The influence of care types on the development of orphans——An empirical study from China

Ping Liang; Haimei Li; Peng Feng

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309669

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 18, 2024
30 May 2024 Decision Letter - Satabdi Mitra, Editor PONE-D-24-15042The influence of placement types on the Development of Orphans——Moderating effect based on guardian's social participationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Peng, 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 Jul 14 2024 11:59PM with all revisions as suggested by reviewers. 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, Satabdi Mitra, M.D(Community Medicine ) Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “Funded by Chengdu University of Technology "Double First-Class" initiative Construction Philosophy and Social Sciences Key Construction Project（ZDJS202315） and Sichuan Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project（SCJJ23ND215）” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them 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. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. [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: Partly ******** 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: This is a thorough review and all the statistcial analysis data has been clearly presented. It gives a good sense of all the parameters used to perform the heterogenous analysis on different aspects of welfare and has not just focused on social participation. Reviewer #2: Abstract 1. Improve the abstract structure that contains the essence of the problem, research objectives, methodology, population & sample, data collection techniques using measuring instruments, data analysis techniques, results, conclusions, and recommendations. 2. Grammar and Style: a. Change "placement types is a key factor" to "placement types are a key factor". b. Change "grandparent care have a significant positive impact" to "grandparent care has a significant positive impact". c. The sentence "and this impact is moderated by the social participation of guardians" could be clearer if rephrased to "with this impact being moderated by the social participation of guardians." Detailing the Methodology: a. Mention the sample size or provide a brief description of the survey used to give clearer context about the data. b. Specify the data analysis techniques used, such as regression analysis, to add depth to the information. Linking Sentences: Improve the connection between sentences. For example, "Based on the moderating effect of guardians' social participation" could be clarified how it leads to "this paper uses the survey data...". Specifying Heterogeneity Tests: Expand a bit on the "Heterogeneity tests" to explain why these tests were conducted and what was specifically measured. Introduction 1. In lines 30-32, that is According to China's relevant policies and regulations, the placement types for these orphans mainly include kinship care, institutional care, family foster care and legal adoption. Can you further explain what is meant by kinship care, institutional care, family care and legal adoption. 2. State the main objectives of the research. What does the researcher aim to achieve with this study? 3. Explain why this issue is important and identify the gaps or shortcomings in previous research that this study aims to address. Method Research methods contain information ranging from research design, population and sample, research variabels, research tools and instruments, data collection procedures, data analysis and research ethics. 1. Research Design: Describe the type of research conducted, Mention whether the research is qualitative, quantitative, or mixed. 2. Population and Sample: Describe the population of the study. Explain how the sample was selected and provide information about the sample size. State the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select the sample. 3. Research variables, explain what the research variables are and their operational definitions. 4. Research Instruments: Describe the tools and instruments used to collect data and provide information on the validity and reliability of these instruments. 5. Data Collection Procedures: Describe the steps taken to collect data, including when and where the data were collected. Explain if any special procedures or techniques were used. 6. Data Analysis: State the data analysis techniques used and describe the software or tools used for data analysis. 7. Ethical Considerations: Describe the ethical considerations taken, including ethics committee approval, written informed consent from participants, and data confidentiality. Discussion 1. In the discussion, avoid writing the table as in Table 4 Impact of placement type on the development of orphans of different genders and education levels 2. Discuss how your results relate to findings from previous relevant research. Identify any similarities, differences or contradictions between your results and previous research. Conclusions The conclusion has clearly presented the main findings of the research. However, it needs to be revised to improve clarity and consistency to make it easier for readers to understand the main findings and implications of your research. ****** 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: Eeshika Mitra Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309669.r001
Revision 1
15 Aug 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewer#1: This is a thorough review and all the statistical analysis data has been clearly presented. It gives a good sense of all the parameters used to perform the heterogenous analysis on different aspects of welfare and has not just focused on social participation. We express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for providing insightful comments on our paper. Your feedback has been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of this study. We have thoroughly adjusted various parts of the article and all modified parts are marked in red. Response to reviewer#2: Abstract 1. Improve the abstract structure that contains the essence of the problem, research objectives, methodology, population & sample, data collection techniques using measuring instruments, data analysis techniques, results, conclusions, and recommendations. 2. Grammar and Style: a. Change "placement types is a key factor" to "placement types are a key factor". b. Change "grandparent care have a significant positive impact" to "grandparent care has a significant positive impact". c. The sentence "and this impact is moderated by the social participation of guardians" could be clearer if rephrased to "with this impact being moderated by the social participation of guardians." Thank you for providing valuable suggestions for refining the abstract of the article. These changes will enhance the article's alignment with current literature and improve its overall standardization. Firstly, we've adopted your suggestion and rewrite the whole abstract according to the sequence of the essence of the problem, research objectives, methodology, population & sample, data collection techniques using measuring instruments, data analysis techniques, results, conclusions, and recommendations. All modified parts are marked in red(lines 9-21) Secondly, we appreciate your attention to grammar and style problem. We have changed all the three expression errors and marked in red (lines 9,15,16). Detailing the Methodology: a. Mention the sample size or provide a brief description of the survey used to give clearer context about the data. We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We have added a brief description of survey and marked it in red（lines 11-13）. The data sample consists of 320 valid samples of orphans and their families, including 166 boys and 154 girls. And，the data we used was based on cross-sectional survey related to orphans from LZ City, Sichuan Province, in 2020. b. Specify the data analysis techniques used, such as regression analysis, to add depth to the information. Thank you for your thorough review of the abstract and your valuable comments. We have rephrased the sentence and marked it in red（lines 13）to explain the analysis techniques we used. The study conducted multiple linear regression model to analyze the relationship between care types and other family variables. Linking Sentences: Improve the connection between sentences. For example, "Based on the moderating effect of guardians' social participation" could be clarified how it leads to "this paper uses the survey data...". Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we have revised the text to express" the moderating effect of guardians' social participation" . The necessary changes have been implemented throughout the text. The modified parts are marked in red（lines 15）. Specifying Heterogeneity Tests: Expand a bit on the "Heterogeneity tests" to explain why these tests were conducted and what was specifically measured. The core function of the "Heterogeneity tests" is to explore the differences between the variety of the groups. The results of inter group differences revealed that the effects of care types on orphan development are influenced by the gender and age of orphans. The modified parts are marked in red（lines 18-19）. Introduction 1. In lines 30-32, that is According to China's relevant policies and regulations, the placement types for these orphans mainly include kinship care, institutional care, family foster care and legal adoption. Can you further explain what is meant by kinship care, institutional care, family care and legal adoption. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's thorough examination of our article. According to laws and cultural customs, the care types for these orphans mainly include kinship care, institutional care, family foster care and legal adoption. Kinship care occurs when close relatives of the orphan, such as grandparents, siblings, or other extended family members, voluntarily take on the responsibility of raising the orphan when the parents are deceased or unable to provide care. Institutional care refers to placing the orphan in a child welfare institution (such as an orphanage) established by the government or social organizations, where professionals provide daily care and education. This method is suitable when there are no relatives available to care for the orphan or when the relatives are unable to provide care. Foster care involves placing the orphan in a foster family that has been carefully screened and trained, where foster parents provide care on behalf of the state. This method aims to provide the orphan with a family-like environment, promoting their psychological well-being and social adaptability. Legal adoption refers to eligible families formally adopting the orphan through legal procedures, becoming their legal parents. After adoption, the adoptive family assumes the legal responsibility for the orphan's upbringing and education, and the orphan enjoys the same rights as biological children of the adoptive parents. 2. State the main objectives of the research. What does the researcher aim to achieve with this study? We thank the reviewer for pointing out this. The question you raised is crucial to the article. In 2022, China had more than 190,000 orphans. These children were placed in four different types of care. Each care types have different effects on the development of orphans. The main objective of the study is to examine the relationship between care types and development of orphans in China. Furthermore, we want to explore what factors are influencing the effectiveness of orphan care. 3. Explain why this issue is important and identify the gaps or shortcomings in previous research that this study aims to address. We appreciate your thoughtful inquiry. As we mentioned in the paper, in China, orphan care includes both relative and non-relative forms of parenting, as well as family-based and institutional-based care. Different care types have different effects on the development of orphans. However, there are few studies evaluating the effectiveness of different care types. Therefore, this paper tends to explore the impact of the care types on the development of orphans. Besides，the gaps or shortcomings in previous research have primarily centered on two key aspects. First, there is a lack of sufficient academic discussion on the factors contributing to the varying effects of different care types. Second, academic debate continues regarding whether different care types have distinct impacts on children across various groups. We have supplemented and explained your suggestions regarding the introduction in this revised manuscript. We have modified the manuscript and also marked it in red in the manuscript (lines 76-77). Discussion 1. In the discussion, avoid writing the table as in Table 4 Impact of placement type on the development of orphans of different genders and education levels We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion, which helped us enhance the quality of the article. In response to your review comments, we have made structural adjustments to the content related to Table 4. We have incorporated most of the revised content into the conclusion section to present the results of the heterogeneity analysis by gender and age. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion section to further explore the relationship between our findings and previous academic research. The specific adjustments have been marked in red (lines 227-229，234-238，273-282) in the manuscript. 2. Discuss how your results relate to findings from previous relevant research. Identify any similarities, differences or contradictions between your results and previous research. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's thorough examination of our article. This paper supports the exploration of the relationship between care types and orphan development. We examined the impact of different care types on orphan development, as well as other factors influencing their growth across various care settings and the differences among them. The research findings indicate three parts. First, the results of this study show that the social participation of guardians has a moderating effect on the influence of care types on the development of orphans. Social participation plays an important role in the social isolation and vulnerable group of orphans and can promote the change of family resilience (Lin,2018). Therefore, when grandparents' social participation is increased, its positive impact on the development of orphans will also be strengthened. Second, compared with boys, care types has a greater impact on girls' development. The reason, combined with existing studies, may be explained as follows: on the one hand, girls care more about emotional quality than boys, their emotional needs are more sensitive than boys (Wang Su et al., 2020). Third, for orphans at different stages of education, the influence of care tpyes has obvious heterogeneity. The significant association between grandparents and child development occurs at a young age, and the influence of guardians on orphans diminishes with age (Li et al., 2022). Therefore, children in compulsory education are more vulnerable to grandparents and their social participation than children in non-compulsory education (Lin,2018). The specific adjustments have been marked in red (lines 227-229，234-238，273-282) in the manuscript. Conclusions The conclusion has clearly presented the main findings of the research. However, it needs to be revised to improve clarity and consistency to make it easier for readers to understand the main findings and implications of your research. We thank this suggestion from the reviewer, which makes the conclusion more clearer. Following the principles of clarity, consistency, and other guidelines you suggested, we have rewritten the entire conclusion section. The new conclusion section is as follows: By studying the impact of care types on the development of orphans in China, we found that grandparent care can promote the development of orphans. We also found that this impact was moderated by the social participation of guardians. The higher the social participation of guardians, the greater the positive impact of grandparent care on the development of orphans. Moreover, empirical research suggested that girls and younger orphans tend to exhibit better development in a grandparent care family. Grandparent care is the predominant type of care for orphans’ care in China. Considering the economic situation and labor capacity of grandparents, more support, such as subsidies, should be provided to families where grandparents are the primary caregivers. The government should also ensure the implementation of relevant policy documents on orphan placement and protect the rights of grandparents as primary guardians. The specific adjustments have been marked in red (lines 333-341) in the manuscript. Once again, we appreciate the constructive guidance from the reviewer, and we are committed to implementing these valuable insights to enhance the clarity and focus of our paper. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: reply-plosone.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309669.r002
16 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Satabdi Mitra, Editor The influence of care types on the Development of Orphans——An empirical study from China PONE-D-24-15042R1 Dear Dr. Feng Peng, 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. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Satabdi Mitra, M.D(Community Medicine ) Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309669.r003
Formally Accepted
21 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Satabdi Mitra, Editor PONE-D-24-15042R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Feng, 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 Dr Satabdi Mitra Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309669.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 .