MIESRA mHealth: Marital satisfaction during pregnancy

Besral Besral; Misrawati Misrawati; Yati Afiyanti; Raden Irawati Ismail; Hidayat Arifin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289061

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 17, 2023
28 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Giulia Ballarotto, Editor PONE-D-23-01469MIESRA mHealth: Marital Satisfaction During PregnancyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Misrawati, 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 12 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, Giulia Ballarotto 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 include a caption for figure 2. 4. We note that Figure S1 and S2 includes an image of a patient/participant in the study. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 6. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: Very interesting and good topic that had been discussed. The importance of the study had been highlighted clearly at the begining of the writing. How the implementation of the treatments for all three types of group had been discussed. The inclusion criteria for the sample also clearly stated. However, would like to know is the information of income being asked to the pregnant women? If no, could the author provide justification. Then, the experiment being done for 4 weeks, what would be the details of the content for each week? Would be good if can add it in writing. Is it standardized with the other group regarding the content exposed for each of the weeks? Lastly suggest to highlight the strength of the MIESRA in the strenght and limitation. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this study. I think the topic is very important, as has been well pointed out by the authors. Overall, the paper was well written and there are only a few points that could be revised. Specifically, in reviewing the existing literature, it would be useful to look more into the transition that women go through. I cite some studies as examples: Tambelli, R., Ballarotto, G., Trumello, C., & Babore, A. (2022). Transition to Motherhood: A Study on the Association between Somatic Symptoms during Pregnancy and Post-Partum Anxiety and Depression Symptoms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12861. Hennekam, S., Syed, J., Ali, F., & Dumazert, J. P. (2019). A multilevel perspective of the identity transition to motherhood. Gender, Work & Organization, 26(7), 915-933. Trentini, C., Pagani, M., Lauriola, M., & Tambelli, R. (2020). Neural responses to infant emotions and emotional self-awareness in mothers and fathers during pregnancy. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(9), 3314. Ammaniti, M., Trentini, C., Menozzi, F., & Tambelli, R. (2014). Transition to parenthood: Studies of intersubjectivity in mothers and fathers. Duarte-Guterman, P., Leuner, B., & Galea, L. A. (2019). The long and short term effects of motherhood on the brain. Frontiers in neuroendocrinology, 53, 100740. In addition, it would be helpful if the authors provided more information regarding the content of the application. Finally, the authors are invited to highlight strengths and weaknesses of MIESRA, but especially the future directions that the study's findings imply ****** 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.0289061.r001
Revision 1
25 May 2023 Author Response Response to Editor and Reviewers To Editor 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: Thank you, we have followed the guidelines. 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. Response: Thank you, we have uploaded the raw data of this study. “All data relevant to the study are included in the article and its Supporting Information files” 3. Please include a caption for figure 2 Response: Thank you, we have added the caption for figure 2. 4. We note that Figure S1 and S2 includes an image of a patient/participant in the study. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. Response: Thank you for the correction. We have filled the consent form for publication and mentioned the statement in the ethical consideration's part. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Response: Thank you, we have added the supporting information. 6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct Response: Revised. Thank you, Reviewer 1 1. Very interesting and good topic that had been discussed. The importance of the study had been highlighted clearly at the begining of the writing. Response: Thank you, 2. How the implementation of the treatments for all three types of group had been discussed. The inclusion criteria for the sample also clearly stated. However, would like to know is the information of income being asked to the pregnant women? If no, could the author provide justification. Response: Thank you for your question. We did not ask pregnant women about their income because, for our participants, the primary source of income was their husbands. Therefore, we refrain from inquiring about income from pregnant women. 3. Then, the experiment being done for 4 weeks, what would be the details of the content for each week? Would be good if can add it in writing. Response: Thank you for the question. In this study, we are unable to provide detailed information about the intervention content for each week because the interventions in our study were implemented as a single package. We have included the details of the study procedure in the study procedure section. However, this is a valuable suggestion, so we have added this information to the study limitations. 4. Is it standardized with the other group regarding the content exposed for each of the weeks? Response: Yes, the contents were standardized. 5. Lastly suggest to highlight the strength of the MIESRA in the strenght and limitation. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the strengths and limitation of this study. “The strengths of this study include (1) the intervention utilizing mHealth media, which allows respondents to access it without limitations of time and place (2) MIESRA mHealth, an application that provides crucial information during pregnancy, pre-test and posttest assessments for knowledge, and daily activities comprising instructional videos on mindfulness, audio materials, and diary notes, (3) MIESRA mHealth is easy to install, use, and comprehend, (4) detailed research methods were employed, and (5) statistical tests conducted by experts to ensure robust results. Additionally, the availability of this application can support the limited number and time constraints of health workers in providing antenatal health services. It enables monitoring of the psychological health of pregnant women and their partners, thereby enhancing the emotional bond between the mother and the foetus. However, this study had several limitations, including (1) the participants were limited to a specific area. Therefore, conducting research in broader locations while considering beliefs and culture becomes essential; (2) MIESRA mHealth still had certain limitations. Researchers were unable to examine it in real-time to determine when participants engaged in mindfulness interventions and learning activities such as reading educational materials or watching educational videos. This aspect needs improvement in future work; (3) The interventions in this study were a single package; therefore, specific interventions were not conducted each week; (4) The generalization of research results is limited to pregnant women and partners without mental health disruptions. Further research is recommended for groups of patients diagnosed with mental illnesses. Overall, these limitations highlight the areas for improvement and suggest potential directions for future study.” Reviewer 2 1. Thank you for the opportunity to review this study. I think the topic is very important, as has been well pointed out by the authors. Overall, the paper was well written and there are only a few points that could be revised. Response: Thank you, 2. Specifically, in reviewing the existing literature, it would be useful to look more into the transition that women go through. I cite some studies as examples: • Tambelli, R., Ballarotto, G., Trumello, C., & Babore, A. (2022). Transition to Motherhood: A Study on the Association between Somatic Symptoms during Pregnancy and Post-Partum Anxiety and Depression Symptoms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12861. • Hennekam, S., Syed, J., Ali, F., & Dumazert, J. P. (2019). A multilevel perspective of the identity transition to motherhood. Gender, Work & Organization, 26(7), 915-933. • Trentini, C., Pagani, M., Lauriola, M., & Tambelli, R. (2020). Neural responses to infant emotions and emotional self-awareness in mothers and fathers during pregnancy. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(9), 3314. • Ammaniti, M., Trentini, C., Menozzi, F., & Tambelli, R. (2014). Transition to parenthood: Studies of intersubjectivity in mothers and fathers. • Duarte-Guterman, P., Leuner, B., & Galea, L. A. (2019). The long and short term effects of motherhood on the brain. Frontiers in neuroendocrinology, 53, 100740. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, we have provided some information about transition women. We have elaborated this information in the introduction. 3. In addition, it would be helpful if the authors provided more information regarding the content of the application. Response: Thank you for the comment. The information regarding MIESRA mHealth contents were presented in the table 1. 4. Finally, the authors are invited to highlight strengths and weaknesses of MIESRA, but especially the future directions that the study's findings imply Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the strengths and limitation of this study. “The strengths of this study include (1) the intervention utilizing mHealth media, which allows respondents to access it without limitations of time and place (2) MIESRA mHealth, an application that provides crucial information during pregnancy, pre-test and posttest assessments for knowledge, and daily activities comprising instructional videos on mindfulness, audio materials, and diary notes, (3) MIESRA mHealth is easy to install, use, and comprehend, (4) detailed research methods were employed, and (5) statistical tests conducted by experts to ensure robust results. Additionally, the availability of this application can support the limited number and time constraints of health workers in providing antenatal health services. It enables monitoring of the psychological health of pregnant women and their partners, thereby enhancing the emotional bond between the mother and the foetus. However, this study had several limitations, including (1) the participants were limited to a specific area. Therefore, conducting research in broader locations while considering beliefs and culture becomes essential; (2) MIESRA mHealth still had certain limitations. Researchers were unable to examine it in real-time to determine when participants engaged in mindfulness interventions and learning activities such as reading educational materials or watching educational videos. This aspect needs improvement in future work; (3) The interventions in this study were a single package; therefore, specific interventions were not conducted each week; (4) The generalization of research results is limited to pregnant women and partners without mental health disruptions. Further research is recommended for groups of patients diagnosed with mental illnesses. Overall, these limitations highlight the areas for improvement and suggest potential directions for future study.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer - PlosOne.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289061.r002
11 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Giulia Ballarotto, Editor MIESRA mHealth: Marital Satisfaction During Pregnancy PONE-D-23-01469R1 Dear Dr. Misrawati, 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, Giulia Ballarotto Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: All the comments had been addressed and well justified in the following aspect: -the information of income related to the pregnant women -the content of experiment -strength of MIESRA Thank you for all the justifications. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289061.r003
Formally Accepted
13 Aug 2023 Acceptance Letter - Giulia Ballarotto, Editor PONE-D-23-01469R1 MIESRA mHealth: Marital Satisfaction During Pregnancy Dear Dr. Misrawati: 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 Giulia Ballarotto Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289061.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 .