PONE-D-24-58350-->-->Have Sedentary Lifestyles Reached Even Remote Parts of the Global South? Evidence from School-Going Adolescents’ Time Use in India-->-->PLOS ONE?>

Dear Dr. Cunningham,

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 May 31 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,

Simone A Tomaz, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“The study described here was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (award number 3D43HD065249-03S1). The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing [the repository name and/or the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR a direct link to access each database]. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The study described here was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (award number 3D43HD065249-03S1). The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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 study described here was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (award number 3D43HD065249-03S1). The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. 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.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. While the study presents interesting data on adolescent time use patterns in different school settings, I have several questions that need to be addressed for clarity and completeness.

Methods Section

Study Design and Reporting

1. Can you please include the STROBE checklist to report this observational study? Please ensure you include a copy of the checklist in your supplementary files.

2. What type of study design is this? The manuscript does not explicitly state if this is a cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control study.

3. In which city was this study conducted? This information appears to be missing from the methods section, I would suggest stating this rather than vaugly mentioning a city in Southern India.

Sampling and Recruitment

4. You state: "A sample of 407 students were recruited from 3 private and 3 public schools selected from the list of 32 high schools in the city in 2012-13 using stratified random sampling from school rosters." Please explain how the 6 schools were selected from the 32 available schools. Was the random sampling applied only to student selection or to school selection as well? What was the sampling frame for the school rosters - for example, were specific grades or age groups included?

Survey Development and Administration

5. In your manuscript, you use both "tested" in the abstract and "pre-tested" in the methods section. Please clarify which term is correct. What testing procedures were used, and what modifications resulted from the testing?

6. Regarding the time-use survey, what was this survey based on and was it validated? Please specify in what time increments activities were recorded, eg. 1 minute, 5 minute, ten minutes.

7. On page 6, line 100, you use the word "cantered" - should this be "centred"?

8. You reference the American Time Use Survey but haven't provided a citation. Please add the reference and explain how it informed your study.

9. Parent socio-demographics appear in the results but weren't mentioned in the methods. Please explain how this information was collected add to the methods.

Statistical Analysis

9. You state: "Survey weights were used to account for the selection and design of the study." Please specify what factors were accounted for. Were there confounders? How were schools, private/public status, gender, age, and demographics weighted?

10. Regarding the statistical analysis, what statistical program was used? How will results be presented (odds ratios, 95% CI)? Are analyses adjusted or unadjusted? If adjusted, what variables were used?

Results Section

11. Throughout the results, you state "After controlling for other characteristics" but haven't specified these. Please list all controlled characteristics and explain how these were determined as per comment in the methods section.

12. A minor typo found on page 16, line 170, there is a space in "1. 5"

Discussion Section

14. For reference 24, the formatting appears to differ from other references, please correct this.

15. You state: "Our findings are consistent with studies conducted in other countries, which also found private school students to be more sedentary [15,24]." Please clarify whether these studies were from LMICs or high-income countries. Did they use time-use diaries too?

16. Regarding your statements about school-based interventions: Could you provide evidence-based support for these suggested interventions, particularly for private schools?

17. You mention social norms in the conclusion, but this wasn't discussed heavily earlier. Can you please strengthen this section in the discussion to ensure the discussion and your results support the conclusion.

Recommendation

Based on these questions and concerns, I recommend Major Revisions for this manuscript. While the study shows promise and addresses an important topic, the methodological reporting gaps and analytical clarity issues require substantial attention. The concerns, while significant, can be addressed through careful revision, but they are too substantial for minor revisions alone.

Reviewer #2: Important note: Of 41 references, 39 are more than 5 years old (2020 and less), while only two are less than 5 years old (2021). This absolutely needs to be corrected to consider publishong the paper. In this line, the introduction needs to be reworked to be more convincing about the scientific relevance and contribution of the study. For example, a conceptual framework is presentied in the Supplementary file, but it should be properlyu presented in the introduction of the paper.

Moreover, it is essential to provide study objectives as well as hypothesis before presenting the materials and methods section. Then, the statistical analysis could be presented in line with each objective. In the same vein, the discussion could be organized around these objectives/hypothesis. In the discussion, I suggest adding subtitles to make sure that all information is adequatly addressed: one for each objective, limitations of the study, practical implications, future research, conclusion.

P4-5 L66-68: Review the transition between socio-economic level and gender: 1) between both paragraphs and 2) in the paragraph on P5.

P5 L75: Add a reference for the first affirmation. Instead, of the question, it would be preferable to write: However, to this date, there are no study focusing on... Therefore, the present paper aims to examine...

P5 L77: time use in sedentary behaviours? This method refers to what method? To better understand the purpose of this paragraph (L75-81), this specific "method" needs to be clarified. Specifically, this sentence: This method gives insights into how adolescents use their time, beyond the typical question of whether they spend more than an hour on the screen." needs to be further explained and supported by references.

P6 L98-99: Just to make sure I understand: you've carried out a secondary analysis of the survey data. So, when you say that you developed a “bespoke” instrument, you mean that this was done at the time of the initial survey, is that right? To help the reader, it is essential to clarify whether you're explaining the method of the original study or the method of secondary data analysis, which is the focus of the present article (if I understand correctly).

P6L101: Provide the reference for the American Time Use Survey --> is your questionnaire an adaptation of the American questionnaire or is it a questionnaire created from scratch? This should have been explained in your argument before the method that leads to the research objectives.

Table 1: I do not understand what information is provided in the first line of the Table --> Total, % (SE).

Tables 2 and 3: Please provide the T-test value.

P14L149-150: review this sentence, there is a parenthesis missing

In each table, there are some typing errors. A thorough review needs to be done to standardize the presentation of results, while complying with table presentation norms of the journal.

P16L168-172: Please review the wording used to provide a more accurate interpretation of the meaning of the coefficient.

Discussion

P21L192-194: These information should appear in the introduction to support the relevance of the study

At the beginning of the discussion, it would be relevant to remind the objectives and to specify if the hypotheses were met or not.

P21L211: there is no link between the two sentences, maybe start a new paragraph?

P21L213: In private schools, more hours are dedicated to lessons and tutoring during school hours and less to physical education and recess. --> is this a personal point of view or a documented practice? a reference should be provided for such statement.

P21L214: doas coaching refer to academic learning in this sentence? I am wondering because the next sentence is about physical activity...

P21L217-229: It would be relevant to try and find some explainations for these differences in results. Could it be explained by the methodologies of the studies and the measuring instruments used? It seems to me that this should be addressed in the discussion, since in the introduction, the choice of measurement method is one of the arguments justifying the relevance of the study.

P23L242-245: These sentences would be more appropriate in the introduction.

P23L245-247; P24L256-258; P24L269-271: For me, this is kind of an evidence. What new information/recommandation can be provided in light of these results? I think that the strength of measurement lies in its ability to discriminate between different sedentary activities. Therefore, recommendations should be as precise and detailed as the results. The examples provided just after (P23L249-254) are more specific and are the ones from the more recent scientific literature of the paper.

P24L263: and the social norms and expectations underlying these activities --> this was not address in the discussion, hence, I am surprise to read this in the conclusion.

P24L264-265: reword this sentence to make it more fluid.

**********

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

**********

[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.

Have Sedentary Lifestyles Reached Even Remote Parts of the Global South? Evidence from School-Going Adolescents’ Time Use in India

PONE-D-24-58350R1

Dear Dr. Cunningham,

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,

Simone A Tomaz, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: