PONE-D-24-25126Assessing the Relationship between Digital Technology Use and Physical Health, Fitness, and Exercise Levels among Chinese Youth: The Moderating Effect of Parental MonitoringPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cui,

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 Jan 10 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,

Andi Asrifan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

4. Please 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.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The submitted manuscript (PONE-D-24-25126) entitled “Assessing the Relationship between Digital Technology Use and Physical Health, Fitness, and Exercise Levels among Chinese Youth: The Moderating Effect of Parental Monitoring” intends to investigate how digital media use, parental supervision, and attitudes towards physical activity influence young Chinese individuals' physical health and exercise levels. According to my understanding, physical health is the outcome of this work, but who will benefit from the results? The authors did not clarify properly, this is my main concern. The author has made a good effort to investigate the direct effects of social media use, digital technologies, attitudes toward physical activities, educational technology use, and online gaming towards Physical health by collecting data from 827 china residents. My other concerns are given below to improve the current work.

1.The introduction of this work is very poor. The authors should provide a real example for this work to introduce the significance of this work. To create the credibility of the work, the author should propose research questions in the introduction. Authors may reference some articles to provide an interesting intro such as “The COVID-19 Pandemic and Overall Wellbeing: Mediating Role of Virtual Reality Fitness for Physical-Psychological Health and Physical Activity”, ” Demographic Characteristics and Digital Platforms for Physical Activity Among the Chinese Residents During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mediating Analysis”, ” Virtual Reality Fitness (VRF) for Behavior Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mediation Analysis Approach”, “Fitness Apps, Live Streaming Workout Classes, and Virtual Reality Fitness for Physical Activity During the COVID-19 Lockdown: An Empirical Study”, ”Investigating Effects of Digital Innovations on Sustainable Operations of Logistics: An Empirical Study”, ” Physical Activity is a Medicine for Non-Communicable Diseases: A Survey Study Regarding the Perception of Physical Activity Impact on Health Wellbeing”, and ” Sustainable Development Goals, Sports and Physical Activity: The Localization of Health-Related Sustainable Development Goals Through Sports in China: A Narrative Review”.

2.In the literature review section, the theoretical development is poor for the proposed model which should be the 2.1 heading of the literature review section. On what logic the author has proposed the hypothesis? Provide explanations. In addition, The proposed hypotheses are not similar to the conceptual model, authors should modify the figure or all hypotheses. (The names of constructs should be the same in the whole manuscript, especially in keywords).

3.How did you calculate the actual sample size, please provide a reference related to sample size.

4.How about controls for this study? The authors should justify why they did not mention about controls while analyzing the proposed relations.

5.The discriminant and convergent validity of the data is missing in factor analysis. The examination of the reliability tests is poor too and needs improvements further such as calculate the AVEs, SCRs, Alfas, and cross-loadings for each item.

6.In table 5. What is an indirect effect (mediation) please clarify about it.

7.In Table 4, please provide the hypothesis number for each estimate. Similarly, clarify the explanations too.

8.Table 6 has similar issue, there are four moderating effect results, but the study has only H1, and H2, and H3. Even in Figure 1, there are 8 effects among 7 constructs. Figure 1 have not any mediating and moderating effects. Please show the mediating and moderating effects in figure 1 too for clarification.

9.Provide three real examples for research implications in discussion section.

10.In The conclusion section, the author should introduce a novel construct for further investigations with real examples.

Reviewer #2: The reporting of results could be made more shorter for better readability.

E.g.: The effects of attitudes toward physical activity and parental monitoring are important findings. However, the indirect effect (0.12, p = 0.003) needs clearer context to avoid confusion about how these interactions affect the results."

Some paragraphs are very long with too many topics inside. It can be solved by dividing those into smaller sections with subheadings. Some repeated words might be changed by writing the synonyms.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript addresses the timely issue of digital technology use and its relationship with physical health among Chinese youth, providing unique cultural insights. It stands out for its robust methodology, including validated scales, regression analyses, and a diverse sample size of 827 respondents, ensuring reliability and generalizability. The inclusion of parental monitoring as a moderating factor and youth attitudes as mediators enriches the study, offering actionable insights for policymakers, educators, and parents. However, the literature review could incorporate more recent global studies and provide a deeper linkage between theoretical frameworks and findings. The discussion would benefit from exploring anomalies and offering culturally tailored recommendations for China. While the cross-sectional design limits causal inferences, this limitation should be emphasized more. Finally, the writing could be polished, with better integration of figures and tables. Overall, the manuscript is commendable and recommended for conditional acceptance following these revisions.

Reviewer #4: 1. The manuscript demonstrates a technically sound research approach by utilizing a well-structured survey and rigorous statistical analyses to explore the influence of digital technology use on physical health among Chinese youth, moderated by parental monitoring. The sample size (827 participants) is substantial, and the use of stratified random sampling enhances the reliability and generalizability of the findings.

2. The statistical analyses include multiple regression, moderation, and mediation analyses, all of which are suitable for the research questions. Descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and reliability measures are thorough, supporting the validity of the constructs used.

3. The authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available

4. The manuscript is generally well-organized and intelligible, although there are some articles that do not comply with the author's guidelines such as citation method, referencing style, etc. (see attachment)

**********

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: No

Reviewer #4: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-25126.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: 24_1106_Manuscript-Tikcomment.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Assesing.....pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript Plos One_Digital Technology.docx

Assessing the Relationship between Digital Technology Use and Physical Health, Fitness, and Exercise Levels among Chinese Youth: The Moderating Effect of Parental Monitoring

PONE-D-24-25126R1

Dear Dr. Cui,

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,

Bogdan Nadolu, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: 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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: 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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The author has revised as suggested. The article is more readable now with clearer context. Some long paragraphs been made shorter as well.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: Technical Soundness and Data Support: The manuscript demonstrates robust technical soundness. The methodology is well-structured, with appropriate statistical analyses conducted to support the research questions. Data reliability and validity have been confirmed through Cronbach's Alpha and exploratory factor analysis, ensuring the conclusions are based on solid evidence. The findings are logically aligned with the data presented.

Statistical Analysis: The statistical analysis has been performed rigorously and appropriately. Hierarchical regression, mediation, and moderation analyses are employed effectively, with results supported by significant p-values and confidence intervals. The study demonstrates a clear understanding of advanced statistical techniques and applies them correctly.

Data Availability: The authors have made all data underlying the manuscript’s findings fully available in a public repository. The repository link is provided, ensuring transparency and reproducibility of the research.

Manuscript Presentation and Language: The manuscript is presented in a clear and intelligible fashion, adhering to standard English conventions. The organization of sections (e.g., Introduction, Methodology, Results) facilitates comprehension, and the writing style is professional and concise.

Ethical Considerations: The study has received ethical approval, and the authors confirm compliance with ethical standards. The anonymization of data and adherence to guidelines strengthen its ethical integrity.

Research and Publication Ethics: There are no indications of dual publication or ethical breaches. The manuscript appears original and contributes valuable insights into the interplay between digital technology use, parental supervision, and physical health.

Potential Areas for Improvement: The authors could expand the discussion on the limitations of the cross-sectional design and its implications for causal inference. Including a brief comparison with findings from other cultural contexts would enhance the global relevance of the study.

Reviewer #6: This study explores the relationship between digital media use, parental supervision, and attitudes toward physical activity in shaping the physical health and exercise habits of young individuals in China. With growing concerns about the adverse effects of digital technology on teenagers' health, this research aims to clarify the roles of parental monitoring and personal attitudes in either worsening or alleviating these effects. The study, based on a sample of 827 Chinese youth from diverse regions, employs regression analysis to identify significant predictors of physical health and exercise levels. Key findings show that digital technology use (β = 0.35, p < 0.001), social media use (β = 0.22, p = 0.003), online gaming (β = 0.19, p = 0.011), and educational technology use (β = 0.29, p = 0.003) are influential factors, alongside parental monitoring (β = 0.47, p < 0.001) and attitudes toward physical activity (β = 0.50, p < 0.001). Notably, attitudes toward physical activity moderate the relationship between technology use and physical health (Indirect Effect = 0.12, p = 0.003), highlighting their protective role. Moreover, the moderation analysis reveals that parental supervision significantly interacts with various forms of digital engagement, suggesting that active parental involvement can help mitigate the negative health impacts of excessive technology use. These findings emphasize the importance of fostering positive attitudes toward physical activity and maintaining strong parental oversight to counterbalance the potential health risks posed by increased digital media consumption among adolescents.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes:  Kartini, S.Pd.,M.Pd.

**********