Home-based nurturing care practices for children under five with low socioeconomic position in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

Adrianne Katrina Nelson; Laura Sánchez-Vincitore; Melanie Patricia Frias; Michelle Marie Susana; Carl Kendall; Katherine Theall; Martha Vibbert; Heidi Luft; Arachu Castro

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314432

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 16, 2024
4 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Mohammad Nayeem Hasan, Editor PONE-D-23-41977Home-based nurturing care for children under five with low socioeconomic position in Santo Domingo, Dominican RepublicPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nelson, 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 Jul 19 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Mohammad Nayeem Hasan Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data cannot be shared publicly because of they are identifiable qualitative data. Data are available upon request from the corresponding author for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 4. 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. 5. 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. 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: N/A Reviewer #3: 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: 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: A very well versed and detailed article and research conducted in a developing country. Nurturing framework is very pivotal and much needee glovally such kind of studies support the widespread implementation of ECD and NCF. The study uniquely highlighted intentional learning and corporal punishment.However following are the points of feedback: The title needs to be modify as research question and study is about perceptions of mothers in DR on NCF, weather they provide such care or not however title suggest home basee NCF as a intervention in homes) Introdution (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 can be combine into one short paragraph) 1.6 ( Add DR country profile overall, what is the status of ECD strategies, why this country was selected for study, why there is high prevalence 14.5%, what is the current situation of government interventions?) Discussion: Adding other developing countries data literture to support the study. Conclusion: Adding recommendations as to government role and policies, input of WHO and other NGOs Reviewer #2: The author cannot explains how the empirical findings contribute to the broader literature; discussing on how the findings address a gap in the literature, extend our current knowledge, or provide new insights into a specific phenomenon or problem Reviewer #3: Congratulation on your works and the writing. My comment as submitted on the PLOS ONE platform. Please refer to the comments and please revised it before you resubmit the manuscript especially using of the right term in scientific writing. All the best and good luck ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Khairul Hasnan Amali ******** 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: 13DEC2023_Home-based nurturing care_Reviewer comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314432.r001
Revision 1
23 Aug 2024 Author Response PONE-D-23-41977 Response to reviewers 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 We have done this. 2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. We include the questionnaire here. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data cannot be shared publicly because of they are identifiable qualitative data. Data are available upon request from the corresponding author for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. Following the ethics committee protocol approved by Tulane University (2019-2375), the audio files and transcripts, which contain sensitive information and are provided in conditions of confidentiality, cannot be shared. This follows the recommendations made by Martijn de Koning and colleagues in "Guidelines for anthropological research: Data management, ethics, and integrity" (Ethnography, 2019. 20(2): p. 170-174). I can provide de-identified qualitative data coded and converted to numerical form. 4. 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. We have included this citation in the clean version of the manuscript. 5. 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. Response to Reviewers' Comments: 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: N/A Reviewer #3: 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: 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 Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: A very well versed and detailed article and research conducted in a developing country. Nurturing framework is very pivotal and much needed globally such kind of studies support the widespread implementation of ECD and NCF. The study uniquely highlighted intentional learning and corporal punishment. However, following are the points of feedback: The title needs to be modified as research question and study is about perceptions of mothers in DR on NCF, weather they provide such care or not however title suggest home based NCF as an intervention in homes). Thank you for this observation. We have changed the title to: Home-based nurturing care practices for children under five with low socioeconomic position in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic Introduction (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 can be combine into one short paragraph). We have combined these subsections into one sub-section entitled “The Nurturing Care Framework”, however, we did not make it into one paragraph as that would be very long. 1.6 (Add DR country profile overall, what is the status of ECD strategies, why this country was selected for study, why there is high prevalence 14.5%, what is the current situation of government interventions?) Thank you for this comment. We have added in a sentence about why the DR was chosen for this study. There are few studies on neurodevelopment in the DR and so we cannot point to evidence as to why the prevalence of delay is high beyond the reasons we have offered (high rates of poverty, low levels of early learning opportunities). The second paragraph of section 1.6 (now 1.4) describes available government interventions. We do not have access to evaluation data on INAIPI but hope that will become available within the next few years. Discussion: Adding other developing countries data literature to support the study. Thank you for this comment. We agree and have added in findings from other low-income countries about responsive caregiving education, physical punishment, and the use of screens and well as information from systematic reviews and metanalyses. Conclusion: Adding recommendations as to government role and policies, input of WHO and other NGOs. Thank you, we have added in some language about strengthening institutions and WHO recommendations into the conclusion. Reviewer #2: The author cannot explain how the empirical findings contribute to the broader literature; discussing on how the findings address a gap in the literature, extend our current knowledge, or provide new insights into a specific phenomenon or problem. The authors thank you for this comment. We have included additional literature on the primary topic areas we contribute to the knowledge in the field in the discussion section. We have also included a summary paragraph in the conclusion section highlighting key take-aways. Our findings suggest caregivers are not empowered to teach their children and therefore seek distal tools for entertainment and education. This may curtail with our findings that young and adolescent mothers in this setting are using physical punishment because of their own feelings of helplessness and insecurity in their motherhood skills. These findings provide a clear path forward to build confidence and knowledge among young mothers. Additionally, we provide evidence that ethnographic research about caregiving practices may facilitate promoting nurturing care from local experiences. Reviewer #3: Congratulation on your work and the writing. My comment is submitted on the PLOS ONE platform. Please refer to the comments and please revise it before you resubmit the manuscript, especially using the right term in scientific writing. All the best and good luck. I have been unable to view these suggested revisions and we’re looking forward to incorporating them. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 19JULY2024.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314432.r002
29 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Yitagesu Habtu Aweke, Editor PONE-D-23-41977R1Home-based nurturing care practices for children under five with low socioeconomic position in Santo Domingo, Dominican RepublicPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nelson, 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. Addressing the following issues benefit your manuscript, in addition to the reviewers comments. It appears that 'Table 2. Select excerpts' could be better organised for clarity. It is better to include protocol numbers in the ethics approval statement (i.e., 'We received approval from the Universidad Iberoamericana Human Research Protection Program and the Tulane University Research Ethics Committee'). Although detailed quotes provide context, some are lengthy, particularly in lines 596-611 and 636-655. Given the abundance of quotes in Table 2, consider condensing them to improve readability and avoid excess detail. In your submission, there are two clean copies and one trach change. Could you please do only one clean copy and one track change? Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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, Yitagesu Habtu Aweke, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314432.r003
Revision 2
8 Nov 2024 Author Response Response to Review 2 11/7/24 • It appears that 'Table 2. Select excerpts' could be better organised for clarity. Thank you for noticing this. The subthemes are in the same order they are presented in the paper. However, we re-read the citations and removed/ moved some to make sure each was consistent with its theme. We also added a short summary of the theme for each. • It is better to include protocol numbers in the ethics approval statement (i.e., 'We received approval from the Universidad Iberoamericana Human Research Protection Program and the Tulane University Research Ethics Committee'). Yes, we have added the protocol numbers into this version. • Although detailed quotes provide context, some are lengthy, particularly in lines 596-611 and 636-655. Given the abundance of quotes in Table 2, consider condensing them to improve readability and avoid excess detail. We have condensed these citations as suggested. • In your submission, there are two clean copies and one trach change. Could you please do only one clean copy and one-track change? Yes, please forgive this oversight. We have corrected this in the current submission. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314432.r004
11 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Yitagesu Habtu Aweke, Editor Home-based nurturing care practices for children under five with low socioeconomic position in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic PONE-D-23-41977R2 Dear Dr Adrianne Katrina Nelson, 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, Yitagesu Habtu Aweke, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314432.r005
Formally Accepted
19 Nov 2024 Acceptance Letter - Yitagesu Habtu Aweke, Editor PONE-D-23-41977R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nelson, 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 PhD Candidate Yitagesu Habtu Aweke Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314432.r006

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 .