Trait anxiety and depressive rumination mediate the effect of perceived childhood rearing on adulthood presenteeism

Akifumi Shimasaki; Ayaka Deguchi; Yoshitaka Ishii; Tomoteru Seki; Yoshio Iwata; Yu Tamada; Mina Honyashiki; Yota Fujimura; Takeshi Inoue; Jiro Masuya

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289559

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 18, 2023
24 May 2023 Decision Letter - Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete, Editor PONE-D-23-04844Trait anxiety and depressive rumination mediate the effect of perceived childhood rearing on adulthood presenteeismPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Inoue, 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 Jul 08 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, Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete, 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (no. 21K07510, to TI) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/en/)." 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. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Yota Fujimura has received personal compensation from Sumitomo Pharma, and grants from Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Sumitomo Pharma, and Shionogi. Takeshi Inoue has received personal compensation from Mochida Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutical, MSD, Taisho Toyama Pharmaceutical, Yoshitomiyakuhin, and Daiichi Sankyo; grants from Shionogi, Astellas, Tsumura, and Eisai; and grants and personal compensation from Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Sumitomo Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Kyowa Pharmaceutical Industry, Pfizer, Novartis Pharma, and Meiji Seika Pharma; and is a member of the advisory boards of Pfizer, Novartis Pharma, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma. Jiro Masuya has received personal compensation from Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Astellas, and Meiji Yasuda Mental Health Foundation, and grants from Pfizer. All other authors declare that they have no actual or potential conflicts of interest associated with this study. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials." We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Sumitomo Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Shionogi, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutical, MSD, Taisho Toyama Pharmaceutical, Yoshitomiyakuhin, Daiichi Sankyo, Astellas, Tsumura, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Kyowa Pharmaceutical Industry, Pfizer, Novartis Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma and Meiji Yasuda Mental Health Foundation. Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc. Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. 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. 6. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 7. 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: Given such an interesting subject, the writing is of great quality, so the indications of our reviewers have been minimal, so I have no doubt that it will not be a major problem to consider them. [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: In general terms, it seems to me that it is a very interesting work that raises a novel idea that visualizes parenthood in other spectrums beyond its link with child development. Between lines 60 and 64 of the paper, where reference is made to depression, it seems to me that the idea of the loss of occupationality that depression itself generates in people should be highlighted (to reinforce the idea that is being developed in the same paragraph). In the part of the results in Tables 1 and 2, why is the difference between father and mother not made in the STAI-Y trait anxiety and RRS rumination score variables? It would be interesting to see how the productivity loss variable impacts on both subsamples separately. Having the multiple regression analysis, is there any variable that has a greater influence or dominance over the others in presenteeism? Reviewer #2: Studiyng possible causes of presenteeism is no doubt of interest and its strog association with trait axiety and depressive rumiation seems out of dicussion. Nevertheless the hypothesis that one influnces the other and both are related to percieved rearing from parents in childhood requires further studies with a longitudinal design. Other limitation are wrihtly aknowleged by the authors. ****** 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.0289559.r001
Revision 1
1 Jul 2023 Author Response POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS We thank the reviewers for the helpful advice and comments, which have enabled us to substantially improve our manuscript. Journal Requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: Thank you for the comment. We rechecked our manuscript and formatted it to be in accordance with the style requirements of PLOS ONE, including the file naming. 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Response: We would like to change ‘Funding Information’ to the following. We would be grateful if you could please change the online submission form. “Funding Information This work was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (no. 21K07510, to TI) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/egrants/). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section. Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” Response: Our original submission already included the statement “This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” in the ‘Competing Interests’ section. Therefore, we do not think any change is necessary, but we apologize if we have not understood your explanation correctly. 4. 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 for your comment. We would like to change ‘Data Availability Statement’ to the following and add a minimal data set (a csv file) as Supplementary Data S1. We would be grateful if you could please change the online submission form. “Data Availability Statement: Data cannot be shared publicly because of Ethics Committee restriction. All relevant data are within the paper. Data are available from the Internal Review Board of the Department of Psychiatry, Tokyo Medical University, Japan (contact via email: seisinka@tokyo-med.ac.jp) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. A minimal data set is provided as Supplementary Data S1.” 5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Response: We apologize that we did not refer to Table 2 in our original manuscript. We have referred to Table 2 in our revised manuscript (page 11, line 189). 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. Response: We confirmed that all references are correct and that we have not included any retracted papers. REVIEWER #1 1. Between lines 60 and 64 of the paper, where reference is made to depression, it seems to me that the idea of the loss of occupationality that depression itself generates in people should be highlighted (to reinforce the idea that is being developed in the same paragraph). Response: We thank you for your comments. In accordance with your suggestion, we added a description that depression itself results in occupational loss, such as presenteeism as well as absenteeism, as follows. “Depressive rumination is a risk factor for depression [16-18], and depression itself can cause occupational loss, such as presenteeism as well as absenteeism [11,19].” (page 4, lines 61 to 63) 2. In the part of the results in Tables 1 and 2, why is the difference between father and mother not made in the STAIY trait anxiety and RRS rumination score variables? It would be interesting to see how the productivity loss variable impacts on both subsamples separately. Having the multiple regression analysis, is there any variable that has a greater influence or dominance over the others in presenteeism? Response: Thank you for your suggestions. A major reason that there are only small differences between paternal and maternal parenting in the effect on trait anxiety and depressive rumination is that all these parenting variables are correlated (r = 0.414–0.645). In accordance with your suggestion, to test the contribution of the father and mother separately, we constructed 2 additional structural equation models for presenteeism. Each structural equation model incorporated the latent variables of either ‘paternal parenting’ or ‘maternal parenting’, which were composed of observed care and overprotection variables (namely, the care and overprotection subscores for the father, and the care and overprotection subscores for the mother). The results obtained from the 2 additional structural equation models suggest that the contribution of the father’s parenting for trait anxiety, depressive rumination, and presenteeism is similar to that of the mother’s parenting, although the direct effect from the father’s parenting to depressive rumination was cancelled (S1 Figs 1 and 2). These results were added to the Results section, as follows, and as Supplementary S1 Figs 1 and 2. “Subsequently, to test the contribution of the father and the mother separately, we constructed 2 additional structural equation models. Each structural equation model incorporated the latent variables of either ‘maternal parenting’ or ‘paternal parenting’, which were composed of observed care and overprotection variables (namely, the care and overprotection subscores for the mother and those for the father). The structural equation model incorporating ‘maternal parenting’ is shown in Supplementary S1 Fig. 1, and the model incorporating ‘paternal parenting’ is shown in Supplementary S1 Fig. 2. The results obtained from these 2 additional structural equation models suggest that the contribution of the father’s parenting to trait anxiety, depressive rumination, and presenteeism is almost similar to the contribution of the mother’s parenting. However, the direct effect of the father’s parenting on depressive rumination was cancelled in the additional structural equation model.” (page 13, line 229 to page 14, line 239) In Table 2 of the original manuscript, the multiple regression analysis showed that trait anxiety and depressive rumination had substantial effects on presenteeism, and these factors mediated the effect of parenting in the structural equation model. To make this point clear, we added the following description to the revised manuscript. “Among these significant variables, RRS depressive rumination score, and STAI-Y trait anxiety score showed the highest significance.” (page 12, lines 191 to 192) REVIEWER #2 1. Studying possible causes of presenteeism is no doubt of interest and its strong association with trait anxiety and depressive rumination seems out of discussion. Nevertheless the hypothesis that one influences the other and both are related to perceived rearing from parents in childhood requires further studies with a longitudinal design. Other limitation are rightly acknowledged by the authors. Response: We thank you for your comments. To verify our hypothesis, we would like to further study with a longitudinal design. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289559.r002
21 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete, Editor Trait anxiety and depressive rumination mediate the effect of perceived childhood rearing on adulthood presenteeism PONE-D-23-04844R1 Dear Dr. Takeshi Inoue, 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, Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The study is a great contribution to the subject, with a very good approach and that reflects a great work, receive my congratulations. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289559.r003
Formally Accepted
26 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete, Editor PONE-D-23-04844R1 Trait anxiety and depressive rumination mediate the effect of perceived childhood rearing on adulthood presenteeism Dear Dr. Inoue: 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. Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289559.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 .