PONE-D-23-16207Gender inequality in work, childcare and wellbeing: the longitudinal impact of the COVID-19 pandemicPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yerkes,

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 Oct 27 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,

Florian Fischer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: 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: 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: No

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: This study addresses the diachronic evolution of gender differences in work arrangements, childcare division, and work-life balance.

The descriptive findings extend the existing knowledge by covering approximately two years since the outbreak of the pandemic emergency. The topic is highly relevant for the literature addressing gender inequality and COVID-19-related inequalities, and the paper proposes to make a significant contribution to these readerships. However, major revisions are currently required to meet the publication criteria.

My major points are:

1) INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH QUESTION: I personally appreciate the review of existing studies on the topic produced over the last few years, how the existing evidence is critically discussed, and how the question about the evolution of existing disparity over the 2020-2022 period emerges. However, the hypotheses appear poorly motivated and are built upon previous works, primarily from the UK. Although the article does not seem to engage in a detailed theoretical discussion, I believe that the authors should discuss the theoretical mechanisms behind the discussed expectations and the theoretical roles of the mentioned moderators. Furthermore, these motivated expectations require adequate contextualization given the country under scrutiny.

2) NOT CLEAR SAMPLE STRATEGY: I found it difficult to understand who composed the sample. On page 7, the authors specify that the survey was handed to LISS panel members with at least one working member and a co-resident minor child. However, in the analyses, having or not a child became a control variable (or parenthood as a moderator). Descriptive statistics for the variables of interest were missing. Moreover, if the sample can or cannot have children, the analysis of the childcare division necessarily has a sample different from that of the other analyses. This should be discussed and a description of who composes the different samples should be provided.

3) SELECTION IN SAMPLE: The sampling criteria and two outcome variables require the respondents to be in paid employment. As many of the COVID-19 implications, particularly on gender inequalities, have also occurred by affecting (un-)employment chances, you specifically make a selection of individuals that are still employed in each wave. This selection is not incorrect, but it should also be discussed in relation to the composition of this sample between men and women. Finally, is this selection too strong for the analysis of childcare divisions?

4) OUTCOME VARIABLES: Although I like the pre-post operationalization of the outcome variables (i.e. what is the difference with the pre-pandemic period), it would be anyway interesting to look at the absolute values of each wave. This is especially true for childcare, as children may grow over two or more years, and changes in the degree of childcare involvement may be driven by the aging of the child. Moreover, one may also consider the construction of a “within-couple disparity” measure for childcare, where the outcome becomes an imbalance (or changes in the balance) between the two partners.

5) CONTROL VARIABES: In the analyses, other theoretically driven covariates should be considered. The age of the (youngest) child, for instance, is indicative of the required childcare, the number of children also corrects for differential needs between families, and the biological sex of the child also matters for parent-child interaction. Moreover, the partners’ characteristics and health conditions should be considered. Finally, childcare involvement (and particularly paternal childcare involvement) should also be regarded as a control variable in the study of work-life balance (if all the sampled individuals have at least one child, but indeed this is not clear). For men, it may be easier to combine work and life duties if they do not carry-on childcare activities at all, so men with similar childcare burdens across time should be compared.

6) RESULTS: Here is the major point of the review. While going through the paper, I felt that there were simply too many aspects under consideration that hampered a smooth reading and understanding of the contribution. First, the three outcomes are only marginally related to each other, sometimes referring to different reference populations, and in the end, they appear to be chosen more for convenience than for specific theoretical reasons. Second, these outcomes are with multiple categories. Even though the multinomial approach is the correct one, the amount of information to be commented on for each analysis (also considering the two/three moderators) is overwhelming, and I took several readings to grasp them. Alternative operationalizations may help simplify the analyses and communication of the results. Third, the discussion of the results is currently not helpful in simplifying the provided information. In the current version, each result is discussed didactically, without any underlying narrative. Besides reconsidering the overly large focus of the contribution, I would suggest rearranging entirely the discussion of the results, for instance, selecting the most relevant ones and grouping them into subsections (i.e., the overall gap at the outbreak, the temporal evolution, the moderation, etc.).

Some minor points:

1) Descriptive figures 1, 2, and 3 were not visible in the version for the review and therefore it was not possible to comment.

2) Think about the possibility of including interactions in the main text potentially in a graphical way to simplify the understanding of this large set of results.

3) Avoid using causal language as “effect” when discussing the results.

4) Given the repeated cross-sectional design of the analyses, I would avoid stressing the “longitudinal component” of your contribution. The term diachronic seems to be more appropriate.

5) On the previous point, why did you not exploit the longitudinal nature of the panel? Other studies have done something similar in other contexts (i.e., Zamberlan et al. 2022, although not acknowledged in the literature review).

Zamberlan, A., Gioachin, F., & Gritti, D. (2022). Gender inequality in domestic chores over ten months of the UK COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic Research, 46, 565-580.

6) The section on limitations does not adequately address limitations, other than the fact that it is a study of only one country (which, in my opinion, is not a limitation if the contribution is properly contextualized). Please elaborate further.

Reviewer #2: The study is interesting and has a potential to make a contribution to better understand of the development of gender inequalities in paid work, childcare and wellbeing throughout the pandemic, especially in later stages. It identifies that there is a need for greater evidence on this and attempts to fill in the evidence gap. However, the manuscript requires major revisions to meet journal requirements.

1. Representativeness/selectiveness of the analytical sample

Main concern relates no effort made to compare representativeness of their “final analytical sample” of the underlying population of workers across the time points analysed. Authors state that a representative, probability-based panel was derived, but it is not clear how the response rates, changes in study design as well as subsequence exclusions affected the representatives of the sample and the subsequent conclusions.

Table 1 shows that at some waves less than a half of the sample made it to their analytical sample, but these proportions vary substantially over time. This is concerning for two main reasons. Firstly, previous studies show that women dropped out from employment at higher rates than men in the early stages of the pandemic. Given the sample is selected based on who remains in paid employment, such inequalities are neglected. Secondly, cross sectional comparison over time can only be meaningful if the same individuals are compared. If this is not possible efforts should be made to ensure that the final analytical sample has the same characteristics over time points compared and is representative of the population of interest. Table S2 compares the samples in terms of the proportion of female but I would be useful to know how the samples compare in terms of the other covariates as well.

2. Missing data strategy

The authors also state that respondents with missing values were excluded, which would further impact how representative the analytical sample is and therefore how meaningful a comparison over time can be made. Perhaps a more elaborate missing data strategy, such as multiple imputations, should be considered?

3. Contextualisation

The paper is lacking contextualising both in terms of situating the data in the timeline as well as situating the results in the existing literature. Authors present the timeline in S1, but it is not clear to what extent these restrictions could impact on the results. For example, were the restrictions on work different for those in essential and non-essential occupations? The impact of the restriction on work should feature in the discussion of the findings more explicitly. Similarly, the paper identifies several important international studies, but these do not feed through to the discussion section – are the results similar or different to what previous studies have found? If so, why/why not?

4. Comprehensiveness of the work location outcome variable

It is not clear whether workers were allowed to work from home “by choice”. The variable distinguishes between those who: work from home; work from workplace “by choice”; work from workplace “due to the nature of the work”. At the same time the work autonomy variable allows the choice in terms of work location. This appears inconsistent. Furthermore, previous studies on gender inequality suggest that choices men and women make may reflect internalised social norms. For example, men may be more concerned than women with “breadwinner status” than reputational damage related to neglecting childcare responsibilities, which would affect their behaviours. This should be recognised.

Furthermore, “working partially form home” is shown only in the Figure 1, but not modelled as separate category, which appears inconsistent.

5. Floor/ceiling effects

In the analyses of childcare responsibilities, authors define whether respondent are doing more/less compared to before the pandemic. At the same time authors state that division of childcare in the Netherlands was significantly gendered prior to the pandemic, with mothers taking on a much greater role in childcare than fathers. This implies that it may have not been possible for mothers to do even more. Were the ceiling and floor effects of such measurement considered? In the discussion it is also sometimes not clear whether the respondents are doing more/less than they used to or more/less than their partners.

There are also several minor issues:

6. The specific hypothesis and research questions should be made more explicit in the introduction.

7. There are also issues with reporting self-perceived measures retrospectively, as the subjective perception may change over time or people may simply forget/romanticise/misinterpret. These should be acknowledged.

8. More rationale/explanation for the definition of essential occupation is needed. Are healthcare workers or teachers not considered as essential?

9. If possible, it would be useful to control for the age of children in the household, as younger children might need more attention.

Once these issues have been addressed, I would recommend the article for publication.

**********

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.

Gender inequality in work location, childcare and work-life balance: phase-specific differences throughout the COVID-19 pandemic

PONE-D-23-16207R1

Dear Dr. Yerkes,

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,

Kyoung-Sae Na, M.D., Ph.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

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In preparing the current version of the manuscript, the Author(s) precisely followed the suggestions made by the reviewers, changing (even extensively) the structure and content of the text. Where the reviewers' suggestions were not entirely followed, the authors provided adequate justification in their answers, but above all in the text, highlighting the existing limitations of the study. Well done!

In light of this new version, I would recommend the article 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

**********