Associations of nuptiality perceptions, financial difficulties, and socio-demographic factors with mental health status in Australian adults: Analysis of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey

Bernard Kwadwo Yeboah Asiamah-Asare; Prince Peprah; Collins Adu; Bright Opoku Ahinkorah; Isaac Yeboah Addo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296941

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 7, 2023
28 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Benojir Ahammed, Editor PONE-D-23-03512Associations of nuptiality perceptions, financial difficulties, and socio-demographic factors with mental health in Australian adults: Analysis of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) surveyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Adu, 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 Apr 14 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, Benojir Ahammed, M.Sc. 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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. [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: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 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: This paper is not about mental health status or mental health conditions. MCS is only a measure of mental wellbeing or mental health related quality of life (Mental HRQoL). The literature on mental health conditions are not appropriate for this paper. The terms should be more consistent, and the authors should avoid terms such as status or condition and just use mental wellbeing or mental QOL. They also need to use the new literature that has used MCS not mental health disorders such as depression. MCS is very non-specific. Similarly, there is a need to replicate the findings using logistic regression and test if the results hold with a cut off. Also, we need to see different operationalization of main variable (o vs any) etc. Is there a dosage effect of your variable? Reviewer #2: It was a pleasure reading and learning about your work. A very relevant topic that benefits research, policy and practice. Overall your study was succinct, logically fluid and comprehensible. I however encourage listing redundancies and grammato-syntactical errors to enhance readability. Find below my specific comments for considerations. Abstract Your abstract is not exhaustive to pass across key details of the study Avoid using abbreviations you haven’t introduced (e.g. MCS) Although the HILDA survey was a cross-sectonal study, I think your study was a longitudinal analysis (retrospective) using data drawn from the HILDA survey and not technically a CS study in that sense. Introduction When you cite quoted references, include the source and page number within the in-text citation. That is standard. For e.g., “a state of well-being in which individuals realise their own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and are able to make a contribution to their community” Methods Any ethical considerations for the use of HILDA? Declare it in your methods. “To begin, 488 Census Collection Districts are selected using a probability proportionate to size sampling approach (CDs). Each of the districts has between 200 and 250 households.” Take out the antecedent “to begin” and use more engaging word syntax e.g., First, firstly, etc. Were samples weighted in the iteration your used. If so stated that Your definitions of measures need more clarification in your SAP. What was your dependent/outcome variable and your predictor variables. They should be clearly defined under measures Results I think background characteristics would read better as descriptive characteristics Discussion I will suggest a debrief of study objectives with a summary of key findings before diving into discussion. It is more engaging that way. “Together, these findings highlight the importance of understanding the impact of nuptiality or sexual relationship factors on mental health.” I take umbrage in this statement not because it is not true but you have not shown in your study that there was a gap in understanding the impact of nuptiality on mental health. Your lit review missed that mark to inform this as a practical implication in your study. the statement “Interestingly, research about the associations of nuptiality or sexual relationship issues with mental health has largely focused on domestic violence [36-38].” Would be better suited in the introduction to create that hook-gap syntax to justify your study. “we propose early, structural, and co-designed interventions to address nuptiality or sexual relationship factors, financial issues, and socio-demographic factors associated with poor mental health in Australia.” While this is valid, it is too vague. What are the strategies currently in place in Australia addressing mental issues and nuptiality or domestic violence? what are the gaps in programs, initiatives, and policies in place to address this challenge? How can your study inform these gaps. Give direct, practical, recommendations, based on evidence based practice or policies from other jurisdictions. References A mix of superscripts and in-text numerical citations were used. Ensure your citations align with author guidelines e.g. “The sampling technique, study design, and data collection strategies for the waves have all been discussed in depth elsewhere. 23” ****** 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 Reviewer #2: Yes: Udoka Okpalauwaekwe ******** [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.0296941.r001
Revision 1
19 Oct 2023 Author Response Dear Prof. Benojir Ahammed, We are grateful to you and the reviewers for your comments on our paper entitled: " Associations of nuptiality perceptions, financial difficulties, and socio-demographic factors with mental health in Australian adults: Analysis of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey". We would also take this opportunity to thank the reviewers for their suggestions. We have taken note of all the comments raised and have responded accordingly as follows. Please be informed that the reviewers' comments are in black whereas our responses are in red. Reviewer #1: This paper is not about mental health status or mental health conditions. MCS is only a measure of mental wellbeing or mental health related quality of life (Mental HRQoL). The literature on mental health conditions are not appropriate for this paper. The terms should be more consistent, and the authors should avoid terms such as status or condition and just use mental wellbeing or mental QOL. Response: Thank you for this very important observation. We agree that while the MCS score can be used to identify individuals who are experiencing poor mental health-related quality of life, it does not provide a clinical diagnosis of a mental health condition. We have therefore replaced the term “mental health conditions or status” with mental health-related quality of life throughout the paper, including the title. They also need to use the new literature that has used MCS not mental health disorders such as depression. MCS is very non-specific. Response: Thank you. This section has been revised. Similarly, there is a need to replicate the findings using logistic regression and test if the results hold with a cut off. Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comments. However, we respectfully suggest that such replication is not needed in our study. We utilised a robust hierarchical multiple linear regression and believe that a logistic regression would not necessarily provide additional insights into the relationships between the variables, as the study has already shown significant associations using multiple linear regression. Adding a cut-off point is also not needed, as the study did not classify individuals into discrete categories, but rather used a continuous measure of mental health scores. Also, we need to see different operationalization of main variable (o vs any) etc. Is there a dosage effect of your variable? Response: Thank you for your comment. While we appreciate your suggestion, we believe that the current operationalisation of the main variable, mental health, is appropriate for this study. The study utilised a validated measure of mental health, the Mental Component Summary (MCS) score, which is a continuous measure that assesses mental health status based on a range of factors. The study also used a cut-off point of MCS score less than 50 to classify participants with poor mental health status. This approach is commonly used in mental health research and has been shown to be reliable and valid. While there may be alternative ways of operationalising mental health, such as using binary outcomes or different cut-off points, we do not believe that such changes would significantly impact the findings of the study. Reviewer #2: It was a pleasure reading and learning about your work. A very relevant topic that benefits research, policy, and practice. Overall your study was succinct, logically fluid, and comprehensible. I however encourage listing redundancies and grammato-syntactical errors to enhance readability. Find below my specific comments for considerations. Response: Thank you. All grammato-syntactical errors have checked. Abstract Your abstract is not exhaustive to pass across key details of the study Response: Thank you. We have included more detail in the Abstract as recommended. Avoid using abbreviations you haven’t introduced (e.g. MCS) Response: Thank you. We have defined the abbreviations at first use. Although the HILDA survey was a cross-sectonal study, I think your study was a longitudinal analysis (retrospective) using data drawn from the HILDA survey and not technically a CS study in that sense. Response: Thank you. We appreciate your suggestion, however, we respectfully disagree to some extent. Our study did not follow a group of individuals or a cohort over a period of time to examine changes and patterns in behaviour, attitudes, and health outcomes. Rather, we used data collected from a single wave of the survey (wave 19) and conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis. Therefore, we opine that our study is not a longitudinal study, but a retrospective cross-sectional study. However, we have made the required correction. Introduction When you cite quoted references, include the source and page number within the in-text citation. That is standard. For e.g., “a state of well-being in which individuals realise their own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and are able to make a contribution to their community” Response: Thank you. However, we now do not have quoted references. We have made a significant change to the introduction section based on a critical suggestion by another reviewer. Methods Any ethical considerations for the use of HILDA? Declare it in your methods. Response: Thank you. We appreciate your feedback. We have taken your suggestion and revised the "Ethics and data availability" section in our Methods to improve clarity and ensure that the ethical considerations of our study are more prominently displayed. “To begin, 488 Census Collection Districts are selected using a probability proportionate to size sampling approach (CDs). Each of the districts has between 200 and 250 households.” Take out the antecedent “to begin” and use more engaging word syntax e.g., First, firstly, etc. Response: Done. Thank you. Were samples weighted in the iteration your used. If so stated that Response: Weighted sample was used and we have indicated that accordingly. Thank you. Your definitions of measures need more clarification in your SAP. What was your dependent/outcome variable and your predictor variables. They should be clearly defined under measures Response: Dependent/outcome variable and your predictor variables are been clarified. Thank you. Results I think background characteristics would read better as descriptive characteristics Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We appreciate your feedback and agree that using the term "descriptive characteristics" may provide better clarity for the reader. We have revised the manuscript to reflect this change. Thank you again for your valuable feedback. Discussion I will suggest a debrief of study objectives with a summary of key findings before diving into discussion. It is more engaging that way. Response: Thank you. This is done. “Together, these findings highlight the importance of understanding the impact of nuptiality or sexual relationship factors on mental health.” I take umbrage in this statement not because it is not true but you have not shown in your study that there was a gap in understanding the impact of nuptiality on mental health. Your lit review missed that mark to inform this as a practical implication in your study. the statement “Interestingly, research about the associations of nuptiality or sexual relationship issues with mental health has largely focused on domestic violence [36-38].” Would be better suited in the introduction to create that hook-gap syntax to justify your study. Response: Thank you. We have moved the statement: “research about the associations of nuptiality or sexual relationship issues with mental health has largely focused on domestic violence [36-38].” to the Introduction section as suggested and deleted all the other statements. “we propose early, structural, and co-designed interventions to address nuptiality or sexual relationship factors, financial issues, and socio-demographic factors associated with poor mental health in Australia.” While this is valid, it is too vague. What are the strategies currently in place in Australia addressing mental issues and nuptiality or domestic violence? what are the gaps in programs, initiatives, and policies in place to address this challenge? How can your study inform these gaps. Give direct, practical, recommendations, based on evidence based practice or policies from other jurisdictions. Response: Thnak you. We have revised as recommended. However, in our revision, we have taken into consideration the fact that some evidence-based practices and policies from other jurisdictions may not align with our study focus and variables. Therefore, we have taken caution in selecting and recommending interventions that are relevant and applicable to our research context. We believe that our revised paper now provides a more comprehensive and effective approach to addressing the challenges associated with poor mental health. We appreciate your time and consideration References A mix of superscripts and in-text numerical citations were used. Ensure your citations align with author guidelines e.g. “The sampling technique, study design, and data collection strategies for the waves have all been discussed in depth elsewhere. 23” Response: Thank you very much. This section has been revised and rectified. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewer Comments Mental Health.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296941.r002
21 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Benojir Ahammed, Editor Associations of nuptiality perceptions, financial difficulties, and socio-demographic factors with mental health in Australian adults: Analysis of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey PONE-D-23-03512R1 Dear Dr. Adu, 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, Benojir Ahammed, M.Sc. 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 #2: 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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: Thank you for allowing me another look at your manuscript. Your thoughtful replies and careful consideration of the reviewers' feedback are commendable. Upon reevaluation, I acknowledge my initial misinterpretation of your study design, having originally mistaken it for longitudinal instead of the correct retrospective cross-sectional approach, and I can see how this has shaped the analysis and conclusions drawn from your data. I wish you the best and look forward to reading more of your work in the future. ****** 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 #2: Yes: Udoka Okpalauwaekwe ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296941.r003
Formally Accepted
16 Jan 2024 Acceptance Letter - Benojir Ahammed, Editor PONE-D-23-03512R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Adu, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Mr. Benojir Ahammed Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296941.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 .