Social contexts and black families’ engagement in early childhood programs

Jane Leer; Imari Z. Smith; Zoelene Hill; Lisa A. Gennetian

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316680

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 19, 2024
15 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Julia Morgan, Editor PONE-D-24-41298Social contexts and Black families' engagement in early childhood programsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Leer, 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 Nov 29 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, Julia Morgan 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “The authors thank Mariette Aborn, Jackie Clay, Claire Morgan, and Brynne Townley for research assistance, Bernadette Greene for co-facilitating focus groups, and Karen Carmody, Caitlin Georgas, and Jessica McCoppin for their input on focus group protocol and survey measures. Community-based early childhood and maternal health organizations helped inform our research goals, and we are grateful for their support in recruiting Study 1 participants. This research was supported by a 2020 seed grant from All Children and Babies Thrive at Duke University and a 2022 State and Local Policy Work Grant from the Society for the Psychological Study of Societal Issues. “ 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: “This research was supported by an internal award from Duke University (2020 seed grant from All Children and Babies Thrive at Duke University) to Lisa A Gennetian: https://bassconnections.duke.edu/initiatives/abc-thrive. The funders did not play any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 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. 5. We note that HV Paper_supp_PLOSONE in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. 6. 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. [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: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Manuscript No: PONE-D-24-41298 Manuscript Title: Social contexts and Black families' engagement in early childhood programs Study purpose: Given the potential positive benefit of home visiting programs, there is a need for deeper insights regarding the lower use/uptake by Black families. Through focus groups, survey data, and a pre-registered field experiment, the authors capture insights into the perception and experiences of Black parents with early childhood home visiting programs. The strength of this paper is numerous, especially through its use of diverse methods across the three studies. There are some areas the authors should address to strengthen its impact on the field. The literature was concise and clear, attending to the current evidence and gaps in the evidence that this study sought to fill. The methods were described clearly, with some exceptions for some details being included in the narrative. Concerning study 3, the authors make a note of moderators but don’t provide a compelling rationale or framework as to these moderators either in the introduction or the study section. Given there are likely moderators that generally make sense, it will be important for the authors to indicate why particular indicators are chosen and discuss them throughout the manuscript. For example, the moderators examined in Study 3 were not mentioned in the discussion. If available, these same moderators could have been valuable to look at studies 1 and 2. One of the premises of this study is that parents’ concerns with surveillance were barriers to participating. This did not seem to be the case, at least in study 3. The authors should address the underlying premise, such as whether news stories may not be the tool for parents to interpret programs but potentially other sources, such as word of mouth, social media, etc. The authors must consider both the sociocultural context and the intersection with parents’ culturally grounded approaches. Other thoughts: p. 3, lines 64-65 – This sentence is a bit awkward. Are children investigated or families? p. 5, lines 110-111 and p. 8, lines 188-189 – the authors can add a sentence or two about the demographics for the study 1 and 2 participants as they did with study 3 rather than readers going to the supplemental files. Reviewer #2: I believe that the authors have touched on a very sensitive issue which is prevalent among some social contexts, in this case, Black families. The authors have conducted their research in the most sensitive and ethical manner and this has reflected in the final outcome. Participants were engaged and they were at ease with the research process. Findings from this research could have implications for practice, especially in re-naming of the researched programme to "New baby Wellness". This could make the programme more welcoming to the targeted groups and for them to enrol on the programme. ****** 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: Iheoma U. Iruka 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316680.r001
Revision 1
10 Dec 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers Reviewer 1 Study purpose: Given the potential positive benefit of home visiting programs, there is a need for deeper insights regarding the lower use/uptake by Black families. Through focus groups, survey data, and a pre-registered field experiment, the authors capture insights into the perception and experiences of Black parents with early childhood home visiting programs. The strength of this paper is numerous, especially through its use of diverse methods across the three studies. There are some areas the authors should address to strengthen its impact on the field. The literature was concise and clear, attending to the current evidence and gaps in the evidence that this study sought to fill. The methods were described clearly, with some exceptions for some details being included in the narrative. Author response: Thank you for your positive feedback regarding the contribution of this manuscript. We are grateful for your attention to areas where we needed to add additional information (described in detail below). Concerning study 3, the authors make a note of moderators but don’t provide a compelling rationale or framework as to these moderators either in the introduction or the study section. Given there are likely moderators that generally make sense, it will be important for the authors to indicate why particular indicators are chosen and discuss them throughout the manuscript. For example, the moderators examined in Study 3 were not mentioned in the discussion. If available, these same moderators could have been valuable to look at studies 1 and 2. Author response: We added rationale for each of the pre-registered moderators in Study 3 and we have expanded the description of moderation findings in the discussion for Study 3 and the general discussion section. In the introduction to Study 3 (page 14), we now say: “Study 3 also included pre-registered analyses of moderation and mediation. We examined the moderating role of gender since the literature outlines persistent gender differences in child-rearing responsibilities [40,41], such that mothers are more likely to interact with mandated reporters at children’s schools and medical appointments. In addition, existing research on hypervigilance and parenting surveillance focuses on mothers [32,34]. Taken together, these literatures suggest that women may be more affected by surveillance fears than men. We also examined moderation by individual-level factors associated with decreased home visit participation (low education, financial strain, and help-seeking stigma) [17,18,39], and by experiences of discrimination in healthcare settings based on Study 1 findings and literature showing how discrimination experiences shape interactions with healthcare systems [36–38]. Participants’ prior experience with home visiting was also examined as a moderator since past program experiences (positive or negative) likely shape interest in subsequent programs.” In the discussion for Study 3, page (19), we now say: “Moderation analyses show that the effects of the label change were strongest for parents with limited formal education and greater financial strain. Low education and financial strain are both risk factors for involvement in CPS [42,43], which may make these groups more aware of or concerned about surveillance relative to their peers with greater education and less financial strain. Moreover, even while home visiting is increasingly implemented universally, programs often prioritize families with limited socioeconomic resources who stand to benefit the most from connections to parenting resources [2]. Our findings suggest that it will be harder to reach these prioritized families with “business as usual” strategies that fail to address surveillance fears. Notably, there was no evidence of moderation according to experiences of discrimination in medical settings nor prior participation in home visiting, which highlights the universality of surveillance fears regardless of prior experiences with health services.” We return to these findings in the general discussion (page 20): “The label “new baby wellness visit,” which centers the well-being of the newborn, increased parents’ interest in learning more and participating relative to “home visiting,” which centers the home and its condition. The effects of this name change were strongest for those deemed high priority for home visiting due to limited formal education and high financial strain [2].” Lastly, we appreciate the suggestion to analyze the same moderators in Studies 1 and 2, but neither study was designed to assess moderation. Focus group participants were not selected with the aim of comparing between parents with different levels of education, income, help-seeking stigma, or discrimination experiences. Likewise, we are underpowered to assess moderation in Study 2. We believe it would be inappropriate to do so given these limitations. When describing Study 1 findings, however, we have expanded on experiences of discrimination, to make it clear why this moderator was pre-registered for Study 3. See pages 8–9: “Participants’ concerns about poor quality treatment and racial discrimination in healthcare settings were not just hypothetical—many shared specific examples from their own experience. For instance, one parent described being left unattended in the hospital hallway for hours after reporting to the nearest emergency room for an ectopic pregnancy. Afterwards, that same participant reported preferring more distant hospitals for emergency care: “I don't mess with [the offending hospital that is closer to their home]….I want [the farther hospital].” When specifically asked whether they would take the provider’s advice to participate in new baby wellness programs after experiencing provider mistreatment, participants also indicated that they would not seek out such programming. Instances like these shaped participants’ subsequent interactions with healthcare systems, including decisions about whether to participate in programs related to maternal and infant health, such as newborn home visiting programs.” One of the premises of this study is that parents’ concerns with surveillance were barriers to participating. This did not seem to be the case, at least in study 3. The authors should address the underlying premise, such as whether news stories may not be the tool for parents to interpret programs but potentially other sources, such as word of mouth, social media, etc. The authors must consider both the sociocultural context and the intersection with parents’ culturally grounded approaches. Author response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We now expand on the limitations of using a news story to prime surveillance fears in the Discussion Section for Study 3, as follows (pages 18–19): “…Likewise, cuing fears of surveillance by reading a news story about CPS had a negative effect on interest in home visiting, though this effect was less than half the size of the effect of the “new baby wellness” label. It may be that Black parents rely on sources other than news articles, such as social media and word of mouth, to judge the trustworthiness of programs like home visiting. Further, trust-related obstacles to engagement partially mediated the effect of the “new baby wellness” label, but did not mediate the effect of the CPS news story. This suggests that the news story may have been less effective at priming surveillance fears.” Other thoughts: p. 3, lines 64-65 – This sentence is a bit awkward. Are children investigated or families? Author Response: We have revised this sentence (now page 4, lines 128–130) to read: “One in three children overall experience an investigation by Child Protective Services (CPS), compared with nearly half of Black children.” p. 5, lines 110-111 and p. 8, lines 188-189 – the authors can add a sentence or two about the demographics for the study 1 and 2 participants as they did with study 3 rather than readers going to the supplemental files. Author Response: We have added a sentence about the demographics for studies 1 and 2 to the main text. Study 1: “More than half the sample (n = 16) had at least a bachelor’s degree, and annual household incomes ranged from less than $10,000 (n = 1) to between $70,000 and $79,999 (n = 1), with most (n = 20) reporting annual incomes between $30,000 and $59,999.” Study 2: “We focus our analysis on the 163 Black respondents (76% women, 24% men, <1% non-binary, residing in 35 states). As shown in Table B in SI Appendix, the sample was socioeconomically diverse: 4% had not completed high school, 32% had a high school diploma or equivalent, 29% had attained some college education (but no degree), and 34% had an associate degree, bachelor’s degree, or graduate degree. Annual household incomes ranged from $10,000 or less (10%) to $80,000 or more (12%).” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: HV paper_Rebuttal letter-v03.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316680.r002
16 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Julia Morgan, Editor <p>Social Contexts and Black Families' Engagement in Early Childhood Programs PONE-D-24-41298R1 Dear Dr. Jane Leer, 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, Julia Morgan Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316680.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Julia Morgan, Editor PONE-D-24-41298R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Leer, 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. Julia Morgan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316680.r004

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 .