PONE-D-24-39038Latent classes of substance use and criminal offending in a Swedish national sample of adolescents and associated risk factorsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Björklund, 

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 Feb 01 2025 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,

Ayse Ulgen, PhD, MGM

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. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

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

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

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

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

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

5. Please include a caption for figure 1. 

6. We notice that your supplementary table S1 are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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

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: Overall comments. Big sample, suitable methodological choice for the aim, good to focus on SU and criminal offending in synergy, and an important research question (including current relevance). However, there are some issues regarding lack of information on the procedure, definition of groups and interpretation of results that need to be resolved before being able to decide on the study’s contribution to the field (i.e. above all information regarding methodology, see comments below). The language is ok (with minor exceptions).

See attached file for specific recommendations.

Reviewer #2: The current study has potential but suffers from some important problems, which fortunately can be rectified.

1. The engagement of the literature is weak which is problematic because there are latent class papers of the crime/substance use overlap. Several of these are listed below and were based on the NESARC, NSDUH, and other epidemiological data.

a. Vaughn, M. G., Salas-Wright, C. P., Delisi, M., & Piquero, A. R. (2014). Health associations of drug-involved and criminal-justice-involved adults in the United States. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(3), 318-336.

b. DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., Salas-Wright, C. P., & Jennings, W. G. (2015). Drugged and dangerous: Prevalence and variants of substance use comorbidity among seriously violent offenders in the United States. Journal of Drug Issues, 45(3), 232-248.

c. Fearn, N. E., Vaughn, M. G., Nelson, E. J., Salas-Wright, C. P., DeLisi, M., & Qian, Z. (2016). Trends and correlates of substance use disorders among probationers and parolees in the United States 2002–2014. Drug and alcohol dependence, 167, 128-139.

d. Kendler, K. S., Ohlsson, H., Sundquist, K., & Sundquist, J. (2013). A latent class analysis of drug abuse in a national Swedish sample. Psychological Medicine, 43(10), 2169-2178.

2. The discussion largely reiterates the findings and again the engagement of the literature is weak. It seems the findings have implications for Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy.

a. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

b. Moffitt, T. E. (2018). Male antisocial behaviour in adolescence and beyond. Nature human behaviour, 2(3), 177-186.

3. As the author notes, the cell sizes for polydrug use and crime and high crime latent classes are very small. Did you consider combining them? Perhaps forcing a 3-class solution makes more sense given that nearly 75% are abstainers and another 22% are normative alcohol only users.

Reviewer #3: A large nationwide study investigated the co-occurrence of self-reported substance use and criminal offending at ages 17/18, as well as whether a range of risk factors, including family, personality, mental health, peers, and others, measured at ages 15/16, predicted these co-occurrences. The findings revealed that it was possible to distinguish four classes of individuals based on their substance use (or non-use) and criminal behavior. Of these, only two classes were characterized by both substance use and criminal behavior, although they were very small. Specific factors appeared to be significant predictors of class membership. Overall, the topic is relevant to the field of study, although I have raised several points that should be addressed before this study can be considered for publication.

In general

Consider using the terms "delinquency" or "delinquent behavior" instead of "criminal behavior," as these terms are more appropriate when discussing adolescence.

Abstract

It would be useful to include the gender distribution in parentheses.

A large portion of the conclusion merely repeats the results. I recommend rewriting the conclusion section to focus on the implications of these findings, rather than restating the results.

Introduction

The first paragraph of the introduction could be strengthened by including more information on the global prevalence of both substance use and criminal behavior among adolescents, with a particular focus on Sweden, as this was the target population in your study. Including this background in the introduction can help better frame the outcomes of your study and underscore the relevance of your findings within both a global and national context.

In addition, within the same paragraph, when emphasizing the importance of your research, it would be beneficial to focus more specifically on the significance of studying the co-occurrence of substance use and delinquency in adolescence.

The continuation of the introduction could benefit from a more specific explanation of why adolescents are particularly susceptible to engaging in substance use and criminal behavior, along with a focus on the most common and important risk factors.

How were substance use and criminal behavior operationalized in your study?

In the section on the present study, it would be useful to specify which particular risk factors you focused on and provide a rationale for why these were selected. For example, if you chose to examine family dynamics, peer influence, or mental health problems, explaining how these factors are linked to both substance use and delinquency in your specific context would strengthen your research justification.

Methods

Participants and Procedure

Were there any inclusion or exclusion criteria for participation in this study?

Please provide more information on sample characteristics (e.g., mean age, ethnicity, SES, etc.) either in the text or in a table.

Measurements

The section on measures would benefit from additional subheadings to group measurements of the same category under a common heading.

Could you provide some examples of how you measured "Other drugs"?

You repeat the sentence "Risk factors were measured at T1" twice. Consider removing it from the first paragraph of the section on measures to avoid redundancy.

The reliability of the measure for callous-unemotional traits was poor. It would be useful to include the mean item correlation and indicate whether it falls within the acceptable range (for more detail, see Clark & Watson, 1995).

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309

Analysis

Please specify which software you used to conduct the latent class analysis.

Based on the literature, BIC is generally regarded as the most reliable criterion for determining the optimal number of classes. However, I recommend also considering entropy, classification error, class sizes, and whether the identified classes are meaningful and consistent with theoretical assumptions or prior research.

Correlations and other statistical findings should be reported in the Results section, not the Methods section.

I suggest that the reference group be mentioned in the Results section rather than in the Methods section, as at this point, it is not yet clear whether classes will be identified among the indicators.

Which software did you use to conduct the ANOVA analysis, and what was the initial number of risk factors considered?

Results

Please remove (AIC=52171.21, BIC=52377.40) from the text, as it is not informative on its own.

Table 1 should include additional relevant information, such as the number of parameters, likelihood ratio or log-likelihood, degrees of freedom, p-value, class error, and the entropy of R2.

In Table 2, you should also include the Wald test, as well as the Wald test for paired comparisons.

In the second paragraph of the Results section, the missing values in parentheses are surprising, given that it was previously mentioned that listwise deletion was employed.

In addition, to enhance readability, avoid placing all information in parentheses. You can write:

The largest class, which comprised 74.8 % of the sample (n = #, % females), scored the lowest on all outcomes and was therefore labeled the “Low/abstainers” class.

The third and fourth classes are very small, which raises questions about their meaningfulness. This relates to my earlier comment about providing more background information on the prevalence of substance use and delinquency in Sweden, as well as offering more detail in the Methods section regarding what class size would be considered acceptable.

Table 3 should include information on the F-test or Chi-Square test. Additionally, the Bonferroni correction should be applied for multiple pairwise comparisons.

The last paragraph of the Results section is unclear regarding which factors were excluded. To improve clarity and make it easier to follow, please mention the excluded factors in the text.

Discussion

In general, the discussion is somewhat limited and would benefit from a deeper analysis grounded in existing literature and empirical findings related to substance use and delinquency in adolescents.

Emphasizing that three classes were identified at T2 may cause confusion, as the first class was also derived from T2 measures. Clarifying this point would improve the paper's flow. Additionally, I recommend avoiding abbreviations and statistical terms in the discussion to enhance readability and clarity.

Alcohol is a significant risk factor for criminal behavior; however, in the "Alcohol only" class of your sample, it did not co-occur with criminal behavior. A broader discussion is needed to explore the possible reasons for this discrepancy. Is it due to the way criminal behavior was operationalized, or are there other factors that are stronger predictors of criminal behavior at this particular developmental stage than alcohol consumption alone? A more comprehensive exploration of these factors would be valuable.

In addition, when describing the third class, you could be more specific by stating that adolescents in this group were more likely to consume a variety of substances, with the highest probability of cannabis use. They were also more likely to commit crimes compared to both the reference category and the second class, although the difference was not so big. The results should be discussed in this context to provide a clearer understanding of the factors at play.

The discussion of the fourth class is superficial and should be grounded in evidence and prior research.

Considering the predictors of the classes, I suggest starting the discussion with the significant results, and then addressing the non-significant ones.

Instead of saying 'considerably higher OR,' explain what it means.

You should give more consideration to how measuring criminal behavior through self-report might influence your results.

Based on the limitations and your findings, are there any recommendations for future research?

What is the added value of your study, and what are the potential clinical implications?

Conclusion

The conclusion section should better summarize the main findings of the study and provide a clear take-home message.

**********

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:  Malin Hildebrand Karlén

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Marija Jankovic

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review 2024-11-28.docx

Latent classes of substance use and delinquency in a Swedish national sample of adolescents and associated risk factors

PONE-D-24-39038R1

Dear Dr. Bjorklund,

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,

Ayse Ulgen, PhD, MGM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The author responded to reviewer comments thoroughly and thoughtfully. There are no lingering issues and the manuscript is significantly improved.

Reviewer #3: I do not have any further comments as all my concerns have been adequately addressed.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Marija Janković

**********