PONE-D-23-40902Parents’ knowledge and practice of child eye health care: A scoping reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mohamad Fadzil,

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 Apr 06 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,

Liat Gantz, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia research grant (GUP-2020-086)"

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.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This work was supported by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia research grant (GUP-2020-086)"

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments 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 and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia research grant (GUP-2020-086)"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript."

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.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

Additional Editor Comments:

Your revised manuscript should include more detailed methodology specifying the McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool, its scoring system, the reasons for exclusion of a large number of studies identified and why only eleven were included in the final review. The results should detail specific questions or questionnaires that were included in the studies, and the Tables (specifically Table 5) should be modified. In addition, when reporting means, it would be advisable to also report the range of the scores. The discussion should include the association between knowledge and practice patterns, and the implications of the parents' knowledge to visual dysfunctions and their developmental, occupational, and economic consequences. It would be advisable to have your final draft edited by an English speaker to make sure the timing and the grammar are correct.

[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: 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: 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: 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: This study identified and summarized what is reported in 233 the literature regarding parents’ knowledge and practice on children’s eye health care.

Abstract:

1. There is no data regarding the populations that were included at the articles that were included in the review.

2. How did the information was obtained from the parents – by questionnaire? By a valid one? Is it the same questionnaire in all studies that were included?

3. Age range of children that were addressed in parent's knowledge assessment is missing.

4. What key words were used for the systematic literature review? Any excluded studies and why?

Introduction:

1. Line 58: it is better do detail which vision impairments could cause the mentioned complications.

2. Please explain the mechanism in which vision problems and amblyopia development could cause have consequences later on developmental, educational, occupational consequences.

3. Line 67: stigma is not the main cause for low knowledge on children's eye problems and parents who do not seek for eye examination on time to their child. Please find additional main obstacles for parents who do not adhere to vision exams in the following study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35970195/

4. Please give examples to intervention programs that succeed in lowering the amblyopia rates and it's consequences following good parental knowledge and adherence to recommendations. Such as: USPSTF. The following articles may be helpful: https://aapos.org/members/vision-screening-guidelines , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28873168/ , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31514739/ , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25647611/

Methods:

5. Please specify if the McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool is a software or what kind of tool.

6. There is no mention to this tool and number of studies that were excluded by this tool on the diagram of figure 1. Please specify.

7. Please specify which questionnaires were used to assess partn's knowledge. An example for such a questionnaire and its validity process can be found in the following study, that also should be mentioned in the discussion: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37620666/

8. Figure 1: please detail regarding the reasons for the massive exclusion of papers. Was it done by the McMaster tool or by the author?

Results:

9. Lines 119-121: it is mentioned that this tool provides a dichotomous score (yes/no), but on lines 185-188 and on table 4 it gives a score of 6-11. Please explain.

10. Tables 4-5: very good tables. Please detail the title of table 5.

Discussions:

11. Please detail the main findings at the first paragraph.

12. Are there any other examples from other fields on health literacy and its effect on health status.

13. Please add additional reasons for parents who do not adhere to vision exams: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35970195/

14. Line 320: no need for the "LIMITATIONS" title. It is part of the discussion.

15. Please explain why so many studies were excluded from the analysis. Could be that so many studies are with low quality regarding assessment of parent's awareness?

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript Parents’ knowledge and practice of child eye health care: A scoping review. The authors conducted a scoping review using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines with the following questions: “what is the current knowledge of parents regarding common eye problems in children?” and “what is the practice of parents regarding common eye problems in children.” This is an important topic and has the potential for making a significant contribution to the literature.

The authors did an excellent job of presented their methodology and results of the first three of the scoping review steps: 1. Identifying the research questions 2. Identification of relevant studies 3. Selecting the studies and appraisal using the Modified McMaster critical appraisal tool.

The manuscript requires more explanations regarding the results of the last two steps: 4. Charting the data and 5. Collecting, summarizing and reporting the results.

This is apparent in table 5 and in lines 208 to 230. Table 5 contains percentages regarding awareness and practice. However, it is not clear what those percentages refer to. For example, in paper 7, does 71.4% refer to the percentage of parents who “know about the benefit of wearing spectacles”? The authors must explain how they got the percentages in the methods and in the table legend.

In the paragraph describing parents’’ knowledge – how is the category “knowledgeable” defined? Are the authors using the percentages in table 5? If so, what is the cut-off? 50%? Same question regarding the categories “aware”, “did not have knowledge” and “misconceptions.”

The same questions apply to parents’ practice (lines 219-230). How were the categories “practice positive attitude” and “negative practice” defined? Was this based on the percentages in table 5? If so, when there is more than one statement, on which is it based?

In addition, it will make table 5 easier to understand if the authors color coded the awareness and practice columns. The authors should put an asterisk by studies carried out in developed countries.

Did the authors find an association between “knowledge” and “practice”?

Minor corrections:

1. The English in the introduction could be improved.

2. Line 118 has the word (name?) pearling in parentheses. What is this referring to?

3. Results lines 151-2. Please state why three were excluded? Due to which criteria?

4. Line 188 – only one numeral after the decimal place.

5. Table 4 – what do the percentages refer to?

6. In the discussion, starting line 249, the authors write “majority of parents have knowledge about children’s eye health care and common eye problem in children.” This cannot be concluded from the study. The scoping review found that in majority of studies parents have knowledge. We do not know if this can be extrapolated to the majority of parents.

7. It would be interesting to compare the findings from studies in developed countries to those in less developed countries.

I look forward to reading a revised version of the manuscript and believe it would have the potential to make an impact on children’s visual health.

**********

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.

PONE-D-23-40902R1Parents’ knowledge and practices of child eye health care: A scoping reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mohamad Fadzil,

I commend the authors for their revised version of the manuscript which addressed most reviewer comments and also reads well. Reviewer 2 still requires clarification for Tables 4 and 5 and their description in the results section. In addition to the clarification, the legend accompanying Table 5 should be modified to describe the numbers provided in parentheses and what they represent.

Additionally, a few minor corrections would still benefit the manuscript as described below.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 Sep 13 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,

Liat Gantz, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments :

Some minor additional comments that will improve the manuscript:

Abstract: parents have a “huge” responsibility – perhaps “paramount” is a better term?

Line 57: Not sure that the word “Shockingly” is required and appropriate for a scientific report. Perhaps better rephrased Amongst the 36 million individuals worldiwde affected by vision impairment as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), 29% are children, and this figure will rise [2].

Line 230: that parents are knowledgeable

Study 4 does not have percentages at all.

Study 9, knowledge – “parents believe that routine eye exam is not necessary – this has no score.”

The captions for Tables 4 and 5 should be modified to describe the numbers provided in parentheses and what they represent.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

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 #1: The authors addressed the comments that were raised and the manuscript has been improved. Please specify in the abstract the reason for massive exclusion of papers and clarify the use in the McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is vastly improved and the authors addressed most of the critique provided by the reviewers. This includes providing more information on the methodology used.

However, the classifications in table 5 and interpretations, as raised by reviewer 2, remain unclear. In the methods section, lines 162-167 the authors define good and poor as follows:

Parents’ level of knowledge and practice were categorized as either ‘good’ or ‘poor’ based on Bloom’s cut-off point in line with several KAP studies [26,27]. Parents with a knowledge score of more than 60% were classified as possessing good knowledge, while those parents who had a score of less than 60% were classified as having poor knowledge. As for practice, parents scoring 80% and above were categorized as demonstrating good practice,

while those parents who had a score less than 80% were classified as displaying poor practice.

However, in table 5, this is not clear – for example – study 1 it appears that 78.2% had poor knowledge, 18.2 had good knowledge and 3.6 excellent knowledge. Meaning, the authors provided the distribution and not a category based on above or below 60%. In study 2, “parents with blind…. Have knowledge about eye problems 24.7%” meaning poor? Again in study 3, “Parents know about their child’s eeye problems 89.5% and 10% do not know.” This is a distribution. The next line is “parents know where to go for eye examinations 98.2%.” Does this mean they have a knowledge score above 60% or 98.2% know where to go?

Study 4 does not have percentages at all.

Study 9, knowledge – “parents believe that routine eye exam is not necessary – this has no score.”

This confusion between the methodology and results presented in table 5 make the results section from lines 218 and on very hard to understand.

**********

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: Yes: Hadas Ben-Eli

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.

PONE-D-23-40902R2Parents’ knowledge and practices of child eye health care: A scoping reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mohamad Fadzil,

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 24 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,

Liat Gantz, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors have sufficiently addressed the reviewers' past comments. However, there are still some minor comments to address before the paper can be accepted for publication as listed below:

Line 106 of this scoping review is to identify

WAS to identify

Table 1 Treatment capitol T

Following the PRISMA ScR 178 guideline, only studies relevant to the research question were included while screening titles and abstracts.

This sentence should be moved so it precedes the following:

Upon examining titles and abstracts, the majority (204) of the studies were excluded, leaving 15 studies for thorough evaluation through full-text review.

And this sentence is superfluous and can be deleted:

A significant number of studies were excluded from this review due to their lack of relevance in the title and abstract.

Line 247 were undertaken in developed countries (England and XXX) [17,20].

Replace done with undertaken and add the second country aside from England

Table 5 asterisk: *This was a qualitative study, percentages are not available.

Asterisk: developed country

Line 273: practice instead of practices

Line 279: Overall, this review

Line 299: half of the parent

Line 301: these matters instead of such matters

Line 303: suggest

Line 304: comma after income

Line 312: motivates instead of motivated

Line 314: Based on instead of according to

Also- some of the studies instead of the selected studies

Lines 324-325: necessity of seeking proper treatment options and weighing potential risks and benefits for their children’s eye health care.

Line 332” In this review, more than half of the selected studies

Line 334: period instead of comma after the references [18.20]

Line 334: Five of the selected studies reported

Line 369: are unnecessary

Line 393: Limitations (plural)

Some studies found that parents are knowledgeable and some found stigmas and lack of knowledge. Can the authors please address if there is a relationship between the knowledge vs. stigma and lack of knowledge and the area in the world (developed vs. undeveloped)?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: N/A

**********

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: The authors addressed all the comments that I have referred to them in this paper. I recommend to accept this paper for publication in PLosOne journal.

**********

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

**********

[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.

Parents’ knowledge and practices of child eye health care: A scoping review

PONE-D-23-40902R3

Dear Dr. Fadzil,

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,

Liat Gantz, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The reviewer's comments have been adequately addressed.

Reviewers' comments: