Title: Correlates of work productivity and maternal competence after having a baby: the roles
of mother-infant bonding and maternal subjective experiences
Version: 1 Date: 09 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
It is well-known that pregnancy, childbirth, and postnatal periods are important for women's life
which affect both physical, mental and spiritual health. Social and gender inequity for maternity
care and parenting relations are different in various country contexts. This study title are the
predictors of work productivity and maternal competence after having a baby aiming to assess
the correlations of length of maternity leave with work productivity, and maternal competence;
mother-child adjustment including mother-infant bonding, maternal stress, and parenting guilt
and to identify predictors of work productivity and maternal competence. There are major points
to be clarify and revised as the following.
1. Title
- The title was not shown the main covariate of interest for predictors. But in the introduction
and objectives, it looks like the authors emphasized "length of maternity leave". If yes, it should
be focused in the title. if not, the title was ok; however, the introduction should rewrite to give
the balance of all covariates measured in this study.
- I wonder whether the authors can claim as the predictors the authors got all measures at the
same time. The meaning of predictors is "thing predicts that something will happen in the future
or will be a consequence of something". Therefore, the covariates in this study were unable to
reflect the predictors.
2. Abstract
- I understand that it was a challenge to write a word-limited abstract for three objectives
and lot of covariates measured in this study. However, the contents of explicit objectives,
methods, results of all objectives, and conclusion should be included in the abstract. Rewriting
is suggested.
- The footnote is not recommended to be written in the abstract. Please delete.
3. Introduction
- In objectives 1 and 2, correlation should be used instead of association.
- Objective 3 was too long and "such as" should not be used. If the groups of each covariate could
be described in introduction before objectives, they could be used to be shorten the contents by
keeping the meaning and aims. Please rewrite.
4. Methods
- Study design should be added before study participation.
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria and sample size calculation should be written at participant
section. Results of participant's characteristics should be moved to results section.
- Main outcome measures and covariates should be added along with the tools chosen for each
covariate.
- If all internal consistencies of each tool were Cronbach's alpha, it should be consistently written
at # for all. Now only at PBQ was written.
- For PSS, was it reliability or internal consistency used?
- All tools used in this study were written in English or local language. They should be declared.
- Section of data management and data analysis were missing, please add. If it is written clearly,
it will be helpful for the readers.
5.Results
- Please do not repeat objectives in the results section. Results can be presented directly.
- Values of each variable either mean with sd or median with IQR depending on the normal
distribution of data.
- The variables and objectives were already complex. The results that were not mentioned in the
objectives were not necessary to presented, on pages 11-12 starting from "These results led us
to explore the correlations............ (Table 3)......Similarly, we ran correlation analyses...........
- When p values were presented in text results, the exact values should be written, not use <.05,
<.01 or <.001.
- It was not clear why the value of explained variances of multiple linear regression did not equal
to R-squared presented on page 13 and Table 4, please check.
- Whether collinearity was checked before selecting the variables into the regression models.
- ECR-R anxiety and ECR-R avoidance were not written before they were presented in the Table
4.
- B, SE B, and # should be explained under the Table.
6. Discussion
- No need to repeat the objectives in the discussion. Each key of main findings based on the
objectives which the authors would like to discuss can be directly written in short and then
discussion points.
- On page 17, "It is important to note that........overpowers the effects of stress and guilt" is too
long repetitive results. If the authors would like to say as implication of future research, it can
be concise and move to the end of discussion.
- Cross-section design, selection bias and recall bias should be added in the limitation.
7. Conclusion
- It is such extrapolated conclusion and recommendation since the correlations were weak in
this study even significance may be presented.
- The recommendation written should result from the findings of this study. In addition, the
recommendations of interventions based on the correlation study are not suitable.
- Please rewrite conclusion based on the findings of this study and the current lists of
recommendations which suggested the interventions should be omitted.