Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Oct 8;21(10):e0360393. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360393

Analysis of care needs for primary caregivers of premature infants at home based on the Kano model: A cross-sectional study

Fenfen Lan 1, Jiaohua Yu 2,*, Zhaohua Huo 1, Yuanyuan Wang 1, Qiaoyun Shi 1, Yuanyu Liao 3, Juan Liu 1
Editor: Jing He4
PMCID: PMC13648993  PMID: 42848792

Abstract

Objective

This study applied the Kano model to analyze the attributes of care needs among primary caregivers of discharged premature infants(up to 6 months post discharge), identify priority needs, and provide a foundation for developing targeted nursing service plans.

Methods

Between November 2024 and January 2025, a cross-sectional survey was conducted using convenience sampling. Primary caregivers of premature infants discharged within the previous six months from a Grade A tertiary hospital in Hubei Province were recruited. A self-designed questionnaire based on the Kano model was administered to evaluate the attributes and priorities of caregivers’ needs. The questionnaire consisted of 27 care-need items. Kano attribute classification used the Maximum Frequency Method, and needs were prioritized using Better–Worse coefficients and the Average Satisfaction Coefficient (ASC).

Results

A total of 201 valid questionnaires were collected. Analysis using the Kano model revealed that, among the 27 care needs, three were classified as “Must-be attributes” (related to infant feeding), six as “One-dimensional attributes” (related to health issues of premature infants), and 18 as “Attractive attributes.”.

Conclusion

The care needs of primary caregivers of premature infants at home are generally high, with survival needs being the most urgent. Targeted support should be provided based on the priority of needs and attributes to optimize home care services and improve both the quality of care and health outcomes of premature infants.

Introduction

Premature birth is a significant public health challenge worldwide, with an incidence rate of approximately 10%. In China, the preterm birth rate is approximately 6%, while the number of preterm births ranks fourth globally [1]. Preterm infants are susceptible to complications such as respiratory diseases, hyperbilirubinemia, feeding difficulties, and hypoglycemia, which often lead to prolonged hospitalization and markedly higher readmission rates [2]. Studies indicate that the readmission rate within two years after discharge can reach 56% among preterm infants, with late-preterm infants (34–36 weeks of gestation) facing twice the risk of readmission within 30 days compared to full-term infants [3].

Due to their organ immaturity, preterm infants often require admission to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), where they receive multidisciplinary professional care and continuous life support. Separation from their primary caregivers during hospitalization can disrupt the continuity of parent–infant bonding, impede the acquisition of care-related knowledge and skills, and delay the development of caregiving competence [4]. Consequently, families face multiple challenges after discharge, including insufficient caregiving capacity due to delayed adaptation to caregiving roles; anxiety and depression arising from uncertainties about the infant’s prognosis and development; fatigue caused by long-term, demanding care tasks; and isolation resulting from stigma or misconceptions [5].

In addition, primary caregivers are under considerable pressure to facilitate catch-up growth in preterm infants. The early postnatal period—particularly the first 6–12 months—represents a critical window for compensatory growth [6]. Providing scientifically informed and appropriate care during this crucial phase is essential for improving the quality of life for preterm infants. Therefore, post-discharge care is a long-term and complex process that requires caregivers to rapidly acquire the necessary competencies, imposing substantial demands and psychological pressure.

When confronted with health issues in preterm infants, primary caregivers—particularly those with limited coping capacity [7], psychological adjustment difficulties, or delayed role acceptance [8]—exhibit strong and diverse care needs. Research indicates that within six months after discharge, parents have multifaceted information needs aimed at improving their mental health and sleep quality, and they expect tailored resources and informational support [9]. The uncertainties and responsibilities inherent in caregiving often cause anxiety, underscoring the urgent need for informational and peer support to help caregivers navigate this transitional period [10,11]. Although caregivers acquire some basic skills through discharge education (such as bathing, dressing, and diaper changing), they frequently feel inadequately prepared for specialized care tasks, including home oxygen therapy, electrocardiogram monitoring, or nasogastric feeding. As infants progress through developmental stages, care demands continue to evolve, demonstrating both dynamism and complexity [12].

Accurate identification of caregivers’ needs is a prerequisite for providing effective support. At present, hospital and community nurses often struggle to prioritize these needs, resulting in generalized rather than targeted interventions. This mismatch between services and needs can reduce resource efficiency. Previous studies have shown that providing scientific feeding guidance alleviates feeding difficulties in preterm infants, while information on behavior, growth, and development enhances caregivers’ skills and confidence, reduces anxiety, and promotes parent-infant interaction [13]. However, the specific attributes and priorities of various needs remain unclear, limiting the precision of support. In addition, most existing research has focused on parental caregivers, with insufficient attention to the individualized needs of grandparents—who also serve as primary caregivers for some preterm infants [14]. The absence of population-specific analysis hinders the delivery of precisely matched services.

Since its introduction into nursing research, the Kano model has been widely applied to identify user needs, optimize service strategies, and promote innovation in nursing models and management practices [15]. Through a cross-sectional survey and Kano analysis, this study aims to clarify the attributes and priorities of care needs among primary caregivers of discharged preterm infants, thereby providing a foundation for developing targeted nursing interventions.

Methods

Study design and participants

A cross-sectional survey was conducted between November 1,2024 and January 31,2025 using convenience sampling. Primary caregivers of preterm infants discharged within the previous six months from a Grade A tertiary hospital in Hubei Province were recruited. The NICU of this hospital admits all preterm infants, mostly moderate-to-late preterm, and provides postoperative care for surgical conditions. The NICU operates a closed management system. During hospitalization, primary caregivers are not involved in daily care (e.g., feeding, bathing, diaper changing). At discharge, caregivers receive standardized health education on basic home care skills. This system is standard in most NICUs in China. The entire research design and reporting process followed the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines.

Inclusion criteria for preterm infants were: (1) gestational age < 37 weeks; and (2) discharge within the past 6 months. Exclusion criteria for preterm infants were: (1) severe complications including moderate-to-severe anemia, severe retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment, severe intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis requiring surgery, and moderate-to-severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia; (2) genetic disorders or congenital malformations; (3) transfer to another hospital due to medical needs; and (4) discharge against medical advice at the family’s request.

Inclusion criteria for primary caregivers were: (1) adult primary caregivers, female ≥20 years old, male ≥22 years old [16]; (2) a family member (parent or grandparent) serving as the main caregiver with ≥ 6 h of daily caregiving; (3) normal cognitive function and communication ability; and (4) voluntary participation in the survey. Exclusion criteria for primary caregivers were: (1) caregivers whose caregiving ability was impaired by severe cardiac, cerebral, pulmonary, or renal diseases; and (2) withdrawal during the study.

Note on participant age: All primary caregiver participants met the inclusion criterion of being adults (female ≥20 years, male ≥22 years). Therefore, no minors were included as direct participants in this survey, and the requirement for parental or guardian consent was not applicable.

Questionnaire survey

Demographic questionnaire.

A self-designed form was used to collect demographic information, including infants’ gestational age, birth weight, singleton status, and caregivers’ age, gender, relationship to the infant, education level, caregiving experience, and place of residence.

Home care needs questionnaire for primary caregivers of preterm infants.

The care needs questionnaire was developed through a systematic process:

First, keywords such as “preterm infant”, “post-discharge”, “home care”, “primary caregiver”, and “needs” were used to search Chinese and English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM). High-frequency care needs were extracted and categorized based on the ERG(Existence, Relatedness, and Growth) needs theory, and an initial draft was prepared through research team discussions.

Next, qualitative interviews were conducted with 25 eligible primary caregivers to identify practical service needs during home care.

Finally, 21 clinical nursing experts with over 10 years of experience, at least a bachelor’s degree, and intermediate or senior professional titles(nurse-in-charge or above, including associate chief nurse and chief nurse) were invited to review and revise the questionnaire, resulting in a preliminary version.

Following the principles of the Kano model, each item was phrased in both positive and negative forms. A pretest was then conducted among primary caregivers who met the inclusion criteria, in which participants were asked to review the questionnaire items and provide feedback on any unclear or difficult-to-understand wording. Items were revised based on their feedback until all participants found the questionnaire easy to understand. This pretest was conducted to assess the feasibility of the questionnaire. The formal survey was administered to primary caregivers of preterm infants who had been discharged within the previous six months. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) was 0.932 for the positive version and 0.940 for the negative version, demonstrating strong reliability. Exploratory factor analysis retained 27 items across three dimensions: Existence needs, Relatedness needs, and Growth needs. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model fit indices of both versions met acceptable standards, with good convergent and discriminant validity. The item-level content validity index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.71 to 1.00, and the scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) was 0.93, indicating satisfactory validity. The final questionnaire consisted of 27 items across three dimensions: 16 in Existence needs, 7 in Relatedness needs, and 4 in Growth needs (S1 File).

Kano model

Quality attributes.

The Kano model, developed by Professor Noriaki Kano and inspired by Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, is used to analyze how product or service attributes affect user satisfaction [17]. The model classifies quality attributes into five categories: Must-be (M), One-dimensional (O), Attractive (A), Indifferent (I), and Reverse (R).

Kano questionnaire.

A specific Kano questionnaire format was employed, presenting each service item in both positive and negative forms. For example: Positive question: “How would you feel if this service were provided?”

Negative question: “How would you feel if this service were not provided?” Each question offered five response options: “Like,” “Must-be,” “Neutral,” “Live with,” and “Dislike”.

Kano attribute analysis.

The attribute category for each need was determined by cross-referencing responses to the positive and negative questions using the evaluation matrix The final attribute for each item was identified using the “Maximum Frequency Method”.

Prioritization of needs.

To address limitations of the traditional Kano model in distinguishing priorities when attribute frequencies were similar, the Better–Worse coefficient proposed by Berger et al. [18] was applied for quantitative analysis: Satisfaction index (Better): (A + O)/ (A + O + M + I); Dissatisfaction index (|Worse|): |(O + M)/ (A + O + M + I)|. Needs were prioritized by quadrant in the following order: Quadrant IV > I > II > III. To further rank needs within the same quadrant, the Average Satisfaction Coefficient (ASC) [19] was applied: ASC = (Better + |Worse|)/ 2. A higher ASC indicates a higher priority. When ASC values were equal, the item with a higher absolute Worse value was prioritized.

Sample size calculation

Based on Kendall’s guideline for sample size estimation in cross-sectional studies, the required sample size should be 5–10 times the number of questionnaire items [20]. Considering a 10% rate of invalid responses, the sample size was calculated as N = 27 × (5–10) ÷ 0.9 ≈ 150–300.

Data collection and analysis

Data collection.

With approval from the medical institution, paper-based questionnaires were distributed at follow-up clinics. To ensure data quality, home visits were conducted for caregivers who were unable to complete the questionnaire during clinic visits because of childcare responsibilities or missed appointments, provided that they agreed to participate.

Data analysis.

Data were independently entered into EpiData 3.1 by two researchers, followed by cross-verification to ensure accuracy, and analyzed with SPSS 26.0. Categorical data were summarized using frequencies and proportions. Kano attributes were classified according to the Maximum Frequency Method. A two-dimensional matrix was constructed using Better–Worse coefficients, and needs were prioritized according to ASC values.

Quality control.

All researchers received standardized training and conducted pilot surveys to become familiar with the procedures. Participants were informed that participation was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential before participation. For respondents with lower education levels or advanced age, researchers read each item aloud and recorded their responses. Questionnaires were reviewed on-site for completeness and accuracy. Data were double-entered and cross-verified to ensure data integrity.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Approval Number: [2023] Lun Shen Zi (S134)) for the initial research protocol. The implementation of the cross-sectional survey at the primary data collection site was further reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Yichang Central People’s Hospital (Approval Number: 2024-311-01). The latter committee explicitly granted a waiver of written informed consent, considering the study to be an anonymous, low-risk survey. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Results

Participant characteristics

During the survey period (November 1, 2024 to January 31, 2025), a total of 125 preterm infants discharged from the study hospital met the inclusion criteria (gestational age < 37 weeks, discharged within the previous 6 months). Ultimately, 98 preterm infants were included in the final analysis. A total of 220 questionnaires were distributed, and 201 valid responses were collected, resulting in an effective response rate of 91.36%. Valid responses were defined as questionnaires with no missing data on the 27 Kano items and no contradictory responses (e.g., “Like” for both positive and negative forms of the same item). The general characteristics of the included preterm infants (n = 98) and their primary caregivers (n = 201) are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. General characteristics of preterm infants and their primary caregivers (N = 201).

Preterm infants Primary caregivers
Category Group n % Category Group n %
Gender Female 41 41.84 Gender Female 145 72.14
Male 57 58.16 Male 56 27.86
Age (years) < 35 105 52.24
35–59 43 21.39
Singleton Yes 56 57.14 ≥ 60 53 26.37
No 42 42.86 Relationship Mother 72 35.82
Father 50 24.88
Gestational age (weeks) 28–31 6 6.12 Grandmother 43 21.39
32–33 43 43.88 Grandfather 6 2.99
34–37 49 50.00 Maternal grandmother 30 14.93
Academic qualification Primary school or below 12 5.97
Junior high school 52 25.87
High school/ vocational school 33 16.42
Birth weight (kg) 1–1.4 3 3.06 College degree 52 25.87
1.5–2.4 92 93.88 Bachelor’s degree or above 52 25.87
≥ 2.5 3 3.06 Parenting experience Yes 93 46.27
No 108 53.73
Occupation Government/ public institution 26 12.94
Time since discharge (months) < 1 17 17.35 Enterprise employee 65 32.34
1- < 2 10 10.20 Freelancer 43 21.39
2– < 3 17 17.35 Farmer/ laborer 4 1.99
3– < 4 27 27.55 Unemployed/ other 63 31.34
4– < 5 15 15.31 Residence Urban area 177 88.06
5–6 12 12.24 Non-urban areas 24 11.94

Classification of care needs attributes

Based on the maximum frequency method, the 27 care needs were classified into three categories: three were Must-be attributes, six were One-dimensional attributes, and the remaining 18 were Attractive attributes.

Must-be attributes.

These are basic services that caregivers expect to be provided; their absence significantly reduces satisfaction. The Must-be attributes included: “Informing the timing and method of formula transition,” “Informing medication usage and related precautions,” and “Guiding the assessment of feeding timing and amount.”

One-dimensional attributes.

These are services for which provision is linearly correlated with satisfaction. The six identified One-dimensional attributes were: “Providing knowledge about growth and development patterns,” “Guiding early intellectual care training for preterm infants,” “Guiding identification of abdominal distension,” “Guiding identification of abnormal jaundice,” “Guiding management of vomiting and choking,” and “Guiding first aid for choking and suffocation.”

Attractive attributes.

These are services that exceed expectations and significantly enhance satisfaction. A total of 18 needs were classified into this category, including “Educating about normal urination and defecation,” “Teaching techniques to promote intestinal gas relief,” and “Guiding maintenance for oxygen therapy or tube feeding at home.” Detailed results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of Kano model analysis results.
Function/ Service A O M I Classification
1. Informing caregivers about the timing and method of formula transition (from special formula to regular formula or breast milk) 59 42 68 32 M
2. Informing caregivers about medication usage and related precautions 41 59 92 9 M
3. Providing caregivers with knowledge about growth and development patterns 63 118 12 8 O
4. Educating caregivers about normal urination and defecation 109 65 10 17 A
5. Guiding caregivers in assessment of feeding timing and amount 58 50 76 17 M
6. Instructing caregivers on early intellectual care training (e.g., visual/auditory sensory stimulation, passive exercise) 55 127 9 10 O
7. Teaching caregivers techniques to promote intestinal gas relief 109 77 5 10 A
8. Guiding caregivers in maintaining oxygen or tube feeding at home 75 17 45 64 A
9. Instructing caregivers on identifying abdominal distension 54 125 5 17 O
10. Guiding caregivers in recognizing and managing defecation (diarrhea or constipation) 79 46 28 48 A
11. Teaching caregivers how to identify abnormal jaundice 61 77 48 15 O
12. Instructing caregivers on managing vomiting and choking during feeding 62 65 60 14 O
13. Training caregivers in first aid for accidental falls from the bed 111 67 9 14 A
14. Training caregivers in first aid for choking and suffocation 59 121 8 13 O
15. Demonstrating infant massage techniques to caregivers 140 29 7 25 A
16. Teaching caregivers eye contact and vocal interaction skills 114 55 9 23 A
17. Providing caregivers with diversified hospital consultation methods (e.g., online, in-person accompaniment, special appointments) 123 50 7 21 A
18. Disseminating disease-related information through science lectures, official social media, and online platforms 130 43 5 23 A
19. Organizing multiple follow-up formats (outpatient visits, home visits, telephone calls) 129 44 9 19 A
20. Providing caregivers with information on financial aid and access channels 107 56 12 26 A
21. Facilitating peer support among caregivers of preterm infants 122 57 3 19 A
22. Enabling assistance from family members 145 37 2 17 A
23. Promoting shared decision-making within the family 122 55 2 22 A
24. Supporting caregivers’ emotional stability 129 42 4 26 A
25. Encouraging caregivers to independently care for the preterm infant 98 52 22 29 A
26. Offering training workshops to improve caregivers’ skills 131 45 3 22 A
27. Creating platforms for sharing successful care experiences among caregivers 131 43 4 23 A

Legend: A = Attractive attribute; O = One-dimensional attribute; M = Must-be attribute; I = Indifferent attribute.

Prioritization of care needs

Better–Worse coefficient analysis.

The Better–Worse coefficients were calculated to further analyze the prioritization of needs (results are presented in Table 3). The highest Better value was observed for “Teaching caregivers techniques to promote intestinal gas relief” (0.925), indicating that providing this service would increase satisfaction by 92.5%. The highest absolute Worse value was observed for “Informing caregivers about medication usage and related precautions” (0.751), indicating that not providing this service would decrease satisfaction by 75.1%.

Table 3. Better–Worse coefficients and ASC values.
Function/ Service Better Worse (absolute) ASC
1. Informing caregivers about the timing and method of formula transition (from special formula to regular formula, or breast milk) 0.503 0.547 0.525
2. Informing caregivers about medication usage and related precautions 0.498 0.751 0.624
3. Providing caregivers with knowledge about growth and development patterns 0.901 0.647 0.774
4. Educating caregivers about normal urination and defecation 0.866 0.373 0.619
5. Guiding caregivers in assessing feeding timing and amount 0.537 0.627 0.582
6. Instructing caregivers on early intelligence care training (e.g., visual/auditory sensory stimulation, passive exercise) 0.906 0.677 0.791
7. Teaching caregivers techniques to promote intestinal gas relief 0.925 0.408 0.667
8. Guiding caregivers in maintenance oxygen therapy or tube feeding at home 0.458 0.309 0.383
9. Instructing caregivers on identifying abdominal distension 0.891 0.647 0.769
10. Guiding caregivers in recognizing and managing abnormal defecation (diarrhea or constipation) 0.687 0.368 0.527
11. Teaching caregivers how to identify abnormal jaundice 0.622 0.622 0.622
12. Instructing caregivers on managing vomiting and choking during feeding 0.632 0.622 0.627
13. Training caregivers in first aid for accidental falls from bed 0.886 0.378 0.632
14. Training caregivers in first aid for choking and suffocation 0.896 0.642 0.769
15. Demonstrating infant massage techniques to caregivers 0.841 0.179 0.510
16. Teaching caregivers eye contact and vocal interaction skills 0.841 0.318 0.580
17. Providing caregivers with diversified hospital consultation methods (e.g., online, in-person accompaniment, special appointments) 0.861 0.284 0.572
18. Disseminating disease-related information through science lectures, official social media, and online platforms 0.861 0.239 0.550
19. Organizing multiple follow-up formats (outpatient visits, home visits, telephone calls) 0.861 0.264 0.562
20. Providing caregivers with information on financial aid and access channels 0.811 0.338 0.575
21. Facilitating peer support among caregivers of preterm infants 0.891 0.299 0.595
22. Enabling assistance from family members 0.906 0.194 0.550
23. Promoting shared decision-making within the family 0.881 0.284 0.582
24. Supporting caregivers’ emotional stability 0.851 0.229 0.540
25. Encouraging caregivers to independently care of the preterm infant 0.746 0.368 0.557
26. Offering training workshops to improve caregivers’ skills 0.876 0.239 0.557
27. Creating platforms for sharing successful care experiences among caregivers 0.866 0.234 0.550

Needs prioritization.

A two-dimensional matrix was constructed based on the Better–Worse coefficients (Fig 1), with the mean Better and absolute Worse values used as the origin to divide the matrix into four quadrants. Needs were prioritized by quadrant in the following order: Quadrant IV > I > II > III. Further ranking within each quadrant was performed using the Average Satisfaction Coefficient (ASC), as presented in Table 4, resulting in a hierarchical model of care needs priorities for primary caregivers of discharged preterm infants.

Fig 1. Better–Worse coefficient matrix.

Fig 1

Table 4. Quadrant distribution and priority ranking of care needs for primary caregivers of discharged preterm infants.
quadrant Item Priority Rank
Quadrant IV (To-be-Improved) Guiding caregivers in managing vomiting and choking 1
Informing caregivers about medication usage and related precautions 2
Guiding caregivers in identifying abnormal jaundice 3
Guiding caregivers in assessing feeding timing and amount 4
Informing caregivers about the timing and method of formula transition from special formula to regular formula or breast milk 5
Quadrant I (Advantage) Instructing caregivers on early intellectual care training (e.g., visual/auditory sensory stimulation, passive exercise) 6
Providing caregivers with knowledge about growth and development patterns 7
Guiding caregivers in identifying abdominal distension 8
Training caregivers in first aid for choking and suffocation 9
Quadrant II (Maintenance) Training caregivers in first aid for accidental falls from the bed 10
Teaching caregivers techniques to promote intestinal gas relief 11
Educating caregivers about normal urination and defecation 12
Facilitating peer support among caregivers of preterm infants 13
Promoting shared decision-making within the family 14
Teaching caregivers eye contact and vocal interaction skills 15
Providing caregivers with information on financial aid and access channels 16
Providing caregivers with diversified hospital consultation methods (e.g., online, in-person accompaniment, special appointments) 17
Organizing multiple follow-up formats (outpatient visits, home visits, telephone calls) 18
Offering training workshops to improve caregivers’ skills 19
Creating platforms for sharing successful care experiences among caregivers 20
Enabling assistance from family members 21
Disseminating disease-related information through science lectures, official social media, and online platforms 22
Supporting caregivers’ emotional stability 23
Demonstrating infant massage techniques 24
Quadrant III (Low Priority) Encouraging caregivers to independently care of the preterm infant 25
Guiding caregivers in recognizing and managing abnormal defecation (diarrhea or constipation) 26
Guiding caregivers in maintaining oxygen therapy or tube feeding at home 27

Discussion

High level of care needs among primary caregivers of discharged preterm infants

The analysis of 27 care needs using the Maximum Frequency Method revealed three Must-be attributes, six One-dimensional attributes, and 18 Attractive attributes, indicating that primary caregivers have extensive and complex need during home care. Beyond daily care knowledge, caregivers urgently require professional, social, and family support, and are particularly concerned with improving their caregiving competencies. This finding is consistent with a recent qualitative study of mothers of preterm infants [21], which highlighted that maternal caregiving is a multidimensional concept involving cognitive, technical, and psychological dimensions. As non-professional caregivers, mothers’ strong sense of responsibility and concern for their infants’ health lead them to have expectations for nursing services.

The closed management model adopted by most NICUs in China may explain the caregivers’ insufficient caregiving capacity after discharge, as it prevents them from participating in care immediately after birth. During home care, the knowledge caregivers acquire from discharge education is limited. Moreover, as preterm infants grow, new health issues emerge that require continuous access to professional information. However, existing community maternal and child health services are often inadequate to meet these needs. Consequently, in addition to clinical follow-up, most caregivers turn to the internet for information [22] Unfortunately, the variable quality of online information limits caregivers’ access to reliable care knowledge [23]. To address the above issues, the following measures are recommended: develop and promote additional support tools to help caregivers monitor infant growth and intervene in a timely manner; strengthen health education and support services to enhance family health management capacity; and provide psychological counseling to alleviate caregiving stress, thereby improving caregivers’ mental health and caregiving ability.

Our findings are generally consistent with the direction of several recent studies. Lebel et al. [9] showed that parents of preterm infants have multifaceted information needs during the first six months after discharge, and meeting these needs may help improve their mental health and sleep quality. Similarly, Flierman et al. [22] found that parents require continuous access to professional information as their preterm infant grows, which aligns with our observation that caregivers’ needs may extend beyond basic discharge education. Building on these studies, the present study attempted to quantify the relative importance of different needs using the Kano model. Our preliminary results suggest that although various needs may all be important to some extent, survival-related needs appear to receive greater attention from caregivers.

Survival needs are the most urgent requirements for caregivers

The results show that the six One-dimensional and three Must-be attributes all pertain to survival needs, concentrated in Quadrants I and IV, underscoring the high-risk nature of preterm infants. Complications arising from organ immaturity—such as choking, suffocation, and pathological jaundice—directly threaten infant survival, prompting caregivers to prioritize basic life-sustaining safeguards.

Feeding-related needs (e.g., assessing feeding timing and amount and determining transition timing and methods) were identified as Must-be attributes with high priority, consistent with previous research. For instance, da Cunha et al. [24] reported that feeding was the most frequently reported need among caregivers of preterm infants. Building on this, the present study further classifies feeding needs as Must-be attributes, suggesting that caregivers regard feeding support as a basic expectation, and that a lack of such services may lead to significant dissatisfaction. This classification has clear practical implications: healthcare providers should prioritize feeding support as an essential service rather than an optional one. Moreover, da Cunha’s study also found that, unlike caregivers of full-term infants, the feeding needs of preterm infant caregivers remain high over an extended period.

Notably, life-saving skill guidance such as choking first aid was not classified as a Must-be attribute in this study. This phenomenon may be related to caregivers’ psychological factors: on the one hand, parents generally have low self-efficacy regarding their own first-aid abilities; on the other hand, although such events have severe consequences, their low frequency may lead to cognitive biases, causing caregivers to underestimate the necessity of related guidance.

Furthermore, the classification of first-aid skill needs may also be influenced by healthcare systems and sociocultural contexts. Existing research indicates that the accessibility of infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education varies significantly across regions, populations, and healthcare systems. For example, a systematic review noted that infant CPR is generally not integrated into mainstream perinatal parenting education programs; even in American neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) that require CPR training prior to discharge, only about 37% of parents actually completed the training, and accessibility is even more limited in resource-poor settings (e.g., Indigenous communities in Australia) [25]. Further studies have found that the provision rate of bystander CPR also differs significantly across socioeconomic groups [26].

These findings suggest that caregivers’ perceptions of first-aid skill needs are closely related to their specific healthcare environment, cultural background, and socioeconomic status. Therefore, context-specific needs assessment has important practical implications: interventions developed in one healthcare system should be adapted to local circumstances rather than being directly transplanted.

Needs closely related to health—such as understanding growth patterns, intellectual care training, choking first aid, and identifying abnormal jaundice—were all highly One-dimensional, indicating that feeding and health monitoring are core concerns. This pattern may be related to the high proportion of grandparents and fathers in this study. Research shows [27,28] that parents of preterm infants often rely on grandparents’ experiential knowledge during the early post-discharge period. Grandparents typically depend on traditional parenting experience, are reluctant to seek professional help, and focus primarily on feeding and weight. Fathers, on the other hand, often have limited involvement, delayed role adaptation, and low confidence [29], tending to focus more on physical indicators such as infant weight [30].

Therefore, in continuing feeding care, “cue-based feeding strategies” should be promoted. These strategies combine scheduled feeding with responsiveness to infant hunger and satiety cues to improve feeding success and support appropriate growth [31]. Caregivers need to accurately identify feeding cues (e.g., the infant waking up and searching for the nipple) and stopping cues (e.g., falling asleep or stopping sucking), and adopt a “semi-demand feeding” model after discharge. This model integrates the infant’s responses with time and volume settings to scientifically assess feeding timing and amount. This approach can enhance caregiving capacity and reduce readmission rates.

It is advisable to include formula transition knowledge in routine health education and to disseminate related information through professional channels such as hospital social media accounts, internet-based nursing clinics, and preterm infant support groups. This would help caregivers achieve evidence-based formula transition and rational nutrient management.

For intellectual care training, caregivers should be guided at discharge to implement interventions aligned with developmental milestones (e.g., rolling over, sitting, crawling, standing, and walking). They should also be taught methods such as touch, passive exercise, and tactile stimulation to promote physical, motor, and intellectual development.

Aspiration suffocation and accidental bed suffocation are the two most common types of infant suffocation [32]. In China, these events are closely associated with bed-sharing practices and inadequate care, and without prompt intervention, they can result in death [33,34]. Therefore, training on prevention and first aid should be strengthened for caregivers of preterm infants, delivering professional knowledge and practical skills in an accessible and acceptable way.

Readmission due to hyperbilirubinemia is often linked to breastfeeding problems [35]. It is recommended that follow-up plans be developed at discharge based on bilirubin levels and risk factors, and that caregivers be guided to recognize abnormal jaundice and seek timely medical attention to reduce the harm caused by pathological jaundice and lower readmission rates.

Implications of needs prioritization for clinical nursing management

Constructing a survival needs support system.

The prioritization of survival needs aligns with the “proximal needs first” principle in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. In the future, a “Home Care First-Aid Kit for Preterm Infants” and standardized training programs could be developed, incorporating simulated choking management exercises. A digital medication management assistant could provide personalized medication guidance, and stepped feeding plans could be developed alongside intelligent assessment tools integrated with growth charts to systematically build a survival needs support system.

Optimizing the support system and establishing a “Hospital–Community-Family” tertiary linkage mechanism.

The high survival needs in home-based care for preterm infants reflect both biomedical vulnerability and inadequacies in the social support system. It is recommended to establish a multi-agency collaborative “hospital–community–family” tertiary linkage mechanism [36], implement a family-centered care model, and enhance caregiver participation and satisfaction [37]. Specific measures include: allowing parents to enter the NICU during hospitalization to learn non-medical care; providing post-discharge services such as home visits and online guidance from multidisciplinary teams; organizing regular online and offline follow-ups by community nurses to assess development and provide long-term guidance, with timely referrals for infants with developmental delays [38,39];and establishing a cloud-based parent mutual support platform through hospitals and communities to facilitate experience sharing and stress relief, alleviating relational pressures, and ultimately transitioning from passive receipt of care guidance to autonomous caregiving.

In summary, the high level of needs among primary caregivers of preterm infants reflects rising caregiving expectations amid social development. There is a need to strengthen survival support through dynamic response mechanisms, improve home care quality, and reduce avoidable readmission risks. Future efforts should further integrate technology, resources, and policies to establish a needs-oriented precision support system, transforming “high expectations” into “high satisfaction” and ultimately achieving family-centered whole-cycle health management for preterm infants.

What this study adds to existing research

This study may offer several potential contributions to the existing literature. First, this study applies the Kano model—traditionally used in marketing and service design—to assess the home care needs of primary caregivers of preterm infants, providing a possible methodological reference for nursing research. Second, unlike previous studies that have primarily listed caregiver needs, this study classifies them into Must-be, One-dimensional, and Attractive attributes using the Maximum Frequency Method, which may offer a useful reference for prioritizing needs in resource-limited clinical settings. Third, by including grandparents and fathers as primary caregivers, this study supplements the perspectives of previous research that has focused predominantly on mothers. Fourth, the Better–Worse coefficient analysis may provide quantifiable indicators for service design; for example, the satisfaction coefficient for teaching techniques to promote intestinal gas relief was 0.925 in this study, suggesting that such services may have high potential to improve caregiver satisfaction. These preliminary findings may help clinicians and nurses prioritize the most urgent survival needs of preterm infant caregivers while also exploring attractive services that could enhance long-term satisfaction.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the sample consisted predominantly of late preterm infants, which may have introduced bias. As a single-center investigation, the findings may not fully represent all primary caregivers of discharged preterm infants due to regional and cultural constraints. Second, the sample size of extremely and very preterm infants (<32 weeks) was only 6 cases (6% of the total sample), which precluded stable subgroup analysis by gestational age. Consequently, potential differences in caregiver needs across different levels of prematurity could not be adequately examined. Third, this cross-sectional study captured caregiver needs at a single time point, and the sample distribution across different post-discharge periods was uneven. This limited our ability to perform stable subgroup analysis by time since discharge, as caregiver needs may evolve over time with infant growth. Future research could build on this study by conducting multicenter, large-sample, longitudinal studies to examine the diverse care needs of primary caregivers over time. Dynamically tracking changes in need priorities and exploring variations across different caregiver profiles would provide an empirical basis for developing more targeted and timely care support strategies. Nevertheless, this study provides a valuable methodological approach for identifying and addressing the care needs of this population.

Conclusion

This cross-sectional study applied the Kano model to analyze the home care needs of primary caregivers of preterm infants. The results showed that primary caregivers generally have high levels of care needs, among which survival-related needs (e.g., feeding, medication management, and choking prevention) are the most urgent. The Kano model provides a practical analytical framework for classifying and prioritizing these needs.

For clinical practice, Must-be and One-dimensional needs (e.g., feeding guidance, identification of jaundice) should be prioritized as essential services, while Attractive needs (e.g., infant massage instruction, peer support) can be gradually developed to enhance long-term satisfaction with care. The hierarchical needs priority model developed in this study may help clinicians allocate resources appropriately when caregivers have multiple competing needs. For researchers, the Kano model proved to be a valid tool for needs classification and prioritization in this context.

Future research could adopt multicenter longitudinal designs to track the dynamic changes in caregiver needs as preterm infants grow. Intervention studies could also be conducted to further validate the clinical effectiveness of service models based on this needs-priority framework.

Supporting information

S1 Data. The data.

(XLS)

pone.0360393.s001.xls (93KB, xls)
S1 File. The Kano questionnaire on care needs of primary caregivers of premature infants.

(DOCX)

pone.0360393.s002.docx (18.7KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all the primary caregivers who participated in this study for sharing their time and experiences. We gratefully acknowledge the nursing and medical staff at the study site for their support in participant recruitment. We also thank the experts for their valuable input during the questionnaire development. We appreciate the contributions of all colleagues who assisted in this research.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Ohuma EO, Moller A-B, Bradley E, Chakwera S, Hussain-Alkhateeb L, Lewin A, et al. National, regional, and global estimates of preterm birth in 2020, with trends from 2010: A systematic analysis. Lancet. 2023;402(10409):1261–71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00878-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Karnati S, Kollikonda S, Abu-Shaweesh J. Late preterm infants - Changing trends and continuing challenges. Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2020;7(1):36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpam.2020.02.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Amsalu R, Oltman SP, Baer RJ, Medvedev MM, Rogers EE, Jelliffe-Pawlowski L. Incidence, risk factors, and reasons for 30-day hospital readmission among healthy late preterm infants. Hosp Pediatr. 2022;12(7):639–49. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-006215 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Yu X, Zhang J, Yuan L. Chinese parents’ lived experiences of having preterm infants in NICU: A qualitative study. J Pediatr Nurs. 2020;50:e48–54. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2019.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Boykova M. Transition from hospital to home in parents of preterm infants: A literature review. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2016;30(4):327–48. doi: 10.1097/JPN.0000000000000211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Deng Y, Yang F, Mu D. First-year growth of 834 preterm infants in a Chinese population: A single-center study. BMC Pediatr. 2019;19(1):403. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1752-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zhao Y, Liu J, Li M, Zhang H, Gong J, Zhang J, et al. The mediating effects of parenting self-efficacy between readiness for hospital discharge and post-discharge coping difficulty among mothers of preterm infants. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):19404. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-70365-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Eriksson E, Lundqvist P, Jönsson L. Fathers’ experiences six months after their preterm infant’s discharge from the NICU. Compr Child Adolesc Nurs. 2024;47(4):245–54. doi: 10.1080/24694193.2024.2406209 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lebel V, Aita M, Landry I, Martel M-J, Hamel-Hilaréguy P. Transition from the neonatal unit to home: Parents’ educational needs to promote their psychological well-being and sleep quality. J Pediatr Nurs. 2024;79:e1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2024.07.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Petty J, Whiting L, Green J, Fowler C. Parents’ views on preparation to care for extremely premature infants at home. Nurs Child Young People. 2018. doi: 10.7748/ncyp.2018.e1084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Granero-Molina J, Fernández Medina IM, Fernández-Sola C, Hernández-Padilla JM, Jiménez Lasserrotte MDM, López Rodríguez MDM. Experiences of mothers of extremely preterm infants after hospital discharge. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;45:e2–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2018.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Namnabati M, Hemati Z, Taleghani F, Sadeghnia A. Home-based care needs of preterm infants discharged early from the neonatal intensive care unit: A descriptive qualitative study. Iran J Neonatol. 2017;8:74–82. doi: 10.22038/ijn.2017.21890.1253 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Aydon L, Hauck Y, Murdoch J, Siu D, Sharp M. Transition from hospital to home: Parents’ perception of their preparation and readiness for discharge with their preterm infant. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(1–2):269–77. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13883 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tang F, Li K, Rauktis ME, Farmer EMZ, McDaniel S. Stress, Coping, and quality of life among custodial grandparents. J Gerontol Soc Work. 2023;66:354–67. doi: 10.1080/01634372.2022.2103764 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yuan D, Li B, Zhang CJ, Hong BY, Wu B. Research progress on the application of Kano model in nursing. Chin Nurs Manage. 2024;24(9):1432–7. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2024.09.028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jin M. A comparative study on the legal marriage age. Acad Exchange. 2017;(1):82–7. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8284.2017.01.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kano N, Seraku N, Takahashi F, Tsuji S. Attractive quality and must-be quality. J Jpn Soc Qual Control. 1984;14:39–48. doi: 10.20684/quality.14.2_147 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Li S, Yunus MM, Hussain RBBM, Lin W. Cultural adaptation to aging: a study on digital cultural adaptation needs of Chinese older adults based on KANO model. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1554552. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1554552 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mkpojiogu EOC, Hashim NL. Understanding the relationship between Kano model’s customer satisfaction scores and self-stated requirements importance. Springerplus. 2016;5:197. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-1860-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2016. pp. xvii, 534. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tajalli S, Parvizy S, Ebadi A, Zamaniashtiani F, Kenner C. Understanding the experience of the mothers’ ability to take care of their preterm infants related to in-hospital and post-discharge: A qualitative content analysis. BMC Pediatr. 2025;25(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s12887-024-05338-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Flierman M, Bossen D, de Boer R, Vriend E, van Nes F, van Kaam A, et al. Parents’ information needs during the first year at home with their very premature born child; a qualitative study. PEC Innov. 2024;4:100270. doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Alderdice F, Gargan P, McCall E, Franck L. Online information for parents caring for their premature baby at home: A focus group study and systematic web search. Health Expect. 2018;21(4):741–51. doi: 10.1111/hex.12670 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.da Cunha AFS, de Brito Brandão M, Gontijo APB, de Miranda DM, de Melo Mambrini JV, Mancini MC. Parental priorities in the home care of preterm and full term newborns. Early Hum Dev. 2022;173:105658. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2022.105658 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Stephens N, Nilson C, Reibel T, Marriott R. The availability and delivery of culturally responsive Australian Aboriginal infant resuscitation education programmes: A structured literature review. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2023;24:e51. doi: 10.1017/S1463423623000373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bernardin ME, Arora J, Schuler P, Fisher B, Finney J, Kendrick E, et al. Social determinants of health and their associations with outcomes in pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A national study of the NEMSIS database. Resusc Plus. 2024;20:100795. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100795 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ahun MN, Bliznashka L, Karuskina-Drivdale S, Regina G, Yousafzai AK, Jeong J. A qualitative study of maternal and paternal parenting knowledge and practices in rural Mozambique. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):1778. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19291-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Xiao X, Loke AY. Intergenerational co-parenting in the postpartum period: A concept analysis. Midwifery. 2022;107:103275. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2022.103275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sun XX, Chen SH, Teng YP, Wang H, Liu D. Status and influencing factors of discharge readiness among fathers of preterm infants in NICU. Chin J Nurs. 2024;59(4):455–61. doi: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2024.04.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lundqvist P, Weis J, Sivberg B. Parents’ journey caring for a preterm infant until discharge from hospital-based neonatal home care-A challenging process to cope with. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(15–16):2966–78. doi: 10.1111/jocn.14891 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lubbe W. Clinicians guide for cue-based transition to oral feeding in preterm infants: An easy-to-use clinical guide. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(1):80–8. doi: 10.1111/jep.12721 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wang L, Gao Y, Yin P, Cheng P, Liu Y, Schwebel DC. Under-five mortality from unintentional suffocation in China, 2006-2016. J Glob Health. 2019;9:010602. doi: 10.7189/jogh.09.010602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kong F, Wang A, He J, Xiong L, Xie D, Su J, et al. Trend of unintentional suffocation death for infants under 1 year of age from 2009 to 2018 in Hunan, China: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(12):e038666. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yu X, Miao L, Zhu J, Liang J, Dai L, Li X, et al. Social and environmental risk factors for unintentional suffocation among infants in China: A descriptive analysis. BMC Pediatr. 2021;21(1):465. doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-02925-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Seagraves K, Brulte A, McNeely K, Pritham U. Supporting breastfeeding to reduce newborn readmissions for hyperbilirubinemia. Nurs Womens Health. 2013;17(6):498–507. doi: 10.1111/1751-486X.12078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bouwmeester D, Anolda Naber FB, Heyman H, Hoffmann-Haringsma A, Lens A, Brunt TM. Follow-up care and support to parents of premature children: Multidisciplinary versus regular follow-up care. Child Care Health Dev. 2024;50(1):e13185. doi: 10.1111/cch.13185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dai K, Fan X, Shi H, Xiong X, Ding L, Yu Y, et al. Application of family-centered empowerment model in primary caregivers of premature infants: A quasi-experimental study. Front Pediatr. 2023;11:1137188. doi: 10.3389/fped.2023.1137188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Yan Z, Liu F, Lin X-P, Chen J, Huang Q-L, Chen S-L, et al. WeChat-based remote follow-up management alleviates the home care burden and anxiety of parents of premature infants: Randomized controlled study. Child Care Health Dev. 2022;48(4):651–7. doi: 10.1111/cch.12973 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hägi-Pedersen M-B, Kronborg H, Norlyk A. Knowledge of mothers and fathers’ experiences of the early in-home care of premature infants supported by video consultations with a neonatal nurse. BMC Nurs. 2021;20(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12912-021-00572-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nhu Tran

15 Apr 2026

Dear Dr. yu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Thank you for your patience in the review process.

1) In a separate file, please copy and paste all of the reviewer critiques, your reply to each of the critiques (line-by-line) with changes to the manuscript and the associated line/section, so that it is easy to follow and read.

2) The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

3) Discussion Section: Please provide more context on how your study's results relate to the current literature on caregiver's needs of preterm infants. Currently, this section is modest and does not adequately relate to other studies.

4) Conclusion Section: Please revise this section to state the "take home" message from the results of your study. What would be helpful for the clinician or researcher to know about caregivers needs/preferences, etc. What are some future steps for other studies?

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nhu N. Tran

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Abstract

• Line 27 Should state up to 6 months post discharge

• Methods should have some comment about the data analysis plan

Methods

• Need information regarding NICU acuity. Does this unit go from extreme GA upwards? Surgical site? Delivery site?

• Line 113-127. The layout of having infant and caregiver inclusion criteria was good. For infant exclusion it seems to be split line 114 and then more at line 126. Also, there should be a full list of exclusion conditions somewhere

• Line 140 what is ERG needs?

• Line 145 please define intermediate or senior professional

• Line 148 explain how the pretest was conducted? Or was this the 21 interviews that were described on line 144? Please clarify this section

• Line 201 and again on line 212 what does “double-entered” mean?

• The questions should be an appendix

Results

• During the survey time frame how many infants would have qualified?

• Line226 what is meant by valid?

• Did the results vary if you factored in GA at birth as more extreme premature infants might have different issues post discharge? I note that the majority of the participants had an infant 34-37 weeks, was the proportion of infants in each GA group consistent with the demographics of the unit?

• Did the survey outcomes vary if they were discharged closer to survey date then those further? Example the concerns for a one month versus a 6 month post discharge might be different

• Table 1 – the GA and weight ranges only the first number is listed for example it is 1- not 1-1.4 kg

• Table 2 – I find the classification confusing. Maybe a legend might help?

Discussion

• The discussion mentioned a closed management system. This needs more explanation. It would be helpful in the methods to explain the NICU dynamic and expected role of the caregiver during and towards the end of the admission to prepare for discharge.

• Would suggest a section denoting what this adds to the current body of research on the topic

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Oct 8;21(10):e0360393. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360393.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 May 2026

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript.We have carefully addressed all concerns raised by the Academic Editor and Reviewer. Below we provide a point-by-point response. All revisions have been marked in the revised manuscript with track changes.

The main corrections in the paper and respond to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response:Thank you for this reminder. We have reformatted the manuscript according to PLOS ONE's style requirements and named the files as requested.

2.PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager.

Response:We have linked the ORCID iD in Editorial Manager. Thanks.

3.Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly.

Response:Supporting Information captions have been added at the end of the manuscript, and in-text citations have been updated accordingly. Please see the revised manuscript.Thanks.

4.If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited.

Response:The reviewer did not recommend any specific publications for citation. Therefore, no additional references have been added based on this requirement.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

Response: We have reviewed the reference list and confirmed that it is complete and correct, with no retracted articles cited. Two new references have been added to support the revised manuscript.

Response to Academic Editor:

Comment 1: In a separate file, please copy and paste all of the reviewer critiques, your reply to each of the critiques (line-by-line) with changes to the manuscript and the associated line/section, so that it is easy to follow and read.

Response: We have prepared this Response to Reviewers file accordingly. Below we address each critique line-by-line.

Comment 2 (Data availability): The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction.

Response: Thank you for this reminder. In accordance with the PLOS Data policy, we have provided the anonymized dataset underlying the findings as a Supporting Information file (S1 Data). A Data Availability Statement has also been added at the end of the manuscript, stating that all relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Comment 3 (Discussion Section): Please provide more context on how your study's results relate to the current literature on caregiver's needs of preterm infants. Currently, this section is modest and does not adequately relate to other studies.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have substantially expanded the Discussion section as follows: (1) in the discussion on the overall level of needs, we added comparisons with relevant literature; (2) in the discussion on survival needs, we added comparisons with previous studies and supplemented with a cross-cultural discussion on the accessibility of first-aid education; and (3) added a new paragraph summarizing what this study adds to existing research. Please see the revised manuscript for details.

Comment 4 (Conclusion Section): Please revise this section to state the "take home" message from the results of your study. What would be helpful for the clinician or researcher to know about caregivers needs/preferences, etc. What are some future steps for other studies?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The Conclusion section has been rewritten as requested, clarifying the take-home message, practical implications, and future research directions. Please see the revised manuscript.

Response to Reviewer :

We thank Reviewer for the thorough and insightful comments. Below we address each point.

Abstract

Comment 1:Line 27 Should state up to 6 months post discharge

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the abstract accordingly to specify "up to 6 months post discharge".

Comment 2:Methods should have some comment about the data analysis plan

Response:Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised the Methods section of the Abstract to include some comment about the data analysis plan.

Methods:

Comment 3:Need information regarding NICU acuity. Does this unit go from extreme GA upwards? Surgical site? Delivery site?

Response:Response: Thank you for these questions. We have added the gestational age range and surgical care information to the Methods section. Regarding the delivery site: our NICU is not a delivery site. Infants are delivered in the delivery room or operating room and then transferred to the NICU as needed.

Comment 4 (Lines 113-127 – Exclusion criteria split): The layout of having infant and caregiver inclusion criteria was good. For infant exclusion it seems to be split line 114 and then more at line 126. Also, there should be a full list of exclusion conditions somewhere.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The exclusion criteria at line 126 were for primary caregivers, but the incomplete heading caused confusion. We have added the missing headings to clearly separate the exclusion criteria for preterm infants and primary caregivers.

Comment 5 (Line 140 – ERG needs): what is ERG needs?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the full term in the text: ERG stands for Existence, Relatedness, and Growth needs.

Comment 6 (Line 145 – intermediate or senior professional): please define intermediate or senior professional

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the definition in the text: intermediate or senior professional titles refer to nurse-in-charge or above (including associate chief nurse and chief nurse).

Comment 7 (Line 148 – pretest): explain how the pretest was conducted? Or was this the 21 interviews that were described on line 144? Please clarify this section

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The pretest was conducted after the expert interviews. We have clarified that 30 eligible primary caregivers participated in the pretest, and items were revised based on their feedback until they were easily understood.

Comment 8 (Line 201 and line 212 – “double-entered”): what does “double-entered” mean?

Response: Thank you for this question. "Double-entered" means that data were independently entered by two researchers and then cross-verified. We have revised the description to make this clearer.

Comment 9 (Questionnaire as appendix): The questions should be an appendix

Response: Thank you for this question.The full questionnaire has been provided as Supporting Information S1 File.

Results

Comment 10 (Qualified infants during survey time frame): During the survey time frame how many infants would have qualified?

Response: Thank you for this question.We have added that 125 preterm infants were eligible during the survey period, of which 98 were included in the final analysis.

Comment 11 (Line 226 – “valid”): Line226 what is meant by valid?

Response: Thank you for this question. We have added the definition of "valid" in the text: valid responses were defined as questionnaires with no missing data on the 27 Kano items and no contradictory responses (e.g., "Like" for both positive and negative forms of the same item).

Comment 12 (GA at birth – effect of extreme prematurity): Did the results vary if you factored in GA at birth as more extreme premature infants might have different issues post discharge? I note that the majority of the participants had an infant 34-37 weeks, was the proportion of infants in each GA group consistent with the demographics of the unit?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We considered conducting subgroup analysis by gestational age. However, the sample size of extremely and very preterm infants in this study was only 6 cases (6% of the total sample), which is insufficient for stable statistical comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform stratification by gestational age. We have added a statement about this limitation in the Discussion section. Regarding representativeness,the unit's gestational age distribution during the survey period was: 28-31⁺⁶ weeks (8%), 32-33⁺⁶ weeks (40%), and 34-36⁺⁶ weeks (52%). Our sample distribution (6%, 44%, 50%) was generally consistent, indicating good representativeness.

Comment 13 (Effect of time since discharge): Did the survey outcomes vary if they were discharged closer to survey date then those further? Example the concerns for a one month versus a 6 month post discharge might be different

Response: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We agree that analyzing caregiver needs by time since discharge could reveal important dynamic patterns. However, the sample distribution across post‑discharge periods was uneven in our study, and these subgroup sample sizes were too small to support stable statistical comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform such stratification and have added this limitation explicitly in the Discussion section, while also recommending future longitudinal studies to examine the temporal evolution of caregiver needs.

Comment 14 (Table 1 – GA and weight ranges): Table 1 – the GA and weight ranges only the first number is listed for example it is 1- not 1-1.4 kg

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The ranges for gestational age, birth weight, time since discharge, and caregiver age in Table 1 have all been completed.

Comment 15 (Table 2 – classification confusing): Table 2 – I find the classification confusing. Maybe a legend might help?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a legend below Table 2 to clarify the meanings of A, O, M, and I.

Discussion

Comment 16 (Closed management system explanation): The discussion mentioned a closed management system. This needs more explanation. It would be helpful in the methods to explain the NICU dynamic and expected role of the caregiver during and towards the end of the admission to prepare for discharge.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added an explanation of the closed management system in the Methods section: during hospitalization, caregivers are not involved in daily care, and health education is provided at discharge. We also noted that this system is standard in most NICUs in China.

Comment 17 (What this adds to current research): Would suggest a section denoting what this adds to the current body of research on the topic

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. A new section titled "What this study adds to existing research" has been added to the Discussion. Please see the revised manuscript.

Summary of Changes Made

We have uploaded two versions of the revised manuscript: Revised Manuscript with Track Changes – showing all modifications Manuscript – clean version without track changes .

Additional correction: During the revision, we identified and corrected a labeling error in Fig1. One of the data points labeled as "22" has been corrected to "24". The corrected figure has been re-uploaded to the submission system. We apologize for this oversight.

Additionally, in response to the technical check, we have now added a complete reference list at the end of the manuscript. The references are numbered in the order of first appearance in the text (1., 2., 3., …), formatted according to PLOS ONE’s Vancouver style, with DOIs included and non-English references marked by language identifiers (e.g., “Chinese.”)

Sincerely,

Jiaohua Yu

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0360393.s004.docx (19.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Helen Howard

11 Sep 2026

PONE-D-26-02017R1

Analysis of care needs for primary caregivers of premature infants at home based on the Kano model: A cross-sectional study

PLOS One

Dear Dr. yu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS One’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 26 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS One offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Helen Howard

Staff Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comment are from the tracked changes version

• Line 51 – 6th for what? lowest rate?

• Line 123 – what were the severe conditions that would exclude an infant?

• Line 126 why was there an age difference between mothers and fathers in the inclusion criteria?

• Line 130 – why is there health conditions of primary caregivers that makes them excluded?

• Lin3 233 – do not need the last sentence it was already explained above

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Oct 8;21(10):e0360393. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360393.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


13 Sep 2026

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate the editor and reviewer for their valuable and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed all the points raised by the Academic Editor and Reviewer. A point-by-point response is provided below. All changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript using track changes.

The main corrections in the paper and responses to the reviewer's comments are as follows:

Journal Requirements

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited.

Response: The reviewer did not recommend any specific publications for citation. Therefore, no additional references have been added based on this requirement.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

Response: We have reviewed the reference list and confirmed that it is complete and correct, with no retracted articles cited. The references remain unchanged in this revision.

Response to Reviewer #1

We thank Reviewer #1 for the thorough and insightful comments. Below we address each point.

Comment 1: Line 51 – 6th for what? lowest rate?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s question. The “6%” refers to the preterm birth rate in China, while “ranking fourth globally” refers to the absolute number of preterm births. According to the cited reference (Ohuma et al., 2023), the global preterm birth rate was approximately 9.9%, whereas China’s preterm birth rate was approximately 6.1% . However, the absolute number of preterm births in China ranked fourth globally. We have revised the sentence to make this distinction clear. The revised sentence now reads: “In China, the preterm birth rate is approximately 6%, while the number of preterm births ranks fourth globally [1]” (please refer to page 3, lines 51–52).

Comment 2: Line 123 – what were the severe conditions that would exclude an infant?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the original description was not specific enough. We have now listed the severe complications explicitly and defined their severity where applicable. The revised sentence reads: “(1) severe complications including moderate-to-severe anemia, severe retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment, severe intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis requiring surgery, and moderate-to-severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia”(please refer to page 6 , lines 124-126)

Comment 3: Line 126 – why was there an age difference between mothers and fathers in the inclusion criteria?

Response: We are grateful for this comment. The age criteria were pre-specified at the study design stage. The target population of this study was typical parent caregivers of preterm infants, and the age criteria were set with reference to the legal marriage age in China (female ≥20 years, male ≥22 years) [16]. Caregivers below this age were not included because this study focused on adult caregivers at the life stage typical of parent caregivers in the Chinese context; these caregivers may differ in social roles, support systems, and caregiving experience, which could introduce heterogeneity into the sample. The criterion involved age only. Grandparent caregivers were older and automatically met this criterion. We have clarified this in the revised manuscript. The revised sentence reads: “(1) adult primary caregivers, males ≥22 years old, females ≥20 years old [16]”(please refer to page 7 , lines 129-130)

Comment 4: Line 130 – why is there health conditions of primary caregivers that makes them excluded?

Response: We appreciate this important point. The exclusion criterion was originally intended to exclude caregivers whose caregiving ability was impaired by severe cardiac, cerebral, pulmonary, or renal diseases, but the original wording did not make this clear. We have now described the criterion more specifically to clarify the rationale: such conditions may compromise the caregiver's ability to provide care and could confound the assessment of care needs. The revised sentence reads: “(1) caregivers whose caregiving ability was impaired by severe cardiac, cerebral, pulmonary, or renal diseases; and (2) caregivers who withdrew during the study.”(please refer to page 7 , lines 133-135)

Comment 5: Line 233 – do not need the last sentence it was already explained above.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have removed the last sentence in the Ethical Considerations section (“Participants were informed of the study’s purpose and their voluntary participation prior to data collection.”), as it was redundant with the Quality Control section, which already states that participants were informed of the voluntary, anonymous, and confidential nature of the study.

Summary of Changes Made

We have uploaded two versions of the revised manuscript:

Revised Manuscript with Track Changes – showing all modifications

Manuscript – clean version without track changes

Additional Note

We would also like to note that during the revision, we have updated the affiliations of authors Fenfen Lan, Zhaohua Huo, Yuanyuan Wang, Qiaoyun Shi, and Juan Liu to reflect the official institutional name change of our hospital. The new affiliation is: Affiliated Central People's Hospital, China Three Gorges University (Yichang Central People's Hospital). This change has been made in both the title page(page 1) and the online submission system. The authorship order and all author names remain unchanged. We confirm that this update reflects the correct institutional name as required by our hospital administration.

We are grateful for the reviewers' and editors' thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We hope the revised manuscript now meets the publication criteria of PLOS ONE. Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jiaohua Yu

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

pone.0360393.s005.doc (28.5KB, doc)

Decision Letter 2

Jing He

28 Sep 2026

Analysis of care needs for primary caregivers of premature infants at home based on the Kano model: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-26-02017R2

Dear Prof. Yu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jing He

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the reviewers' comments. We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Jing He

PONE-D-26-02017R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. yu,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS One and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS One Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jing He

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. The data.

    (XLS)

    pone.0360393.s001.xls (93KB, xls)
    S1 File. The Kano questionnaire on care needs of primary caregivers of premature infants.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0360393.s002.docx (18.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0360393.s004.docx (19.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    pone.0360393.s005.doc (28.5KB, doc)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES