Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jun 16;16(6):e0252843. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252843

Exploring daily time-use patterns: ATUS-X data extractor and online diary visualization tool

Kamila Kolpashnikova 1,*,#, Sarah Flood 2,#, Oriel Sullivan 3, Liana Sayer 4, Ekaterina Hertog 1, Muzhi Zhou 1, Man-Yee Kan 1, Jooyeoun Suh 5, Jonathan Gershuny 3
Editor: Solveig A Cunningham6
PMCID: PMC8208539  PMID: 34133458

Abstract

Time-use data can often be perceived as inaccessible by non-specialists due to their unique format. This article introduces the ATUS-X diary visualization tool that aims to address the accessibility issue and expand the user base of time-use data by providing users with opportunity to quickly visualize their own subsamples of the American Time Use Survey Data Extractor (ATUS-X). Complementing the ATUS-X, the online tool provides an easy point-and-click interface, making data exploration readily accessible in a visual form. The tool can benefit a wider academic audience, policy-makers, non-academic researchers, and journalists by removing accessibility barriers to time use diaries.

Introduction

Time-use data are a powerful source for the analysis of daily lives and human behavior. They record all activities on a 24-hour day in the life of respondents. However, to date, most capabilities of time-use data are underutilized, despite the potential of the data for advancing the understanding of persistent inequalities in time use, including those associated with lower subjective well-being and self-reported health [13].

The data enable analyses of daily activities, which can help researchers and policy-makers understand the wide variety of activities that individuals engage in, make comparisons about how people in different population subgroups spend their days, and analyze the rhythms of daily life, including the kinds of activities engaged in at particular times of the day. Because respondents report every activity they engage in on a single day, when the activity happened, how long it lasted, where it occurred, and who else was with them, the possible questions that can be answered with these data extend far beyond a simple accounting of time in major activities. They are used to study numerous issues, classically topics such as gender inequality [4], parental investments in children [5], behavior during economic recessions versus times of economic growth [6], when and where people work [7], the use of time outside of paid work [8], and time spent with others [9].

More recently, time use research has broadened into areas of public health (in relation to the determinants of both chronic and infectious disease), extensions of national accounting based on accurate estimations of the extent and value of unpaid work, the environmental footprints associated with different activities [10], and well-being research [11, 12]. Moreover, sequences of cross-sectional nationally representative time-use diary studies permit the study of changes in all these behaviors across time. However, these wonderfully rich time-use diaries from the original American Time Use Survey (ATUS) (https://www.bls.gov/tus/home.htm) are complex to analyze, particularly for those who would like to generate statistics about daily routines and well-being without investing in developing a deep understanding of the data.

The difficulties arise in the quick descriptive analysis of time-use data due to its specific format. Time-use data are underutilized because of the complexity of analyzing person-day event-level data. Most analyses default to statistics on group-level averages of total time in daily activities (e.g., mothers’ and fathers’ total childcare time), rather than leveraging contextual data on the timings of activities, transitions from one activity into another, how interrupted activities are, or the proportions of daily hours covered by certain activities. Non-specialists in time diary analyses lack the tools to easily manipulate person-day activity records, limiting full use of the data to specialists in academic settings.

In short, the complexity of detailed time use data limits our broader academic and social understanding of daily patterns. It thus constrains the ways how time diary analyses could inform policy on addressing inequities in daily time use, social interaction, and subjective well-being and health.

To respond to this bottleneck in the potential of the time-use data, we have developed a visualization tool that aims to address the accessibility issue and substantially expand the user bases of time-use data. The ATUS-X Diary Visualizer tool makes the time-use data in its detailed form accessible to a wider academic audience as well as to policy-makers, non-academic researchers, and journalists through rich visualizations, a point-and-click interface, and the availability of statistics at one’s fingertips. Moreover, it provides the users with ability to visualize their own subsamples of ATUS-X extracts.

The ATUS-X Diary Visualizer tool (http://atusxvisualizer.com) builds on the work of IPUMS Time Use (https://www.atusdata.org/atus/), a collaboration between IPUMS at the University of Minnesota and the Maryland Population Research Center at the University of Maryland, that harmonizes and simplifies the use of the American Time Use Survey (ATUS). The ATUS-X Diary Visualizer tool allows users to create visualizations of IPUMS Time Use data easily. For illustration purposes, the visualization tool uses the subsample for caregivers identified in the ATUS from 2011 to 2019, downloaded from IPUMS [13].

In the following sections, we first provide a brief overview of IPUMS Time Use, then describe the visualization possibilities for ATUS-X data downloaded from IPUMS Time Use, and then illustrate how the resulting visualizations can be interpreted. Using data on caregivers as an illustration, we compare women and men family caregivers. In the Methods section, we discuss the methodology behind the collection of the ATUS data, conversion into IPUMS Time Use format, and the data transformations behind the visualization tool.

Methods

Data description

The American Time Use Survey has been collected annually since 2003 by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. IPUMS Time Use simplifies the use of the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) data through the IPUMS Time Use data extractor (www.ipums.org/timeuse). The original ATUS is a set of time diaries from a cross-sectional sample of the civilian, non-institutionalized U.S. population, drawn from respondents in the Current Population Survey (CPS), the primary U.S. source of labor force statistics. In the ATUS, individuals aged 15 and older are asked to report all activities they engaged in during the 24-hour period from 4 am on the previous day until 4 am on the reporting day in sequential order. Respondents are only interviewed once, but analyses of the time diary data from all respondents provide a representative picture of Americans’ time use. The data collected in the time diaries cover important dimensions of daily life, such as paid work, unpaid domestic work, care activities, leisure, sleep, exercise, travel, and volunteering. The American Time Use Survey (ATUS) data contains 210,586 diaries for the period between 2003 and 2019. Updated information on employment status, work hours, and household composition is collected in the ATUS interview two to five months after the outgoing interview for the CPS. Because the ATUS sample is drawn from the CPS, ATUS data can be linked to rich information collected in the CPS for all household members, including labor force participation, household composition (relationship, age, and gender of all household members), and socioeconomic status. ATUS is collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the U.S. Census. ATUS-X data available through IPMS Time Use are secondary, deidentified data.

In addition to the core time diary survey, questions asked of ATUS respondents have expanded over time to include eldercare and periodically include data from topical modules on eating and health, well-being, and workers’ paid and unpaid leaves and job flexibilities fielded to a sub-sample of ATUS respondents. The expansion to include eldercare occurred in 2011 when all ATUS respondents were asked whether in the three to four months prior to the interview they provided adult care to anyone who needed help because of a condition related to aging or an existing condition that worsens with age. Elder caregivers also give information about how long the care has been provided, the frequency of care, and the individuals to whom the respondent provides adult care. The elder care questions provide necessary context about how household composition, sociodemographic characteristics, and time constraints are associated with care provision to household and non-household members.

The Eating and Health Module (EHM), funded by the Economic Research Service of U.S. Department of Agriculture, was fielded by BLS in 2006–08 and 2014–16 alongside the ATUS. The Module contains questions on time eating while doing another activity, fast food and soft drink consumption, grocery shopping and meal preparation practices, participation in food assistance programs, exercise, and self-rated health. With the time diary data collected in ATUS, the EHM provides insight into time constraints and household economic conditions affect eating patterns and health.

Well-Being Modules (WBM), funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), were fielded with the ATUS by BLS in 2010, 2012, and 2013. The 2021 Well-Being Module, funded by University of Maryland and University of Minnesota with grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Science Foundation, will be fielded with the ATUS in March through December. The Well-Being Modules collect information on health and well-being related to life satisfaction, high blood pressure, feeling well-rested, and an overall assessment of the day as well as detailed information about how Americans were feeling at three points during the day on which data were collected. With assessments of well-being directly tied to specific contexts during the day, these data provide unique and rich information about well-being during specific activities as opposed to more general assessments of time in broad sets of activities.

Leave Modules, funded by the U.S. Women’s Bureau, were fielded with the ATUS by BLS in 2011 and 2017–2018. The 2011 Leave Module included questions on ability to adjust work schedules, access to paid and unpaid leave, and self-rated leave. Questions were redesigned for the 2017–2018 Module to collect data on usual work schedules, schedule flexibility, ability to work from home, as well as access to paid and unpaid leave and reasons for taking leave. Questions in the leave modules offer insight into interconnections of economic activities with other activities (e.g. unpaid work, leisure, and sleep).

IPUMS Time Use simplifies access to the rich, complex data in the ATUS and associated modules by eliminating the need to merge the data with the main ATUS files. IPUMS Time Use harmonizes the data for consistency over time, documents changes across time, and delivers the data and documentation via a single online data dissemination system (www.ipums.org/timeuse). Although the coding of ATUS variables is relatively consistent over time, there have been changes in both the categorization of the over 400 daily activities and ATUS survey questions. IPUMS Time Use assigns consistent variable names and codes to variables that change across time and provides detailed metadata displaying original question wording used in each annual data collection. Variable-specific harmonization documentation describes issues of comparability across years of the ATUS. Key features of the system include the ability for researchers to build custom time use variables that summarize time spent in various activities and with others, select only the years and variables they wish to analyze and receive the data in a ready-to-use format.

In contrast, accessing and analyzing data files downloaded directly from BLS is challenging for novice users of time use data. BLS provides nine different files for each year of ATUS data (e.g. 2003–2019 as of this publication) that have different units of analyses (households, persons, and time diary episodes). Creating analysis files requires researchers to determine if they need person or hierarchical data files (e.g. activities nested within persons), to locate and extract variables of interest from the nine data files, and then merge data from the nine files. This same set of steps must be repeated for each single year of ATUS data. Pre-pooled multi-year files are available from BLS, though they lack all of the detail available in the nine separate files available for each year of data. Whether they use single-year or multi-year files, researchers would then still need to harmonize data over time.

Despite the efforts of IPUMS Time Use to simplify access to ATUS data, the data may still be too complex for some to access. The data visualization tool allows an even broader audience—occasional users of time use data and even individuals who aren’t in the research community—to ask and answer questions using the ATUS.

IPUMS time use data quality checks

The IPUMS Time Use team ingests the ATUS data and creates a harmonized data file using software custom built by IPUMS software developers. During harmonization, no detail is lost, but variables are renamed and recoded for consistency over time. Several data quality checks ensure that errors have not been inadvertently introduced during the harmonization process. We verify that each value in the original data has a corresponding value in the harmonized data and that variable-level distributions in the harmonized data are similar to those in the original data. For example, we confirm that the number of men and women in the data file is the same in the original data from BLS and the harmonized data to ensure that we have not made a mistake in the harmonization process. We perform rigorous checks on the time diary data. We confirm that all time diary records are sequential, that the minutes reported in all-time diaries sum to 1440 minutes per day, and that linking keys required for matching activities to persons are robust. In addition, because the IPUMS system builds variables on the fly for researchers, we perform multiple diagnostic tests to ensure that the system is correctly aggregating time across records in the time diary for a representative set of combinations of primary and secondary activities, locations, co-presence selections, and times of the day.

Visualization

Transformations for tempograms’ and paths’ sequences

The main transformations on the original ATUS-X data are the transformation from the long-format diary format to the wide-format sequences for each diary. Taking the performance optimization into account, the sequences of 1-minute time slots (1440 time slots in each sequence) were reduced to 15-minute sequences (96 time slots in total). These transformations are done at the backend of the online tool, using the PHP programming language. The original diaries in the ATUS-X are recorded till the end time of the last activity, so the original length of diaries often extends beyond 24 hours. We capped the final activity to end at 3:59 am, so all diary sequences are of uniform length. Time of the activity, both for start time and end time, is calculated as a floor function:

Activityt=ActivityMinutes/15 (1)

where (t∈[1,96]∩Z). Minutes is the recorded clock time transformed into number of minutes from 4 am of the diary day (Minutes∈[1,1440]∩Z).

Then, the resulting wide-format 15-minute-step sequences were used both for tempogram and path visualizations (see Fig 1). The weights of the observations are adjusted using the original ATUS-X weights adjusted to the sample size of 2003–2019 ATUS. The weights for each selected subsample are normalized (w^j=wjk=1nwk) for the number of observations in the subsample.

Fig 1. Overview of the ATUS-X Diary Visualizer online tool.

Fig 1

*The US map was created by tracing a USGS snapshot and is not identical to the original image and is, therefore, for illustrative purposes only. Source: IPUMS ATUS Extractor: Sample of self-identified family caregivers from 2011–2019.

Calculations for totals

For calculation of totals, we summed the number of sequence steps for each activity category in all selected diaries and divided by the sum of diaries’ length. For the selected sample of diaries and each activityi, the totals are calculated using the following formula:

j=1nwjk=1nwkt=196{1,ifdiaryj,t=activityi0,otherwise}96=j=1nwjk=1nwk(#{t=1,2,,96|diaryj,t=activityi}) (2)

where diaryj,t is the activity that the diary j has at the timestamp t; n is the number of diaries, and wj are the adjusted weights for the j-th diary. The total shows the proportion of the total steps in the diaries covered by a certain activity. To display the percentages, the resulting proportions were multiplied by 100.

Calculation for transitions

For all selected diaries, we counted the total number of activity changes. In other words, we recorded all transitions from diaryj,t−1 to diaryj,t when the activity changed, i.e., diaryj,t−1diaryj,t. For all activity changes, we counted their total number of occurrences and adjusted by the weights of diaries in all steps. The resulting 11 x 11 (rows x columns) matrix represented the weight-adjusted number of transitions from one activity category to another. The categories are: sleep, personal care (PC), housework, childcare (CC), adult care (AC), work, shopping, TV watching, eating, leisure, and travel. Note that we ignored the transitions within the same activity category from t-1 to t, which resulted in the zero diagonal. The weighted transition from activity u into activity v is calculated by the following formula:

transitionu,v=j=1nwjk=1nwk(#{t=2,3,,96|diaryj,t1=uanddiaryj,t=v}) (3)

The resulting proportion shows the weighted proportions of transitions of activitystept1 into activitystept in the number of all transitions between different activities. To show the percentages, the proportions were multiplied by 100.

Calculations of state-specific time averages for the US

We denote the total number of diaries from a US state m by nm and consider them as a single sample. Then, the totals for a given samples are:

j=1nmwjk=1nmwkt=196{1,ifdiaryj,t=activityi0,otherwise}96=j=1nmwjk=1nmwk(#{t=1,2,,96|diaryj,t=activityi}) (4)

This formula represents number of timestamps for a US state m in activity i. To get the amount of time spent in activity i, we multiply the quantity by the duration of each timestamp, i.e., by 15. We get that the weighted average time spent in activity i is:

15j=1nmwjk=1nmwk(#{t=1,2,,96|diaryj,t=activityi}) (5)

The resulting average time approximates the average number of minutes spent on the activity based on the observations recorded in the state.

Code availability

The data visualization tool employs the IPUMS ATUS-X Time Use data based on the samples that users have requested from the IPUMS system. Step-by-step instruction videos are available in this online link (http://atusxvisualizer.com/instructions).

The codes for the online tool can be made available to researchers and developers from a private GitHub repository upon reasonable request, but restrictions apply to the availability of these codes, which were used under different licenses (please check the license details for the JavaScript code snippets in the repository. The PHP code in the back-end controller is the intellectual property of the lead author).

Results

Overview of the online tool capabilities

This section describes the ATUS-X Diary Visualizer online tool and its main capabilities (http://atusxvisualizer.com). Fig 1 shows an overview snapshot of the tool. Five main visualization plots provide descriptive analyses of ATUS-X data from IPUMS Time Use. By default, the tool displays a sample of self-identified family caregivers from 2011–2019. However, users can upload their own IPUMS ATUS-X extracts using the ‘CREATE’ button in the navigation bar. We provide more detail in the user guide for the tool (http://atusxvisualizer.com/instructions).

The tool visualizes a random sub-sample of 800 observations in all graphs (for consistency, we used a seeder with the random sample generator, which shows the same 800 observations each time). With the online tool, users can use the dropdown options to choose a subsample of individuals for their analysis. Selections may be based on gender, weekday or weekend diaries, marital status, and parental status. More than 400 detailed activity categories in the ATUS are categorized into eleven main types: sleep, personal care (PC), housework, childcare (CC), adult care (AC), work, shopping, TV watching, eating, leisure, and travel. The full codebook for activity categories is available on the online tool instruction page. The five main graphs in the tool are: 1) Transitions plots the number of transition from one activity into another as a percentage of all transitions between activities shown in the highlighted path (disregarding the transitions within the same category of activities); 2) Diaries (Path Visualization) –this graph draws the daily paths of the sample sequences, visualizing every 15th minute in the diary starting from 4 am and finishing at 3:45 am; 3) Tempograms—these graphs show the number or percent of observations in each activity for each time slot in between 4 am and 3:45 am of the next day; 4) Average Minutes by State graph summarizes the average time for the selected activities by each state; and 5) Percent of Total Time—this graph summarizes the percent of the total time in all diaries devoted to each activity. In the next sections, we illustrate how the visualizations can facilitate exploratory analysis of time-use data. All graphs plot weighted sequences and totals. Weights are adjusted to the total sample size of the ATUS 2011–2019.

Transitions

Fig 2 shows the differences between women and men in three activity transitions. Among all transitions for female caregivers, more transitions are from eating to housework (3.19%) than from eating to watching TV (1.61%). The reverse is true for male caregivers—more transitions among men are from eating to watching TV (2.82%) than from eating to housework (2.03%). More men watch TV after eating than do the dishes (or other housework). More women do the dishes (or other housework) after eating than watch TV. These particular transitions are consistent with research showing that women do more housework than men and men enjoy more leisure than women [14, 15].

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Diary activity transitions from 1) eating → housework (left) and 2) eating → TV (right) among women (top) and men (bottom). Source: IPUMS ATUS Extractor: Sample of self-identified family caregivers from 2011–2019.

However, the visualization allows demonstrating how women’s household work–and men’s leisure time–is paired with other activities in ways that confirm qualitative studies showing women’s second shift means their daily time is more fragmented and interrupted by housework and child care, patterns linked with higher stress. Transitions can reveal the common patterns of the activities that happen before or after an activity in focus. For instance, the largest proportions of transitions into eldercare and out of it is taken up by travel. This indicates that many American family caregivers travel to care for the elderly, rather than co-reside with them.

The use of tempograms

Tempograms in Fig 3 show the daily routines of a sample of female and male family caregivers. It shows that a higher percentage of women spend time on housework during the daytime than men (the area covered by the housework activities is larger on the left-side graph than on the right-side graph). Most housework literature confirms the same for the general population [1517]. Analogously, a higher percentage of men spend time watching TV in the evenings and during the daytime than women on an average day. This is an interesting observation considering that the previous research suggests that the gender relationship with TV watching is reverse in the general population [18], although supporting results are also present [19].

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Tempograms of time use diaries for women (left) and men (right) caregivers. Source: IPUMS ATUS Extractor: Sample of self-identified family caregivers from 2011–2019.

Additionally, similar to the general population, the tempograms for family caregivers demonstrate that a higher percentage of male caregivers spend time on paid work activities than women caregivers, though the caregivers’ sample report less paid work than the general population.

To see single-activity tempograms, the user must click on the activity of interest. For instance, Fig 4 shows the number of women (left) and men (right) performing adult care (top) and childcare (bottom) at every 15-minute interval of the day. The distributions’ shapes and the total number of observations (out of the initial weighted 800 random observations) are similar among women and men for adult care. In contrast, for childcare, the distributions are denser, and numbers are higher among women than men caregivers. The figure suggests that more women than men are likely to provide childcare, especially during the daytime. The figures also illustrate that adult care is likely to peak in the morning hours, whereas childcare is higher in the evenings. This may be because more support is available for childcare (including nurseries and schools) during the daytime compared to supports for adult care in the US. The lower likelihood of adult care in the evenings suggest that many caregivers might not co-reside with the individuals to whom they provide care. Additionally, among caregivers, more women than men provide adult care at any time during the day, and adult care is more common than childcare [20]. Research shows that women providing adult care are more likely to leave the labor force, which might explain the existing gender differences. The sequencing of care work in this way provides useful knowledge on time incompatibilities between paid work and care work, suggests difficulties in outsourcing care work, as well as the intensity of care work during the day time.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Adult care time use tempograms for women (top left) and men (top right) and child care for women (bottom left) and men (bottom right). Source: IPUMS ATUS Extractor: Sample of self-identified family caregivers from 2011–2019.

Activity percent of the total time

Fig 5 describes how total time is distributed separately for all men and women in the sample who provide adult care and who have one or more children under 18 in the household (i.e., sandwich caregivers). Although women spent a little more time on sleep, they spent considerably less time than men watching TV (7.26% vs. 8.11%) and on general leisure activities (9.64% vs. 11.49%). Women also spend less time on paid work (10.47% vs. 16.69%) and more on housework (12.21% vs. 8.63%) and childcare (5.91% vs. 2.8%). The gender differences among sandwich caregivers reflect the gender disparities in the general population, and it is well reported in the literature [21]. Both women and men who are sandwich caregivers spend similar amounts of time on adult care and travel. The observations from the visualization about adult care also reflect the findings of the existing research [22, 23].

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Percent of total time spent on select activities among women (left) and men (right) sandwich caregivers. Source: IPUMS ATUS Extractor: Sample of self-identified family caregivers from 2011–2019.

Discussion

The development of a quicker way to plot descriptive statistics for time-use data, like the one provided by the ATUS-X Diary Visualizer Tool, can accelerate the initial stages of time-use data analysis for scholars and visualization needs for science communicators and journalists. In such a way, it can potentially facilitate impact assessment for policies affecting time use, notably policies on eldercare, childcare, other domestic work, and employment regulation, especially when such policy has to be developed rapidly.

A prime example would be the recent pandemic, where a populations’ sequences of activities (including their locations and co-presence) can be used to throw light on the behavioral determinants of exposure to infection. When the time-use diaries for 2020 are available, their visualization will be made easy by the online tool—the users will be able to upload their subsets of ATUS-X to see if they notice any differences in the different samples, such as contrasting a subsample from 2020 to those of one of the previous years. Time-use data has recently been influential in the area of public health analysis related to chronic health issues [24], so another related potential would lie in the understanding of eating and adult care activities across the day, which are made easy with the tool.

Looking into the future for the tool and its possible uses, a standardized visual look for international comparisons could be of substantial benefit. Most developed countries already collect time-use data. The Multinational Time Use Study (MTUS) is the largest openly accessible nationally representative harmonized time diary survey database, currently with 25 countries represented (https://www.timeuse.org/mtus). Fifteen of these surveys are to date accessible via IPUMS as an MTUS subset (https://www.mtusdata.org/mtus/). Making the ATUS-X extraction and visualization tool compatible with MTUS-X data would allow instant cross-national comparisons and analysis both for exploratory research and policy purposes. As the MTUS-X is episode-based, it will facilitate comparison of sequences of episodes–how time use is distributed over the day–potentially allowing for policymaking to delve into and target specific times of day (e.g., rush hours) and specific activity transitions (for example reflecting transport patterns during rush hours).

Another avenue for future extension of the tool is the use of heriage data, such as AHTUS (https://www.ahtusdata.org/ahtus/) and extending the options to filter data over time. The use of the heritage data and year filters will help historical analysis of the time use data.

Data Availability

Data from IPUMS Time Use are available free of charge to all registered researchers. The IPUMS Time Use system is intended for researchers to be able to select the years of data they want to analyze, the types of time use they want to analyze, and the demographic characteristics by which they want to conduct their analyses. A key feature of the system is the ability to build custom time use variables that summarize the amount of time each ATUS respondent spends in researcher-specified combinations of activities, locations, time of day, and co-presence of others. A brief tutorial on how to use the system is available online (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nGUBfdhOpo&t=67s). There is no need for researchers to download the multiple original files in which these data are stored and to merge them together. The IPUMS Time Use team has performed the necessary data management steps so that researchers can spend more time analyzing their data and less time performing cumbersome and error-prone data manipulations.

Funding Statement

The IPUMS Time Use is supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institute for Child Health and Human Development (R01HD053654). The online tool creation is supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant (892101). The work of Oxford authors is supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 892101 (awardee: Kamila Kolpashnikova), the John Fell Fund of the University of Oxford No 7609 (awardee: Kamila Kolpashnikova), and European Research Council Consolidator Grant agreement No 771736 (awardee: Man-Yee Kan).

References

  • 1.Lam J, Garcia-Roman J. General and proximal associations between unpaid eldercare, time constraints and subjective well-being. International Journal of Care and Caring. 2017;1(1):83–96. doi: 10.1332/239788217X14866303262183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Musick K, Meier A, Flood S. How parents fare: Mothers’ and fathers’ subjective well-being in time with children. American Sociological Review. 2016;81(5):1069–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nomaguchi K, Milkie MA. Parenthood and well‐being: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2020;82(1):198–223. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12646 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Craig L, van Tienoven TP. Gender, mobility and parental shares of daily travel with and for children: a cross-national time use comparison. Journal of transport geography. 2019;76:93–102. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Schneider D, Hastings OP, LaBriola J. Income inequality and class divides in parental investments. American Sociological Review. 2018;83(3):475–507. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Aguiar M, Hurst E, Karabarbounis L. Time use during the great recession. American Economic Review. 2013;103(5):1664–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Frazis H, Stewart J. What can time-use data tell us about hours of work. Monthly Labor Review. 2004;127:3–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Glorieux I, Laurijssen I, Minnen J, van Tienoven TP. In search of the harried leisure class in contemporary society: Time-use surveys and patterns of leisure time consumption. Journal of Consumer Policy. 2010;33(2):163–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Smith JP, Forrester R. Maternal time use and nurturing: Analysis of the association between breastfeeding practice and time spent interacting with baby. Breastfeeding Medicine. 2017;12(5):269–78. doi: 10.1089/bfm.2016.0118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cornwell B, Gershuny J, Sullivan O. The social structure of time: Emerging trends and new directions. Annual Review of Sociology. 2019;45:301–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dunatchik A, Speight S. Re-examining How Partner Co-presence and Multitasking Affect Parents’ Enjoyment of Childcare and Housework. Sociological Science. 2020;7:268–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Negraia DV, Yavorsky JE, Dukhovnov D. Mothers’ and Fathers’ Well‐Being: Does the Gender Composition of Children Matter? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hofferth SL, Flood SM, Sobek M, Backman D. American time use survey data extract builder: Version 2.8 [dataset]. College Park, MD: University of Maryland and Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota IPUMS, 2020. 2020. doi: 10.18128/D060.V2.8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bianchi SM, Sayer LC, Milkie MA, Robinson JP. Housework: Who Did, Does or Will Do It, and How Much Does It Matter? Soc Forces. 2012;91(1):55–63. doi: 10.1093/sf/sos120 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sayer LC. Trends in Housework. In: Treas J, Drobnic S, editors. Dividing the Domestic: Men, Women, and Household Work in Cross-National Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2010. p. 19–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hochschild A, Machung A. The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. New York, NY: Avon Books; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ruppanner L, Treas J. Working weekends: Changing European time regimes and gender inequality in household labor. Journal of Family Issues. 2015;36(13):1782–809. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mielke GI, Burton NW, Turrell G, Brown WJ. Temporal trends in sitting time by domain in a cohort of mid-age Australian men and women. Maturitas. 2018;116:108–15. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Andrade-Gómez E, García-Esquinas E, Ortolá R, Martínez-Gómez D, Rodríguez-Artalejo F. Watching TV has a distinct sociodemographic and lifestyle profile compared with other sedentary behaviors: A nationwide population-based study. PloS One. 2017;12(12):e0188836. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188836 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Families Caring for an Aging America. Washington DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016. [PubMed]
  • 21.Suh J. Measuring the “sandwich”: Care for children and adults in the American Time Use Survey 2003–2012. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2016;37(2):197–211. doi: 10.1007/s10834-016-9483-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kolpashnikova K, Kan M-Y. Eldercare in Japan: Cluster Analysis of Daily Time-Use Patterns of Elder Caregivers. Journal of Population Ageing. 2021;(online first):1–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Freedman VA, Cornman JC, Carr D, Lucas RE. Time use and experienced wellbeing of older caregivers: A sequence analysis. The Gerontologist. 2019;59(5):e441–e50. doi: 10.1093/geront/gny175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Harms T, Berrigan D, Gershuny J. Daily metabolic expenditures: estimates from US, UK and polish time-use data. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(2):453. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6762-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Solveig A Cunningham

20 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-01724

Exploring daily time-use patterns: ATUS-X data extractor and online diary visualization tool

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kolpashnikova,

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.

The ATUS is a great resource, and this manuscript can expand the reach of the data in the research community.  The reviewers have provided detailed feedback on how to increase the clarity of the paper and the reach of the findings. Please address all reviewer comments. There are some interesting suggestions in the last paragraph from Reviewer 1; may be beyond the scope of this paper but important to at least consider and mention as possible directions for future work in this field. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 04 2021 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 rebuttal 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Solveig A. Cunningham, Ph.D.

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

4.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

4.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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?

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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: I'm a big fan of the various IPUMS projects, so I enjoyed reading this particular manuscript. I don't think it's ready for publication yet, however. I don't think it suffers from fundamental flaws, but I do think the revisions it needs go beyond minor edits.

I think there should be more of a balance in the manuscript in terms of discussing both the data extraction tool for the ATUS data and the visualization tool. The latter gets more attention, but I think the former is of equal or even greater importance depending on the audience. Researchers who want to do more intensive analyses will find the extraction tool of much greater utility than the visualization tool, as the latter is engaging to use but is limited in terms of what you can do with it (as is often the case with data visualization tools). So, more discussion about the extraction tool is in order, I think.

As part of that discussion, the authors should spend more time discussing the contents of ATUS data in terms of the categories of activities included, the demographic/socio-economic data included, and the content of the topical modules that the manuscript mentions, e.g. on eldercare, health, well-being, etc., so that people have a better sense of how rich the contents of the data are and what opportunities they do (and don't) present. I think that more discussion of the structure of the ATUS data would also be in order in terms of how the data at the BLS are spread across multiple files, as would more discussion of the event-level nature of the data including some visual representation of the diary data. The authors note that the structure of such data is novel to many researchers and thus potentially daunting with which to work. I don't disagree with that, but I also think that the somewhat bare-bones description of the data in the manuscript effectively understates how much more accessible the data extraction tool makes the data. More explanation of how unwieldy the original ATUS data are, and thus how much easier the extraction tool makes it to manage the data, would make that point more clear.

I also have some more specific/particular points. Since the manuscript didn't have page numbers, I'll refer to the line numbers that were included in the manuscript I downloaded.

On lines 81-82, the authors state that "For illustration purposes, the visualization tool uses the subsample for caregivers identified in the ATUS from 2011 to 2019, downloaded from IPUMS." Later, on lines 223-224, they state that users can upload their own extracts for use by the visualization tool; that point should be made earlier, just to make it clear from the beginning that the visualization tool is not confined to the default subset of data.

If I understand correctly, the visualization tool doesn't break results down by time period in terms of year or month or year-month, even though the year and month of the interviews are recorded (see https://www.atusdata.org/atus-action/variables/group/tech_tech). Is my understanding correct? And, if so, what is the basis for the authors' claims on lines 321-324 that the tool will make it possible to visualize the effects of the pandemic on time use, caregiving duties, etc.? I agree that time-use data from 2020 could be useful for studies of, say, how the pandemic did or didn't exacerbate gender inequities in terms of divisions of labor within households. However, I'm not sure what insights can be gathered from a visualization tool that doesn't let you break the data down by dates to see how time allocations shifted during 2020.

Lines 170-172 refer to aggregating diary events data into an 11X11 matrix of categories and transitions between them, but those categories aren't identified until Lines 233-235. The category definitions should be provided earlier, to clarify what sorts of transitions are being visualized.

Lines 237-238 state that "Transitions plots the percent of all transitions from one activity to another shown in the highlighted path." If I understand correctly, the point is that the value for transitions between activity A and activity B is meant to be the number of transitions from A to B as a percentage of all transitions between activities. If so, the phrasing should be tweaked to make that more explicit. As it stands now, the wording is a bit unclear.

Lines 328-333 refer to integrating multinational time-use survey data into the tool, and I agree that such an effort could be very worthwhile. E.G. seeing whether differences in health-care systems and welfare states are associated with different patterns of time use, or different shifts in time use in response to macro-level shocks and crises, could be quite interesting. However, the authors don't mention the heritage time-use data at https://www.ahtusdata.org/ahtus/. Is there any intention of working these data into the visualization tool? Such an integration, in combination with additional features for breaking data down by dates/years, could provide insights with regard to how/whether gender imbalances and household divisions of labor have shifted over the decades as more women participate in the formal labor force. To the extent that there are health implications from certain types of daily activities, as the manuscript suggests, having a tool with longer time ranges of data could likewise be informative with regard to analysis longer-term health trends.

I understand that there could be considerable technical issues with such integration, and I don't expect the authors to resolve them as a condition of publication. :-) But, since they already mention future ideas for the visualization tool, I'd like to see more about extending it to cover the heritage data and provide options to filter/analyze data over time - are such ideas under consideration, would they be feasible, what data-related challenges would they involve, etc.

Reviewer #2: This article introduces the ATUS-X diary visualization tool for time use data. Time use data are certainly underutilized in research, and I suspect one reason why is their complexity. A tool that can help with translation of these data would be very useful. Overall I think there are some improvements that can be made to this manuscript that would help convince the reader that this particular tool will be helpful for visualizing, understanding, and translating time-use data.

Introduction

• Time-use data can be used in many different ways. They may be collapsed into broad categories or used in much finer detail. I think readers who are more recently introduced to the concept could use a bit more clarification on the complexity of time-use data and the various ways in which researchers in many different fields use them. For example, the intro states a few times that these data are ‘powerful’ and ‘wonderfully rich’, but I don’t feel like many examples are given to support those statements. A brief mention of how these data are generally collected may also help readers (on that note- is the visualization tool only useful for ATUS data? Or other time-use data? Only with self-reported diary data, or also accelerometry data, for example).

• It would be helpful to include references for the example studies/study topics of time use (lines 44-47).

Methods

• A reference is needed for the ATUS (BLS website or other).

• As it appears 1 minute epoch lengths are collapsed into 15 minute epoch lengths, it is worth describing the unit of data collection in the ATUS (i.e., do participants report time-use in 1 minute epoch lengths, 10 minute, every second, etc.).

o Related to this, what is the rationale for collapsing time specifically into 15 minute sequences?

Results

• The tempograms can clearly be very useful in a variety of research. I have a bit of trouble seeing the differences in the transitions visualizations and it makes me wonder if there is another way you can describe and display the value of these visualizations. Perhaps this type of figure is just less intuitive and will require a bit more in-text description, or maybe it would be more useful for an analysis with fewer time-use categories? This could be included in the discussion.

• I’m not sure if the figure captions got lost along the way, but if there are none, it seems that adding some in would improve clarity. I also expect the figures will be higher quality in the publication, as they are blurry and not very legible in the PDF.

Discussion

• Overall, I think there needs to be a bit of discussion on what makes the visualizations from this tool better than various tools that already exist. As a person who studies broader categories of time use, I don’t necessarily feel convinced that this tool will allow me to create more intuitive or more translatable figures than those I can create quickly and easily with certain R packages. Why should I make the switch to this tool?

**********

6. 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

Reviewer #2: 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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 16;16(6):e0252843. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252843.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 May 2021

RESPONSE MEMO

Reviewer #1: I'm a big fan of the various IPUMS projects, so I enjoyed reading this particular manuscript. I don't think it's ready for publication yet, however. I don't think it suffers from fundamental flaws, but I do think the revisions it needs go beyond minor edits.

COMMENT: I think there should be more of a balance in the manuscript in terms of discussing both the data extraction tool for the ATUS data and the visualization tool. The latter gets more attention, but I think the former is of equal or even greater importance depending on the audience. Researchers who want to do more intensive analyses will find the extraction tool of much greater utility than the visualization tool, as the latter is engaging to use but is limited in terms of what you can do with it (as is often the case with data visualization tools). So, more discussion about the extraction tool is in order, I think.

As part of that discussion, the authors should spend more time discussing the contents of ATUS data in terms of the categories of activities included, the demographic/socio-economic data included, and the content of the topical modules that the manuscript mentions, e.g. on eldercare, health, well-being, etc., so that people have a better sense of how rich the contents of the data are and what opportunities they do (and don't) present. I think that more discussion of the structure of the ATUS data would also be in order in terms of how the data at the BLS are spread across multiple files, as would more discussion of the event-level nature of the data including some visual representation of the diary data. The authors note that the structure of such data is novel to many researchers and thus potentially daunting with which to work. I don't disagree with that, but I also think that the somewhat bare-bones description of the data in the manuscript effectively understates how much more accessible the data extraction tool makes the data. More explanation of how unwieldy the original ATUS data are, and thus how much easier the extraction tool makes it to manage the data, would make that point more clear.

RESPONSE: Following the suggestion, we added an extended discussion of the ATUS extractor together with its methodologies and specific modules as suggested. The ATUS extractor tool is, in fact, a vital part of this project. We added as much information as possible following the suggestions. For example, more explanation on the connections of ATUS with CPS data is added on lines 84-91. The explanation on modules is added on lines 100-128. Specific methodological points are discussed in 129-155.

COMMENT: I also have some more specific/particular points. Since the manuscript didn't have page numbers, I'll refer to the line numbers that were included in the manuscript I downloaded.

On lines 81-82, the authors state that "For illustration purposes, the visualization tool uses the subsample for caregivers identified in the ATUS from 2011 to 2019, downloaded from IPUMS." Later, on lines 223-224, they state that users can upload their own extracts for use by the visualization tool; that point should be made earlier, just to make it clear from the beginning that the visualization tool is not confined to the default subset of data.

RESPONSE: We added an explanation that the visualization tool allows users to visualize their own extract subsamples in the abstract and introduction.

COMMENT: If I understand correctly, the visualization tool doesn't break results down by time period in terms of year or month or year-month, even though the year and month of the interviews are recorded (see https://www.atusdata.org/atus-action/variables/group/tech_tech). Is my understanding correct? And, if so, what is the basis for the authors' claims on lines 321-324 that the tool will make it possible to visualize the effects of the pandemic on time use, caregiving duties, etc.? I agree that time-use data from 2020 could be useful for studies of, say, how the pandemic did or didn't exacerbate gender inequities in terms of divisions of labor within households. However, I'm not sure what insights can be gathered from a visualization tool that doesn't let you break the data down by dates to see how time allocations shifted during 2020.

RESPONSE: At the present iteration of the tool, it is possible by ‘feeding’ two different samples into the tool and analyzing them one by one. However, in the future (provided this project is further funded), the tool’s capabilities as to what it can do will be expanded (for instance, without requiring uploading two different samples). At the moment, the hosting/computational and maintenance work is only supported by the lead author without any specific funding allocated to the development of the project’s part in term of supporting faster computational abilities and data loading speed, and for the development of the online tool by involving more people. So, given the current financial constraints (lead author’s own money), only the current version of the tool can be made available in perpetuity (the lead author will have to continue paying for hosting and domains beyond the current postdoctoral funding). However, this will change over time as soon as the funding is procured. Even without funding, the lead author intends to continue working on financially feasible ways to improve the tool. Among them is to improve responsiveness and speed (probably by migrating to Django and Spark SQL).

COMMENT: Lines 170-172 refer to aggregating diary events data into an 11X11 matrix of categories and transitions between them, but those categories aren't identified until Lines 233-235. The category definitions should be provided earlier, to clarify what sorts of transitions are being visualized.

RESPONSE: We added the category names at the suggested place.

COMMENT: Lines 237-238 state that "Transitions plots the percent of all transitions from one activity to another shown in the highlighted path." If I understand correctly, the point is that the value for transitions between activity A and activity B is meant to be the number of transitions from A to B as a percentage of all transitions between activities. If so, the phrasing should be tweaked to make that more explicit. As it stands now, the wording is a bit unclear.

RESPONSE: We changed the wording as suggested

COMMENT: Lines 328-333 refer to integrating multinational time-use survey data into the tool, and I agree that such an effort could be very worthwhile. E.G. seeing whether differences in health-care systems and welfare states are associated with different patterns of time use, or different shifts in time use in response to macro-level shocks and crises, could be quite interesting. However, the authors don't mention the heritage time-use data at https://www.ahtusdata.org/ahtus/. Is there any intention of working these data into the visualization tool? Such an integration, in combination with additional features for breaking data down by dates/years, could provide insights with regard to how/whether gender imbalances and household divisions of labor have shifted over the decades as more women participate in the formal labor force. To the extent that there are health implications from certain types of daily activities, as the manuscript suggests, having a tool with longer time ranges of data could likewise be informative with regard to analysis longer-term health trends.

I understand that there could be considerable technical issues with such integration, and I don't expect the authors to resolve them as a condition of publication. :-) But, since they already mention future ideas for the visualization tool, I'd like to see more about extending it to cover the heritage data and provide options to filter/analyze data over time - are such ideas under consideration, would they be feasible, what data-related challenges would they involve, etc.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for pushing us to think more about the even further potentials of the tool. We added the discussion that the heritage data and filters for years could be added to the tool in the future in the discussions part. The implementation of both heritage data and year filters is feasible, and it will be implemented in the future. AHTUS is also harmonized with the MTUS (which allows not only temporal comparisons but also cross-country temporal comparison).

Reviewer #2:

COMMENT: This article introduces the ATUS-X diary visualization tool for time use data. Time use data are certainly underutilized in research, and I suspect one reason why is their complexity. A tool that can help with translation of these data would be very useful. Overall I think there are some improvements that can be made to this manuscript that would help convince the reader that this particular tool will be helpful for visualizing, understanding, and translating time-use data.

Introduction

• Time-use data can be used in many different ways. They may be collapsed into broad categories or used in much finer detail. I think readers who are more recently introduced to the concept could use a bit more clarification on the complexity of time-use data and the various ways in which researchers in many different fields use them. For example, the intro states a few times that these data are ‘powerful’ and ‘wonderfully rich’, but I don’t feel like many examples are given to support those statements. A brief mention of how these data are generally collected may also help readers (on that note- is the visualization tool only useful for ATUS data? Or other time-use data? Only with self-reported diary data, or also accelerometry data, for example).

RESPONSE: The revised version adds more detail on the ATUS data and the extract in lines 84-155 to explain the time-use data in more detail and what the ATUS contains (e.g., its modules), as well as more detail on its methodological aspects to illustrate both its versatility and richness. At the moment, the visualization tool only works with the ATUS extractor data. The potential to use it on MTUS and heritage data is discussed in the Discussions part. The mention of only two potential applications, of course, does not preclude the potential to be applied to any time use data. However, given the resources that we possess at the moment, we decided to describe only the viable options, which will be implemented even in the case when no additional funding is raised to support the project. Yet, any applications to time use data are possible provided we can secure a big enough team to do so.

COMMENT: • It would be helpful to include references for the example studies/study topics of time use (lines 44-47).

RESPONSE: We added the examples and citations as suggested.

COMMENT: Methods

• A reference is needed for the ATUS (BLS website or other).

RESPONSE: We added citation to BLS on the first mention of ATUS.

COMMENT: • As it appears 1 minute epoch lengths are collapsed into 15 minute epoch lengths, it is worth describing the unit of data collection in the ATUS (i.e., do participants report time-use in 1 minute epoch lengths, 10 minute, every second, etc.).

o Related to this, what is the rationale for collapsing time specifically into 15 minute sequences?

RESPONSE: The decision to reduce information to 15-minutes slots was taken because of the computational ability for the online tool at the moment (for the hosting to continue in perpetuity supported only by the funds of the lead author, it has to be hosted on the servers with lower computational speed). More detailed (such as 1-minute sequence) computations at the (PHP) back end require higher computation power for the hosting servers, which unfortunately we cannot afford at the moment (hosting will have to be paid for by the lead author in perpetuity if no additional funding procured). It is, however, technically possible and will be done when the funding is procured for it in the future. Overall, this is done to increase the speed given the limited power of the server. When the funding allows, the backend will be replaced with Spark SQL / Django configuration with faster server hosting and hopefully with utilizing some acceleration on SQL queries. Basically, many choices in the visualization tool are dictated by the code optimization problem given the limitation of resources. Your suggestion is easily implementable technically and will be implemented when there are enough funds for faster computational/upload speed.

COMMENT: Results

• The tempograms can clearly be very useful in a variety of research. I have a bit of trouble seeing the differences in the transitions visualizations and it makes me wonder if there is another way you can describe and display the value of these visualizations. Perhaps this type of figure is just less intuitive and will require a bit more in-text description, or maybe it would be more useful for an analysis with fewer time-use categories? This could be included in the discussion.

RESPONSE: Transitions show interesting information on the transitions from certain activities and into them, which is underutilized. There are many potentials for the use of transitions data (coupled with event-history methods). For example, researchers could be interested in analyzing how many people actually do something else before work (for example, have breakfast vs people who skip breakfast and head to work right away). This behavior could be analyzed over time. The information would be interesting both from the point of view of public health and for the food industries that aim to provide breakfast meals (e.g., coffee shops). Another example would be among the caregivers sample that is used as the default for the visualization, to see the patterns of activities after work—how frequent are the transitions into eldercare vs transitions into leisure activities etc.

COMMENT: • I’m not sure if the figure captions got lost along the way, but if there are none, it seems that adding some in would improve clarity. I also expect the figures will be higher quality in the publication, as they are blurry and not very legible in the PDF.

RESPONSE: We updated the figures, added more quality.

COMMENT: Discussion

• Overall, I think there needs to be a bit of discussion on what makes the visualizations from this tool better than various tools that already exist. As a person who studies broader categories of time use, I don’t necessarily feel convinced that this tool will allow me to create more intuitive or more translatable figures than those I can create quickly and easily with certain R packages. Why should I make the switch to this tool?

RESPONSE: The paper stresses that one of the big contributions is broadening accessibility to time use data to people who are unfamiliar with it. Many people who have not used time use data before are likely to benefit from this tool for initial data exploration, even if they can make in the end better visualisations with R. This tool will enable people new to ATUS to identify the most promising avenues for research. In addition, this tool will make time use data easily accessible beyond academia to journalists and policy-makers.

Although we agree that this tool may not be as helpful for someone who is already familiar with time use data and visualization as opposed to a new user, this tool could help researchers who are new to the field to learn more about time use data and data visualization or journalists who could help from easy access to data. We seek to build and support an interdisciplinary and diverse community of researchers using time use survey data in simpler ways.

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPONSE R&R.R1.docx

Decision Letter 1

Solveig A Cunningham

24 May 2021

Exploring daily time-use patterns: ATUS-X data extractor and online diary visualization tool

PONE-D-21-01724R1

Dear Dr. Kolpashnikova,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Solveig A. Cunningham, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Please fix the figures to provide clear titles describing what is being shown, as well as details about the data source and population which the data are describing. The figures are currently not clearly labelled.

Acceptance letter

Solveig A Cunningham

7 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-01724R1

Exploring daily time-use patterns: ATUS-X data extractor and online diary visualization tool

Dear Dr. Kolpashnikova:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Solveig A. Cunningham

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RESPONSE R&R.R1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data from IPUMS Time Use are available free of charge to all registered researchers. The IPUMS Time Use system is intended for researchers to be able to select the years of data they want to analyze, the types of time use they want to analyze, and the demographic characteristics by which they want to conduct their analyses. A key feature of the system is the ability to build custom time use variables that summarize the amount of time each ATUS respondent spends in researcher-specified combinations of activities, locations, time of day, and co-presence of others. A brief tutorial on how to use the system is available online (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nGUBfdhOpo&t=67s). There is no need for researchers to download the multiple original files in which these data are stored and to merge them together. The IPUMS Time Use team has performed the necessary data management steps so that researchers can spend more time analyzing their data and less time performing cumbersome and error-prone data manipulations.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES