PONE-D-24-32947The effectiveness of language nursing intervention on mental health in children with poor language skillsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yang,

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 31 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,

Jennifer Coto, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. 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.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

Additional Editor Comments:

I agree with the limitations noted by the reviewers, particularly the revisions to methodology and results. Please address these concerns.

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

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: The study entitled "The Effectiveness of Language Nursing Intervention on Mental Health in Children with Poor Language Skills" aims to evaluate the long-term impact of a language nursing intervention on the mental health of children exhibiting poor language skills. The findings presented in this paper offer valuable insights into the effectiveness of nursing interventions that address language skills and their correlation with the mental health of affected children. However, several critical aspects warrant further attention.

Firstly, the study employs various measures, and it is imperative to address the reliability and validity of these instruments. Additionally, while the participant selection procedures are well-articulated, the demographic backgrounds of the participants are not adequately detailed. It is essential to include a table summarizing critical background information for the participants across both groups, as well as the results of their respective measures. Such information should encompass the total number of children who participated in the study, the number of children from single-parent households, the educational backgrounds of the parents, and descriptive statistics such as means, medians, or ranges for the various measures employed.

Given that this is a longitudinal study and that the results suggest that family structure, particularly single-parent status, plays a significant role in the mental health outcomes for children, it is necessary to inquire whether there have been any changes in the marital status of the participants' families over the course of the study. Furthermore, clarification is needed regarding how such changes were addressed in the data analysis.

Reviewer #2: The article presents a valuable contribution to the literature on the relationship between language skills and mental health in children. The study design, data analysis, and discussion of findings are generally well-executed. However, there are a few areas where the article could be strengthened.

There are a few minor grammatical or stylistic issues that could be addressed, but they do not significantly impact the overall readability or clarity of the text.

Introduction

Line 35: The statistic of 17.5% of Chinese children and adolescents with mental disorders could be further contextualized by providing information about the prevalence of mental health disorders in other countries or regions.

Lines 62-65: The mention of Qiang (2023) could be strengthened by providing more details about the specific findings of that study regarding the short-term effects of language nursing intervention.

Methods

Line 70: The phrase "semi-experimental method" could be further clarified to specify the type of semi-experimental design used (e.g., pretest-posttest with control group).

Lines 73-78: The description of the multi-stage, stratified, cluster random sampling design is clear and well-explained. However, it might be helpful to add a visual diagram or flowchart to illustrate the process.

While the sample size of 6,820 children is substantial, it might be helpful to provide additional information about the distribution of participants across different demographic variables (gender, socioeconomic status).

If there were any dropouts during the study, it would be important to report the dropout rate and reasons for attrition.

Procedures

There are a few minor inconsistencies or typos: For example, in line 93, "questionnaire" should be capitalized as "Questionnaire."

Line 98: Consider rephrasing "they took the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices test" to "they were administered the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices test."

Lines 113-114: The phrase "from 3-4 to 9-10 years old" could be clarified to "from age 3-4 to age 9-10."

Line 124: "four-point Likert scale" could be clarified as "a 4-point Likert scale."

Statistical analysis

In addition to statistical significance, it would be beneficial to report effect sizes (e.g., odds ratios) to quantify the magnitude of the relationships between variables.

It would be helpful to provide information about the model fit (e.g., R-squared, Nagelkerke R-squared) to assess the overall performance of the regression models.

It is important to check the assumptions of the logistic regression models (e.g., linearity, multicollinearity) to ensure the validity of the results.

Results

While the statistical significance of the findings is clear, reporting effect sizes (e.g., odds ratios) would provide a more complete picture of the magnitude of the relationships between variables.

It would be helpful to discuss the clinical significance of the findings, particularly in terms of the practical implications for intervention and prevention.

Discussion

Paragraphs 1-3: The discussion of the prevalence of developmental language disorder and its association with mental health challenges is clear and well-supported by literature.

Paragraphs 4-5: The discussion of the study's findings regarding the effectiveness of the nursing intervention and the relationship between single-parent families and mental health is well-organized and easy to follow.

Paragraphs 2-3: The comparison of developmental language disorder with autism spectrum disorder and ADHD is accurate and provides valuable context.

Paragraph 4: The discussion of the limitations of the study is balanced and acknowledges potential areas for future research.

The discussion could be further strengthened by explicitly outlining the practical implications of the findings for clinicians working with children with language disorders.

The limitations could be followed by specific recommendations for future research to address these limitations and further explore the relationship between language skills and mental health.

Reviewer #3: Please refer to the attached file for the complete review of the research article titled "The Effectiveness of Language Nursing Interventions on Mental Health in Children with Poor Language Skills.

**********

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: Pei-Hua Chen

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Bashar M Farran

**********

[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: PLOS ONE 2024 review.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-32947_REV.pdf

The effectiveness of language nursing intervention on mental health in children with poor language skills

PONE-D-24-32947R1

Dear Dr. Yang,

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,

Jennifer Coto, PhD

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

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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: Yes

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: Yes

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: Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript and for your replies to my previous comments and suggestions. Upon reviewing the revised manuscript, I am pleased to confirm that you have adequately addressed the points I raised.

Reviewer #3: (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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Bashar M Farran

**********