PONE-D-24-02938Determinants of social participation in people with disabilityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dogruoz Karatekin,

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 go through the reviewer's comments, make proper corrections, and submit the revised version.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 19 2024 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,

Md. Feroz Kabir, BPT, MPT, MPH, BPED, MPED

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. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Please go through the reviewers comments and do proper correction and submit the revised version.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: 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: I reviewed and examined the paper and what the authors have prepared- it has been established and also part of the norms. Individuals with disabilities certainly will not be able to be mobile or have less social participations. I do not see how the manuscript brings new idea/knowledge to the field.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I had the pleasure of reading your manusript. The article is interesting and important but there are many issues that need to clarified and included before an eventual publication.

1) The authors need to provide more information on how the research subjects were enrolled. Were they all consecutive patients? Did the authors set any exclusion criteria?

2) I suggest the authors specifiy the type of disabilities the research subjects had. Did the authors included any subject with mental or cognitive disability? The definiton of disability together with the reference used should be included in this part of the manuscript as well.

3) "Since the patients who presented to the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation outpatient clinic were included in this study, patients without musculoskeletal problems could not be evaluated. " - This sentnece is confusing and may indicate an important source of bias in the study. What do the authors understand with "musculoskeletal problems". So all the research subjects had an orthopedic cause of disability at least? Patients with a pure neurological disease were not included in the study?

4)In many parts of the "Results", there are some mistakes i the text "Error! Reference source not found".

5) The authors should provide more information on what they consider as "other" types of disability.

6) Did the authors assess the degree of the disability somehow?

7) Employment/income had the mopst important statistical significant results. Therefore, the discussion must be improved with other arguments that may explain this observation. People with disabilities face work barriers, require several job adjustments and are also vulnerable to stigma and discrimiation at work. Please see and cite doi: 10.3390/ijerph19159452 and doi: 10.1007/s10926-022-10084-1.

Reviewer #3: I appreciate the opportunity to review this study. It addresses a relevant topic; however, I have noted some significant considerations regarding the methods employed, which may impact the study findings. I am particularly concerned about the limitations of the cross-sectional design used, as well as the relatively small sample size. Below, I outline some points that deserve attention for the improvement of the work:

The abstract lacks detail regarding the sample characteristics and the number of participants, which are crucial elements for understanding and interpreting the results.

In the introduction, I suggest expanding the theoretical framework, discussing existing knowledge on factors associated with participation, and identifying gaps in the literature. It is essential to justify how this study will contribute to advancing current knowledge on the topic.

Regarding the methods, I emphasize that the cross-sectional design used in the study has limitations. While a cross-sectional study examines the relationship between exposure and outcome variables at a single point in time, providing an instantaneous view of associations in the population, it also has limitations. It does not establish causality, as the temporal order of variables cannot be determined. There may be selection bias if the sample is not representative, compromising the generalizability of the results. Additionally, information bias may arise if participants provide incorrect information about their exposures or outcomes. I recommend a review of the study objectives in light of these considerations, as well as a clear explanation of the variables investigated, including the outcome variable and predictors.

Another point to consider is the sample size. It is essential that the sample size is properly justified, either through sample size calculation or based on relevant references. Additionally, I suggest a more detailed analysis of the characteristics of participants' disabilities, considering the possibility of different repercussions depending on the type and severity of the disability.

Regarding the results, there appear to be writing problems indicated by the word "Error!", which require correction by the authors.

Finally, in the discussion section, I recommend a more critical and reflective approach to the results, contextualizing them in relation to existing knowledge and discussing their practical implications for the field of health and rehabilitation. The discussion is overly descriptive; the first two paragraphs provide context but do not discuss the results. It is essential in the discussion to contrast the findings with existing knowledge or justify the results. The authors should highlight whether the results were expected or surprising and discuss how the new findings can aid healthcare professionals in the clinical practice of assisting individuals with disabilities.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Soraia Micaela Silva

**********

[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.

Determinants of social participation in people with disability

PONE-D-24-02938R1

Dear Bilinc Dogruoz Karatekin,

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,

Md. Feroz Kabir, BPT, MPT, MPH, BPED, MPED

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please submit the revised manuscript with the improvements to the English grammar within the next 15 days.

Reviewers' comments: