Cross-culturally adapted psychological interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety among young people: A scoping review

Masuma Pervin Mishu; Lucy Tindall; Philip Kerrigan; Lina Gega

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290653

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 13, 2023
14 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-22-35714Cross-culturally adapted psychological interventions for the treatment of depression and/ or anxiety among adolescents: a scoping reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mishu, 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 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-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: "No funding" At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Kindly correct the comments given by reviewer and resubmit with rebuttal letter. [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes 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: Yes 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: This is a well written and interesting piece of research which highlights the need for depression and/or anxiety interventions delivered to adolescents to be culturally and contextually sound. General comments: While generally well written and intelligible, there are a few grammatical errors in the article which need to be paid attention to. For example, in the Study Participants section, the first sentence does not make sense without a comma after the word ‘studies’. This happens at various occasions, and needs to be corrected, otherwise it is difficult for the reader to understand what the sentence means. Some abbreviated words are used without their full name in the first use, e.g RCT and USA. USA also needs to be kept for consistency e.g in the discussion, the authors write ‘US’ instead of ‘USA’ which is used earlier in. Introduction It would be helpful to define ‘adolescence’ in the introductory section. Also, the authors include studies of those aged 8 to 18 years old. It would be helpful to understand why this age range is included, when adolescence is most commonly defined as 10 to 19 (World Health Organization). Also, sometimes the word ‘children’ is included, which confuses the reader e.g in the sentence ‘psychological interventions have the potential to improve the mental health of children and adolescents’. I suggest changing the phrasing throughout to young people, as per age criteria and definition, or sticking to adolescents. Methods The methods section is very detailed and meets the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. It would be useful to include a PRISMA-ScR checklist in the supplement or figures to show where each item has been included: http://www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA-ScR-Fillable-Checklist_11Sept2019.pdf There needs to be some clarity on the recruitment of stakeholders, where they were sampled from, why they were chosen, which culture/country, and ethics used for adolescent involvement. Where the authors wrote ‘participants shared their perspectives on the need and acceptability of cross-culturally adapted interventions and made recommendations’, this needs more clarity. What interventions? Why are their opinions valid or useful here? For the eligibility criteria, what makes a population or study ‘wrong’? This needs to be better phrased. Also, no restriction is placed on language. How many studies were written in a language other than English, and how did you read these? It would also be good to understand and include a sentence on why grey literature was not included (rationale for eligibility criteria is a key feature of the PRISMA-ScR guidelines). There is bias in using western databases to report interventions delivered to non-western populations, which needs some recognition. The authors could be missing key literature. For the data extraction section, it would be useful to define ‘any relevant outcome’, as this is quite vague. Results: I suggest putting the results/outcomes from Tables 3a and b into Table 1, rather than lots of different tables, as this allows the reader to have all information of each study in one place. Discussion The paragraph which says that there is ‘little or no consideration of cost-effectiveness’ of culturally adapted vs. non adapted interventions needs some references. Is there any evidence to support this? I suggest including a note that the studies were from a range of different populations and cultures/contexts. Your article groups together a wide range of very different populations, which may oversimplify individual cultural needs and be seen as problematic. Section on ‘A participatory approach’ – do we know why three of the seven young people dropped out of the programme? I think there should be some reference to participatory involvement in your stakeholder interviews and results section, not just in the discussion and conclusion. Reviewer #2: Thank you so much for choosing me to review this eminent focus review article The research article gives me holistic knowledge about the psychologically adapted intervention used to treat depression and anxiety among adolescents. Even though the article's focus is not original, and I read a lot of review papers focusing on the same variables, no one focuses on adolescents, the most crucial developmental stage in human life. See the link below: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00212/full https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(23)00118-9/fulltext https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032720327464 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35168650/ The authors prepared this work very well. So thank you for your effort; the discussion and conclusion are to the point and reflect what the scoping review papers focused on. Reviewer #3: The authors summarize current research on cross-culturally adapted psychological interventions for (pre-)adolescents with focus on the treatment of symptoms of anxiety and depression. This is a topic of growing importance, especially bearing in mind that global prevalence rates of mental disorders recently sharply increased in youth populations in connection to Covid-19. However, there are a number of issues concerning the article‘s main focus of interest , the chosen methodology, and the derived conclusions from the data collected that should be clarified before puplication. Abtract: • After revision of the article, an adaptation of the abstract‘s content has to follow Introduction: • The authors should pay attention for a consequent use of a cultural sensitive and political correct language. Thus, attributions like „brown“, „black“ and „white“ (p.4) should be appropriately replaced. Same applies to „original country“ (p.5) for which the term „country of origin“ is suggested, instead. • The theory behind culturally adapting a psychological intervention is just briefly described in the introduction. Instead of introducing common frameworks/models (e.g. Bernal & Sáez-Santiago; „surface vs. deep stractuture adaptations“) within the results, it would be helpful for the reader to give more information about ways of adapting an intervention already within the introduction. • The authors don’t provide information why they decided for preparing a scoping reveiw instead of a systematic review. Unfortunately, the study’s main purpose is not clear to the reader, yet. From the abstract and the introduction, it reads as if the authors are primarily interested in examining the effectiveness of culturally adapted interventions for adolescents (although, if this ist he case, the intention could be formulated more concisely). However, going through the discussion, the authors mainly focus and give recommendations on the concrete process and different approaches of culturally adapting an intervention, so that the common thread is missing. A revision in the sense of creating a coherent structure is advised. Methods: • The authors provide full information on the algorhythm used for their literature research. For the interest of transparency, it would be helpful, however, if they could explain the underlying principles for their search strategy in a few sentences. Results: • Consistent use of italic letters for statistical letters (e.g. „M“, „SD“) • Table 1: Consistent use of bold letters for headings; consistent, equal structure of table cells (e.g. column „setting and sample“ – please provide information on diagnoses and country of implementation for every study – if unknown, this can be noted accordingly); about adding a column mentioning the kind of cross-cultural adaptation process used by each study should be thought • Table 3 a-c: These tables all are a bit too confusing for the reader. It should be visible on first sight, which numbers are representing levels of anxiety and which levels of depression. Also, significant changes (pre vs. post as well as treatment- vs. control-group) should be detectable directly for the reader. The column „change reported“(3a)/“significance“ (3b) ist very word-heavy. Table 3c can be omitted completely as it provides almost exclusively text content which can be presented within the article’s written results just as well. • Figure 2: The benefit from this illustration is arguable as the authors desribe the shown adaptation processes in detail within the results. • In general, the information provided within the tables 3 a-c are repetitive compared to the written results, to a great extend. Due to the large methodological heterogenity of the reviewed studies, the authors chose a narrative synthesis for the presentation of the studies‘ results. However, an abbreviated and focused display of either the written results or the table contents is advisable. • p. 23: The authors describe having consulted various stakeholders for discussing their preliminary review findings. From the information shared in the current article, it isn’t clear, however, whether the discussion followed any kind of structured frame or was intentionally kept open. Furthermore, the discussion’s goal and thus the benefit for the current article doesn’t really stand out, so far. Concerning the last paragraph on p. 23, it’s not recognizable whether the authors reproduce the stakeholders‘ points or summarize their own thoughts (which would be misplaced within the results). Discussion: • As mentioned above, the discussion’s focus is orientated differently than indicated by abstract and introduction. If the study aims to access the effectiveness of culturally adapted psychological interventions, then the authors have to allow way more space for this topic and discuss their findings critically (e.g. efficacy pre/post, efficacy treatment/non-treatment, (dis-)advantages of different types of control groups, etc.). • The authors‘ remarks concerning the benefits of a participatory approach when designing culturally adapted interventions was enlightening. However, the initial observation that „bottom-up“ interventions tend to be more effective than „top-down“ interventions cannot be derived from the results that are presented. Similar applies to the conclusion about emic and etic dimensions by Rosselló and colleagues (p.27), which isn’t mentioned in the article before and is accepted as fact by the authors without further discussion or referencing other supporting literature • Results of the stakeholders discussion (if it shall remain within the article) aren’t discussed at all. ****** 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: Sophia Lobanov-Rostovsky Reviewer #2: Yes: Ayman Mohamed El-Ashry, Lecturer of psychiatric and mental health nursing, faculty of nursing, Alexandria University, Egypt 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review_Mishu et al., 2023_PLOS ONE_submitted.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290653.r001
Revision 1
28 Jul 2023 Author Response We would like to thank the peer reviewers for their valuable comments. We are submitting a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The response to all the comments are listed in the attached 'Response to Reviewers' Table. Response to reviewer 1 comments: In response to the general comments: 2.We have now added a comma into the ‘study participants’ and have identified and corrected similar errors. We have now ensured that all abbreviated words are presented in full when first used. We have changed ‘US’ to ‘USA’ in the discussion for consistency. Introduction: 3.As suggested by the reviewer, we have changed the phrasing throughout to ‘young people’. However, when describing referenced studies, we have used the term employed by the study (children and/or adolescents). To clarify this, we have now added the following sentence into the abstract: ‘defined here as children and adolescents aged between 8-18 years’ and in the introduction. Methods: 4. We have now added the PRISMA-ScR as supplementary file 2. However, the page number will need to be revised when the article will be published as per the journal’s requirement. 5. We have added some additional text to the ‘stakeholder consultation’ section. Ethical approval was not required as it was part of Patient and Public involvement (PPI), in the form of consultation and participants were selected from within existing networks. We clarified, what interventions and why their opinions are useful here: Alongside the scoping review, we consulted with one adolescent and three parent stakeholders, each of them from an ethnic minority community living in the UK and with lived expertise of depression and/or anxiety (either having experienced this themselves or having looked after someone experiencing this). The purpose of this was to increase our accountability to the members of the communities we are researching, by allowing them the opportunity to dispute or endorse our findings, to add in their own voices and perspectives, and also to help us identify what further research should be prioritised. 6.We have now added more clarification into the section ‘excluded studies’: ‘…,18 were excluded. Reasons for exclusion included: having the wrong population (age group more than 18 years old) (n=9), wrong publication type (conference abstract, review, report, editorial, study protocol, any grey literature) (n=1), not mentioning cultural adaptation/related process/effectiveness (n=7), and unobtainable full text (n=1).’ One study title was written in Arabic but the abstract was written in English. That study was excluded at the abstract screening stage due to not meeting our inclusion criteria. We have now acknowledged the limitation relating to bias and not including grey literature in the discussion section: ‘We used the main international databases for conducting our search, however, there might be bias in using these databases to report interventions delivered to non-western populations. It was beyond the scope of the study to conduct searches in different regional or country-specific databases and those which included grey literature’. 7. We have clarified what outcome data were included: ‘any relevant outcome data (depression and/or anxiety)’. Results: 8. We have moved tables 3a-c (containing detailed outcome reports) into a supplementary file and updated the findings in Table 2. We have chosen not to amalgamate the tables as we feel this will make the table too busy and difficult to follow. 9. Response to comment: 'The paragraph which says that there is ‘little or no consideration of cost-effectiveness’ of culturally adapted vs. non adapted interventions needs some references. Is there any evidence to support this?': This statement came from the findings of our review as none of the 17 identified studies assessed cost-effectiveness, therefore no reference was made. We have added some text into the discussion: ‘There is little or no consideration in the reviewed studies of the cost-effectiveness of culturally adapted over un-adapted interventions as none of the 17 identified studies attempted to assess cost effectiveness and this is an area of much needed research’. 10. We have now added this point as one of the limitations of the review: ‘Finally, we acknowledge that, in grouping together studies from a wide range of different populations and from different cultures and contexts, there is a risk that we overgeneralise and oversimplify the actual complexity of individual cultural needs’. 11. In response to the comment, 'Section on ‘A participatory approach’ – do we know why three of the seven young people dropped out of the programme? I think there should be some reference to participatory involvement in your stakeholder interviews and results section, not just in the discussion and conclusion' : Morsette et al. (2009) paper mentioned the reasons for why young people dropped out and it was not related to the intervention: “One participant moved out of the school district, one’s parents removed the student from the program after child protective services were contacted, and one participant encountered serious medical problems and was hospitalized.” As the reasons for why the young people dropped out was not related to the interventions, we have removed the sentence- ‘In spite of this, however, three out of seven of the young people dropped out of the programme’ from our manuscript. In the Results section, we added related text. In the stakeholder’s section we added that: ‘Based on the feedback of our stakeholder consultations we found that a ‘participatory approach’ by engaging different community level stakeholders in the process of adaptation was highly recommended'. As suggested, we have added participatory involvement in the results and stakeholder sections, and have revised the related part in the discussion. Reviewer 2: Many thanks to the reviewer for their encouraging comments. No improvements were recommended. Response to the comments of Reviewer 3: 1.We originally used these terms as these were used in the original papers that we referenced. However, we have now replaced several words as appropriate. 2.We originally used these terms as these were used in the original papers that we referenced. However, we have now replaced several words as appropriate. 3. We adopted a scoping review as this is a more exploratory approach and the research area is still in a preliminary stage and very broad. We now added related text in the Introduction. 4. In response to the comment, Unfortunately, the study’s main purpose is not clear to the reader, yet.: We have now clarified the point and made the following changes. Objectives: 1. Identify available studies that tested the cross-culturally adapted interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety among young people. 2. to explore the cross-cultural adaptation process and frameworks used for the cultural adaptation. 3. to examine the effectiveness of these adapted interventions in the treatment of depression and/or anxiety disorders among young people. We have also ensured that these changes are reflected in our abstract. Methods: 5. We have added the following section explaining the underlying principles for the search strategy in the ‘information sources and search strategy’ section: ‘The search strategy was developed using phrases and keywords of “psychological interventions related to depression”, “children and adolescent populations” and “cross-cultural adaptation”. These terms were connected using Boolean operators and truncations where appropriate.’ Results: 6. We have made the changes in Table 1. We have added information about diagnosis for the study by Morsette (2009). Country of implementation: Bernal et al. (2019), Rossello , Bernal & Rivera-Medina (2008) , Morsette (2009), Duarte -Ve lez and Bernal & Bonilla (2010). However, we have not added a column mentioning the kind of cross-cultural adaptation process used by each study because adding more columns will make the table too busy and difficult to follow. This information has been presented separately in Figure 2. 7.We have now moved Tables 3 a-c to a supplementary file. Owing to this, we felt it important to retain Table 3c for consistency. Therefore, we present the following: Table 3(a) for reporting RCTs, 3(b) for reporting non-RCTs and 3(c) for reporting case studies. Where possible we have condensed the information presented in the tables and have presented all anxiety measures in italics to make it easier for the reader to identify the different measures. 8.As this Figure provides an idea of cultural processes used in the included studies at a glance, we felt it important to retain this Figure for readers who prefer a visual presentation of information. 9. As previously mentioned, we have now presented Tables 3 (a-c) within a supplementary file. This can be viewed by readers if they prefer to see results presented in a tabulated format. We have however condensed the information presented within these tables. 10. We have now added some additional sentences to the text: ‘Some questions were open-ended, for instance asking participants for their thoughts about the findings from the existing research, whilst others were more focused’. Discussion: 11.As per our response to comment number 4, our updated objectives now correspond to what is presented in the discussion. We have now added the following section relating to the participatory approach: ‘However, as a comparatively new area of research, further well-designed studies are needed to show the effectiveness of these processes’. We have also updated the e following sentences about emic and etic dimensions: ‘This concept of etic and emic norms however only appeared in this study and was only taken so far. As a comparatively new area of research, further work is needed to uncover which elements fall into which category’. We have now added sentences based on stakeholder consultation findings presented in the discussion section: ‘The overall positive picture of cultural adaption drawn from the studies aligns with the viewpoint of the stakeholder group that we consulted. They highlighted that such adaptations have the potential to increase the engagement of the participant in intervention delivery and therefore the intervention’s efficacy. It is worth repeating however the group’s cautioning that such an approach needs to go hand in hand with increasing efforts in public, school and community education to improve awareness and understanding of mental health and to challenge stigma.’ Response to academic editor’s comment: 1.The manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements and file naming. 2.We addressed the financial disclosure by stating that: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” 3. We added captions for our Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290653.r002
13 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor Cross-culturally adapted psychological interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety amongyoung people: a scoping review PONE-D-22-35714R1 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: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: No concerns. All my comments have been addressed in this revision. It is an important and interesting piece of work, which is methodologically sound. Reviewer #3: Dear authors, thank you for your thorough revision of the manuscript. Well noted, that all issues have been adressed. This version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication. ****** 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 Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290653.r003
Formally Accepted
22 Aug 2023 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-22-35714R1 Cross-culturally adapted psychological interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety among young people: a scoping review Dear Dr. Mishu: 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.0290653.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 .