Social and Emotional Skills for Nurturing Parenting: A Qualitative Examination

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Cuartas,

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 06 2026 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 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,

Stefaan Six, Ph.D.

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. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB.

3. 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.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

“No competing interests to disclose”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more 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. 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.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Your paper underwent review by two experts in the field. I have also carefully reviewed the manuscript. The manuscript examined an under-researched area on parent’s perceptions of important social-emotional skills needed for caregiving, a topic of relevance and needed to further strengthen parenting interventions in LMICs.

I share the generally positive assessments of Reviewers 1 and 2 that this work has strong potential for publication in PLOS ONE. At the same time, both reviewers raise important points that if addressed, would substantially strengthen the manuscript. For this reason, I would like to encourage you to revise and resubmit the paper for further consideration in PLOS ONE.

Below, I summarize key themes from the reviews and my own assessment, organized by section. Overall, the manuscript shows promise, but the revision will need to focus especially on substantially strengthening the methodological reporting and the discussion, as these are the areas most critical to improving the paper.

Background, framing, and context:

The introduction provides a solid foundation but would benefit from stronger engagement with literature, where available, on assumptions embedded in parenting programs and on similar analyses in LMICs. In particular, it would help to situate the study within broader debates about whether parenting interventions are informed by parents’ existing practices and knowledge, or introduced without sufficiently understanding what parents already do and know. Given the proliferation of parenting programs in LMICs, this broader framing would clarify the contribution of the study. Reviewer 2 also notes that “nurturing parenting,” although central to the manuscript, is not explicitly defined; clearer conceptual and theoretical grounding would strengthen the framing. Pages 5–8 also offer room to engage more explicitly with literature, or the lack thereof, on the relationships among poverty and hardship, parental socio-emotional skills, and children’s socio-emotional development in LMIC contexts, ideally including settings comparable to Colombia.

Research questions:

Reviewer 1 encourages clearer identification of the qualitative approach guiding the study and suggests formulating the questions in a more interpretive way, moving beyond description toward understanding why parents hold particular views. Reviewer 2 also asks for clarification of how the three focal domains were selected.

Sample selection:

The reviewers request more detail on the random selection procedures. It would also be useful to report the specific indicators used to characterize the selected neighborhoods within the broader city context. In addition, please resolve the discrepancy between the reported focus group participation (2 × 18 = 36) and the stated sample size of 38.

Process and methods:

Both reviewers agree that this section requires substantial strengthening. In particular, the manuscript should provide fuller information on interviewer training; procedures to ensure confidentiality and privacy given the sensitivity of the topics; checks for transcription accuracy; coder training; the extent of cross-coding; procedures related to saturation and triangulation; and how divergent or minority perspectives were handled analytically. Please also indicate whether findings were shared with participants or otherwise validated after analysis. In addition, the ethics review currently references only a U.S. institution; please clarify whether local ethical review was sought and, if not, explain why. It would also be helpful to report the number of families reached through the ICBF programs, the number who agreed to participate in Phase 2, and whether the piloting group was similar to the final sample.

Results:

Both reviewers suggest that the analysis should move further beyond description toward deeper interpretation. Greater triangulation across parents’ backgrounds, themes, and domains would strengthen the analysis, and there are already promising examples of this on page 23 that could be extended elsewhere. Examining intersections among SEL domains, between these domains and relevant risk/protective factors, and, where relevant, by child age, could further enrich the findings. Unlike Reviewer 1, I find the inclusion of Ns helpful, as it gives a sense of which perspectives are more common and which are more contrasting. To preserve linguistic and cultural nuance, I also encourage including selected original Spanish excerpts alongside their translations.

Discussion:

This section should be substantially strengthened. In particular, the discussion needs to engage more explicitly with relevant conceptual frameworks, connect the findings more clearly to existing work in the region, and reflect more directly on how the findings inform assumptions or gaps in current parenting programs. A more analytically integrated discussion, building on stronger triangulation in the results, would significantly improve the manuscript.

Minor points:

Please review the manuscript for statements that require citation (for example, the end of the second paragraph on page 7). In Table 1, please also clarify whether “graduate degree” refers to university education or high school completion.

I encourage you to address the issues and comments raised in the individual reviews and to submit a revised manuscript. When resubmitting, please include a detailed response letter outlining the changes made and explaining how you addressed (or chose not to address) each reviewer and editor comment. I anticipate sending the revised manuscript back to the original reviewers.

[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

**********

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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Overview

The authors identify an under-researched area on parent’s perceptions of important social-emotional skills needed for caregiving. The introduction and review build a clear justification for the research questions and identifies key frameworks to guide the study. However, Methods can be elaborated in places. Importantly, the Results can be strengthened with further analysis.

Specific Comments

• Methods

o Present Study: What qualitative research design underpins the approach to qualitative interviewing and analysis (e.g., phemenological, grounded theory)? If none of these were identified, it may be useful to explicitly state this was a descriptive qualitative study.

o Present Study: The research questions could be strengthened to reflect the qualitative approach undertaken. At present, the questions are framed to generate a descriptive list of responses, while qualitative research aims to understand the reasons behind the factors identified (i.e., the how and why). For example, What social and emotional skills to parents living in Colombia perceive as important for providing nurturing parenting, and why?

o Participant Selection: Was the random selection undertaken by the research team or by the ICBF? Can authors explain why random selection was employed over a more purposeful approach to participant selection and whether the authors believe the random selection permitted a representation of viewpoints of participants in the ICBF programme? It is important to describe this given the value of representation of views in qualitative approaches over generalizability (more important for quantitative approaches).

o Data Collection: What was the interviewing experience and/or training received by the interview team? How many people were typically included in focus groups? Given the authors mention sensitivity of some topics, what attention was given to privacy during interviewing?

o Data Analysis: Were there any quality assurance checks for accuracy of transcription?

o Data Analysis: Can authors elaborate on triangulation of findings (e.g., between individual and group interviewees, or for example, by parent gender) and the extent to which patterns of deviation alongside common ideas were examined in the analysis process?

o Data Analysis: Was any respondent validation undertaken? Were preliminary findings shared with parents (or a representative group of parents) to explore their perspectives on interpretation?

o Data Analysis: To what extent was saturation of data achieved in phase 1 and phase 2? If this was done, how was saturation defined and what codes or themes could be explored further?

• Results

o Figure 1: It is unclear whether the n matters. It may be sufficient to indicate if an idea was common or less commonly expressed; however, both will matter and have value in qualitative research where the breadth of perspectives is of importance. I suggest removing the n in the figure and text.

o Presentation of Findings: Overall, the Results read like a descriptive list with little analysis that offers insight into why parents believe the specific social and emotional skills identified are important in the provision of nurturing care, or influential in their children’s development? It would also be useful to see where findings may have varied, or distinct ideas expressed in interviews compared to the focus groups. At the present, the analysis is limited to the descriptive level. Overall, it will be useful to see a richer analysis.

• Discussion

o Limitation: Can authors comment on saturation of findings.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.

Reviewer #2: PONE-D-25-63685 - Social and Emotional Skills for Nurturing Parenting: A Qualitative Examination

Thank you for the opportunity to review this thoughtful qualitative manuscript. I appreciate the authors’ efforts with an important and underexplored topic. The study has clear potential to contribute meaningful insights to the field. Few comments that can help refine the manuscript further:

1. The abstract is clear and informative; however, there is a substantial portion only on the background information. The authors may wish to streamline the introductory statements and rather highlight the novel contribution of the study viz. parents’ own conceptualizations of relevant social and emotional skills in an LMIC context. Additionally, the description of the two-phase qualitative design could be made slightly more specific to improve clarity.

2. The manuscript alternates between the terms “social and emotional skills” and “social-emotional competence.” The authors may consider standardizing terminology throughout for consistency.

3. Minor wording issue: “ensure interventions are perceived as cultural relevant” should be revised to “culturally relevant.”

4. While the authors aim to assess nurturing parenting, the concept is not explicitly defined. Given that understandings of nurturing parenting may be subjective and context-dependent, providing a clear (even if broad) working definition would improve conceptual clarity for readers.

5. The positionality statement is well-written but could be further elaborated. The authors may consider reflecting on prior experiences working with caregivers, as well as their own caregiving experiences (if applicable), and how these may have influenced data interpretation. Explicitly describing strategies used to mitigate potential bias would strengthen reflexivity.

6. The discussion of multiple social and emotional skills frameworks (e.g., CASEL, BESSI, Jones et al.) is thoughtful. Including a brief description of the process through which the three domains were selected or finalized would enhance transparency.

7. The authors should elaborate on how thematic saturation was assessed and reached in each phase of the study.

8. The data analysis section would benefit from additional detail, particularly regarding whether the analytic process was iterative and which members of the research team were involved at each stage.

9. The coding tree (Figure 1) is well aligned with the narrative description and enhances interpretability. The Results section - there are instances where interpretive statements appear. Would suggest to have a clearer separation between Results and Discussion.

10. Some longer paragraphs in the Results and Discussion sections could be broken up to improve readability and flow.

**********

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: Yes: Eunice Lobo

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report.docx

Social and Emotional Skills for Nurturing Parenting: A Qualitative Examination

PONE-D-25-63685R1

Dear Dr. Cuartas,

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,

Taiwo Opeyemi Aremu, MD, MPH, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: (No Response)

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: Thank you for responding to the review comments. While I think the results could still do with more contextualization and meaning making, the presentation has been improved sufficiently enough to align with the descriptive nature of this report. While most comments have been adequately responded to, I would highlight two for review:

1. Authors have used n to quantify qualitative findings. I would discourage the N as the focus of conveying an idea generated in the codes and themes. It does not add anything over simply saying most, a few participants (for example).

2. The framing of the research question is limited to the 'What' and does not convey a qualitative enquiry. I would still encourage the authors to review.

Overall, the paper is improved from the original submission.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the efforts in improving this important piece of work!

I am pleased with the changes and revisions.

**********

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: Yes: Eunice Lobo

**********