Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 16, 2024
Decision Letter - Zulkarnain Jaafar, Editor

PONE-D-24-19385Single parenthood, sleep, and chronic conditions in Ghana: The importance of health-related quality of life and functional limitationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Owusu-Sarpong,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear Author, please attned to all the comments provided by the reviewer/s.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 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,

Zulkarnain Jaafar

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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. Your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[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: I Don't Know

**********

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

**********

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: This study is relevant and was presented in an intelligible fashion. The introduction was engaging and sets a strong foundation for the article. The conclusion and implications also tie back to the main points and offers insights for future research.

Reviewer #2: The findings of this study can inform public health policies to improve sleep hygiene in countries where single parenthood is prevalent. I suggest some comments for improved readability of the paper.

Title

The title seems to suggest that single parenthood is the variable of interest in this study, which is not the case. In fact, single parents are the study population. Please change the title to reflect the study design.

Abstract

Please do not introduce an acronym without spelling the full term at its first appearance.

“no study has reported the serial mediation effects of physiological factors in this association.” I am not sure if I would categorize HRQoL and functional limitations as physiological factors.

“the hypothesized association”? Where are the hypotheses?

Methods

Is the dependent variable the number of chronic conditions? Please explain clearly.

Why did the authors use the sum of EQ-5D scores instead of the EQ-5D index, which can be calculated using the value set and is commonly used as a continuous variable?

I am not sure if you can sum EQ-5D responses (1, 2, to 3) and use the sum as a continues variable to conduct Pearsons correlation and OLS. That is because EQ-5D responses are not an interval scale variable.

Lines 138-139. If 6 items are measured on 1 or 2, the total score should range from 6 to 12. Please check the accuracy of the statement.

Discussion

This section is a bit wordy. For example, can you summarize the review of the literature (Line 243-262), which seems a bit lengthy?. In general, streamlining the discussion would enhance readability.

Specific comments

Line 83, administered is duplicative

Line 108, what does the acronym SSA stand for?

Line 153 The first mention of the acronym should be explained.

Line 166, Cis � Cis

Line 173, confidence intervals � Cis

Line 182, “gainfully employed” sounds like a colloquial expression. Can you just use “employed”?

Line 185, can you add the unit for physical activity?

Line 231, What do you mean by “in a dose-response manner”?

Line 324, check the reference style.

**********

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: Araba Aseye Ahiabu

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.

Revision 1

Reviewer comments

Reviewer #1:

This study is relevant and was presented in an intelligible fashion. The introduction was engaging, and set a strong foundation for the article. The conclusion and implications also tie back to the main points and offer insights for future research.

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the compliment. We take note of this positive comment with much gratitude, particularly regarding the intelligible nature of our study.

Reviewer #2:

The findings of this study can inform public health policies to improve sleep hygiene in countries where single parenthood is prevalent. I suggest some comments for improved readability of the paper.

Response: We appreciate the observation that our study can inform public health policies to improve sleep hygiene among this vulnerable population. We would like to thank the reviewers for a nice summary of our study and for revealing the potential interest of our paper in contributing to the academic and policymaking communities. We have taken note of all the constructive comments provided and have attempted to improve the quality of the paper further, guided by these critical comments..

Title

The title seems to suggest that single parenthood is the variable of interest in this study, which is not the case. In fact, single parents are the study population. Please change the title to reflect the study design.

Response: Thank you for this crucial observation. The title has been revised as follows;

“Sleep problems and chronic conditions in single parents in Ghana: Serial mediating roles of health-related quality of life and functional limitations.”

Abstract

Please do not introduce an acronym without spelling the full term at its first appearance.

Response: Acronyms such as low—and middle-income countries (LMICs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) have been spelled out fully in their first use. Please see Page 2 of the abstract.

“No study has reported the serial mediation effects of physiological factors in this association.” I am not sure if I would categorize HRQoL and functional limitations as physiological factors.

Response: Thank you for this. Physiological factors have been replaced with functional limitations and poor health-related quality of life. Please see page 2 of the abstract.

“The hypothesized association”? Where are the hypotheses?

Response: We have stated two hypotheses in the introduction section of the revised paper (see page 5). We have indicated that:

1) We hypothesized that there would be significant positive association between sleep problems and chronic conditions

2) We further hypothesized that the positive association between sleep problems and chronic conditions would be serially mediated by functional limitations and poor health-related quality of life.

Methods

Is the dependent variable the number of chronic conditions? Please explain clearly.

Response: The dependent variable is chronic conditions, which consist of 11 chronic physical conditions. Please see page 8.

Why did the authors use the sum of EQ-5D scores instead of the EQ-5D index, which can be calculated using the value set and is commonly used as a continuous variable?

I am not sure if you can sum EQ-5D responses (1, 2, to 3) and use the sum as a continuous variable to conduct Pearson's correlation and OLS. That is because EQ-5D responses are not interval scale variables.

Response: We truly understand the reviewer's drift in this regard. We would like to humbly say that, like the EQ-5D-5L, the EQ-5D-3L has been standardized and emanated a continuous index that has been used to perform linear regressions and Pearson’s correlations in many previous studies. The credibility of such an index has been demonstrated.

Lines 138-139. If 6 items are measured on 1 or 2, the total score should range from 6 to 12. Please check the accuracy of the statement.

Response: Thank you for this observation. We scored the responses of each of the six items on a binary (no=1 or yes=2) scale. This means that the total minimum score will range from 6 to 12, as you rightly indicated. We have revised and included this in the revised manuscript. Please see page 9.

Discussion

This section is a bit wordy. For example, can you summarize the review of the literature (Line 243-262), which seems a bit lengthy? In general, streamlining the discussion would enhance readability.

Response: We have summarized the literature review in the discussion section. Thank you very much. The summary is done on page 14.

Specific comments

Line 83, administered, is duplicative

Response: This has been rectified on page 6.

Line 108, what does the acronym SSA stand for?

Response: The acronym SSA stands for sub-Saharan Africa.

Line 153, the first mention of the acronym should be explained.

Response: The acronyms NHIS and SPSS stand for National Health Insurance Scheme and Statistical Package for Social Scientists, respectively. We have defined these fully in their first use.

Line 166, Cis � Cis

Response: It now reads confidence intervals (CIs) on page 10

Line 173, confidence intervals � Cis

Response: It is now consistent as confidence intervals (CI). Please see page 10.

Line 182, “gainfully employed,” sounds like a colloquial expression. Can you just use “employed”?

Response: Thank you for this correction. This has been done on page 10.

Line 185, can you add the unit for physical activity?

Response: The unit for physical activity has been added as 330.79 MET min

Line 231, what do you mean by “in a dose-response manner”?

Response: “a dose-response manner” has been explained as showing the magnitude of sleep problems' effect on chronic conditions. Please see page 13.

Line 324, check the reference style.

Response: It has been done on page 16.

We are grateful for your time spent reviewing and offering essential suggestions and additions that have significantly improved our paper. We also thank you for giving us another opportunity to revise and resubmit it to Plos One.

Yours sincerely,

(Corresponding author)

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Zulkarnain Jaafar, Editor

Sleep problems and chronic conditions in single parents in Ghana: Serial mediating roles of health-related quality of life and functional limitations

PONE-D-24-19385R1

Dear Dr.  Owusu-Sarpong,

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,

Zulkarnain Jaafar

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 #2: 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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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)

**********

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: 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: (No Response)

**********

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

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Zulkarnain Jaafar, Editor

PONE-D-24-19385R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Owusu-Sarpong,

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

Dr. Zulkarnain Jaafar

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 .