Time Use, Health, and Well-Being across the Life Cycle: A Gender Analysis
, Juan Manuel Bethencourt 1, Mᵃ José del Pino 2, D. Estefanía Hernández-Lorenzo 1, Demelsa Fortes 1 and Ignacio Ibáñez 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI really enjoyed reading this paper. The topic is very interesting and the patterns are fascinating. I have two small suggestions:
Methods
· For all inventories and batteries, it would be very helpful to either include them in an Online Supplemental document or on a public OSF page (preferably the translations and the original English questions if the original was English).
· Please also explicitly mention the order of the batteries (were they all administered in the same order? Was the order the same as the order of presentation in the methods section?)
Results
· Figure 1 is great! It tells a very interesting story. In addition to this figure, when interactions are noted, I would have liked to see a text description of the interaction. For example, line 289 talks about the interaction between gender and life cycle for housework, but there is no description that would go something like this: “during adolescence, men and women do not seem to differ on the amount of time spent on housework, while with age, a stark difference emerges, with women spending considerably more time on household in old age than men”. This can then be followed up with the description of the follow-up tests.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful comments. Please find below our detailed response to each comment and suggestion. In the revised text, all changes are highlighted in red.
. For all inventories and batteries, it would be very helpful to either include them in an Online Supplemental document or on a public OSF page (preferably the translations and the original English questions if the original was English).
Response: Although we find your suggestion very interesting, it is not possible because we do not have the necessary permissions to include inventories and batteries in an Online Supplemental document or on a public OSF page. We have requested permission for the inventories, but only for use in the study, so we cannot reproduce and make available to the public material that we do not have rights to.
- Please also explicitly mention the order of the batteries (were they all administered in the same order? Was the order the same as the order of presentation in the methods section?)
Response: In the revised manuscript (page 5, lines 191 to 197), it has been made explicit that all tests were administered in the same order, and the order in which they were administered is explained. It is not the same order as in the manuscript because in the manuscript the variables were ordered according to their relevance to the objectives of the study.
Results
- Figure 1 is great! It tells a very interesting story. In addition to this figure, when interactions are noted, I would have liked to see a text description of the interaction. For example, line 289 talks about the interaction between gender and life cycle for housework, but there is no description that would go something like this: “during adolescence, men and women do not seem to differ on the amount of time spent on housework, while with age, a stark difference emerges, with women spending considerably more time on household in old age than men”. This can then be followed up with the description of the follow-up tests.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. In the revised manuscript (pages 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15), the description of the interactions has been included in the text, as you suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRecognizing time as one of the most important resources, this is a report of a study of 3,237 Spanish women and 2,686 Spanish men between the ages of 14 and 85 years grouped according to their age in five life cycle stages to determine the time that women and men devote to a number of different activities weekly demonstrates significant differences. The authors found that there continue to be gender differences in how Spanish women and men spend their time and that how women spend their time has a greater negative health effect than found in men.
The study is well conceived, well analyzed, and well written. The problem with this report is that the authors have not recognized the importance of citing research from the last five years to support their claims. The field of gender studies is evolving rapidly, and this needs to be evident from the references cited in this manuscript. The authors’ lack of concern regarding when research was done to support their claims extends to there being no information provided about when the study was conducted. It would be important to know if the research was undertaken before, during or after COVID-19, as the relationship to the pandemic may have affected the results obtained. Given that the study approval number begins with 2015, it might be that the data from this study, if obrtained in 2015, is itself very out of date. If it is the case that the research was done in 2015 then, to make this work publishable, the authors must compare their findings to post-COVID-19 research publications on gender differences regarding time.
Line by line suggested edits
24-25 The definition of gender is one that has seen constant evolution in the last few years. As a result, any definition of gender must be supported by research published within the last five years. None of the citations here is to research published within the last five years. Here is a DOI to a publication first online in 2020: https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1729844 and another first online in 2021: https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145211049604 . Each will provide more current research on the definition of gender.
27-28 All of these citations are to references older than five years. Please find more current research to support these claims.
36-48 Each of the claims made in this paragraph must be supported by research within the last five years. Ideas related to gender are changing too quickly to rely on older research to support claims made or make claims that can only be supported by older research.
49 Please place the citation to the United National Sustainable Development Goals after this sentence and then refer to what is stated in the document in the next sentence.
56-57 In referencing the UN Sustainable Development Goals, it is unclear why these additional older sources are being cited. Research to support the Goals needs to be current. None of the work cited is within the last five years.
60-66 Please update the citations found in these lines to be research published within the last five years.
70-71 “Gender equality is achieved when women and men in a society enjoy equal opportunities and rights in all spheres of life”—need a current reference to support this claim.
96 and 101 The use of Anxo et al. is questionable in line 96, but is permissible because Kan et al. supports the claim; however, it is not acceptable in 101 as the sole support for a claim. It would be better to find another current reference to support these claims.
102-103 “Despite the incorporation of women into the labor market, women still do the bulk of housework and family care”—this claim requires current research for support, not research published in 2011.
102-123 This paragraph needs to also note that one of the reasons the unequal split in women’s and men’s work in the home is partially the result of their own preferences. Please read this article and comment on it at this point in the text: https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000257
118 Need a more current reference than Ruppaner et al. to support this claim.
129-130 The authors should explain in the text why they chose to examine this problem from the perspective of life cycle rather than, for example, by country of origin or by socioeconomic status.
134-135 Similar to the question asked regarding lines 129-130, why did the authors choose these variables to investigate? Please answer this in the text.
172-173 It is odd that in a study of perspectives over the life cycle that the authors have chosen to refer to age in Table 1 only with respect to the mean and standard deviation. Why did the authors not list the ages of all who participated concerning life cycle? Please explain the reason in the text.
205 Please provide citations to current research demonstrating that the GHQ-28 is still used in similar studies although published in 1996.
212 Please provide citations to current research demonstrating that the Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scale is still used in similar studies although published in 2008.
221 Please provide citations to current research demonstrating that the Satisfaction with Life Scale is still used in similar studies although published in 1985.
226 Please provide citations to current research demonstrating that the York Self-Esteem Inventory is still used in similar studies although published in 1985.
237 Please provide citations to current research demonstrating that the Bem Sex Role Inventory is still used in similar studies although published in 1981.
268 Please explain in the test why SPSS 22.0 was selected for the analysis and cite current research using the same statistical package.
623-629 Each of the studies cited in these lines is out of date. Please cite studies from the last five years.
647-657 Each of the studies cited in these lines is out of date. Please cite studies from the last five years.
679 Please find current research to cite in this regard.
705 Please end by pointing to directions for future research in the area and referring back to Goal 5 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your feedback and comments. Please find below our detailed response to each comment and suggestion. In the revised text, all changes are highlighted in red.
Recognizing time as one of the most important resources, this is a report of a study of 3,237 Spanish women and 2,686 Spanish men between the ages of 14 and 85 years grouped according to their age in five life cycle stages to determine the time that women and men devote to a number of different activities weekly demonstrates significant differences. The authors found that there continue to be gender differences in how Spanish women and men spend their time and that how women spend their time has a greater negative health effect than found in men.
The study is well conceived, well analyzed, and well written. The problem with this report is that the authors have not recognized the importance of citing research from the last five years to support their claims. The field of gender studies is evolving rapidly, and this needs to be evident from the references cited in this manuscript. The authors’ lack of concern regarding when research was done to support their claims extends to there being no information provided about when the study was conducted. It would be important to know if the research was undertaken before, during or after COVID-19, as the relationship to the pandemic may have affected the results obtained. Given that the study approval number begins with 2015, it might be that the data from this study, if obtained in 2015, is itself very out of date. If it is the case that the research was done in 2015 then, to make this work publishable, the authors must compare their findings to post-COVID-19 research publications on gender differences regarding time.
Response: Thank you for your positive evaluation of the study. Regarding the date when the study was conducted, the data collection began in 2016 and ended in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in Spain. Given that the test was in paper form and the delivery and collection of the questionnaires was done in person, the research could not continue when the state of alert was declared in Spain due to the COVID-19 pandemic and there was a national lockdown. Since the COVID-19 pandemic caused major changes at all levels of the population, including private life and use of time, it was considered that no further tests should be carried out, since the sample obtained was sufficient and no systematic bias should be introduced in the data collection.
We do not agree with the reviewer's assertion that the data are outdated, since the aim of the study is not to determine the use of time in Spain today, but to determine the gender differences in the time uses in the different stages of the life cycle, from adolescence to old age, as well as according to occupation. We also want to know the relevance of the level of education and the number of children in the use of time of women and men, as well as the internalization of masculine/expressive and feminine/instrumental characteristics and traits, in addition to the association of the time uses with mental symptoms, well-being and social support of women and men. Such variables have important theoretical and empirical bases and are personally and socially relevant. In any case, we appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to consider the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the revised manuscript it has been cited in subsection 2.1. Participants and procedure, that the data collection ended just as the COVID-19 pandemic began in Spain. In addition, it has also been included in the Discussion section and in the Limitations of the study, on lines 712 to 714. In addition, we have made some small changes in the conclusions.
Regarding the reviewer's statement "The problem with this report is that the authors have not recognized the importance of citing research from the past five years to support their claims. The field of gender studies is evolving rapidly, and this must be evident from the references cited in this manuscript," we respond that while it is certainly important that citations are current, we believe it is also very important to review and cite well-reasoned work of great scientific rigor. Van Noorden et al. (2014) examined the 100 most cited papers. None were less than 6 years old. And the three most cited were between 38 and 63 years old. They continue to be cited today. The inclusion or exclusion of a paper should not be determined by its year of publication, but by its relevance. Nevertheless, we have included 22 references to research published in the last five years in the revised manuscript, as recommended by the reviewer.
In the case of this manuscript, there are not many citations on the use of time in the last five years, because most of the studies published in those years refer to the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused very rapid, forced and specific changes in some uses of time (e.g., schools and day care centers were temporarily closed, in many countries there were national lockdown, interpersonal contact was restricted, many people lost their jobs.... ), most of which were temporary changes, and the goal of this paper is not to analyze the changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, while we agree with the statement that "The field of gender studies is evolving rapidly," this is not happening at the societal level, nor is it happening at the personal and interpersonal level in most cases. As stated by the United Nations in 2023 "Although there has been global progress in gender equality, women and girls continue to face structural discrimination and violence in all parts of the world. Globally, women earn on average 23% less than men in the labour market and spend about three times as many hours as men in unpaid domestic and care work”. Moreover, as recognized by the European Institute for Gender Equality (2023) “women have historically shouldered most care responsibilities due to gendered social roles, stereotypes and power relations”. And there is evidence that stereotypes are difficult to change, as are social roles and power relations. All this proves that our study is not outdated and is relevant and advances knowledge. Given that there is a large body of literature on gender, we have included in our study what we believe to be the most relevant and scientifically sound.
Line by line suggested edits
24-25 The definition of gender is one that has seen constant evolution in the last few years. As a result, any definition of gender must be supported by research published within the last five years. None of the citations here is to research published within the last five years. Here is a DOI to a publication first online in 2020: https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1729844 and another first online in 2021: https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145211049604 . Each will provide more current research on the definition of gender.
Response: Thank you for your recommendations and contributions. Although we agree that the definition of gender has been evolving in recent years, we should not forget that gender is not only situated within the individual. We have read the articles whose links you sent us and included theses references in the revised manuscript. In the revised manuscript, we have included the conceptualization of gender by Lindqvist et al. (2021) that you recommended, but we have kept the conceptualization of gender presented in the original manuscript because, as Lindqvist et al. (2021) state, the research question should be the determining factor. In this regard, we should clarify that two of the articles whose references are cited (Darmstad et al. 2019; Heise et al. 2019) were published on June 15, 2019, so the conceptualization of gender we present is based on research published in the last five years.
36-48 Each of the claims made in this paragraph must be supported by research within the last five years. Ideas related to gender are changing too quickly to rely on older research to support claims made or make claims that can only be supported by older research.
Response: Given that this is not a theoretical article on gender, but on the realities and social pressures faced by most women and men in their daily lives, and the inequality and threat to their health and well-being that this implies, we consider that the definitions and references used are the most appropriate because we value the scientific, methodological and applied soundness of the work done more than the fact that the references have been published in the last five years. Nevertheless, and following the reviewer's recommendations, we have included 22 references to research published in the last five years in the revised manuscript.
49 Please place the citation to the United National Sustainable Development Goals after this sentence and then refer to what is stated in the document in the next sentence.
Response: The citation has been placed in the location suggested by the reviewer.
56-57 In referencing the UN Sustainable Development Goals, it is unclear why these additional older sources are being cited. Research to support the Goals needs to be current. None of the work cited is within the last five years.
Response: These references have been included because they are considered to be very relevant and informative about the problem in question, even though they are not works published in recent years. It also makes it clearer that this is not a new problem, but one that has been fought for years.
60-66 Please update the citations found in these lines to be research published within the last five years.
Response: Three references to research published within the last five years have been added.
70-71 “Gender equality is achieved when women and men in a society enjoy equal opportunities and rights in all spheres of life”—need a current reference to support this claim.
Response: A reference has been included to support this claim.
96 and 101 The use of Anxo et al. is questionable in line 96, but is permissible because Kan et al. supports the claim; however, it is not acceptable in 101 as the sole support for a claim. It would be better to find another current reference to support these claims.
Response: A 2020 reference has been added to support this claim.
102-103 “Despite the incorporation of women into the labor market, women still do the bulk of housework and family care”—this claim requires current research for support, not research published in 2011.
Response: Two 2023 references has been added to support this claim.
102-123 This paragraph needs to also note that one of the reasons the unequal split in women’s and men’s work in the home is partially the result of their own preferences. Please read this article and comment on it at this point in the text: https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000257
Response: The revised text has included the reference indicated by the reviewer and has mentioned in the text that one of the reasons for the unequal division of labor of women and men in the household is, in part, the result of their own preferences.
118 Need a more current reference than Ruppaner et al. to support this claim.
Response: We consider the work of Ruppaner et al. to be sufficiently solid and well-founded to support this claim.
129-130 The authors should explain in the text why they chose to examine this problem from the perspective of life cycle rather than, for example, by country of origin or by socioeconomic status.
Response: We have chosen to examine the problem in terms of the life cycle because it is clear that for most uses of time, the life cycle stage is very relevant, which is not the case for country of origin. Socioeconomic status has also been studied to the extent that education and occupation are indicators of socioeconomic status. And we feel that it is not necessary to explain this in the text as these are obvious issues.
134-135 Similar to the question asked regarding lines 129-130, why did the authors choose these variables to investigate? Please answer this in the text.
Response: We are a research team that has been doing research (and also teaching at the university level) on gender, health and well-being for many years and we have included in the study the variables that we considered most appropriate. And in the Introduction of the manuscript we have tried to support the work done.
172-173 It is odd that in a study of perspectives over the life cycle that the authors have chosen to refer to age in Table 1 only with respect to the mean and standard deviation. Why did the authors not list the ages of all who participated concerning life cycle? Please explain the reason in the text.
Response: Table 1 shows only the mean and standard deviation of age because we want to show only such values for women and men and their comparison, so we consider this the most appropriate form of presentation. And we do not consider it necessary to explain the reasons in the text, as this is the standard way of presenting results in the scientific literature.
205 Please provide citations to current research demonstrating that the GHQ-28 is still used in similar studies although published in 1996.
Response: There are no studies similar to the one we conducted and present here, because if there were, we would not have conducted this research because it is an original investigation, not a replication of another study. The GHQ-28 was used because it was considered by the authors to be the most appropriate to achieve the aims of the study, as it is a questionnaire with proven reliability and validity. We believe that including references justifying the inclusion of this questionnaire would not only be unnecessary, but would also detract from the quality of the manuscript.
In any case, we would like to make it clear to the reviewer that the GHQ-28 has been and continues to be used in many investigations. For example, in Mróz, J., & Kaleta, K. (2023). Forgive, Let Go, and Stay Well! The Relationship between Forgiveness and Physical and Mental Health in Women and Men: The Mediating Role of Self-Consciousness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(13), 6229. And a meta-analysis of factor analyses of the GHQ-28 published this year (Shafer 2024) reported that "the four standard subscales of GHQ-28 were strongly supported and can be recommended”. According to Google Scholar, the number of papers published in the last 5 years using this questionnaire is 1720.
212 Please provide citations to current research demonstrating that the Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scale is still used in similar studies although published in 2008.
Response: There are no studies similar to the one we conducted and present here because if there were, we would not have conducted this research because it is original research, not a replication of another study. Ryff's Psychological Well-Being Scale was used because the authors considered it the most appropriate to achieve the objectives of the study, since it is a scale with proven reliability and validity. We believe that including references justifying the inclusion of this scale would not only be unnecessary, but would also detract from the quality of the manuscript.
In any case, we would like to make it clear to the reviewer that the Ryff's Psychological Well-Being Scale has been and continues to be used in many investigations. See, for example, Van Dierendonck, D., & Lam, H. (2023). Interventions to enhance eudaemonic psychological well‐being: A meta‐analytic review with Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well‐being. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 15(2), 594-610. According to Google Scholar, the number of papers published in the last 5 years using Ryff’s Scales is 10400.
221 Please provide citations to current research demonstrating that the Satisfaction with Life Scale is still used in similar studies although published in 1985.
Response: There are no studies similar to the one we have conducted and presented here, because if there were, we would not have conducted this research, since this is an original investigation, not a replication of another study. And the Satisfaction with Life Scale was used because the authors considered it the most appropriate to achieve the objectives of the study, since it is a scale with proven reliability and validity. We believe that including references justifying the inclusion of this scale would not only be unnecessary, but would also reduce the quality of the manuscript.
In any case, we would like to make it clear to the reviewer that the Satisfaction with Life Scale has been and continues to be used in many investigations. See, for example, de Almeida Cardoso, A. G., de Carvalho, M. V., de Almeida Silva, M. I. A., Franco, A. M., Quaresma, F. R. P., Da Silva Maciel, E., & Nascimento-Ferreira, M. V. (2023). Psychometric properties of the online Satisfaction with Life Scale in university students from a low-income region. Psicologia, reflexao e critica: revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS, 36(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-023-00254-2. According to Google Scholar, the number of papers published in the last 5 years using the Satisfaction with Life Scale is 17000.
226 Please provide citations to current research demonstrating that the York Self-Esteem Inventory is still used in similar studies although published in 1985.
Response: There are no studies similar to the one we conducted and present here because if there were, we would not have conducted this research because this is an original investigation, not a replication of another study. The York Self-Esteem Inventory was used because the authors considered it to be the most appropriate for the purposes of the study, as it is an inventory with demonstrated reliability and validity. And we believe that the inclusion of references justifying the inclusion of this inventory would not only be unnecessary, but would detract from the quality of the manuscript.
In any case, here is an example of a recent publication using such an inventory: Matud, M. P., Ibáñez, I., Fortes, D., & Bethencourt, J. M. (2023). Adolescent stress, psychological distress and well-being: A gender analysis. Child & Youth Services. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/0145935X.2023.2210833
237 Please provide citations to current research demonstrating that the Bem Sex Role Inventory is still used in similar studies although published in 1981.
Response: There are no studies similar to the one we conducted and present here because if there were, we would not have conducted this research because this is an original investigation, not a replication of another study. The Bem Sex Role Inventory was used because the authors felt it was the most appropriate to meet the aims of the study, as it is an inventory with proven reliability and validity. We believe that including references justifying the inclusion of this inventory would not only be unnecessary, but would also detract from the quality of the manuscript.
In any case, here is an example of a recent publication using such an inventory: Matud, M. P, Bethencourt, J.M., Ibáñez, I., Fortes, D., & Díaz, A. (2022). Gender differences in psychological well-being in emerging adulthood. Applied Research in Quality of Life 17, 1001-1017. According to Google Scholar, the number of papers published in the last 5 years using The Bem Sex Role Inventory is 1950.
268 Please explain in the test why SPSS 22.0 was selected for the analysis and cite current research using the same statistical package.
Response: SPSS 22.0 was used for the analysis, since it is the version licensed by the University of La Laguna, where the research was conducted. None of the results obtained were affected by the version of the statistical package used. And we believe that it is not justified to include current research using the same statistical package. This would only lower the quality of the manuscript presented.
623-629 Each of the studies cited in these lines is out of date. Please cite studies from the last five years.
Response: Four citations published in the last five years have been added.
647-657 Each of the studies cited in these lines is out of date. Please cite studies from the last five years.
Response: Five citations published in the last five years have been added.
679 Please find current research to cite in this regard.
Response: This citation summarizes the results of a specific work, so that the only possible citation is that of the work in which such results were found.
705 Please end by pointing to directions for future research in the area and referring back to Goal 5 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Response: It has ended by pointing out directions for future research in the area and referring back to Goal 5 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, as suggested by the reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript describes a study regarding sociodemographic differences in time use, well-being and health. It collected an impressively large sample of Spanish people and explored differences throughout different genders, age groups, occupations and several other sociodemographic characteristics, a somewhat novel approach compared to existing international findings. Among its many results, the study finds an important gender inequality in time use that severely disadvantages women and their health, in aspects such as increased time use regarding housework and care work and decreased leisure time. This finding provides an important contribution towards guiding policies and interventions that promote women's health and gender equality.
The discussed conclusions are coherent with the described findings, and the referenced bibliography appears appropriate.
Overall, the conducted study appears of sound methodology, but the manuscript shows a few key areas where it may be improved.
1) In the data analysis section, no mention is found of checks aimed at verifying that the assumptions for ANOVA and MANOVA were met (see https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02072-x). If there were reasons for not conducting these checks (e.g., large sample size leading to an assumption of normality) these should be specified. If the checks were not done, they should be carried out and their result should be added to the data analysis section. Doing so may improve the reliability and completeness of the study's reporting, given its high reliance on these two types of analyses.
2) From the introduction, it is not clear whether any hypotheses were formulated in relation to the current study and the relationship between the surveyed variables (e.g., whether you expected a certain gender or a certain age group to be different from the others in some way). If so, these should be specified. If none were developed beforehand, the exploratory nature of the study should be made clearer.
3) Given the large sample it is almost a given, but it may be helpful to specify whether this constitutes a representative sample of the Spanish population.
4) The information regarding age grouping presented in lines 154-162 may be more easy to assess if presented in a table. Either appending more information to the sociodemographic characteristics table or creating another one may make it easier to read.
5) The "Results" section is quite difficult to read due to the very high specificity of detail and a degree of redundancy in relation to tables and graphs. While I understand that fidelity to the data is paramount when describing results, perhaps some of them could be further grouped (e.g., the results where no differences were found), removed or saved for the discussion section. For example, the phrases describing point-by-point the differences in time use between men and women down to the minutes feel redundant in the light of the presence of tables and graphs. Please consider reorganizing some of these sections if possible.
6) Across lines 191 to 195, each administered test should have a citation, as this is the first time they are mentioned.
7) The Discussion section could benefit from being split into further paragraphs (e.g., make a separate section for Limitations, Conclusions and suggested Future Directions) to increase readability. The discussed aspects could then be grouped more coherently (e.g., rather than break the initial paragraph with the limitations deriving from the COVID-19 pandemic, this should be put into a Limitations section).
You should check the manuscript for typos and errors. There are several left (e.g., Table 1 "uneskilled manual", line 213 "thenceforth", line 315 "a statistically gender x life cycle", inconsistencies in the use of "," and "." as separator in tables).
Author Response
We thank you for your comments and suggestions on the manuscript, in addition to the bibliographic reference provided. Based on them, we have thoroughly revised the article. Below is our detailed response to each comment Thank you once again for helping us to improve the quality of our research.
The manuscript describes a study regarding sociodemographic differences in time use, well-being and health. It collected an impressively large sample of Spanish people and explored differences throughout different genders, age groups, occupations and several other sociodemographic characteristics, a somewhat novel approach compared to existing international findings. Among its many results, the study finds an important gender inequality in time use that severely disadvantages women and their health, in aspects such as increased time use regarding housework and care work and decreased leisure time. This finding provides an important contribution towards guiding policies and interventions that promote women's health and gender equality.
The discussed conclusions are coherent with the described findings, and the referenced bibliography appears appropriate.
Overall, the conducted study appears of sound methodology, but the manuscript shows a few key areas where it may be improved.
Response: Thank you for your recognition of the paper and for your thoughtful and thorough review
1) In the data analysis section, no mention is found of checks aimed at verifying that the assumptions for ANOVA and MANOVA were met (see https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02072-x). If there were reasons for not conducting these checks (e.g., large sample size leading to an assumption of normality) these should be specified. If the checks were not done, they should be carried out and their result should be added to the data analysis section. Doing so may improve the reliability and completeness of the study's reporting, given its high reliance on these two types of analyses.
Response: In the first version of the work, we did not test the ANOVA and MANOVA assumptions because the sample was too large and, to the best of our knowledge, such tests are robust when the sample is too large. However, when we received your review, we revisited the issue, reviewed the article you sent us and other relevant publications, and ultimately decided that the only modification to the data that was needed was to remove the multivariate outliers and repeat all statistical analyses on the sample without multivariate outliers, leaving the final sample of 5700 women (54.2%) and men (45.8%). In the revised manuscript, on page 4, lines 161 to 163, it has been stated that “This sample was obtained from a larger sample of 5923 individuals (3237 women and 2686 men) after eliminating individuals identified as multivariate outliers.”
As stated in the revised manuscript, page 7, lines 289 to 303, “individuals with multivariate outliers were eliminated before performing ANOVA and correlation analyses. Identification of individuals with multivariate outliers was performed using Mahalanobis distance with p < 0.001. ANOVA assumes that the outcome variable is normally distributed and that the groups have approximately equal variance on the dependent variable. However, these assumptions were not met in the present sample. Given the large sample size of this study, the robustness of ANOVA to such violations (e.g., Blanca et al. 2017; Blanca et al. 2018; Shatz 2024; Harwell et al. 1992), and the fact that statistical significance was set at p < 0.001, this was not considered a threat to the validity of the study, as non-normality and unequal variances are a reality in naturally formed groups. Nonetheless, we tested whether the differences between the groups were still statistically significant using nonparametric tests such as the Welch and Brown-Forsythe tests. And the final decision on the existence of statistically significant differences was based on the results of the latter two tests. Post hoc multiple comparisons were performed using the Games-Howell test, as this test does not assume homogeneity of variances or equal sample sizes”.
2) From the introduction, it is not clear whether any hypotheses were formulated in relation to the current study and the relationship between the surveyed variables (e.g., whether you expected a certain gender or a certain age group to be different from the others in some way). If so, these should be specified. If none were developed beforehand, the exploratory nature of the study should be made clearer.
Response: In the revised manuscript, on page 3, line 148 it has been stated that the study is exploratory, so no hypotheses are formulated.
3) Given the large sample it is almost a given, but it may be helpful to specify whether this constitutes a representative sample of the Spanish population.
Response: The sample was not randomly selected, so there is no guarantee that it is representative of the Spanish population. We have included this as a limitation of the study in the limitations section on page 21, lines 743-744
4) The information regarding age grouping presented in lines 154-162 may be more easy to assess if presented in a table. Either appending more information to the sociodemographic characteristics table or creating another one may make it easier to read.
Response: A table has been created with this information, “Table 1. Sample distribution at each life cycle stage studied”, located on page 4, line 165.
5) The "Results" section is quite difficult to read due to the very high specificity of detail and a degree of redundancy in relation to tables and graphs. While I understand that fidelity to the data is paramount when describing results, perhaps some of them could be further grouped (e.g., the results where no differences were found), removed or saved for the discussion section. For example, the phrases describing point-by-point the differences in time use between men and women down to the minutes feel redundant in the light of the presence of tables and graphs. Please consider reorganizing some of these sections if possible.
Response: The Results section has been revised and reorganized as suggested by the Reviewer, and some of the specifications have been moved to the Discussion subsection, which has also been revised and reorganized.
6) Across lines 191 to 195, each administered test should have a citation, as this is the first time they are mentioned.
Response: A citation has been provided for each test administered, as suggested by the Reviewer (on page 5, lines 198 to 202).
7) The Discussion section could benefit from being split into further paragraphs (e.g., make a separate section for Limitations, Conclusions and suggested Future Directions) to increase readability. The discussed aspects could then be grouped more coherently (e.g., rather than break the initial paragraph with the limitations deriving from the COVID-19 pandemic, this should be put into a Limitations section).
Response: The discussion has been reorganized, as suggested by the Reviewer. In addition, on page 21, line 737 a subsection entitled “Limitations, Conclusions and suggested Future Directions” has been created
Comments on the Quality of English Language
You should check the manuscript for typos and errors. There are several left (e.g., Table 1 "uneskilled manual", line 213 "thenceforth", line 315 "a statistically gender x life cycle", inconsistencies in the use of "," and "." as separator in tables).
Response: We are very grateful to the reviewer for his thorough review and for locating types and errors. All have been corrected. In addition, the entire manuscript has been thoroughly revised.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors are thanked for the changes they have made to their submission regarding updating the references that they have. In each case, this has improved the manuscript. They have not chosen to update several references because they believe the work that has been done in the past to be solid. Furthermore, when asked to provide information in the text regarding demonstrating that the methods they chose are still currently relevant, they opted to instead inform the reviewer on the topic but not include the information in the text because they consider such information “obvious”. The authors also pointed out to the reviewer that they are a “research team that has been doing research (and also teaching at the
university level) on gender, health and well-being for many years and we have included in the study the variables that we considered most appropriate”—the purpose of doing so appears to be to educate the reviewer to understand that such requests should not be made because the authors know what is best.
What is clear to this reviewer is that the authors believe that, for the most part, they should not be asked to improve their work because of their seniority within the field and academe. What the authors have not considered is that, in spending a significant amount of time reviewing their work, the only concern of the reviewer is to improve the work for the general audience regarding what is currently relevant in the field.
In asking that certain information be provided regarding the current relevance of the methods they have selected for analysis, what may be obvious to the researchers is not self-evident to general readers. According to the Instructions for Authors of Social Sciences (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci/instructions), these are points authors should take into consideration.
· Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.
· Materials and Methods: They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited.
It is in taking into consideration these instructions that the authors have been asked to provide details so that they are understandable to those outside their field.
Especially in gender studies, researchers must demonstrate they are cognizant of the extent to which ideas of gender in the general public have changed dramatically in the last year. This is why it is important for the authors to approach suggestions by the reviewer for making changes to reflect this social change with an open mind. Here is a Google Scholar search of changes to ideas of gender in the general public published since January: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2024&q=changes+to+ideas+of+gender+in+the+general+public&btnG=. When this search was conducted, it returned approximately 26,200 results.
Line by line suggested edits
32 If the authors think it important to base their research on the work of Risman and Davis from 2013, they must explain to the reader who these researchers are regarding gender studies and why it is still relevant to quote their research. Please provide this information in the Introduction.
42 If the authors want to reference Bern 1993, they must explain in the Introduction the importance of this research and why the authors consider it to be relevant today.
52 To supplement the research of Darmstad as the reference, please use the results from this 2021 scoping review on the history of gender equality: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259930.
53-74 The authors are thanked for adding three recent references associated with the citations in this paragraph. However, most of the paragraph is still supported by outdated research. Here is a Google Scholar search of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for gender equality of work that has been published this year: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_ylo=2024&q=United+Nations+Sustainable+Development+Goals+for+gender+equality&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5—please find updated references to support those citations in this paragraph that still do not have current references.
126-127 “there is evidence that such a division has many negative consequences”—please cite this evidence.
151 It needs to be made clear to the reader at the beginning of this section that this data collection began in 2016 and ended in 2020 by this information provided to the reviewer being told to the reader, and that the study had to stop as a result of COVID-19 because of the research method used. There has not been sufficient detail provided in the text about how the research was conducted and why the collection stopped. Furthermore, the authors had been asked to explain why they examined by life cycle rather than, for example, by country of origin, or by socioeconomic status. Their response was that the issue (and the one regarding why they chose the variables they did) was obvious and didn’t require an explanation. This is not an acceptable response. The aim is to provide as much information as might be relevant for the replication of the method.
209-263 The information that the authors provided to the reviewer in their responses regarding the current research using these instruments should be included in this section. The aim is not to make the section as brief as possible, it is to give the reader sufficient information to replicate the study.
284 The response of the authors that providing current research to demonstrate the continued use of SPSS 22.0 for analysis “would only lower the quality of the manuscript presented” seems out of place. The version the authors used was released in 2013. The most recent version is SPSS 29.0, released in 2022. It is relevant to the reader to realize that an older version of the package was used for analysis and to understand if there are still researchers using this outdated version. Since the authors are reluctant to look up the research that recently has continued to use this older version of SPSS, the reviewer is providing an example of a study: https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlts.v1i2.21
614-620 Thank you for providing this information here. It needs to also be mentioned in the methods section, including why the study ended.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful comments. Please find below our response. In the revised text, all changes are highlighted in red.
The authors are thanked for the changes they have made to their submission regarding updating the references that they have. In each case, this has improved the manuscript. They have not chosen to update several references because they believe the work that has been done in the past to be solid. Furthermore, when asked to provide information in the text regarding demonstrating that the methods they chose are still currently relevant, they opted to instead inform the reviewer on the topic but not include the information in the text because they consider such information “obvious”. The authors also pointed out to the reviewer that they are a “research team that has been doing research (and also teaching at the
university level) on gender, health and well-being for many years and we have included in the study the variables that we considered most appropriate”—the purpose of doing so appears to be to educate the reviewer to understand that such requests should not be made because the authors know what is best.
What is clear to this reviewer is that the authors believe that, for the most part, they should not be asked to improve their work because of their seniority within the field and academe. What the authors have not considered is that, in spending a significant amount of time reviewing their work, the only concern of the reviewer is to improve the work for the general audience regarding what is currently relevant in the field.
In asking that certain information be provided regarding the current relevance of the methods they have selected for analysis, what may be obvious to the researchers is not self-evident to general readers. According to the Instructions for Authors of Social Sciences (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci/instructions), these are points authors should take into consideration.
- Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.
- Materials and Methods: They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited.
It is in taking into consideration these instructions that the authors have been asked to provide details so that they are understandable to those outside their field.
Especially in gender studies, researchers must demonstrate they are cognizant of the extent to which ideas of gender in the general public have changed dramatically in the last year. This is why it is important for the authors to approach suggestions by the reviewer for making changes to reflect this social change with an open mind. Here is a Google Scholar search of changes to ideas of gender in the general public published since January: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2024&q=changes+to+ideas+of+gender+in+the+general+public&btnG=. When this search was conducted, it returned approximately 26,200 results.
Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this document, as well as for his suggestions to improve it.
Line by line suggested edits
32 If the authors think it important to base their research on the work of Risman and Davis from 2013, they must explain to the reader who these researchers are regarding gender studies and why it is still relevant to quote their research. Please provide this information in the Introduction.
42 If the authors want to reference Bern 1993, they must explain in the Introduction the importance of this research and why the authors consider it to be relevant today.
52 To supplement the research of Darmstad as the reference, please use the results from this 2021 scoping review on the history of gender equality: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259930.
53-74 The authors are thanked for adding three recent references associated with the citations in this paragraph. However, most of the paragraph is still supported by outdated research. Here is a Google Scholar search of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for gender equality of work that has been published this year: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_ylo=2024&q=United+Nations+Sustainable+Development+Goals+for+gender+equality&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5—please find updated references to support those citations in this paragraph that still do not have current references.
126-127 “there is evidence that such a division has many negative consequences”—please cite this evidence.
151 It needs to be made clear to the reader at the beginning of this section that this data collection began in 2016 and ended in 2020 by this information provided to the reviewer being told to the reader, and that the study had to stop as a result of COVID-19 because of the research method used. There has not been sufficient detail provided in the text about how the research was conducted and why the collection stopped. Furthermore, the authors had been asked to explain why they examined by life cycle rather than, for example, by country of origin, or by socioeconomic status. Their response was that the issue (and the one regarding why they chose the variables they did) was obvious and didn’t require an explanation. This is not an acceptable response. The aim is to provide as much information as might be relevant for the replication of the method.
209-263 The information that the authors provided to the reviewer in their responses regarding the current research using these instruments should be included in this section. The aim is not to make the section as brief as possible, it is to give the reader sufficient information to replicate the study.
284 The response of the authors that providing current research to demonstrate the continued use of SPSS 22.0 for analysis “would only lower the quality of the manuscript presented” seems out of place. The version the authors used was released in 2013. The most recent version is SPSS 29.0, released in 2022. It is relevant to the reader to realize that an older version of the package was used for analysis and to understand if there are still researchers using this outdated version. Since the authors are reluctant to look up the research that recently has continued to use this older version of SPSS, the reviewer is providing an example of a study: https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlts.v1i2.21
614-620 Thank you for providing this information here. It needs to also be mentioned in the methods section, including why the study ended.
Response: We feel that it is not necessary to explain in the article who Barbara Risman or Sandra Bem (not Bern, but Bem) are, as this could be offensive to gender specialists and would also lower the quality of the article. Readers who do not know who they are can easily find their contributions and profiles on the web, as they are very prominent authors with great contributions to the gender field. Regarding the remaining comments and suggestions, we believe that the revised manuscript incorporates all those that improve its quality.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for revising the manuscript. Following your modifications, I will address the changes point by point.
1) Following these additions, the description of the data analysis process appears improved and more transparent.
2) The definition of the study as an exploratory one also increases the clarity of your process.
3) Understood. The additions to the limitations section appear appropriate.
4) The table provides a clearer way of presenting this information and is a welcome change.
5) Thank you for reviewing these sections, which read clearer in several points. However, do take note that the Results section still has considerable repetition of information that's already reported in table 3, an aspect that weighs on its readability. These passages could be further synthesized. As a suggestion, you could group together all ANOVA descriptions of main effects and interaction effects rather than make a description for each one with a full phrase (e.g., writing "main effects were significant for gender and life cycle stage in ANOVAs regarding housework daily time, childcare daily time...").
6) Thank you for adding the missing citations.
7) The additional paragraph makes the reporting more complete. However, do take note that separating each of the various sections (e.g., "Limitations", then "Future Directions" and finally "Conclusions") is almost always a better choice than making one long paragraph as it makes for clearer and more immediate reading.
Overall, I believe the main problems of the manuscript have been addressed. The manuscript, save for a few aspects, feels fit for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your new review and for your valuable feedback and insightful comments. Below is our response to your comments and suggestions.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
Thank you for revising the manuscript. Following your modifications, I will address the changes point by point.
1) Following these additions, the description of the data analysis process appears improved and more transparent.
2) The definition of the study as an exploratory one also increases the clarity of your process.
3) Understood. The additions to the limitations section appear appropriate.
4) The table provides a clearer way of presenting this information and is a welcome change.
5) Thank you for reviewing these sections, which read clearer in several points. However, do take note that the Results section still has considerable repetition of information that's already reported in table 3, an aspect that weighs on its readability. These passages could be further synthesized. As a suggestion, you could group together all ANOVA descriptions of main effects and interaction effects rather than make a description for each one with a full phrase (e.g., writing "main effects were significant for gender and life cycle stage in ANOVAs regarding housework daily time, childcare daily time...").
6) Thank you for adding the missing citations.
7) The additional paragraph makes the reporting more complete. However, do take note that separating each of the various sections (e.g., "Limitations", then "Future Directions" and finally "Conclusions") is almost always a better choice than making one long paragraph as it makes for clearer and more immediate reading.
Overall, I believe the main problems of the manuscript have been addressed. The manuscript, save for a few aspects, feels fit for publication.
Response: Thank you for your positive feedback on the changes made. In the revised manuscript, we have made the additional changes you suggested:
5) In the Results section, we have followed your suggestion to group all ANOVA descriptions of main effects and interaction effects together, rather than providing a full sentence description for each. The descriptions of the main effects of gender and life cycle stage have been grouped together on page 7, lines 324 to 328 of the revised manuscript, and the main effects of gender and occupation have been grouped together on page 12, lines 426 to 430. We needed to keep the post-hoc comparisons for each dependent variable separate anyway to make it clearer.
7) Each of the different sections has been separated, as you suggest, by including "Limitations", then "Future Directions", and finally "Conclusions".
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the authors for the changes they have made to their manuscript. All have improved it.
Although the authors have made significant changes, they continue to consider that making things clear for a general audience should not be expected of them. They state that if they explain the contribution of the earlier research by Risman and Bem, there will be a reduction in their work quality. Furthermore, they have not mentioned the reason for using an earlier version of SPSS or have they referenced that their chosen version continues in its current analysis use. Please make these additions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable feedback and comments. Please find below our response. In the revised text, all changes are highlighted in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you to the authors for the changes they have made to their manuscript. All have improved it.
Although the authors have made significant changes, they continue to consider that making things clear for a general audience should not be expected of them. They state that if they explain the contribution of the earlier research by Risman and Bem, there will be a reduction in their work quality. Furthermore, they have not mentioned the reason for using an earlier version of SPSS or have they referenced that their chosen version continues in its current analysis use. Please make these additions.
Response: Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of the changes that have been made to the manuscript.
Although, as we told you in response to your previous review, we feel that it is not necessary to explain in the article who Barbara Risman or Sandra Bem are, we have followed your suggestion and added a brief comment in the text about who Sandra Bem is (on page 1, lines 43 to 45), since she is an author who died a few years ago and the published work we cite is from 1993. Since Barbara Risman is still publishing today, in order to provide more recent references for this author, we have added a reference to a paper she published with other authors in 2024 on page 21, lines 737,738 and a more recent (2018) reference to her multilevel theory of gender as a social structure on page 1, lines 32 to 35. We have also added the two references to the References section (lines 797 to 799 and 906-907).
Regarding your second question about the use of SPSS 22.0 for the statistical analysis, as we informed you in the response to your first review, SPSS 22.0 was used because it is the version used by the University of La Laguna, the university where the research was conducted. Since the statistical analyses used are based on mathematical formulas, the results are not affected by the version of the statistical package used (or even by the program used to perform them).
