Relationship between Parenting Educational Styles and Well-Being in Families with Autistic Children: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The summary lacks information such as the databases consulted, time period analyzed, etc.

The Strobe scale is written the same in Spanish and English. Revise the spelling of STROEBE.

Improve the theoretical framework of the introduction with more recent citations.

Does not comply with journal standards (only numbering is used). Revise the whole paper.

The citation of Page et al. is incorrect. It is from 2021.

Justify why only articles in Spanish and English are selected; it would be a bias to discriminate by language of publication.

Within WoS, indicate specifically where the search was made.

Justify why the STROBE scale is used. It is not used to evaluate the methodological quality of a study, but is focused on evaluating the quality of the article. That is, that a person wrote well did not mean that he/she did good research.

The flowchart does not follow all PRISMA guidelines. Review. Also, it has a different format and typeface.

They do not calculate inter-rater reliability and it should be done and captured in the article.

Figure 2 is more appropriate to be included in the appendix or annex. In addition, the criterion used to order the studies should be indicated (with a note).

The authors put the statement of a table (Table 1), but it does not appear.

Conclusions are missing.

Where is Appendix 1?

Review the format of the tables. They do not follow any criteria, nor the standards of the journal.

Where is Table A2?

Table A1 does not specify the order in which the studies were ordered or the abbreviations used.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Revisar la redacción. 

Author Response

Please look at the attached files, the response to your review is at the end of the document. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear,

I have read the manuscript with interest but unfortunately, it has structural weaknesses that make it unsuitable for publication. In particular, the references and writing in English may be fine, but the method, results, discussions, and conclusions are totally to be redone:

1) although a PRISMA draft is included, the logic flow does not clarify how the selection among different sources (Pubmed, Scopus,...) was made;

2) the manuscript lacks the minimum requirements to be a Systematic and in the text, there is no indication of Prospero registration, which is necessary to be a Sys. review. The structure is more reminiscent of a hybrid form between Sys. review and narrative;

3) there is no summary table of selected papers, no data selection graphs and statistical analysis;

4) the results do not present schematic tables capable of highlighting key points;

5) the discussions are rushed and lack detail, do not take into account the elements of analysis, and do not clarify critical issues (so reading is tedious);

6) conclusions are unimpressive and partial.

 

Author Response

Please look at the attached files, the response to your review is at the end of the document. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I am sending the report of your manuscript.

Best regards

 

REPORT 

 

The study aims to examine whether the concepts of autism, well-being and parenting style are related.

A systematic review has been conducted based on the PRISMA checklist.

The study, while very interesting, may be a one-off contribution to current research on the subject. The objective of the study has been correctly specified in the abstract.

More research should be done on the social and community factors that are linked to the issue.

It would also be interesting to cite more studies at the international level (other countries as they see it) to see what the literature says on this aspect.

 

This is a frankly important issue, as it highlights a serious problem in society.

It would be interesting to highlight what mechanisms other countries have in place to address the issue. This is very important in this article, as it seems that there is a lack of data in the theoretical framework to be able to go into more detail.

Perhaps more should be done on the issue of the family as a key factor in the inclusive education of their children.

Interestingly, the authors comment that there is little literature studying family well-being in the ASD population.

I think the introductory part should be expanded and reorganised a bit more.

Regarding the methodology, the data sample is quite representative as 753 references, 16 full-text articles and abstracts were read.

It is interesting that empirical articles (qualitative and/or quantitative) have been considered.

The search for articles is made clear by specifying which databases have been consulted.

Just a comment that the last search date was April 2023, a year ago and it is possible that it should be updated.

 

The results are presented in the form of graphs and are visual to the reader.

I share with the authors the limitation of the study as the review focuses on the few studies found with common criteria in the diagnosis of ASD following the DSM 5 diagnostic criteria which included three main concepts (ASD, parental satisfaction and parenting style).

 

The conclusions are very brief.

We would need to have more data such as type of families, which individuals would be found here. Type of jobs, type of lifestyle, etc. This could give more explanations as to why this trend is happening.

A deeper reflection between parenting styles and risk behaviours is needed.

The study is interesting because it can help to establish appropriate plans, policies and strategies for improvement.

The questions that have guided this study should be clarified beforehand.

The total number of articles potentially relevant to the study is correct.

 

It is clear which inclusion/exclusion criteria the authors have taken into account in order to select the bibliography on which they have been based.

The work is adapted to the scope of the journal.

As I have said, the article could be improved with the comments I have made.

previously.

I consider accepting the manuscript with the changes and suggestions discussed.

Author Response

Please look at the attached files, the response to your review is at the end of the document. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting area for research and the authors have clearly been thorough in their investigation. For publication I think that the paper needs to be revised to contextualise it in the wider field of parenting literature. For example, the findings that authoritative parenting is the most effective fits with the major findings for  family wellbeing and the parenting any children. This should be introduced in the discussion and inform the conclusions.

I found the organisation of the paper difficult for the reader. 

Firstly the signposting is not always correct, for example the authors say See Table 1, Appendix B2 and the only appendix is Appendix 2, Table A1.

I would suggest that Table 1 should be in the text and could have an additional column giving the authors views on the merit of the paper. This would help the reader, for example, when in lines 180-186 they say the only study that disagrees is by Xu et al (2014) but do not give any evaluation of the Xu paper. I think this is a feature throughout and more evaluation of the papers is needed.

Figures 2 and 3 could be in the appendix. 

Overall I enjoyed the topic, but I think the discussion and conclusions need developing to show the reader the merits of the conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is fine. The paper needs proof reading.

Author Response

Please look at the attached files, the response to your review is at the end of the document. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewing aspects of format and standards the journal's (preferably citations).

 

 

Author Response

 Please look at the attached files, the response to your review is at the end of the document. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear, the changes made have markedly and significantly improved the manuscript which still has a couple of gaps worthy of adjustment:

1) insert a table with the key points of the research, 4-5 points of 1-2 sentences each, summarizing all the work done (to be included in the "discussions" section);

2) insert a table summarizing the results, which is an outline (to be included in the "results" section) and not a manuscript-by-manuscript list (already present in corrected form);

3) I would find it appropriate, even if it is not a research paper, to include before the conclusions a previous section where possible limitations and future prospects of the present work are discussed.

Author Response

Please look at the attached files, the response to your review is at the end of the document. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the paper with their revisions.

I would still like to see the findings contextualised in the wider parenting literature. This requires a paragraph in the conclusions acknowledging that the most effective parenting style for children with ASD is the same as the parenting style found to be most effective with the wider population of children. This is a finding that will be helpful to clinical practice.

 

Author Response

Please look at the attached files, the response to your review is at the end of the document. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx