PONE-D-23-18207Mothers’ Perspectives of the Barriers and Facilitators to Reducing Young Children's Screen Time During COVID-19: A Reddit Content AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vanderloo,

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 Nov 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,

Fatch Welcome Kalembo, 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. In your Methods section, please include additional information about your dataset and ensure that you have included a statement specifying whether the collection and analysis method complied with the terms and conditions for the source of the data.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include a caption for figure 1. 

5. 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:

Based on the reviewers’ reports, and my assessment as Editor, I am pleased to inform you that the manuscript is potentially acceptable for publication in PLOS ONE once you have addressed the reviewers’ comments. Also, please consider addressing the following in your revised manuscript:

1. From the findings of the study, it is clear that the study’s main overarching themes were barriers and facilitators to screen time and the five themes identified fall under these two main themes. The authors could improve the clarity and reporting of the results in this manuscript by presenting the five themes under these two main themes.
2. It is also important for the authors to be clear in terms of the how trustworthiness of data was achieved in this study. Perhaps you could add a paragraph after the data analysis section to explain how the trustworthiness of data was achieved in this study.
3. The discussion section could also be strengthened by a clear description of the implications of study findings for practice and research
4. The manuscript also needs some editing before it is published.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: 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

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 clearly written and topical paper. Rigorous methods were used, which were clearly explained. Sound recommendations were made based on the findings.

Figure 1 is very effective.

There was a good discussion on how some sub-themes may have contributed to an increase in screen time without necessarily being a barrier.

The authors acknowledged the limitation of not having demographic data, and how these findings may only apply to higher socio-economic groups from the US. This acknowledgement is to be commended.

This paper makes an interesting link between mothers' mental health and wellbeing and ability to limit screen time. This will inform future interventions and policies regarding family wellbeing.

Additional comments:

Line 1 on p6 is repeated at line 6.

Table 1 - theme descriptions are not necessary given the themes are described in text.

Barriers and Facilitators - please be a little clearer that the themes for barriers and facilitators came from the 5 themes and 17 subthemes in table 1. This is made clear in the discussion but was less clear in the body. Currently it is a little confusing.

There are a lot of brackets used. Can these please be reduced. This will require re-writing some sentences.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this study that looks at barriers and facilitators of screen time of young children.

This study is relevant, not only during the COVID-19 restriction period, but also provides foundation for future recommendations in children's screen time management. Please find below few suggestions to enhance the manuscript:

1. Authors stated no Approval was obtained from relevant Institutional Review Board. Was there a waiver of consent?

2. There was repetition of approval statement in page 6, please check and delete one.

3. How did the authors identify the origin of the post in page 6? How sure are you that all the post during this time period were from Ontario? A clarification will be great for readers. If this is not possible to identify, perhaps, you could include this as a limitation of the study because the demographics information of the posts were not available.

4. Regarding the first coder, perhaps, you may want to include their names or initials in page 6.

RESULTS

5. Perhaps, authors can consider organising these themes into the two broad categories i.e. Barriers and Facilitators. Mapping the themes under these categories can enhance flow and clarity for readers.

Additionally, the themes can be summarised, i.e. short, sweet and precise.

6. You may want to include the theme's label as part of the sub-heading instead of only indicating Theme One, Two etc

7. Figure 1 looks great for the barriers, what about the facilitators? As mentioned above, organising the themes and sub-themes into the two broad categories will make it clearer and cover the research aim.

DATA ANALYSIS

7. Was any application used to support the data analysis or was it done manually?

Reviewer #3: Comments to the Author

This study aimed to qualitatively understand mothers’ perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to reducing their young children’s (0-5 years) screen time during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through an exploratory data-driven (Reddit) content analysis, five themes emerged regarding mothers’ perspectives of screen time: (1) mothers’ other obligations creating an increase in child's screen use; (2) request for advice/tips on how to reduce child’s screen time or looking to receive or give; (3) offering child more screen time to allow themselves to rest or recover; (4) compromising with child and allowing increased screen use; and (5) mother’s screen use creating background or secondary screen exposure for the child. Authors concluded that parents faced new challenges when trying to reduce their child’s pandemic screen time and findings can be utilised to support the development of interventions designed to support mothers to limit their children’s screen time. The manuscript is well written, and findings are clearly articulated. I would accept with manuscript with minor revisions.

General comment:

Introduction

1. The authors provide a comprehensive overview of the research topic but would benefit from a more balanced argument related to the evidence for the implications of screen use on health. Currently, the evidence presented in paragraph 1 emphasises the detrimental impacts of screen use on the health and development in children. Authors should counter these arguments with more recent evidence related to the potential health and developmental benefits, considering the nuances and complexity of screen use. Otherwise, there is an assumption that screen ‘time’ should be limited, including potential types of screen use that might provide benefit. Authors correctly describe some of the complexities related to social media and around guidelines (e.g., video-chatting with caring adults). A broader, more complex picture needs to be presented.

Methods

2. Some justification behind the selection of subreddit groups (Mommit and Beyondthebump) to analyse posts is warranted. Are there others? It would also be helpful to provide some rationale behind why authors selected key terms (e.g., screen time, tablet, phone, TV). Why were such terms considered important?

Results and Discussion

3. Results are presented clearly. The authors are commended for how themes were presented in the Table and Figure.

4. While the Results are comprehensively interpreted in the Discussion, the implications for future research are somewhat abstract. Given the extensive information captured related to the barriers and potential solutions (facilitators) of supporting mother to limit (or manage) their children’s screen use, there is an opportunity to discuss this in the context of intervention and current guidelines. More importantly, future research might also need to consider the feasibility of such solutions. Some expansion on key facilitators in terms of potential application in interventions is needed.

5. Another important point to consider, when discussing the potential facilitators for mothers when managing young children’s screen use, is that screen time is potentially one part of many concerns’ parents have related to their child’s health and development. Indeed, mothers might use screens as a form of “babysitter” to soothe or calm their child’s behaviour which have potential negative impacts on self-regulation; however, a trade off might be necessary if the mother has competing challenges to face, particular if there is no support elsewhere (e.g., cooking dinner, chores etc.). A more balanced argument that considers the ‘parenting chaos’ would also benefit any discussion around the implications for intervention.

Specific comments:

6. The whole manuscript would benefit from a thorough type-editing review to minimise errors. For example, paragraph 5 has an error with indentation. Moreover, in Methods, “Approval from the university’s ethics review board was not required as all published data were in the public domain” is presented twice. Please remove one to avoid replication.

**********

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: Dr. Shelley Gower

Reviewer #2: Yes: Esther Adama

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: PONE-D-23-18207.pdf

Mothers’ Perspectives of the Barriers and Facilitators to Reducing Young Children's Screen Time During COVID-19: A Reddit Content Analysis

PONE-D-23-18207R1

Dear Dr. Vanderloo,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Fatch Welcome Kalembo, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional): Please update the abstract in the editorial system so that it matches the one provided in the revised manuscript.