONE-D-22-29372R1 An interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the lived experience of Sensuality expression among women over 50 years of age in Nigeria Dear Dr. Lawal: 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. Grant Rich Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285362.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 .