Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Family Structural Dimensions: A Correlational Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well written manuscript. I do not have additional comments at this time. Thanks.

I do not see major issues. Minor editing will help improve quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,Thank you for your comments on the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the paper

Manuscript ID: ejihpe-2469070

The paper does not address a topic of interest. It is true that everything surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic has been of interest. But at present, researchers would have to address something really new, which with the benefit of retrospective input for future pandemics. This paper does not do that.

 

Moreover, the structural aspect is not addressed. I suggest to researchers that to analyze the structure of contacts, they apply Social Network Analysis. It is a specific method to assess the structure between nodes, through relationships.

 

Last, but less important, are some aspects of writing and care in the formatting of the paper. The authors do not list the bibliographical references adequately. The bibliography is weak. The argument and justification of the paper is weak. But these are aspects that could be corrected.

 

The main reason for my rejection is that the paper has no scientific value.

I have reviewed the paper

 

The paper does not address a topic of interest. It is true that everything surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic has been of interest. But at present, researchers would have to address something really new, which with the benefit of retrospective input for future pandemics. This paper does not do that.

 

Moreover, the structural aspect is not addressed. I suggest to researchers that to analyze the structure of contacts, they apply Social Network Analysis. It is a specific method to assess the structure between nodes, through relationships.

 

Last, but less important, are some aspects of writing and care in the formatting of the paper. The authors do not list the bibliographical references adequately. The bibliography is weak. The argument and justification of the paper is weak. But these are aspects that could be corrected.

 

The main reason for my rejection is that the paper has no scientific value.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your comments on the article.The comments made it possible to improve the article.In order to organize the response to the reviewers' comments, below we present the response to the review of the article, associated with each comment.  

“Moreover, the structural aspect is not addressed. I suggest to researchers that to analyze the structure of contacts, they apply Social Network Analysis. It is a specific method to assess the structure between nodes, through relationships.”

The structural dimension integrates the operative matrix of Dynamic Model of Family Assessment and Intervention (MDAIF) which includes: family composition (identification of family members, and birth order and subsystems - family dynamic and ecological assessment, family type, family social class), the existing links and other subsystems between the family and the extended family (type and frequency of contact and roles of the relationships: social companionship, emotional support, cognitive guidance and advice, social regulation, material help and services, and access to new contacts) and the broader systems, that is, social institutions or significant persons not belonging to the extended family and, also, specific environmental aspects ( family income residential building, safety precautions, housing hygiene, existence of architectural barriers and safety conditions, water supply system, and biological environment) that may constitute a health risk.

The objective was to evaluate the referred dimensions.

It was not intended to analyze the analysis of social network, although it is a very interesting analysis.

We try to clarify the focal areas of the structural dimension of the MDAIF, as indicated.

"I suggest adding a paragraph on personal data protection strategies, and clarifying whether the tool adopted was previously validated." The request was answered.

  "The statistical analysis section is quite short. I suggest further describing the statistical plan, along with how the normality of the distribution was checked" Request response was given

“Last, but less important, are some aspects of writing and care in the formatting of the paper. The authors do not list the bibliographical references adequately. The bibliography is weak.”

We saw the formatting. We have placed reassuring references and integrated more bibliography.

 

Thank you in advance for your careful analysis.

See you soon

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their work. This is an interesting paper, which aims to describe the pandemic’s repercussions in the areas of  attention of the structural dimension of families according to the  Dynamic Model of Family Assessment and Intervention, as perceived by Portuguese families, and to relate the changes in their employment status according to variables of the structural dimension.

The rationale is robust and well-deepened, I have nothing more to add.

The methods are cleary described; however, I would suggest to add a paragraph on personal data protections' strategies, and to clarify if the adopted tool was previously validated.

The statistical analysis' section is quite short. I suggest to better described the statistical plan, together with how the normality of the distribution was verified.

The results are clear and consistent with the adopted methods.

Discussion and conclusions are not speculative, and the limitations are well described.

The references are current, the tables are clearly readable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,Thank you for your comments on the article.The comments made it possible to improve the article.In order to organize the response to the reviewers' comments, below we present the response to the review of the article, associated with each comment.  

“Moreover, the structural aspect is not addressed. I suggest to researchers that to analyze the structure of contacts, they apply Social Network Analysis. It is a specific method to assess the structure between nodes, through relationships.”

The structural dimension integrates the operative matrix of Dynamic Model of Family Assessment and Intervention (MDAIF) which includes: family composition (identification of family members, and birth order and subsystems - family dynamic and ecological assessment, family type, family social class), the existing links and other subsystems between the family and the extended family (type and frequency of contact and roles of the relationships: social companionship, emotional support, cognitive guidance and advice, social regulation, material help and services, and access to new contacts) and the broader systems, that is, social institutions or significant persons not belonging to the extended family and, also, specific environmental aspects ( family income residential building, safety precautions, housing hygiene, existence of architectural barriers and safety conditions, water supply system, and biological environment) that may constitute a health risk.

The objective was to evaluate the referred dimensions.

It was not intended to analyze the analysis of social network, although it is a very interesting analysis.

We try to clarify the focal areas of the structural dimension of the MDAIF, as indicated.

 

 

"I suggest adding a paragraph on personal data protection strategies, and clarifying whether the tool adopted was previously validated." The request was answered

 

 

  "The statistical analysis section is quite short. I suggest further describing the statistical plan, along with how the normality of the distribution was checked" Request response was given

 

 

“Last, but less important, are some aspects of writing and care in the formatting of the paper. The authors do not list the bibliographical references adequately. The bibliography is weak.”

We saw the formatting. We have placed reassuring references and integrated more bibliography.

 

Agradeço desde já a sua análise cuidadosa.

Te vejo depois

 

Os autores

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the paper for the second time  Manuscript ID: ejihpe-2469070

My previous decision was to reject this paper because I considered that it did not provide an important new development.

However, I feel that although the subject matter has evidently not changed since the first review, the structure of the paper is adequate. The authors have improved the bibliographic references and have incorporated improvements in the manuscript.

 

I value positively to publish this paper

 

Note:

Authors should correct the reference described as  patterns [2-4-5]. Line 88

They should adapt it to the correct format

I have reviewed the paper for the second time  Manuscript ID: ejihpe-2469070

My previous decision was to reject this paper because I considered that it did not provide an important new development.

However, I feel that although the subject matter has evidently not changed since the first review, the structure of the paper is adequate. The authors have improved the bibliographic references and have incorporated improvements in the manuscript.

 

I value positively to publish this paper

 

Note:

Authors should correct the reference described as  patterns [2-4-5]. Line 88

They should adapt it to the correct format

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your careful review of the article.

In order to organize the response to the comments, I asked for clarification on:

- is the order relative to line 88?

- is in relation to the text "The financial, job, and housing insecurity and the deprivation of support from friends and family resulting from the pandemic have caused harm to the physical and mental health of family members, which, in turn, manifests in altered family interaction and patterns [2-4-5]." change [2-4-5] to [2,4,5]?

We would very much like to meet your suggestion, but for that we ask for more specific clarification.

Thanks in advance for your careful review and look forward to your guidance.

 

The authors