The effects of assistance dogs on psychosocial health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review

Kerri E. Rodriguez; Jamie Greer; Jane K. Yatcilla; Alan M. Beck; Marguerite E. O’Haire

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243302

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 22, 2020
15 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Geilson Lima Santana, Editor PONE-D-20-22650 The effects of assistance dogs on psychosocial health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rodriguez, 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 Nov 29 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Geilson Lima Santana, M.D., 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. 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? 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Title of article: The effects of assistance dogs on psychosocial health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review Reviewer Comments 1-Regarding Research Question 1: researchers should be consistent in using terms. Problem that they used different terms: Sometime describe, identify, another time, summarize for question 1. Authors should determine the appropriate terms for three questions, keeping using the same terms in the whole paper. 2-In Discussion Section, authors are clear in mentioning the third aim. I don’t read or see: first aim and second aim. Authors should be add it 3 -Based on my experiences for teaching the systematic review, systematic researchers should provide their manuscript by official or scientific paragraph terms containing terminologies of subjects of systematic reviews that they use it in search database. Why did not researchers mention it at their article? All readers prefer to read and see that paragraph / terms used in journals. Example (Assistance or support or helping Dogs and ….etc.) 4-(e.g. 0.035 rather than <0.05) why did researchers choose 0.035 as criterion? In Table 2. Summary of methodological ratings for N=27 studies … etc. The subject of paper is viable, novelty and interested. Systematic review is hard working as I see that in this paper. So, in my opinion paper is acceptable with modification. Best regard Naser Reviewer #2: Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? N/A This article is considering and dealing with an excellent subject which is not only sensitive but also helpful. The authors have thought and looked into the psychological benefits of guide dogs and the importance of a holistic approach on such issues. I am hoping by publishing this article, we would expect to see further research work from the same authors and others. ****** 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: Yes: Dr. Naser Abdul Hafeeth Abdulhafath. University of Taiz Reviewer #2: Yes:** Lily Abedipour [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243302.r001
Revision 1
20 Oct 2020 Author Response Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised version of this systematic review manuscript. We have uploaded a response to reviewers document, but have also copied and pasted the editor and reviewer's feedback and our responses below. Editor Comments 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 We have fixed formatting on all tables, figures, and table/figure captions. We have also updated the title page formatting. 2. 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. We have provided the supporting information captions at the bottom of the manuscript as requested, and updated all in-text citations for the S1 and S2 tables. Reviewer 1 1-Regarding Research Question 1: researchers should be consistent in using terms. Problem that they used different terms: Sometime describe, identify, another time, summarize for question 1. Authors should determine the appropriate terms for three questions, keeping using the same terms in the whole paper. We have edited the text throughout the paper such that each of the three aims are consistent with the following wording: “The specific aims were to (1) describe the key characteristics of studies (2) evaluate the methodological rigor of studies (3) summarize outcomes.” 2-In Discussion Section, authors are clear in mentioning the third aim. I don’t read or see: first aim and second aim. Authors should be add it Thank you for this suggestion. In addition to the headers stating each aim, we also start each section with the appropriate language e.g. “Our second aim was to evaluate the methodological rigor of studies. We found that…” 3 -Based on my experiences for teaching the systematic review, systematic researchers should provide their manuscript by official or scientific paragraph terms containing terminologies of subjects of systematic reviews that they use it in search database. Why did not researchers mention it at their article? All readers prefer to read and see that paragraph / terms used in journals. Example (Assistance or support or helping Dogs and ….etc.) We provided the full MEDLINE search strategy in S1 Table, rather than in the text, so that the search strategy could be fully replicated by other researchers. We describe this in lines 167-169: “The complete MEDLINE search strategy, which was adapted for the other databases, is shown in S1 Table.” The table describes the full search terms used, as follows: ( “Service animal”[Title/Abstract] OR “service animals”[Title/Abstract] OR “Service dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Service dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Assistance animal”[Title/Abstract] OR “Assistance animals”[Title/Abstract] OR “Assistance dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Assistance dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Guide dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Guide dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Dog guide”[Title/Abstract] OR “Dog guides”[Title/Abstract] OR “Mobility dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Mobility dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Seizure dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Seizure dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Seizure alert dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Seizure alert dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Seizure response dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Seizure response dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Epilepsy alert dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Epilepsy alert dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Diabetes alert dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Diabetes alert dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Diabetic alert dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Diabetic alert dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Diabetic response dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Diabetic response dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Hearing dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Hearing dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Signal dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Signal dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Medical response dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Medical response dogs”[Title/Abstract] OR “Seeing eye dog”[Title/Abstract] OR “Seeing eye dogs”[Title/Abstract] ) 4-(e.g. 0.035 rather than <0.05) why did researchers choose 0.035 as criterion? In Table 2. Summary of methodological ratings for N=27 studies … etc. We apologize for this confusion. The method scoring item was “Have actual probability values been reported for most outcomes?” Using e.g. as the abbreviation for the Latin phrase meaning “for example”, we provided 0.035 as an example of exact probability reporting (rather than reporting <0.05). So, 0.035 was not used as any specific criterion, but rather as an example. We revised the text to say “e.g. reporting 0.035 rather than reporting <0.05” to clarify. The subject of paper is viable, novelty and interested. Systematic review is hard working as I see that in this paper. So, in my opinion paper is acceptable with modification. We thank the reviewer for their time and consideration reviewing this manuscript. Reviewer 2 This article is considering and dealing with an excellent subject which is not only sensitive but also helpful. The authors have thought and looked into the psychological benefits of guide dogs and the importance of a holistic approach on such issues. I am hoping by publishing this article, we would expect to see further research work from the same authors and others. We thank the reviewer for their positive comments and time reviewing this manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243302.r002
19 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Geilson Lima Santana, Editor The effects of assistance dogs on psychosocial health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review PONE-D-20-22650R1 Dear Dr. Rodriguez, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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, Geilson Lima Santana, M.D., 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 ******** 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 ****** 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 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: The effects of assistance dogs on psychosocial health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review Comments After reading the manuscript several times, I found the authors made instructions given in first review. The objectives of article are clear: line 142 to 150. They detailed them in the context of article. First aim was starting at line 251 Second aim was starting at line 316 Third objective was starting at line 361. Article becomes clearly outlined and easy to understand. Three objectives / aims are discussed in clear way as I suggested in first review. Search Procedures are rigor and power in the second revision: 156 -172 I scanned the references, I don’t find errors. I read the whole article, I read reply from authors regarding the first review. Congratulation for publication DR. Naser AbdulHafeeth ****** 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: Yes:** DR. Naser AbdulHafeeth , Taiz University https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243302.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Nov 2020 Acceptance Letter - Geilson Lima Santana, Editor PONE-D-20-22650R1 The effects of assistance dogs on psychosocial health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review Dear Dr. Rodriguez: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Geilson Lima Santana Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243302.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .