Evaluating the psychosocial status of BC children and youth during the COVID-19 pandemic: A MyHEARTSMAP cross-sectional study

Melissa L. Woodward; Abrar Hossain; Alaina Chun; Cindy Liu; Kaitlyn Kilyk; Jeffrey N. Bone; Garth Meckler; Tyler Black; S. Evelyn Stewart; Hasina Samji; Skye Barbic; Quynh Doan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0281083

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 17, 2022
22 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Sawsan Abuhammad, Editor PONE-D-22-23103Evaluating the psychosocial status of BC children and youth during the COVID-19 pandemic: A MyHEARTSMAP cross-sectional study.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Woodward, 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 Jan 06 2023 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: 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, Sawsan Abuhammad 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 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. 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. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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: No ****** 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 ****** 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: The topic referred to children and youth however, in line 90, authors stated that “the study aims to estimate the frequency of psychosocial and health concerns of youth and their caretakers”. I feel including caretakers in the aim has gone against the topic of the manuscript. It will also be interesting to see some screenshots of the MyHEARTSMAP. I feel the OR model should make use of data from youth N= 43 and youth and guardian N= 182. I see in the manuscript that the study used data from N=424. Does that mean the study included “assessment completed by guardian only in the data analysis N= 199? I suggest that authors explicitly state the sample size included in the OR model. In table 2, the sum of youth health category 388+34+16 =438 does not add up to the total of “assessment completed by both guardian and youth” and “assessment completed by youth only” 182+43 (fig.1). Line 244 referred to 73.6% of youth which is equivalent to 312 youths. This does not add up to the total number of youths that participated in the assessment 182+42+ 225 Findings make sense. I think it would be interesting to see how the use of the platform evolved and whether the users find resources, other than nurses and health care professionals, useful in improving their mental health. ****** 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: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281083.r001
Revision 1
8 Jan 2023 Author Response Dear Dr. Sawsan Abuhammad PLOS ONE Academic Editor Re: Revision required [PONE-D-22-23103] Evaluating the psychosocial status of BC children and youth during the COVID-19 pandemic: A MyHEARTSMAP cross-sectional study We appreciate the thoughtful review of this manuscript and the opportunity to revise the manuscript for submission. Please see below the response to reviewers and list of revisions made. The manuscript formatting was edited to adhere to PLOS ONE guidelines including the formatting of section headings, citation brackets, and references. The specification of receiving informed verbal consent was included in our ethics statement. No other changes were made to the reference list beyond formatting. 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 No changes were made to the manuscript 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes No changes were made to the manuscript 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: No Data has not been made publicly available as this would violate our ethical approval due to the need for participant privacy and the potentially identifying information included in participant interviews. Data will be available for potential collaboration upon request. 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 No changes were made in the manuscript 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: The topic referred to children and youth however, in line 90, authors stated that “the study aims to estimate the frequency of psychosocial and health concerns of youth and their caretakers”. I feel including caretakers in the aim has gone against the topic of the manuscript. Have edited this sentence to clarify that both youth and caretakers completed assessments of the mental health of the youth only. The psychosocial status of caretakers was not assessed in this study. (line 109) It will also be interesting to see some screenshots of the MyHEARTSMAP. A link to the MyHEARTSMAP tool and screenshots have been included in the Supplementary Information. I feel the OR model should make use of data from youth N= 43 and youth and guardian N= 182. I see in the manuscript that the study used data from N=424. Does that mean the study included “assessment completed by guardian only in the data analysis N= 199? I suggest that authors explicitly state the sample size included in the OR model. I believe this mistake was due to our previous lack of clarity around caretaker assessments. The OR model included all 424 assessments. When assessments of youth mental health were completed by both the youth and their guardian, the higher severity rating was included to increase sensitivity. The sample size of the OR model has been added. (line 290) In table 2, the sum of youth health category 388+34+16 =438 does not add up to the total of “assessment completed by both guardian and youth” and “assessment completed by youth only” 182+43 (fig.1). Line 244 referred to 73.6% of youth which is equivalent to 312 youths. This does not add up to the total number of youths that participated in the assessment 182+42+ 225 As noted in the footnote for this table, more than one recommendation may be triggered for different questions within a domain and therefore the total number of recommendations within a domain may exceed 100%. (line 346) This note was also added to the methods to promote clarity. (line 234) Findings make sense. I think it would be interesting to see how the use of the platform evolved and whether the users find resources, other than nurses and health care professionals, useful in improving their mental health. We are currently analysing the data from the three-month follow-up study and preparing that work for publication so we are excited to hear that this is a matter of interest for the reviewer. Thank you for your time and thought for this review in improving our manuscript. Sincerely, Melissa Woodward Postdoctoral Fellow Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281083.r002
16 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Sawsan Abuhammad, Editor Evaluating the psychosocial status of BC children and youth during the COVID-19 pandemic: A MyHEARTSMAP cross-sectional study. PONE-D-22-23103R1 Dear Dr. Woodward, 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, Sawsan Abuhammad Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281083.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Mar 2023 Acceptance Letter - Sawsan Abuhammad, Editor PONE-D-22-23103R1 Evaluating the psychosocial status of BC children and youth during the COVID-19 pandemic: A MyHEARTSMAP cross-sectional study. Dear Dr. Woodward: 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. Sawsan Abuhammad Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281083.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 .