Dear Dr. Burrone,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 15 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.

• 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,

Rafael Galvão de Almeida, PhD.

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: -->-->"This research was financed by ANID-Fondecyt Postdoctoral N°3220665."-->-->  -->-->Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" -->-->If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. -->-->Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->--> -->-->3. In the online submission form, you indicated that "Data are available upon request as the study has not been completed. These can be requested from the principal investigator, first author of this article."-->--> -->-->All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.-->-->This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. -->--> -->-->4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.?>

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Comments to the author:

The article proposes to analyze the perceptions of caregivers regarding the construction of socio community care for people with disabilities in the south-central Zone of Chile, using a qualitative approach from a situated feminist perspective. Both the justification for the importance of the study and the objectives are clear. In addition, the article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

My main criticism is that the study is decontextualized from the original theoretical discussion about unpaid care labor – in the context of the so-called "Care Economics" – which began in the 1990s in the United States. See, for example, some pioneering works in the area such as:

England, Paula and Folbre, Nancy. 1998. “The Cost of Caring.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 561, 39-51

Himmelweit, Susan. 1996. “Conceptualising Caring”. Paper presented at the International Association for Feminist Economics Conference, Washington D.C., July 1996

Nelson, Julie A. 1999. “Of Markets and Martyrs: Is it OK to Pay Well for Care?” Feminist Economics 5: 3, 1-17

In the Discussion section (pp. 14-16), a preliminary and cursory literature review on the topic of care, particularly in the context of caring for disabled individuals, is presented. I propose a reorganization of the article to include a separate section for contextualization and a comprehensive literature review on unpaid care labor immediately following the introduction. This structural adjustment will facilitate a more coherent analysis of the research findings in relation to existing theoretical studies.

Reviewer #2: I suggest detailing the methodology more clearly, what design was used. In addition, I suggest organizing the methodology sections in a more logical way.

The “context of the study” section seems unrelated to the rest. I suggest making the link. The same with table 1, where the column (% of rural population) seems more like an isolated background, unless it is integrated into the story. Basically, answering the question: why are both pieces of information important?

Does the theoretical approach chosen for the analysis have any contribution other than separating institutional and community care? This division is quite classic when carrying out support analysis, so I wonder if the author and theoretical approach chosen could contribute something other than that division.

Regarding the first part of the results, I suggest explaining in the methodology section how the internal categories were established for the two predetermined categories.

Regarding the results, very general statements are made that would benefit from integrating more data or examples. An example is the allusion to the fact that care in the family is feminized and ableist. However, there is no detailed discussion with data on what this means and how it is observed. In most of the categories, this format is replicated, which makes the depth of the data and the richness of the results as a contribution disappear.

I consider that the discussion requires some attention. Although its content is relevant to the topic, it is presented more as background than as a discussion of the findings. Some sections can be written as an introduction, without the results. I suggest going into more depth so that the findings are clearly reflected.

In the conclusions, it is established that the integration of both networks reduces institutionalization. This seems to be new information that has not been presented or analyzed before, and due to the characteristics of a conclusion, I consider that it should not be presented in a new and general way there. It is an interesting dimension that should be addressed in the discussion, if the findings lead in that direction.

In general, rurality does not seem to be relevant to the study, despite the fact that it is presented in the title and as an inclusion criterion. There is nothing on this aspect even in the bibliography, and it seems that it was not treated as a relevant topic in the interview questions. Was it? If this was relevant to the analysis, I suggest incorporating it. If not, I suggest considering it.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review of Socio-community care of people with disabilities.docx

Dear Dr. Burrone,

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 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,

Rafael Galvão de Almeida, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. 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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: In the previous round of review, my main criticism was that the paper's results were decontextualized from the original theoretical discussion about unpaid care labor which began in the 1990s in the United States. I proposed a reorganization of the article to include a separate section for contextualization and a comprehensive literature review on unpaid care labor immediately following the introduction. The idea was that, in so doing, a coherent analysis of the research findings in relation to existing theoretical studies would be possible. The authors adreesed properly both issues.

Re-reading the text after the review, it occurred to me that the details provided by the methodology may not be sufficient to allow the research to be reproduced elsewhere. Therefore, I will also suggest the authors to publish the questionnaire used in the survey as an appendix.

Reviewer #2: Most of the comments have been appropriately addressed. However, the relationship between results and discussion remains weak and needs to be strengthened. The statement regarding rurality remains incomplete. Additionally, the data are not available at the indicated DOI.

**********

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

Socio-community care of people with disabilities: Experiences of caregivers living in south-central Zone of Chile

PONE-D-24-35334R2

Dear Dr. Burrone,

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,

Rafael Galvão de Almeida, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: All the previous comments and suggestions have been fully addressed. The paper is ready for publication.

**********

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

**********