PONE-D-23-01170Gender differences in perceptions of “joint” decision-making about spending money among couples in rural TanzaniaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Owoputi,

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.

==============================

Two major concerns shown by the reviewers are: justification of small sample size and weak discussion. Authors must carefully attend them.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 01 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 Khalid Bashir, PhD

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. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Overall: this manuscript incorporates both a quantitative and qualitative exploration of household decision-making as part of a larger project in Tanzania. A comparison of spouses’ responses led to a robust discussion of the complexities of decision-making and the development of a spectrum that can be helpful in understanding household decision-making. Overall, this is an important topic and one that those working in gender are continuing to struggle with. At the same time, there are ways that the manuscript can be strengthened – from the framing in the introduction to specifics in the methods and results, to better contextualization of results and interpretation in the discussion – that would help to strengthen the manuscript overall. Please see more detailed comments below.

Abstract:

In the beginning part of the abstract as well as at the end, I wonder if it is more compelling to explain why, for health and wellbeing, it is important to explore dynamics around decision-making.

The second sentence of the abstract is run-on and it needs to be separated/revised.

Suggest removing “very” from sentences as it is a vague descriptor.

Based on what is written in the abstract, it is unclear how the complexities in decision-making led to the conclusion that couples/households are on a spectrum from no cooperation to full cooperation.

Introduction:

Paragraph 1: Can you expand/elaborate, give specifics on what conflict and cooperation about in households can look like?

Paragraph 1, line 4-5: Positive behaviors such as?

What development objectives does ignoring gender dynamics hinder?

Is the issue defining gender equality, or implementing and putting into practice and contextualizing what gender equality looks like?

Paragraph 2: women’s empowerment is related to gender equality, but distinct. I think the relationship between these concepts could be clarified. In addition, a lot of different concepts are covered in this paragraph, and how they relate, in particular how/why decision-making is important for improving gender equality, should be expanded.

I think the organization of the introduction could be improved to strengthen and improve clarity. I think it might be stronger to start the introduction making the important linkage between decision-making and health outcomes, which currently comes in paragraph 3, and why we should understand decision-making and then introduce key concepts. That might help the flow as the introduction currently goes back and forth between gender equality and decision-making. It might also be important to discussion the distinction between women’s decision-making and joint decision-making a bit earlier before page 4.

Page 5: “Research have found” – in what contexts? In addition, a lot of studies are summarized in this paragraph, and it might help to add a topic sentence or concluding sentence that summarizes/synthesizes the overarching key point in how these studies vary.

It might be helpful to, in the last paragraph of the introduction, contextualize the aims and clarify the location of the study.

Methods:

In the first paragraph, when contextualizing the larger project, it might be helpful to describe briefly the way that Phase A/B results were used as part of the project – were they formative, evaluative, etc.? Phase B focused on household-level attitudes and practices related to what exactly? What nutrition and health behaviors in particular?

It would be helpful to introduce the factors shown to be associated with decision-making in previous research earlier in the introduction if they were considered as part of sampling (e.g., age, education, etc.).

There is a lot of detail included about the overall study, but I wonder if detail about data collection that is not relevant to the current manuscript should be removed to focus specifically on the methods that led to the data analyzed here.

Data analysis approaches for quantitative data should be included in the data analysis section as well. How was concordance assessed?

In addition to the analysis of the qualitative transcripts, were particular approaches used to analyze the pile sort activity data? I know space considerations are important to consider, but the results seem to be important to include.

Results:

Suggest being specific in the presentation of results rater than saying “about.” For example, not “about 8 years” but presenting the specific number.

Any reflections on men’s reflections on DM with one wife vs. another?

p. 10, 2nd paragraph of results: this reads more like interpretation and should be better placed in the discussion.

Given the small sample size, I think presenting statistics with 1 decimal point seems more appropriate. This would make Table 1 consistent with Table 2.

The summary of concordance/discordance in Table 3 (and Table 4) could be elaborated in the narrative. Furthermore, it is important to look not only at whether they were concordant or not, but also what that concordant response was. Can that be broken out/disaggregated further? For example, were they concordance that men made the decision, that women mad ethe decision, etc.?

In describing the example households, it might be helpful to provide more background details about the household (perhaps from the demographic characteristics?). I would also perhaps develop a name for the households rather than using labels like “household 73.” In the tables with quotes from participants, the title of the tables seems to be the nickname/label that could be used. However, it’s important to make this consistent with the sub-heading title where you describe that/those households. Currently, they are slightly differently described.

While the tables with illustrative quotes are helpful, is there space to incorporate a few quotes into the main body of the results section?

Discussion:

One question that has come to mind in this analysis is that the framing is around household decision-making, but the analyses seem often focused on the husband and wife. Is there space to elaborate on the role of other family members in household decisions?

The first two paragraphs in the discussion could perhaps be synthesized with what is in the introduction so that the discussion dives right into the key findings and situating them within the context of existing literature and identifying programmatic implications.

Page 27, last paragraph: remove contraction in first sentence.

It would be helpful to see more concrete recommendations related to future research and how those findings can be used to inform programs, particularly in light of how the paper has been framed.

Can more attention be given to the discussion of limitations in the discussion section? For example, a discussion of transferability and context might be important to include.

Conclusion: I would suggest being careful saying “significant differences” when not referring to a statistical association.

Reviewer #2: General comment: It is very difficult to follow the article without line numbers.

Authors must clearly mention their objectives and research hypotheses in bullet form.

Page 5–6: Sampling: The authors have explained how they have chosen their sample based on the information available from the data collected in the Pahse B. But they must write about the exact sample size, and they must also clarify that figure one has two parts. The upper part of Figure 1 is also considered by the researchers, or they have used it for extracting their own purposive sample size.

Moreover, based on the lower part of Figure 1, The sample size may be equal to 14 villages * 8 households (as written in the text at page 6) = 112. Then why, in Figure 1, does it seem like there are 58 households?

The authors do not clearly describe their sampling. It is not clearly described.

Page 7: Data Collection

What are the characteristics of a research assistant? their education level, age, or any experience that may validate the data collection?

Page 8: "After the survey, participants completed in-depth interviews called the "Food Interviews", which included information on food practises, behaviours, and beliefs, as well as decision-making around food and nutrition. The food interviews were not reported in this paper and will be reported elsewhere." The author must delete these lines from the article because the readers have no concern for what you have collected if this is not part of the current study. Also, similar things have been written in the method part on page 6. "Therefore, we have chosen to focus on this theme in this paper, and additional results of Phase B are reported elsewhere (paper in progress)."

Similarly, all mentions of "the interview" refer to these pile-sort interview questions. Other pile sort results are reported elsewhere due to space limitations."

The authors should focus on their goals and not on the other sides of their questionnaire design. The reader has no concern with that.

at Page 8: "Interviewers took detailed notes after each interview using the audio recordings, which were discussed in detail with the research team. Each interview was recorded and transcribed by the nine interviewers. The interviews were then reviewed by our research coordinator and sent to an independent party for translation into English. After translation, each transcript was reviewed twice: once against the audio recording by the original interviewer and a second time by a different team member." The author wrote that the data was collected through a tablet, and now each interview is recorded. why? Moreover, how did you ensure the validity of the responses collected after the translation by a third party? And if they can review the translation, then why not translate themselves?

I suggest the authors revise their method, especially the pile sort interview and its use (at page 9 in the data analysis section, second paragraph).

On page 10, "just under 20% of couples were polygamous." Is it about the women also? What does it mean that 11% of women are polygamous? It means these women had more than one husband at a time.

"When interviewing the husband, we specified which wife we wanted him to refer to during the interview." How did you specify that, then? And why did you leave others out to include them in the interview? The polygamous couples may have very different behaviours towards their decision-making as compared to the single (husband and wife) couple.

"Who decides how the money you earn will be used? response: I do not know." How is this response possible? I do not think so. Could it be?

"Who usually decides how your partner’s earnings will be used?" It seems that both men and women in a couple were working to earn money. As a result, the authors must include in Table 1 the occupation or earnings (income) of each partner.

"* DHS Questions:" The asterisk form may be placed after the questions in Table 2. There's no need to put it under the table again.

I could not understand the household numbers (73, 61, 39, etc.) and the wife's and husband's ages mentioned in tables 5, 6, and 7. It is not mentioned in the method section or in the results what the purpose of this is.

Based on the descriptive analysis and the responses of the 58 households, is it possible to generalise the results?

I am not satisfied with the discussion; the authors should focus on the direct perceptions of men and women regarding income spending. Moreover, they should explain what the contribution of the study is to the literature, as gender differences in decision-making are a changing phenomenon over time and across places. Simply considering the perceptions of men and women in a couple is enough to conclude who is the decision-maker in a household.

Best of Luck:

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-01170_reviewer_comments.docx

Gender differences in perceptions of “joint” decision-making about spending money among couples in rural Tanzania

PONE-D-23-01170R1

Dear Dr. Owoputi,

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 Editorial Manager® 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,

Muhammad Khalid Bashir, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Line 226: Although authors hired research assistants (RA), they can mention their education and age in a range of ways, that may not confuse the readers. and they must discuss the reliability of their data collection.

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 #2: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: (No Response)

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 #2: (No Response)

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 #2: Line 226: Although authors hired research assistants (RA),  they can mention their education and age in a range of ways, that may not confuse the readers. and they must discuss the reliability of their data collection.

Reviewer #3: Authors investigated gender differences in perceptions of“joint”decision-making about spending money among couples in rural Tanzania. The theme of the paper is interesting and important. This manuscript has a clear structure: introduction, methodology, results, and discussion all are well presented. The language is fluent and easy to read. I recommend its publication in PLOS ONE.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********