Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 7, 2024
Decision Letter - Robbert Huijsman, Editor

PONE-D-24-18004Family care and predictors of the disabled elderly in China: a cross-sectional study based on the Anderson modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. wang,

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 11 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,

Robbert Huijsman, 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 note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   " This study was funded by a Study on Guangzhou's Active Response to Population Ageing: Identification of Dilemmas and Breakthroughs in Guangzhou's Smart Health and Aging Services under the Ecosystem View(2022GZYB37),A study on the holistic governance of the multiple supply of long-term care services in China(20FGLB048),Key Laboratory of Philosophy and Social Sciences of Guangdong Higher Education Institutions for Health Polices Research and Evaluation (2015WSY0010)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4.  Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the repository name. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

Additional Editor Comments:

We thank the authors for their paper. We apologize for the long review period, as we experienced difficulties to find reviewers. With one reviewer report available we have come to our decision to ask for major revision.

Please use the good comments of the reviewer to revise your paper. Main issues are the selection of "predictors" for family care, with very much literature available (especially burden of care, further discrimination to different care tasks?) and the embedding of your discussion in both your own results (which should substantiate your conclusions) and literature.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: The main problem of this study is that the results are very much about who is providing family care (spouses and children). No information is given on the burden that family members might experience in providing care. In the discussion it is mentioned "family care is difficult ..." and that family member are at risk of mental and physical health detoriation. However, there are no results that substantiates these conclusions.

The abstract is not always clear

line 25: aging and aging .. what does this mean?

line 38-40: the conclusion is not supported by the data

Introduction:

line 18, 19: this gives the impression that elderly disabled have to rely on informal care since formal care cannot meet the demands.

line 59: 60+? 65+

line 61: however ?

line 68-70: sustainability ... is under threat. If this is the heart of the research than other data needed to be accumulated, i.e. on the burden of informal care

Results:

146: slightly?

149: average? in table 1: moderate ?

150: poor: in table 1 mild ?

Discussion:

176, 177: Family care is difficult: there are no data presented here to support this

180: put spouses and children at risk: no data presented in this research to support this claim

198, 199: specific assistance is required: no data to support this

**********

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. Harry Finkenflugel

**********

[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.

Revision 1

Response Letter

Dear editors and reviewers,

We are very grateful for your constructive comments and suggestions for our manuscript entitled" Family care and predictors of the disabled elderly in China: a cross-sectional study based on the Anderson model"(lD:PONE-D-24-18004).Your comments are very valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. In the following the responses to all the comments are provided one by one.We have tried our best to make all there visions clear, and we hope that the revised manuscript can satisfy the requirements for publication.The main revisions in the new manuscript are:

1. More specific expressions have been used;

2. Abstract has been updated;

3. Introduction has been supplemented.

Sincerely,

Corresponding author.

Response to the comments of Reviewer #1

Q1. The manuscript was not presented in an easily understandable manner and written in standard English.

Thank you for your insightful question, line 25: aging and aging has been changed to “In light of China's progressively aging population” , line 146: slightly,line149: average, in table 1: moderate,line150: poor: in table 1 mild have been changed to “Mild disability”、“Moderate disability”、“Severe disability”

Q2. The main problem of this study is that the results are very much about who is providing family care (spouses and children). No information is given on the burden that family members might experience in providing care. In the discussion it is mentioned "family care is difficult ..." and that family member are at risk of mental and physical health detoriation. However, there are no results that substantiates these conclusions.

Thank you for your insightful comment and kind suggestion. Family members might experience in providing care has been supplemented. "family care is difficult ..."has been deleted.

Q3. The abstract is not always clear. The abstract is not always clear line 25: aging and aging .. what does this mean?line 38-40: the conclusion is not supported by the data.

Thank you very much for the constructive feedback.The conclusions have been modified in the light of the results of the study.

Q4.Introduction: line 18, 19: this gives the impression that elderly disabled have to rely on informal care since formal care cannot meet the demands.line 59: 60+? 65+.line 61: however ?.line 68-70: sustainability ... is under threat. If this is the heart of the research than other data needed to be accumulated, i.e. on the burden of informal care

Thank you for your remainder.The expression of ambiguity has been clarified, more data about China's elderly population has been included, and a body of literature has been gathered regarding the variables affecting the caregiving burden on families.

Q5. Discussion:176, 177: Family care is difficult: there are no data presented here to support this.180: put spouses and children at risk: no data presented in this research to support this claim.198, 199: specific assistance is required: no data to support this.

We thank the reviewer for the highly valuable comment. Discussions that lacked evidence have been removed.

Response to the comments of Additional Editor

Q1. Main issues are the selection of "predictors" for family care, with very much literature available (especially burden of care, further discrimination to different care tasks?) and the embedding of your discussion in both your own results (which should substantiate your conclusions) and literature.

We thank the reviewer for the highly valuable comment.The relevant available literature has been added and the discussion will be embedded in its own results.

The paper has been revised carefully and thoroughly according to the comments from the reviewers. All the questions from the reviewers have been answered.Thanks to the professional comments again that point out the above problems. The authors hope these explanations would answer your doubts.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Robbert Huijsman, Editor

Family care and predictors of the disabled elderly in China: a cross-sectional study based on the Anderson model

PONE-D-24-18004R1

Dear Dr. wang,

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,

Robbert Huijsman, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors, Thanks for your revision. It answers the reviewers' comments adequately.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Robbert Huijsman, Editor

PONE-D-24-18004R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. wang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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

Professor Robbert Huijsman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .