Dear Dr. Opanubi,

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 Jun 20 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.

• 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,

Maheshkumar Baladaniya

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: -->-->We are grateful to the Catholic University of America professors, the participants who provided insights, and family and friends who supported and encouraged this project.-->-->The authors acknowledge OpenAI’s ChatGPT (February 10, 2025 version) for assistance in refining sentence structure and improving readability.-->--> -->-->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: -->-->The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. -->--> -->-->Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->?>

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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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 If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

It is good article and should require some minor changes mentioned by the reviewers. Once it is done it is eligible to publish.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  This study is well perceived and executed with a proper methodology. All sections are described properly . However, concluding a research of relatively smaller sample with a theory is too early to make a conclusion. Its true that with out proper training, caring old age people is difficult but it should also be in view that the given example of the study include people over 45 taking care of elderly people. more over this study is specified to middle age people taking care of elderly. what about young people taking care of elderly? different age groups were also to be included to draw a theory as a conclusion

Reviewer #2:  Through 22 semi-structured interviews and using Strauss and Corbin’s coding method, the authors developed a novel Challenge-Acceptance Theory (CAT) that explains how caregivers transition from challenge to acceptance. The study presents valuable insights for gerontology, family studies, and health care professionals.

Comments:

The manuscript would benefit from:

A more concise model figure with clearly labeled components.

Clarifying whether this theory is new, how it builds upon or diverges from similar theories (e.g., stress-coping model, caregiver burden model).

Discussing how CAT could be applied practically (e.g., in interventions, assessments, caregiver training).

Consider discussing how the researcher’s background, potential bias, or relationship with participants may have influenced interpretation.

Were bracketing or peer debriefings used to reduce bias?

Discussion:

Compare more explicitly how this study adds new knowledge to existing literature.

Avoid re-stating results in long form—focus on synthesis and implications.

Clarify if any gender-based differences were observed in caregiving experiences (this is implied but not fully explored).

Reviewer #3:  - A Data Availability Statement would be formally included to improve openness. Briefly stating that while anonymised extracts of the interview are available and full interview data is secret, additional access may be granted upon reasonable request. A suggested text that you can modify as necessary: "The paper contains the data corroborating the study's findings. Complete interview transcripts are not publicly accessible due to ethical and confidentiality constraints, however they might be provided upon the relevant author's reasonable request, subject to institutional consent.

- Even if it was done informally, think about quickly outlining how you made sure that there was variety in terms of gender and race/ethnicity during snowball sampling (for example, by using targeted outreach or particular recruitment objectives). This will highlight your sampling strategy's resilience even more.

- Kindly indicate which version was utilized (e.g., NVivo 12, NVivo 20).

- As some publications now require it, think about emphasizing the committee name and approval protocol number in the Methods section.

- I suggest adding data about the benefits of physical therapy for improving the health of senior citizens to your discussion of falls and physical exercise. Your discussion of caregiving techniques may be enhanced by research showing the value of mobility and balance training in preventing falls. Studies [DOI: doi.org/10.47363/JPMRS/2023(5)192] that describe how physical therapy therapies might lower fall risks and enhance general health may be of use to you. They offer a useful framework for caregivers of elderly parents who have mobility issues.

**********

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:  Saima Afzal, Ph. D

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Shraddha Baldania

**********

[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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments.docx

Experiences of adult children caring for parents aging in place

PONE-D-25-07300R1

Dear Dr. Opanubi,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Maheshkumar Baladaniya

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Manuscript presented good content. It is acceptable for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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??>

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Author had responded to all comments and applied appropriate changes wherever required. It can be accepted.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript's clarity and depth have been much enhanced by the writers' careful consideration of previous reviewer suggestions. The Challenge-Acceptance Theory (CAT) is a significant addition to the literature on caregiving, and the grounded theory methodology is well stated.

**********

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: No

**********