Examining the Relationship between Paternal Mental Health and Informal Support Networks: Reflections on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, I felt frustrated while reading this manuscript as I felt that the relevant results (as summarized on page 12 lines 595-597 and lines 599-605) were overlooked in an attempt to ride the Covid-19 pandemic research wave. I felt that the relevance of the Covid-19 pandemic was unnecessary and seemed forced within all aspects of the manuscript.

Overall, I believe that the manuscript could be a valuable piece of literature if it focused on the actual results of fathers in York region not feeling comfortable in ‘parenting groups’ which are typically uncomfortable for them, and that they do not feel they have a place to talk about their experiences of being fathers; this is valuable and should be addressed, however, it is lost within the current manuscript which is attempting to stretch the content into something that it is not (how can the fathers lose something during the pandemic which they never had in the first place?). 

Another major concern throughout the manuscript was that comments were included which were not attributed to specific references or to the data, such as on page 1 lines 40-42 and page 7 lines 314-321.

A minor issue throughout the manuscript was inconsistent use of tense. It seemed like sections of the manuscript had been cut from other documents, using present tense, while others were written after the data were collected, using the past tense. 

Minor issues:

1) page 1 lines 34 to 36  is better suited in methodology section

2) be consistent with terminology - Coronavirus pandemic or Covid-19 pandemic and UK or York region

3) The structure of the introduction is somewhat confusing and should be rearranged so that it reads from general to specific, as currently some specific content (such as page 2 lines 47-55) is early in the intro and too specific for that placement

4) throughout the introduction, there are not enough qualifying words used to describe fathers, such as “most fathers” or “many fathers” and the content is currently written too general to be believed

5) page 3 lines 147-150 - the assumption that father’s primary supporter is their partner is not clear based on the information provided

6) page 4 line 167 - how is it possible to know that mothers worried more than fathers, if fathers’ mental health has never been studied?

7) what does NCT stand for? 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to read the manuscript and for the feedback. We have taken the feedback on board and made changes.  I have attached the revised manuscript with track changes.

Overall, I felt frustrated while reading this manuscript as I felt that the relevant results (as summarized on page 12 lines 595-597 and lines 599-605) were overlooked in an attempt to ride the Covid-19 pandemic research wave. I felt that the relevance of the Covid-19 pandemic was unnecessary and seemed forced within all aspects of the manuscript.

The findings, discussion and conclusion has been re-written to clearly identify the themes. Covid-19 forms one of the themes.

Overall, I believe that the manuscript could be a valuable piece of literature if it focused on the actual results of fathers in York region not feeling comfortable in ‘parenting groups’ which are typically uncomfortable for them, and that they do not feel they have a place to talk about their experiences of being fathers; this is valuable and should be addressed, however, it is lost within the current manuscript which is attempting to stretch the content into something that it is not (how can the fathers lose something during the pandemic which they never had in the first place?). 

This has been addressed in the findings, discussion and conclusion.

Another major concern throughout the manuscript was that comments were included which were not attributed to specific references or to the data, such as on page 1 lines 40-42 and page 7 lines 314-321.

References has been added to comments made.

A minor issue throughout the manuscript was inconsistent use of tense. It seemed like sections of the manuscript had been cut from other documents, using present tense, while others were written after the data were collected, using the past tense. 

The tenses have now been corrected and used as appropriate. 

Minor issues:

1) page 1 lines 34 to 36  is better suited in methodology section

we considered it necessary to leave lines 34-36 in as it frames the paper and gives the reader an idea of what we are doing.

2) be consistent with terminology - Coronavirus pandemic or Covid-19 pandemic and UK or York region

This has been changed to Covid-19 pandemic. UK has been used in the introduction which is driven by literature, but York region used in the findings and where the study is being discussed. 

3) The structure of the introduction is somewhat confusing and should be rearranged so that it reads from general to specific, as currently some specific content (such as page 2 lines 47-55) is early in the intro and too specific for that placement

The introduction has been rearranged as recommended.

4) throughout the introduction, there are not enough qualifying words used to describe fathers, such as “most fathers” or “many fathers” and the content is currently written too general to be believed

Introduction has been amended to incorporate the recommended changes.

5) page 3 lines 147-150 - the assumption that father’s primary supporter is their partner is not clear based on the information provided

This is now been taken out of the work.

6) page 4 line 167 - how is it possible to know that mothers worried more than fathers, if fathers’ mental health has never been studied?

It is an assumption in literature that mothers worry more than fathers and we have indicated that it is under researched area.

7) what does NCT stand for? 

Full meaning of NCT has now been defined in the work.

Thank you for your time and feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting and well-written article. It nicely addresses the experiences of fathers who will not/cannot reach out for assistance and places their experiences within the patriarchal culture. While many want to think societies have become more egalitarian, this article reminds us that is not the case. While clearly the focus is on fathers, it can be appropriate to include that mothers don't necessarily get the support they need. The article shows that women have to be personally resourceful and reach out to organize and coordinate their own supportive networks and services.

The literature review is very strong. It introduces the ideas that are expanded upon that birthing and childcare are the purview of the mother and this "lack of belonging" is a common experience among men. The critical point is made that fathers can be seen, and see themselves, as adjunct care givers to their wives/partners.

The sample size of 20 respondents is adequate. I was a bit surprised that the voices of only 11 respondents were shared. Since this is a relatively short article, I do suggest reviewing the transcripts of the other respondents to see if any more voices could be included that could bolster the main points of the article.

In line #31, "intends to explore" can be be replaced by "explores."

In line #306 I can't tell if, "whether looks a bit crap" or if "weather" is correct.

The Discussion section is strong. As a qualitative study, it is so useful to have fathers share their lived experiences and this is an important strength of this work.

The Conclusion is far too general. After all this good work by the authors, they leave us hanging. Yes, we get the points about gendered parental division of labor but certainly there is more. Can the authors share more specific recommendations that would benefit fathers, mothers and children?

Overall, a good effort.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to read the manuscript and for the feedback. We have taken the feedback on board and made changes.  I have attached the revised manuscript with track changes.

This is an interesting and well-written article. It nicely addresses the experiences of fathers who will not/cannot reach out for assistance and places their experiences within the patriarchal culture. While many want to think societies have become more egalitarian, this article reminds us that is not the case. While clearly the focus is on fathers, it can be appropriate to include that mothers don't necessarily get the support they need. The article shows that women have to be personally resourceful and reach out to organize and coordinate their own supportive networks and services.

Thanks you for the positive feedback. The feedback about mothers have been taken on board and addressed in the findings and discussion section.

The literature review is very strong. It introduces the ideas that are expanded upon that birthing and childcare are the purview of the mother and this "lack of belonging" is a common experience among men. The critical point is made that fathers can be seen, and see themselves, as adjunct care givers to their wives/partners.

Thank you for the positive feedback.

The sample size of 20 respondents is adequate. I was a bit surprised that the voices of only 11 respondents were shared. Since this is a relatively short article, I do suggest reviewing the transcripts of the other respondents to see if any more voices could be included that could bolster the main points of the article.

We have gone back to the data and added contributions from other fathers. However, not all fathers have been represented to avoid repetition. 

In line #31, "intends to explore" can be be replaced by "explores."

amended, thank you

In line #306 I can't tell if, "whether looks a bit crap" or if "weather" is correct.

amended, thank you

The Discussion section is strong. As a qualitative study, it is so useful to have fathers share their lived experiences and this is an important strength of this work.

Thank you for the positive feedback

The Conclusion is far too general. After all this good work by the authors, they leave us hanging. Yes, we get the points about gendered parental division of labor but certainly there is more. Can the authors share more specific recommendations that would benefit fathers, mothers and children?

The findings, discussion and conclusion section has been re-written to address points made by all three reviewers. Specific recommendations has been made in the conclusion.

 

Thank you for your time and very encouraging and positive feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank for the opportunity to read this quite interesting paper. There are some areas that I feel need attention

1. There is no ethics statement.

2. The results section would benefit from a table that lays out the themes clearly. As presently written, the themes do not offer a clear sense of the thematic nature of the results. The results presently feels like a not well organized collection of quotes - thus I wonder if that might be better organized using sections to break up the themes into well defined sections. As well, can you help us understand the strengths of the themes.

3. A clearer link in the discussion to the results would be useful.The sections feels like it has a stronger link to the introduction than to the results. Let the results speak in a way that is 

This is an important area of work. Thank you for pursuing it. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to read the manuscript and for the feedback. We have taken the feedback on board and made changes.  I have attached the revised manuscript with track changes.

1. There is no ethics statement.

Ethics statement has been included in the methods section.

2. The results section would benefit from a table that lays out the themes clearly. As presently written, the themes do not offer a clear sense of the thematic nature of the results. The results presently feels like a not well organized collection of quotes - thus I wonder if that might be better organized using sections to break up the themes into well defined sections. As well, can you help us understand the strengths of the themes.

We have re-structured the findings section and organised it in themes and broken down to defined sections to ease understanding. 

3. A clearer link in the discussion to the results would be useful. The sections feels like it has a stronger link to the introduction than to the results. Let the results speak in a way that is 

The findings, discussion and conclusion sections has been re-written taking into account the feedback.

This is an important area of work. Thank you for pursuing it. 

Thank you for your time and useful feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the revisions. It has, in my view, made the paper much more accessible. I would like to suggest that, in the conclusion, you add a couple of sentences on areas for further exploration. It is woven throughout the paper in various ways, thus a concluding statement will bring that together. 

This is a very interesting study and I hope you will continue examining this topic area.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback. We have responded to the following comment, as indicated on the attached manuscript:

"Thank you for the revisions. It has, in my view, made the paper much more accessible. I would like to suggest that, in the conclusion, you add a couple of sentences on areas for further exploration. It is woven throughout the paper in various ways, thus a concluding statement will bring that together. 

This is a very interesting study and I hope you will continue examining this topic area."

We have added a short reflection on further avenues for research, to the conclusion. 

 

Thank you for your feedback.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx