Changes in reproductive behavior associated with the perception and individual experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic

Jitka Slabá

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288833

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 3, 2022
20 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - José Antonio Ortega, Editor PONE-D-22-30353 Changes in reproductive behavior associated with the perception and individual experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Slabá, 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. While the two referees recommend acceptance they have suggestions for a minor revision and clarification. In addition, I would like clarification on why the second wave was not used to explain fertility decisions based on the predictive content of perceptions a few months earlier. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 29 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, José Antonio Ortega, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: This output was supported by the NPO "Systemic Risk Institute" number LX22NPO5101, funded by European Union - Next Generation EU (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, NPO: EXCELES) and the Charles University UK UNCE/HUM/018 programs. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: It is a useful piece of work that shows the relationality between factors like job security, income opportunities, and gendered perceptions with the favourability for childbirth. The paper touches upon the disruption of certainty and the apprehensions about “what will happen now to our society?” in the pandemic years, and goes on to build a case about reproductive behaviours. The lack of uniformity in the data findings, to me, represents a strength: that reproductive behaviour can not always be quantified and rationally explained, and the ruptures there have a story to tell about social, individual, past, and future relationships. That also exhibits how he life trajectories of the men and women differed and influenced their reproductive behaviour, wants about number of children, the attempts to conceive, and plans to have children within the next 3 years. For instance, it was interesting to see how men and women assessed changes to their financial and job security in relation to their reproductive behaviour. The findings and the discussion did not quite address this particular assumption of the authors though: "that social distancing has a positive effect on the fertility intentions of women and suggest that the corresponding increased need for caring for the child and the household affect primarily women, thus pressurizing women into reverting to the traditional family model." A better explanation for this assumption would be rather crucial for the paper, I believe. Reviewer #2: This study brings out interesting findings on gendered differences in reproductive behaviours. That while women viewed this period as unfavourable for reproduction, men viewed it as favourable. In the introduction, the study mentions that the pandemic restrictions "allowed for a deepening of relationships between partners and increased involvement of both parents in caregiving". However, there were many reports on increased household and caregiving burdens on women, and increased gender based violence in homes during the pandemic across high income and low income countries. These important factors which would impact reproductive choices and behaviours, while touched upon in the introduction, are not discussed in detail in the study. The study mentions that the pandemic period saw a reduction in opportunity costs concerning career progression for women depending on occupation. Is the data collected in the study segregated by occupation type. Would be beneficial to substantiate this with study data. Are there any long-term repercussions of the findings presented in the study? Or implications for policy? ****** 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 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.0288833.r001
Revision 1
26 Jun 2023 Author Response The responses are in the attached file. I copy it also here. On your editorial comment E: „In addition, I would like clarification on why the second wave was not used to explain fertility decisions based on the predictive content of perceptions a few months earlier. Not sure that I understand well your question, so I am paraphrasing it in my own words in response. The pilot survey (what we might understand here as the first wave) ran from December 2020 to February 2021, a period that is inconsistent in terms of pandemic restrictions. This pilot sample contained questions that are part of the uniform Generation and Gender Survey, where the fertility section is relatively brief and very general, and thus the effect of the pandemic or individual life course is hard to distinguish. Whereas the Follow-up conducted in April (second wave) allowed questions to be asked that already reflected the pandemic itself and additionally asked about the declared reduction in reproductive plans due to the pandemic. Thus, both surveys (first and second waves) included only questions about short-term fertility intentions and current attempts to conceive. Initially, we even considered comparing the development of these intentions over time within the research team, but very problematic here is the very inconsistent spacing of the first and second wave (2 months vs 4 months) with the different impact of the pandemic, and we do not know whether those original intentions (first wave) have already been affected by the pandemic. Is this the clarification you asked for? I very much appreciate the comments from both reviewers who revealed a weakness of the manuscript, where the theoretical part dropped the reflection on the division of labor in the household focusing on childcare, which was already reflected in the introduction and conclusion of the manuscript. Specifically: 1) R1: The findings and the discussion did not quite address this particular assumption of the authors though: "that social distancing has a positive effect on the fertility intentions of women and suggest that the corresponding increased need for caring for the child and the household affect primarily women, thus pressurizing women into reverting to the traditional family model." A better explanation for this assumption would be rather crucial for the paper, I believe. R2: In the introduction, the study mentions that the pandemic restrictions "allowed for a deepening of relationships between partners and increased involvement of both parents in caregiving". However, there were many reports on increased household and caregiving burdens on women, and increased gender based violence in homes during the pandemic across high income and low income countries. These important factors which would impact reproductive choices and behaviours, while touched upon in the introduction, are not discussed in detail in the study. I reflected on these two points by rewriting the relevant paragraph in the theoretical framing of the study. Original version: However, the anti-pandemic measures limited these options to a significant extent, and it is not unreasonable to assume that for part of the population, starting (or expanding) a family moved up many people’s list of priorities. This assumption is supported by a study by Voicu and Badoi [13], which examines the possible effects of the pandemic on fertility from the viewpoint of gender roles. The authors assume that social distancing has a positive effect on the fertility intentions of women and suggest that the corresponding increased need for caring for the child and the household affect primarily women, thus pressurizing women into reverting to the traditional family model. On the other hand, limited opportunities for self-realization as well as changes in the life situations of individuals in terms both of the quality of the partnership [14,15] and employment and income stability [4] may result in not only in a preference for parenthood but also in the case of the deterioration may have acted to reduce or delay reproduction. New version: However, the anti-pandemic measures limited these options to a significant extent, and it is not unreasonable to assume that for part of the population, starting (or expanding) a family moved up many people’s list of priorities. In addition to the change in priorities [13], the enhancement of the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities may have contributed positively to fertility attitudes, for example via the option to work from home [13,14] and the forced reduction of working hours, which comprised an official supportive measure in many European countries during the pandemic [13,15]. Voicu and Badoi [16] suggest that this reconciliation may have increased the fertility of women who were forced to stay at home to care for their children due to the pandemic, and thus were forced to take on the position of caregiver due to the reduced availability of formal and informal childcare services [5]. It should be noted here that although the extra demands for childcare impacted both mothers and fathers, most of the extra responsibilities were shouldered by women [17,18,19,20]. On the other hand, the extra burden of caring for children, together with the limited opportunities for self-realization, as well as changes in the life situations of individuals in terms both of the quality of the relationship [21,22] and employment and income stability [4] may have resulted not only in a preference for parenthood but also, in the case of the deterioration of conditions, may have acted to reduce or delay reproduction. I hope that now the consideration of the impact of household arrangements on fertility intentions is clear. I have also paid close attention to the comment on domestic violence by the second reviewer; in studying the available literature, I am unable to determine for certain whether domestic violence affects partners' reproductive intentions. I am aware that there has been an increase in domestic violence during the pandemic (in the case of the Czech Republic through NGOs providing support), I believe this is part of the assessment of relationship quality, which is mentioned by the manuscript. 2) R2: The study mentions that the pandemic period saw a reduction in opportunity costs concerning career progression for women depending on occupation. Is the data collected in the study segregated by occupation type. Would be beneficial to substantiate this with study data. I completely understand this idea and it was one of my initial considerations as the GGS study has ISCO codes for individual respondents. In the final version of the manuscript, I moved away from assessing these individual characteristics (such as education or job position), partly because this would have reduced the sample so much that the test results would no longer be reliable, and secondly, it would still be burdened with considerable error, since the very determination of which occupations were advantaged or disadvantaged by the pandemic would be very difficult. 3) R2: Are there any long-term repercussions of the findings presented in the study? Or implications for policy? I would like to thank the reviewer for reminding me this. The following paragraph has been added to the Conclusion. New paragraphs: The covid-19 pandemic period significantly changed not only society as a whole but also the lives of individuals. The results presented revealed that the reproductive behavior of individuals may change during difficult times. Although the quality of interpersonal relationships affects the decision-making process, material insecurity also contributes significantly to the final decision. Thus, it is important that even in times of crisis, be it due to pandemics or adverse economic conditions, the availability of assistance measures for economically active individuals and families is not reduced. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288833.r002
6 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - José Antonio Ortega, Editor Changes in reproductive behavior associated with the perception and individual experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic PONE-D-22-30353R1 Dear Dr. Slabá, 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, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The proposed changes strengthen the paper and it is not needed to send the manuscript back to the reviewers, and yes, that was the clarification I needed. I believe the paper is ready for publication. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288833.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - José Antonio Ortega, Editor PONE-D-22-30353R1 Changes in reproductive behavior associated with the perception and individual experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic Dear Dr. Slabá: 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. José Antonio Ortega Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288833.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 .