All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for your revised submission. I am satisfied that you have addressed the remaining concerns of the reviewers, and am happy to accept your paper for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors made the suggestions to improve the manuscript.
The authors made the suggestions to improve the manuscript.
The authors made the suggestions to improve the manuscript.
The authors made the suggestions to improve the manuscript.
The authors have addressed all my questions appropriately. No further suggestions.
No concerns.
No concerns.
Thank you for your submission. The reviewers have identified a number of concerns that must be addressed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
The article addresses an interesting topic; however, there are elements that need to be strengthened. For example, the narrative structure of the introduction and results should be improved, and it is also necessary to be more thorough in certain areas of the methodology if this article is to be published.
Title: Analysis of quality of life, perceived stress, and functioning in activities of daily living in children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders.
Suggested title: Analysis of quality of life, perceived stress, and functioning in activities of daily living in children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders from the perspective of parents.
The study focused on analyzing the relationship between parental quality of life and stress but also examined the performance in activities of daily living, sensory processing, and executive functioning of children with neurodevelopmental disorders. It is important to clarify that although the study involves parents, the mentioned aspects (ADL performance, sensory processing, and executive functioning) refer to the children. Is this not well understood?
In the introduction, the problem is not clearly defined, and it is mainly addressed from generalities, which prevents a proper understanding of the topic.
In the study design, important data are missing, such as the type of study being conducted. For example, is it a non-experimental study?
It is also not clarified what type of technique was used to select the sample. All of this weakens the methodology
The statistical section needs to be reformulated for better understanding. Additionally, the ethics section is unnecessarily long; it can be expressed precisely in a few lines.
The results are cold data and lack a narrative thread to connect them. Therefore, I suggest that the results section be completely reformulated.
.
The discussion is much richer and more robust; however, the limitations section should also include the strengths of the study.
I suggest that the authors make an additional effort and review the comments in detail so that the manuscript is more robust and readable
Review
Title
The title is descriptive of the report, and it draws the interest of the reader.
Abstract:
The abstract provides an overview of the study. The authors describes the methods used, a summary of the findings, and an indication of any implications.
Introduction:
The section lacks some essential articles. Below are some suggestions:
- Eapen V, Karlov L, John JR, Beneytez C, Grimes PZ, Kang YQ, Mardare I, Minca DG, Voicu L, Malek KA, Ramkumar A, Stefanik K, Gyori M, Volgyesi-Molnar M. Quality of life in parents of autistic children: A transcultural perspective. Front Psychol. 2023 Feb 23;14:1022094. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1022094. PMID: 36910746; PMCID: PMC9996029.
• Papadopoulos A, Siafaka V, Tsapara A, et al. Measuring parental stress, illness perceptions, coping and quality of life in families of children newly diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. BJPsych Open. 2023;9(3):e84. doi:10.1192/bjo.2023.55
• Katti, H., Valiyamattam, G., Taubert, J., & Nadig, A. (2023). Improving the quality of life of autistic people and their caregivers from diverse backgrounds: methods and approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1242236.
• Pisula, E., and Porêbowicz-Dörsmann, A. (2017). Family functioning, parenting stress and quality of life in mothers and fathers of Polish children with high functioning autism or asperger syndrome. PLoS ONE 12, e0186536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186536
• Papadopoulos, A., Tsapara, A., Gryparis, A., Tafiadis, D., Trimmis, N., Plotas, P., ... & Siafaka, V. (2024). A Prospective Study of the Family Quality of Life, Illness Perceptions, and Coping in Mothers of Children Newly Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Communication Difficulties. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(8), 2187-2204.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
However, focus on relevant recent and the authors give enough information for readers to understand the context.
Moreover, the authors properly use statements to raise the gaps and explain why the study was necessary and what new will bring. The references cited adequately reflect the current state of the field.
Methods
The methodology is described in sufficient detail. They use 4 validated instruments including the Cronbach’s a and properly statistics and its description. The whole presentation allow others researchers for reproducibility. The study was conducted under ethical guidelines. However, I have a few suggestions:
Why did the authors choose 3 -12 yo range?
The inclusion and exclusion criteria needs more details as its now seems to affects the results. For example, if there were other relevant conditions in another family’s child, this would affect the QoL. Please, add this to the limitation section.
Results
The authors presented the results clearly and with sufficient quality. They used Table 2 and table 3. The data presented in the results supports the claims made above. Moreover, the data seem reasonable considering the study design and experiments performed.
Discussion
The discussion is consistent as it answers the research aim. Other relevant studies were discussed and combined with references. The limitations need revision. There are more limitations.
Regarding the implications, the authors explained the implications of the study for the field and its potential future applications.
Methods
The methodology is described in sufficient detail. They use 4 validated instruments including the Cronbach’s a and properly statistics and its description. The whole presentation allow others researchers for reproducibility. The study was conducted under ethical guidelines. However, I have a few suggestions:
Why did the authors choose 3 -12 yo range?
The inclusion and exclusion criteria needs more details as its now seems to affects the results. For example, if there were other relevant conditions in another family’s child, this would affect the QoL. Please, add this to the limitation section.
No
The authors have done an excellent job of identifying and exploring an area of importance for children with neurodevelopmental conditions and their parents. The influence of executive functioning in ADLs is particularly interesting, as this area of research is novel.
The introduction clearly puts forth the rationale for the study given the importance of the research question. References given are relevant.
I have a few suggestions for edits by the authors, as follows:
In Table 1, please clarify what is meant by “Diagnostic” and also the acronyms used in the table (e.g.: TEA, TEL, TDM, RDSM). The table should be self-explanatory, thus the acronyms should be defined as a footnote to the table.
For the SF-12, please state the full name of the questionnaire (Short Form – 12 Health Survey). Similarly for the EPYFEI, please state the full name (Assessment of Sensory Processing and Executive Functions in Childhood) before the acronym in brackets.
In Line 296, the authors stated that sensory processing was akin to the “level of cognitive maturity”. There are numerous factors that contribute to sensory processing other than cognitive level. Please rephrase, or cite relevant references to substantiate this statement.
Line 314 – please change the word “pathology” which can be stigmatising, to “condition”. As a follow on to this, can the authors please add in information or relevant studies that studied fathers’ rigidity, and not just mothers because this will give a more balanced representation of the body of available information on parents.
The methodology was clearly stated and was appropriate for the study.
Results were valid and succinctly explained by the authors. The discussion and conclusions were logical and substantiated by references.
There are a few minor revisions required, as stated under the Basic Reporting section of the review. Otherwise, the manuscript is well-written and the language is clear and concise. I recommend that this manuscript be accepted after the authors have made these minor revisions.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.