Systems that support hearing families with deaf children: A scoping review

Julia Terry; Jaynie Rance

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288771

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 1, 2022
19 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Gursimran Dhamrait, Editor PONE-D-22-29952Systems that support hearing families with deaf children: a scoping reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Terry, 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 02 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, Gursimran Dhamrait, 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. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately. Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: "This scoping review and the linked descriptive qualitative study are part of the SUPERSTAR project funded by Research Capacity Building Collaboration (RCBC) Wales, which are part of a Postdoctoral Fellowship. The funder provides access to a supervisor, and a Community of Scholars to support and promote high research quality and outputs. " We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "J Terry RCBC Wales Postdoctoral Fellowship https://www.rcbcwales.org.uk/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 5. Please upload a copy of Figures 1 an 2, to which you refer in your text on page 9-10. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review Systems that support hearing families with deaf children: A scoping review. To help pinpoint the specific sentences that require my commentary in the absence of line numbers, I will use page numbers and the closest citation like this P:[X] 2:[4] - Support is not really defined here. I know it's not quite possible to define support as this is an individual issue, but the paper claims that support is lacking. What support would be needed? 3:[7,8] - Many people will find the term "developing countries" offensive. Perhaps Global South? Formerly colonized countries? 3:[9] - List out these effects - perhaps cite Wyatte Hall's work on language deprivation syndrome. 3:[13] - This sentence a bit both-sides the debate. As you are not the New York Times, I don't think it's necessary to try to both-sides a clearly destructive argument from the Oralists. All deaf children should have some exposure to signed languages. Anything else is an enforcement of white supremacy values where only spoken languages are valued and everything else can be discarded. 4:[17] - Let's be realistic. There is almost never signed alone. It is usually a mixture, or spoken languages only. 5:[20] - Note that the width of the language development window is still under debate. 5 years isn't a hard stop. Language acquisition continues up until teenage years. But yeah. Early is good. 5:[21] - This next paragraph is very good. I think you can add more citations to bolster your argument. Hall Hall and Caselli is good. I believe Lillo-Martin may have a recent paper. [22] - I don't think Geers et al is the right citation for this. 6:[28] - I've seen several quasi definitions of support but nothing that makes me scream, yes, this is what support is. I would like to do this. 7:[30] - Very nice and clear. I like the use of OSF 8 - It's not immediately clear to me why educational databases were not searched as this would cover Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Deaf Education & International, and the Annals of the Deaf 9 - I don't like the term hearing impaired but I wonder if using that term would net more articles. 10 - Does Rayyan software require a citation? 11 - I think there's more funding to be honest. These are also Global North countries with robust economies. I am not sure this is as much an interest issue as it is an ability to receive funding. 11:[319 - I am not sure what reference 319 is, but I assume that will be fixed. However, I don't think that signed/spoken/both is the correct distribution of choices. It's usually both/spoken. 11: [19] - I am not sure that I agree that parents don't have time to engage with deaf communities (love the use of plural here). I think the answer is that there's usually not infrastructure to pipe parents to the appropriate deaf communities. 12:[18] - I want your point to be stronger here. Language does not interfere with language. Language does not hurt any kind of learning. Even asking the question is ableist. 12:[35] - I'm surprised no one mentioned ableist attitudes towards signed languages. 13:[40] - Laura Mauldin's Made to Hear discusses some of this. Also mentions that parents tend to think that their kids will be the successful ones that don't need signed languages. 15:[45] - I think this kind of hints that communication will always be a joint venture. I want you to say this stronger. 16:[50] - These families really should have an option to learn the signed languages of their cultures (e.g. LSM) 17:[52] - I think the issue of socio-emotional development being poor isn't well analyzed by hearing professionals. People react badly to not being able to communicate and things like Dinner Table Syndrome. Like, it's not the deafness. It's everything around it. 21:[69] - I do not understand this sentence "Aware that by giving parents ‘the means to communicate with their deaf child by using the child’s primary language’ parents are provided with greater opportunity for understanding their child’s world. " 21:[69] - This paragraph is rough. I don't understand what the point is. It doesn't matter if the child overtakes the parent in proficiency. It only matters if the parents are the only model, like, forever. 24:[77] - Without any context, reporting the data by race/ethnicity does not add positive information. Why do Black families struggle with coping strategies? How does the inherent racism of the US system restrict use of coping strategies? This information isn't here. I would remove everything after "Additionally," 25:[84] - Marschark is famous for never considering the context that the data is gathered in. Why are these kids feeling lonely? What does it mean that kids implanted earlier feel less lonely? Does anyone notice that the number of pirates decreased as the weather got warmer (https://pastafarians.org.au/pastafarianism/pirates-and-global-warming/)? 25:[85] - The weirdness of conflated variables appears in Holt et al's work. I see Kronenberger and Pisoni also contributed to this. This data result is silly. How would self reported control lead to small vocabularies? How would organization mean fewer inhibition problems? If a butterfly farts in the Atlantic, is there guaranteed to be a hurricane in the Pacific? 26:[86] - Sad that most of the deaf clubs in the states have closed. 27:[91] - I would not cite Johnston here. I think Kuster's work is more applicable. As is de Muelder. 30:[101] - Make sure you're citing Leala Holcomb's work here. 31:[40] - Honestly it's fair to say the hearing parents are ableist and audist yeah. 31:[61] - In my US State, all the parent supporters are oralist advocates. We have no signing parent mentor. Reviewer #2: Suggestion: p. 5, sentence beginning ‘Sign Language often comes naturally to deaf children…’ — Rather than beginning the sentence with ‘Sign Language’ with both words capitalised, I recommend using lower case in ‘language’ because there is no language named ‘Sign Language’ but with both letters capitalized, it can create the impression that it is the name of a language. This reinforces the common misconception that there is only one sign language worldwide. By saying “sign language” with lowercase letters (or ‘signed languages’), it reads more parallel to ‘spoken language’ where no one would mistake that for a single language but rather a category of languages in a particular modality. This is done later in the MS (and even later in this paragraph) and it reads much more clearly without this possibility of misunderstanding. p. 11, first sentence under subheading — perhaps a typo in the citation. It is listed as ‘[319’ with no closing bracket Throughout: It seems you mostly chose to capitalise ‘deaf’, which is fine, however this is a bit inconsistent, e.g., with some lowercase tokens on page 16. I’d suggest explaining whatever decision you make, citing the relevant literature and then being consistent throughout. If you’re not aware of this paper, I recommend it for a newer take on ‘Deaf’ versus ‘deaf’ https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=97416 Positionality statement: It would be helpful, if permitted by the journal, to include a positionality statement for the two authors so readers know what lived experiences/expertise they bring to this work. That would, to my mind, tie in with some of the narrative about the findings reported in this paper. Just in case it is helpful/applicable, please see Lieberman et al (2022) https://sites.bu.edu/lavalab/files/2022/06/Lieberman-Mitchiner-Pontecorvo-2022.pdf See also Oyserman and de Geus (2021) https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.21832/9781800410756-011/html Reviewer #3: This paper is well-balanced and captures the nuance quite well of what parents experience when they learn of having a deaf child and how the medical model influences choices. I was impressed with the acknowledgement of how marginalized signed languages have been in deaf child development. I applaud the authors for bringing this balanced view and highlighting the plurality of options in an international scope. I have no major feedback on this paper, there are minor grammar and writing aspects that can be improved with editor review. ****** 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: Yes: Jon Henner Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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.0288771.r001
Revision 1
5 Jan 2023 Author Response Response to reviewers – PONE – 22 – 29952 Systems that support hearing families We are grateful to all reviewers for their helpful comments. Please see our responses below. On the tracked changes version of the manuscript, all new references in the References list are highlighted in yellow. The numbering both in the manuscript and in the reference list is now accurate for this revised manuscript. Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review Systems that support hearing families with deaf children: A scoping review. To help pinpoint the specific sentences that require my commentary in the absence of line numbers, I will use page numbers and the closest citation like this P:[X] Response: Thank you, your comments across the paper are extremely helpful. 2:[4] - Support is not really defined here. I know it's not quite possible to define support as this is an individual issue, but the paper claims that support is lacking. What support would be needed? Response: Thank you. A definition of support is now included in the first paragraph of the introduction. 3:[7,8] - Many people will find the term "developing countries" offensive. Perhaps Global South? Formerly colonized countries? Response Thank you, now amended to ‘the Global South’. 3:[9] - List out these effects - perhaps cite Wyatte Hall's work on language deprivation syndrome. Response: Thank you, effects and Wyatte Hall’s work now included. 3:[13] - This sentence a bit both-sides the debate. As you are not the New York Times, I don't think it's necessary to try to both-sides a clearly destructive argument from the Oralists. All deaf children should have some exposure to signed languages. Anything else is an enforcement of white supremacy values where only spoken languages are valued and everything else can be discarded. Response: Helpful point, sentence with [13] now removed. 4:[17] - Let's be realistic. There is almost never signed alone. It is usually a mixture, or spoken languages only. Response: Thank you, now rephrased. 5:[20] - Note that the width of the language development window is still under debate. 5 years isn't a hard stop. Language acquisition continues up until teenage years. But yeah. Early is good. Response: Thank you and a fair point, now softened with ‘around the age of five years..’ 5:[21] - This next paragraph is very good. I think you can add more citations to bolster your argument. Hall Hall and Caselli is good. I believe Lillo-Martin may have a recent paper. Response: Very helpful, thank you, both suggested citations now added. [22] - I don't think Geers et al is the right citation for this. Response: Fair point, now removed. 6:[28] - I've seen several quasi definitions of support but nothing that makes me scream, yes, this is what support is. I would like to do this. Response: Thank you, good point. We have provided a definition of support systems at this point. 7:[30] - Very nice and clear. I like the use of OSF Response: Thanks. 8 - It's not immediately clear to me why educational databases were not searched as this would cover Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Deaf Education & International, and the Annals of the Deaf Response: Thanks. Whilst specific educational databases were not included as one of the four named databases, many of the included 65 papers are indeed from educational journals including Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Deaf Education & International, and the Annals of the Deaf. The Proquest Central database does include educational databases. Also, due to the steering groups’ suggested search terms, the information specialist’s help and intense internet and hand searching for evidence the authors are confident that relevant evidence from educational journals is certainly included in this scoping review. 9 - I don't like the term hearing impaired but I wonder if using that term would net more articles. Response: Agree, the term ‘hearing impaired’ was indeed used as a search term, please see Table 1, PICO framework. 10 - Does Rayyan software require a citation? Response: Thanks, good point. Rayyan reference (Ouzzani et al now included). 11 - I think there's more funding to be honest. These are also Global North countries with robust economies. I am not sure this is as much an interest issue as it is an ability to receive funding. Response: Thanks, sentence now revised. 11:[319 - I am not sure what reference 319 is, but I assume that will be fixed. However, I don't think that signed/spoken/both is the correct distribution of choices. It's usually both/spoken. Response: Thanks, typo now corrected. The reference had been Yu (2021), but now changed to Hall, Hall and Caselli. Sentence now revised. 11: [19] - I am not sure that I agree that parents don't have time to engage with deaf communities (love the use of plural here). I think the answer is that there's usually not infrastructure to pipe parents to the appropriate deaf communities. Response: Thanks, sentence now amended to reflect lack of infrastructure. 12:[18] - I want your point to be stronger here. Language does not interfere with language. Language does not hurt any kind of learning. Even asking the question is ableist. Response: Thank you, sentence revised. 12:[35] - I'm surprised no one mentioned ableist attitudes towards signed languages. Response: Thank you. Agree, ableist attitudes are not specifically stated as such in the literature, although that does appear to be what parent experience is describing. 13:[40] - Laura Mauldin's Made to Hear discusses some of this. Also mentions that parents tend to think that their kids will be the successful ones that don't need signed languages. Response: Thank you, reference to Maudlin’s work now included. 15:[45] - I think this kind of hints that communication will always be a joint venture. I want you to say this stronger. Response: Thank you, good point, sentence now revised. 16:[50] - These families really should have an option to learn the signed languages of their cultures (e.g. LSM) Response: Thank you, a helpful addition and now included. 17:[52] - I think the issue of socio-emotional development being poor isn't well analyzed by hearing professionals. People react badly to not being able to communicate and things like Dinner Table Syndrome. Like, it's not the deafness. It's everything around it. Response: Thank you, additional sentence now included. 21:[69] - I do not understand this sentence "Aware that by giving parents ‘the means to communicate with their deaf child by using the child’s primary language’ parents are provided with greater opportunity for understanding their child’s world. " Response: Thank you, sentence now revised. 21:[69] - This paragraph is rough. I don't understand what the point is. It doesn't matter if the child overtakes the parent in proficiency. It only matters if the parents are the only model, like, forever. Response: Thank you, paragraph now revised. 24:[77] - Without any context, reporting the data by race/ethnicity does not add positive information. Why do Black families struggle with coping strategies? How does the inherent racism of the US system restrict use of coping strategies? This information isn't here. I would remove everything after "Additionally," Response: Thank you, now revised and sentence removed. 25:[84] - Marschark is famous for never considering the context that the data is gathered in. Why are these kids feeling lonely? What does it mean that kids implanted earlier feel less lonely? Does anyone notice that the number of pirates decreased as the weather got warmer (https://pastafarians.org.au/pastafarianism/pirates-and-global-warming/)? Response: Thanks, additional sentence added. 25:[85] - The weirdness of conflated variables appears in Holt et al's work. I see Kronenberger and Pisoni also contributed to this. This data result is silly. How would self reported control lead to small vocabularies? How would organization mean fewer inhibition problems? If a butterfly farts in the Atlantic, is there guaranteed to be a hurricane in the Pacific? Response: Thank you for drawing attention to this. We have returned to the paper and revised the phrasing. 26:[86] - Sad that most of the deaf clubs in the states have closed. Response: Thank you, sentence added and citations added. 27:[91] - I would not cite Johnston here. I think Kuster's work is more applicable. As is de Muelder. Response: Thank you. We have retained reference to the Johnston paper, as we are referring to the retrieved paper from the included 65. We have supported this with a citation from Kusters, DeMeulder and O’Brien to increase clarity. 30:[101] - Make sure you're citing Leala Holcomb's work here. Response: Thank you, we have now added a citation on Holcomb’s work. 31:[40] - Honestly it's fair to say the hearing parents are ableist and audist yeah. Response: Thank you, point revised and made more clearly. 31:[61] - In my US State, all the parent supporters are oralist advocates. We have no signing parent mentor. Response: Thank you, agree this may vary by region hence no changes made, as point is more about Deaf mentors, few Deaf professionals and supporting parents being a welcome intervention. Reviewer #2: Suggestion: p. 5, sentence beginning ‘Sign Language often comes naturally to deaf children…’ — Rather than beginning the sentence with ‘Sign Language’ with both words capitalised, I recommend using lower case in ‘language’ because there is no language named ‘Sign Language’ but with both letters capitalized, it can create the impression that it is the name of a language. This reinforces the common misconception that there is only one sign language worldwide. By saying “sign language” with lowercase letters (or ‘signed languages’), it reads more parallel to ‘spoken language’ where no one would mistake that for a single language but rather a category of languages in a particular modality. This is done later in the MS (and even later in this paragraph) and it reads much more clearly without this possibility of misunderstanding. Response: Thank you, very helpful, and now checked across the manuscript and only appears as ‘sign language or ‘signed language’, unless at the start of a sentence or in reference to a specific such as ASL or BSL. p. 11, first sentence under subheading — perhaps a typo in the citation. It is listed as ‘[319’ with no closing bracket Response: Thank you, it was a typo, now amended. Throughout: It seems you mostly chose to capitalise ‘deaf’, which is fine, however this is a bit inconsistent, e.g., with some lowercase tokens on page 16. I’d suggest explaining whatever decision you make, citing the relevant literature and then being consistent throughout. If you’re not aware of this paper, I recommend it for a newer take on ‘Deaf’ versus ‘deaf’ https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=97416 Response: Thank you, we were not previously aware of this paper, which is extremely helpful and is now cited in our explanation. We have now included an Authors’ note at the start of the paper to provide reader clarity. Throughout the paper all reference to Deaf adults, communities, professionals, clubs, identity, culture, mentors and family members, then a capital D is used. Whilst when referring to deaf children, and deafness a lower-case d for deaf is used. Positionality statement: It would be helpful, if permitted by the journal, to include a positionality statement for the two authors so readers know what lived experiences/expertise they bring to this work. That would, to my mind, tie in with some of the narrative about the findings reported in this paper. Response: Thank you, a useful point to consider. Positionality statements can be useful for readers. We thought it helpful to add more description about the project’s steering group in the Methods’ section. Just in case it is helpful/applicable, please see Lieberman et al (2022) https://sites.bu.edu/lavalab/files/2022/06/Lieberman-Mitchiner-Pontecorvo-2022.pdf See also Oyserman and de Geus (2021) https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.21832/9781800410756-011/html Response: Very helpful to have these references. We have included them towards the end of the paper, thank you for bringing them to our attention. Reviewer #3: This paper is well-balanced and captures the nuance quite well of what parents experience when they learn of having a deaf child and how the medical model influences choices. I was impressed with the acknowledgement of how marginalized signed languages have been in deaf child development. I applaud the authors for bringing this balanced view and highlighting the plurality of options in an international scope. I have no major feedback on this paper, there are minor grammar and writing aspects that can be improved with editor review. Response -Thank you for your comments. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers PONE-22-29952.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288771.r002
26 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Gursimran Dhamrait, Editor PONE-D-22-29952R1Systems that support hearing families with deaf children: a scoping reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Terry, 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 Jun 10 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, Gursimran Dhamrait, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. 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: 1. Please re-word to use low-middle income countries and high-income countries as appropriate throughout the manuscript. [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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: Overall, I’m very happy with the revisions to the manuscript. Thank you for your hard work in addressing reviewer comments. I have just one more remark: 1. P. 53-54 (paragraph straddling these pages). Here you state that an alternative may have been for these families to learn LSM, however, I’m looking at the original article, and I’m only seeing that the families in this study were from “Spanish-speaking” backgrounds. It does not specify their country (or territory, e.g., Puerto Rico) of origin. I do not feel the suggestion to specifically name LSM here is appropriate for two reasons. First, if the family is from, say, El Salvador, why would they be compelled to learn LSM? Second, if the family lives in the US and there is no one in their community who knows LSM, how is it functional for them to learn a language they can’t use with anyone? I feel strongly the manuscript would be better off with the sentence in question omitted. I’m not sure if this would be helpful, but if you feel compelled to comment on some of the unique struggles of families from a Spanish-speaking background, you may consider this article: Steinberg, A., Bain, L., Li, Y., Delgado, G., & Ruperto, V. (2003). Decisions Hispanic Families Make After the Identification of Deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(3), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eng016 ****** 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 #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288771.r003
Revision 2
1 May 2023 Author Response PONE-D-22-29952R1 We are grateful to all reviewers for their helpful comments. Please see our responses below, and on the tracked changes version of the manuscript: Editor comments: 1. Please re-word to use low-middle income countries and high-income countries as appropriate throughout the manuscript. Response: Thank you for this helpful comment. Now changed throughout. Reviewer #2: Overall, I’m very happy with the revisions to the manuscript. Thank you for your hard work in addressing reviewer comments. I have just one more remark: 1. P. 53-54 (paragraph straddling these pages). Here you state that an alternative may have been for these families to learn LSM, however, I’m looking at the original article, and I’m only seeing that the families in this study were from “Spanish-speaking” backgrounds. It does not specify their country (or territory, e.g., Puerto Rico) of origin. I do not feel the suggestion to specifically name LSM here is appropriate for two reasons. First, if the family is from, say, El Salvador, why would they be compelled to learn LSM? Second, if the family lives in the US and there is no one in their community who knows LSM, how is it functional for them to learn a language they can’t use with anyone? I feel strongly the manuscript would be better off with the sentence in question omitted. I’m not sure if this would be helpful, but if you feel compelled to comment on some of the unique struggles of families from a Spanish-speaking background, you may consider this article: Steinberg, A., Bain, L., Li, Y., Delgado, G., & Ruperto, V. (2003). Decisions Hispanic Families Make After the Identification of Deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(3), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eng016 Response: Thank you for this helpful comment. On consideration we have removed this sentence. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers PONE-D-22-29952R1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288771.r004
19 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-22-29952R2Systems that support hearing families with deaf children: a scoping reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Terry, 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 check your prisma flow diagram in figure 1and explain exclusion criteria inside the box. There is a need of improvement in PRISMA FLOW fig 1. Please see page 13. Justify exclusion screening (n=821). The diagram have made poorly. The line are irregular. Kindly redraw and elaborate in detail all criteria. Please do include it in text if any new addition in text. Table 2, Strength and weakness must possess under a separate column. Rewrite in and elaborate the content. i could not find the search strategy as additional file. Kindly check your manuscript. It is suggested to provide inside the manuscript. Please write your manuscript according to plosone criteria and provide following clear methodology in method section such as Data screening, data entry and collection method. read following content in Cochrane database https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 03 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D 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. Additional Editor Comments: Please check your prisma flow diagram in figure 1and explain exclusion criteria inside the box. There is a need of improvement in PRISMA FLOW fig 1. Please see page 13. Justify exclusion screening (n=821). The diagram have made poorly. The line are irregular. Kindly redraw and elaborate in detail all criteria. Please do include it in text if any new addition in text. Table 2, Strength and weakness must possess under a separate column. Rewrite in and elaborate the content. i could not find the search strategy as additional file. Kindly check your manuscript. It is suggested to provide inside the manuscript. Please write your manuscript according to plosone criteria and provide following clear methodology in method section such as Data screening, data entry and collection method. read following content https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews [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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: I have no further comments at this time. I am satisfied with the way the manuscript has been revised. ****** 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 #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288771.r005
Revision 3
28 Jun 2023 Author Response Response to Reviewers- - PONE-D-22-29952R2 Thank you for your helpful comments and guidance. As we have revised the manuscript, we have looked extensively at other scoping reviews published in Plos One, which has been helpful. Reviewer comment: Please check your prisma flow diagram in figure 1and explain exclusion criteria inside the box. There is a need of improvement in PRISMA FLOW fig 1. Please see page 13. Justify exclusion screening (n=821). The diagram have made poorly. The line are irregular. Kindly redraw and elaborate in detail all criteria. Please do include it in text if any new addition in text. Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The PRISMA diagram has been re-done. No further text added to manuscript. Reviewer comment: Table 2, Strength and weakness must possess under a separate column. Rewrite in and elaborate the content. Response: Separate columns have now been added for strengths and another for weaknesses, with additional content now added. A few entries do just state ‘small sample’, and we have been back to these articles again, but there is little else to say with regards to these publications due to limited detail. Reviewer comment: I could not find the search strategy as additional file. Kindly check your manuscript. It is suggested to provide inside the manuscript. Response: Apologies. An example of a search strategy from one database (CINAHL) is now included within the manuscript and has also been uploaded as an additional file. Reviewer comment: Please write your manuscript according to Plosone criteria and provide following clear methodology in method section such as Data screening, data entry and collection method. Response: Thank you. Further detail about data screening, data entry and collection method is now included on page 12. The sub-headings used in the Methods sections are based on Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, as explained on page 8. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-22-29952R2 .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288771.r006
4 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor Systems that support hearing families with deaf children: a scoping review PONE-D-22-29952R3 Dear, 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288771.r007
Formally Accepted
11 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-22-29952R3 Systems that support hearing families with deaf children: a scoping review Dear Dr. Terry: 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. Muhammad Shahzad Aslam Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288771.r008

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 .