Title: Exploring the connection between maternal mental health and partnership, parental role,
and satisfaction with various aspects of life using pairfam data: a cross-sectional analysis
Version: 4 Date: 17 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have made substantial revisions to address my concerns.
However, several issues remain unresolved.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Unresolved Comments:
Comment 3:
"This study used cross-sectional data; thus, the relationships found should be referred to as
associations. Terms like 'predict,' 'predictors,' 'attributed,' 'significant influence,' and 'significant
effect' are not appropriate to describe the results, as they can be misleading."
The authors have not made the necessary revisions throughout the manuscript. They should
carefully review the text to ensure that all instances of inappropriate causal language are
corrected.
Comment 11:
"Provide a detailed description of the 'pairfam' study, including its aims, sample size, participant
recruitment, and data collection, in a separate subsection of the Methods section."
A research paper should stand alone. Crucial details on sample size, participant recruitment, and
data collection are essential for assessing the robustness and generalizability of the findings.
Comment 12:
"The 'pairfam' study is longitudinal. Explain why longitudinal data were not utilized for more
robust results on directional relationships."
The authors' explanation is not entirely valid. They stated that "because the included variables
change between the respective waves, there was no way to apply a larger number of previous
waves." However, utilizing one or two additional waves would allow for longitudinal analysis
using models such as the Cross-Lagged Panel Model.
Comment 16:
"Improve the description of SF-12. List the 'eight subscales,' explain how SF-12 was scored, and
confirm whether it has been validated in Germany. Not all readers will be familiar with this tool."
The authors have not elaborated on how the scale was scored, specifically how the two
dimensions—physical health and mental health—were calculated.
Comment 17:
"In the sentence: 'A cut-off value was created by subtracting one standard deviation from the
mean value,' elaborate on the population used for the standard deviation and mean value. Has
the cut-off been locally validated for women? If so, provide psychometric properties."
The authors have not adequately addressed this comment in the manuscript. More clarity is
needed on how the cut-off was established and whether it has been validated for the target
population.
Comment 23:
"Explain why major determinants of mental health, such as ethnicity, life adverse events, social
support/capital, substance use, and physical activity, were not included."
The authors’ justification is not sufficient. The omitted factors are well-established determinants
of mental health and could serve as potential confounders. Given the large sample size, additional
variables could have been included. There are also statistical techniques available to reduce the
number of independent variables while retaining key confounders.
Comment 24:
"Discuss whether the assumptions of the multiple linear regression model were checked.
Although bootstrapping can address certain assumption violations, it does not replace
assumption checking. Justify its use in detail."
The authors have not provided sufficient details on which assumptions were tested and the
corresponding results.
Comment 25:
"Provide more details about the bootstrapping method used. Specify whether resampling was
done with or without replacement."
The authors have not responded to this comment. This information is crucial for assessing the
robustness of the results.
Comment 28:
"Table 3 is too busy. Consider removing either the crude coefficients or standardized coefficients
and present the 95% CI for the remaining one. Remove the SE and T columns."
It is fine to choose to retain these statistics. They should include footnotes explaining the values
presented (e.g., clarify the meaning of B, T).