“I’m Not Back to Where I Was”: COVID-19 and Gendered Mental Health Outcomes among Working Parents in the U.S.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is aimed at analyzing how working parents in the U.S. experienced and interpreted their mental health in relation to caregiving- and work-related obligations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper is well-structured and well-written and touches on significant aspects also in relation to gender disparities. Also, the presence of qualitative interviews surely adds to the value of this work.

Below are a few suggestions (minor revisions) to improve the manuscript:

-        Lines 57-65: the results are well outlined, but they should be written in the Results section and not in the Introduction.

-        Method: why did the author mention no validated scales to assess mental health? Indeed, validated measures are often a good way to have scientific and evidence-based results.

-        I appreciated that in the Introduction the author mentioned the gender-based role disparities in society. However, in the Discussion section, this aspect is not discussed enough, and the manuscript could benefit from a reflection on this topic.

-        Overall, the citations are scarce and the manuscript might benefit from quoting more research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• This study by use of survey and some semi-structured interviews has attempted to examine how working parents in the U.S. experienced mental health in relation to their caregiving and work obligations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

   

  In methodology, I note use of survey and some semi-structured interviews. Could author have used just surveys rather than combining small number of semi-structured interview samples?. Here I cite an excerpt from an article and reference is noted below relaying why combining these two methods probably is not the best method:"A review of 19 questionnaire-interview comparison studies found that consensus and consistency statistics were generally weak between methods. Poor alignment appeared attributable to: differences in data collection procedures, the complexity and instability of the construct being investigated, difficulties in making data comparable, lack of variability in participant responses, greater sensitivity to context and seemingly emotive responses within the interview, possible misinterpretation of some questionnaire prompts, and greater control of content exposure in the questionnaire." Reference: Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data. Harris, Lois R; Gavin T.L. Brown.  Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation; College Park Vol. 15,  (2010): 1.

   

  Also I make note of content in Results includes verbatim excerpts from respondents in semi-structured interviews. I believe if we are basing report on a scientific process, then findings should be limited to discussing those and use existing literature (there are some similar surveys from other countries, China, Germany, Turkey (although not representative of US way of life and economy) to discuss results and conclusions.

  •          Wu M, Xu W, Yao Y, Zhang L, Guo L, Fan J, Chen J. Mental health status of students' parents during COVID-19 pandemic and its influence factors. Gen Psychiatr. 2020 Jul 21;33(4):e100250. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100250. PMID: 34192232; PMCID: PMC7387315. 

•  

  Brym S, Mack JT, Weise V, Kopp M, Steudte-Schmiedgen S, Garthus-Niegel S. Mental health of working parents during the COVID-19 pandemic: can resilience buffer the impact of psychosocial work stress on depressive symptoms? BMC Public Health. 2022 Dec 26;22(1):2426. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14582-y. PMID: 36567325; PMCID: PMC9790816. 

   

  Also I feel use of emotionally charged words from parents as title of this report based on emotional expression "I Regretted Having Children" diminishes scientific credibility of this study in my humble opinion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I commend authors for their effort and revising the study methods, including additional content in Introduction. I also appreciate valid reasoning to the suggestions and addressing them appropriately. 

I agree that this study adds to existing literature, results and discussion are clear and consistent with existing literature.