Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jan 17;18(1):e0278921. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278921

Gender differences in dry eye disease symptoms associated with psychological health indicators among adults using mobile mental health apps

Hyojin Kim 1,#, Youngju An 2,#, Won Ju Hwang 3,*
Editor: Keisuke Suzuki4
PMCID: PMC9844882  PMID: 36649292

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to investigate the association between dry eye disease (DED) symptoms and mental health among Korean adults in the community.

Methods

A cross-sectional study analyzed the data of 152 participants using mobile-phone applications for recording mental health. We defined individuals with DED symptoms as those who experienced a sense of irritation or dryness of the eye (either constantly or often). Mental health (perceived stress, depression, and anxiety) was assessed using the Perceived Stress Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and General Anxiety Disorder-7, in this order. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the association between DED symptoms and mental health. We also adjusted for possible covariates. We investigated sex differences in mental health status in relation to DED.

Results

We found that 41.4% of the participants (48.4% female and 30.5% male) showed DED symptoms, and its prevalence was higher in female than in male. The average perceived stress and anxiety symptoms in the female with DED (24.69±4.73 and 6.56±5.09, respectively) were significantly higher than those without DED (21.38±4.68 and 4.54±4.03) (p = 0.020 and 0.038, respectively). Even after adjusting for possible covariates, female who had DED showed higher risks of perceived stress (OR = 1.28), depression (OR = 2.64), and anxiety (OR = 5.81).

Conclusions

Clinicians and nurses should therefore be aware of the possibility of mental health problems among female with DED.

Introduction

Dry eye disease (DED) is a major public health problem characterized by a deficiency in the quality of life in the sphere of ophthalmology [1]. The global prevalence rate of DED is reported as 4.3~52.4% [24], and 8–14.4% in Korea [5].

The Tear Film & Ocular Surface Society (TFOS), launched in the Dry Eye Workshop II (TFOS DEWS II), defines DED as a multifactorial disease affecting the secretion of tears and the ocular surface, accompanied by inflammation in the tear film affecting osmolality and the ocular surface [6]. DED results in symptoms such as dryness, pain, ocular irritation, foreign body sensation, and visual disturbances, which negatively affect the quality of life [7].

The importance of sex disparities in medical research has also emerged recently. Since differences between sexes with regard to ophthalmic diseases have been reported, it has become a major issue. According to previous studies, refractive errors (56.0%), age-related macular degeneration (65.0%), cataracts (61.0%), low vision (63.0%), blindness (66.0%) have higher occurrence rates in female than in male. DED is also known to have a higher occurrence in female than in male [5, 8, 9].

In line with this trend, the TFOS DEWS II report on gender, and hormones [9] argued that further studies are needed to clarify the exact nature and extent of sex effects on DED. Indeed, it has been reported that biological differences between sexes have significant effects on controlling the ocular surface and adnexa [9, 10]. Several studies have suggested that decreased androgen levels and exogenous estrogen use may be risk factors for DED in female [11]. In this context, it was found that an imbalance in sex steroids experienced by postmenopausal female can affect the meibomian glands [12].

According to a large-scale Women’s Health Study, women are diagnosed with DED six years earlier than men on average [13]. Therefore, the quality of life of women is more affected because of early confirmation of DED. However, previous studies on mental health and DED showed limitations in that they did not consider sex differences as an important factor [1, 14]. Thus, this study focuses on sex differences in the mental health of DED patients.

Material and methods

We introduced and promoted the study by posting online promotions and posters at communities (schools, companies, organizations, etc.), and those who agreed to participate in the research were included, and the purpose and method of the research were explained to them.

We initially included 202 participants who had completed the healing app program for analysis. Sixteen subjects aged < 19 or > 60 years were excluded. To avoid a selection bias as much as possible, the following measures were applied: (i) age over 60 has been demonstrated to be a risk factor for dry eye symptoms [15]; (ii) health app users over the age of 60 have been found to have low self-efficacy [16]. Of the 186 subjects, we excluded those who lacked information on dry eyes, could not participate in the mental health interviews and were a mismatch for the other covariates. Among the remaining 176 subjects, since previous studies indicated that patients taking antidepressants had a higher chance of developing DED [17], we additionally excluded 24 subjects who were receiving treatment for depression or had previously undergone ophthalmic surgery. Finally, 152 subjects (59 male and 93 female) were included in the analysis (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Subject selection for final analysis.

Fig 1

Participants were to use a healing program, in the form of a mobile phone application, developed for promoting adult mental health (Fig 2). As a primary study, this study was first aimed at examining the participants’ mental health and dry eye symptoms. The study was carried out after approval of the institutional review board of K University (KHSIRB-20-192 (EA)). In the future, we plan to have participants use the healing program on a regular basis through a mobile app to investigate the intervention effect. We conducted a questionnaire on participants in a healing program. An alarm was set to encourage participants to use the app; we induced continued use by providing health education every week. A description of the mobile mental health applications used is provided in the previous literature [18].

Fig 2. Configuration of healing program.

Fig 2

Questions such as the following, regarding the presence of DED symptoms were to be answered with “yes” or “no.”: “Until now, have you ever had symptoms of DED before? For example, a sense of irritation or dryness of the eyes?” [19, 20]. Asking about associated DED symptoms is a reliable diagnostic method, as there are currently no definitive clinical diagnostic tests to diagnose DED [21, 22]. Previous studies have used this method to identify DED symptoms [19, 20].

Mental health was evaluated from the following three perspectives: perceived stress, depression, and anxiety. Stress perception was evaluated using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The PSS was developed by Cohen et al. [17] and is known as the most common tool to check the cognition of subjective stress. The current study used the Korean version of the PSS (PS-10), which included 10 questions (6 about negative cognition, and 4 about positive cognition) The number of stressful situations the participant was in over the past month, was measured on a scale of 0 to 4 (5 scales). Higher scales indicated higher stress perception and were classified into three groups (low, middle, and high).

Depressive symptoms were evaluated using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). This study uses the Korean version of PHQ-9 modified by Lee et al. [23], originally developed by Kroenke et al. [24]. A total of 9 questions regarding depression experiences in the past two months, on a scale of 0–27 was asked.

Higher scales indicated more depressive symptoms and were classified into three groups (low, middle, and high).

Anxiety symptoms were evaluated using the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). The GAD-7 includes seven questions regarding anxiety over the past two months on a scale of 0–21. Higher scales indicated higher levels of anxiety and were classified into three groups (low, middle, and high).

Questionnaires were used to collect data on age, sex, education, household income, occupation, marital status, body mass index, medicine, history of ocular surgery, and wearing contact lenses. Sex was classified as “male” and “female.” Education included “high school” and “university or higher.” Household income was classified as “lowest quartile,” “2nd quartile,” “3rd quartile,” and “highest quartile.” Occupation was categorized as “office worker” and “others.”. Marriage status as “yes” or “never.” BMI was calculated as the individual’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. They were categorized as “underweight” if BMI<18.5, “normal” if between 18.5–25.0, and “obese” if BMI ≥25. Medicine was answered with “yes” or “no,” to the question “Are you currently taking any medicine?” History of ocular surgery was to be answered with “yes” or “no,” to “Have you previously undergone an ophthalmological surgery?” Wearing contact lenses was to be answered with “yes” or “no,” to “Are you currently wearing contact lenses (including hard contact lenses)?”

Data are expressed as numbers (%) or means ±standard deviations. Unpaired t-tests and chi-square tests were used to compare the demographic, lifestyle, and clinical characteristics of the study population between male and female. Furthermore, an unpaired t-test was conducted to compare the total scores of mental health, including PSS, PHQ-9, and GAD-7, in relation to DED in male and female. The chi-square test was used to test the differences in the distribution of mental health severity for statistical significance between male and female with and without DED. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association between mental health related characteristics and DED in male and female. Demographic factors (age and sex), lifestyle factors (education, household income, marital status, occupation, and body mass index), and medical factors (medicine, history of ocular surgery, and wearing contact lenses) were used as covariates to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 18.0 version (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All reported p values which were 2-tailed and less than 0.050 were considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 152 participants were studied: 63 with no DED (41.4%) and 89 with DED (58.6%). We found that 41.4% (63) of the participants [48.4% (45/93) female and 30.5% (18/59) male] had DED, and the prevalence of DED was higher in female than in male.

Table 1 summarizes the evaluated parameters, including the demographic, lifestyle, and clinical characteristics of the 59 male and 93 female. The ages of the male (34.0±8.5yrs) and the female (34.4±9.4yrs, p = 0.806) did not differ significantly. In contrast, the proportion of female with DED symptoms was significantly higher than that of male (p = 0.042). Regarding mental health, the total PSS score was significantly higher in female than in male (p = 0.001).

Table 1. Evaluation parameters of male and female.

Total Male Female p-value
(n = 152) (n = 59) (n = 93)
n % n % n %
Age (years) 34.2±9.0 34.0±8.5 34.4±9.4 0.806 a
Education
 High school 23 15.1 10 16.9 13 14 0.647 b
 University or higher 129 84.9 49 83.1 80 86
Household income
 Lowest quartile 43 28.3 17 28.8 26 28 0.751 b
 2nd quartile 35 23 14 23.7 21 22.6
 3rd quartile 35 23 11 18.6 24 25.8
 Highest quartile 39 25.7 17 28.8 22 23.7
Occupation
 Others 115 75.7 45 76.3 70 75.3 1.000 b
 Office worker 37 24.3 14 23.7 23 24.7
Married
 Never 87 57.2 38 64.4 49 52.7 0.180 b
 Yes 65 42.8 21 35.6 44 47.8
Body mass index
 Underweight 14 9.2 52 88.1 78 83.9 0.063 b
 Normal 130 85.5 2 3.4 12 12.9
 Obesity 8 5.3 5 8.5 3 3.2
Medicine
 No 145 95.4 59 100 86 92.5 0.043 b
 Yes 7 4.6 0 0 7 7.5
History of ocular surgery
 No 123 80.9 47 79.7 76 81.7 0.833 b
 Yes 29 19.1 12 20.3 17 18.3
Wearing contact lenses
 No 116 76.3 55 93.2 61 65.6 <0.001 b
 Yes 36 23.7 4 6.8 32 34.4
Dry eye disease (DED)
 No 89 58.6 41 69.5 48 51.6 0.042 b
 Yes 63 41.4 18 30.5 45 48.4
PSS 21.4±5.29 19.70±5.57 22.50±4.82 0.001 a
PHQ-9 6.75±4.76 5.95±4.38 7.26±4.94 0.099 a
GAD-7 5.04±4.41 4.29±3.90 5.52±4.66 0.094 a

PSS, perceived stress scale; PHQ-9, patient health questionnaire-9; GAD-7, general anxiety disorder-7.

a Unpaired t-test

b Chi-square test

Table 2 shows a comparison of mental health related variables (stress perception; PSS, depression symptom; PHQ-9, anxiety symptom; GAD-7) in relation to those who do, or do not have DED between male and female. Of the mental health variables, the total scores of PSS (p = 0.020) and GAD-7 (p = 0.038) in the group with DED (24.69±4.73 and 6.56±5.09) were significantly higher than those in the group without DED (21.38±4.68 and 4.54±4.03) in the female. In contrast, the scores of mental health related variables did not differ significantly between those who have and those who do not have DED among male. The average score of mental health related variables in relation to DED for both male and female are shown in Fig 3. In particular, the mental health related variables showed the highest score in female having DED symptoms.

Table 2. Comparison of mental health scores in relation to the presence of dry eye disease symptoms in male and female.

Mental health Sex DED p-value
No Yes
PSS Male 19.39±5.62 20.39±5.55 0.531
Female 21.38±4.68 24.69±4.73 0.020*
PHQ-9 Male 6.22±4.33 5.33±4.55 0.479
Female 6.33±4.81 8.24±4.94 0.062
GAD-7 Male 4.49±3.67 3.83±4.46 0.557
Female 4.54±4.03 6.56±5.09 0.038*

PSS, perceived stress scale; PHQ-9, patient health questionnaire-9; GAD-7, general anxiety disorder-7.

*p<0.050, unpaired t-test

Fig 3. The average score of mental health-related indicators, in relation to DED symptoms in male and female.

Fig 3

Furthermore, the percentages of low, middle, and high scores for the mental health-related variables based on the participants’ sex and DED group are shown in Fig 4. Female with DED symptoms had a higher proportion of female with higher mental health-related scores than those without. However, there was no significant difference in mental health-related scores based on the presence or absence of DED in male.

Fig 4. The percentage of low, middle, and high score groups in mental health-related indicators, in relation to DED symptoms in male and female.

Fig 4

Table 3 shows the multivariate associations between mental health-related variables and DED in both male and female. Even after revision regarding demographic factors (age and sex), lifestyle factors (education, household income, married, occupation, body mass index), and medical factors (medicine, history of ocular surgery, and wearing contact lenses), mental health risks increased in those who had DED than those who did not [stress perception (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.02–1.23), depressive symptoms (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.02–3.90), and anxiety symptoms (OR = 3.50, 95% CI = 1.09–11.22)]. Analysis of sex differences showed no gap in male regarding the existence of DED, but female showed significant growth in mental health (psychological health indicators) risks. [Stress perception (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.09–1.49), depressive symptoms (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.10–6.35), and anxiety symptoms (OR = 5.81, 95% CI = 1.16–29.14)].

Table 3. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval(CI) on multiple logistic regression analyses of associations between DED and mental health in male and female.

Variables Adjusted OR (95% CI)
Total Stress perception 1.118* (1.021–1.225)
Depressive symptom 1.991* (1.017–3.898)
Anxiety symptom 3.502* (1.093–11.223)
Male Stress perception 1.030 (0.900–1.178)
Depressive symptom 1.809 (0.456–7.171)
Anxiety symptom 4.808 (0.485–47.709)
Female Stress perception 1.277* (1.094–1.492)
Depressive symptom 2.635* (1.095–6.345)
Anxiety symptom 5.809* (1.156–29.144)

Adjusted for age, sex, education, household income, marital status, occupation, body mass index, medicine, history of ocular surgery, and wearing contact lenses

*p < 0.050.

Discussion

This study is the first to identify sex differences in mental health in subjects with DED symptoms. The main finding of this study was that in female, the association between DED symptoms and mental health (stress perception, depression, and anxiety) showed a statistically significant association. However, no relationship was found between the presence of DED symptoms and mental health indicators in male.

The incidence of DED is well known to be higher in female than in male. Our study also showed that the proportion of female with DED symptoms was 48.4%, significantly higher than that of 30.5% of male (p = 0.042). In particular, mental health indicators (stress prominently affected the development of dry eye only in female. In the present study, stress perception, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms increased the presence of dry eye by 1.28, 2.64, and 5.8 times, respectively, even after controlling for other variables in female.

Some of these studies are consistent with our findings. Previous studies have suggested that mood disorders such as depression, which are associated with eye diseases, should be considered more seriously [25, 26]. Recently, Asiedu et al. [27] demonstrated that DED symptoms affected depressive symptoms to a greater extent when other psychosomatic symptoms were present in a young population. In addition, a meta-analysis including data from 22 studies of 2.9 million patients found that anxiety and depression were more prevalent in patients with DED than in controls [28]. They reported that treatment of DED could help reduce depression symptoms, but effective management of depression could help alleviate the symptoms of DED.

Another study that evaluated dry eye and mental health problems in adult women also reported a close relationship between them [19]. Although studies have shown that women with severe psychological stress perception and depressed mood are at higher risk for developing dry eye symptoms, these studies were conducted only on adult women [19]. Many previous studies have not addressed the differences in the relationship between depression and DED between men and women.

Schaumberg et al. [13] compared the severity of DED, but only the quality of life (QoL) between men and women with DED in a large national longitudinal study targeting US citizens. Their results showed a significant difference in the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) score, which reflects the severity of DED symptoms. Women scored higher (26.8) than men (18.2) (p<0.001). In addition, women are at a higher risk of being restricted from daily activities such as reading, driving at night, and watching TV which could identify their QoL with dry eye symptoms compared to men [13]. Recent clinical and epidemiologic findings also indicate that women tend to have higher risk levels of chronic pain conditions [29].

Such sex-related differences in pain are likely because of the interaction of biological differences between men and women (e.g., genetic or hormonal factors) with psychological and socio-cultural factors [29]. First, female hormones such as estrogen may be involved. Fillingim et al. [29] stated that hormonal alterations, such as estrogen administration and withdrawal, may increase pain risk. Furthermore, OSDI scores (showing eye discomfort index) were higher in the ovulation phase than in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle [30, 31]. Secondly, the fact that DED shares genetic causes with chronic pain syndrome may be the reason [32]. The TFOS DEWS II definition and classification report has added neuropathic dry eye to the originally defined evaporative aqueous deficient dry eye classified in the dry eye symptom classification [6]. Vehof et al. [8] stated that females have a higher sensitivity to light as an environmental factor, and this is related to pain experienced in neuropathic dry eye. From these results, we can infer that there is a possibility that the frequency of neuropathic dry eye increased more in females than in males. Third, pain and depression are closely related. The prevalence of depression is higher in women than in men [33], and it is known that the sensitivity to pain and depression is accompanied by diseases [34, 35]. Therefore, we can infer that pain may cause depression, and this can be felt more acutely in women than in men [34, 35]. Additionally, men are required to be masculine socially. Slightly different from biological sex, masculinity that is required from men in social/cultural perspectives in countries/cultures/societies makes men feel that they need to be stronger than women and that they should not show their pain.

DED has been recognized as a common ocular problem affecting older women more often than men, but it should be noted that the score of mental health indicators is high in the DED patients that many women experienced in the present study. Our findings also support the suggestion of Kitazawa et al. [1] regarding dry-eyed women with depression. High stress and severe depression are strongly linked to DED; therefore, the treatment of dry eye is also effective in managing depression. However, the use of antidepressant medication can exacerbate DED, which in turn can worsen depression [3638]. Therefore, Ayaki et al. [39] and Han et al. [14] suggested that the involvement of psychiatrists is required before managing associated sleep disorders and antidepressant use, which contributes to dry eye. We obtained the need for their suggestion to be expanded to female with dry eye and depression.

This study’s major strength is that it is the first study to focus on the associations of mental health and DED symptoms with sex differences in Asians. Previous studies evaluating the relationship between DED and psychiatric or neurological disorders have not considered sex as an important factor [1, 14]. Unfortunately, little is known about dry eye problems related to mental health between men and women, although there have been studies that analyzed DED according to sex, problems related to daily life such as poor vision, reading problems, and problems watching TV were compared to sex [8].

This study had several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design did not allow us to draw conclusions about a causal relationship between DED and mental health indicators, such as stress, depression, and anxiety; thus, prospective studies are needed to determine causality. Second, DED was classified using patient surveys, rather than objective or doctoral diagnoses. However, many cases show discordance between DED symptoms and signs, and DED symptoms regarding this study’s objective are subjective and mostly scaled using surveys [22]. Third, a small number of persons participated, particularly male. However, to the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to separately evaluate DED and mental health-related indicators in male and female in the community. Future studies are also needed to determine the relationship between depression and dry eye in each age group, which can provide effective evidence for the treatment of female with both.

Conclusion

This study contributes evidence that there is a difference in the increased risks of mental health and DED symptoms according to sex in the community. Female with DED showed higher risks of stress, depression, and anxiety than those without DED. Therefore, ophthalmologists and clinicians should be aware of the possibility of mental health problems in female patients with DED. Female adults with mental health problems may complain of developing DED. Subsequently, nurses should consider the possibility of DED in patients with mental health problems.

Supporting information

S1 File

(SAV)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and it was funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI18C1317). The funding agencies had no role in the study design, the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit the article for publication.

References

  • 1.Kitazawa M, Sakamoto C, Yoshimura M, Kawashima M, Inoue S, Mimura M, et al. The relationship of dry eye disease with depression and anxiety: a naturalistic observational study. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2018;7(6):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Schaumberg DA, Dana R, Buring JE, Sullivan DA. Prevalence of dry eye disease among US men: estimates from the Physicians’ Health Studies. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(6):763–768. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lu P, Chen X, Liu X, Yu L, Kang Y, Xie Q, et al. Dry eye syndrome in elderly Tibetans at high altitude: a population-based study in China. Cornea 2008;27(5):545–51. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e318165b1b7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lee AJ, Lee J, Saw SM, Gazzard G, Koh D, Widjaja D, et al. Prevalence and risk factors associated with dry eye symptoms: a population based study in Indonesia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(12):1347–51. doi: 10.1136/bjo.86.12.1347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ahn JM, Lee SH, Taek Rim TH, Park RJ, Yang HS, Kim TI, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors associated with dry eye: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2010–2011. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(6):1205–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.08.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Craig JP, Nichols KK, Nichols JJ, Akpek EK, Caffery B, Dua HS, et al. TFOS DEWS II definition and classification report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):276–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.The epidemiology of dry eye disease: report of the Epidemiology Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop (2007). Ocul Surf. 2007;5(2):93–107. doi: 10.1016/s1542-0124(12)70082-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vehof J, Smitt-Kamminga NS, Nibourg SA, Hammond CJ. Sex differences in clinical characteristics of dry eye disease. Ocul Surf. 2018;16(2):242–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2018.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sullivan DA, Rocha EM, Aragona P, Clayton JA, Ding J, Golebiowski B, et al. TFOS DEWS II Sex, Gender, and Hormones Report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):284–333. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2017.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stapleton F, Alves M, Bunya VY, Jalbert I, Lekhanont K, et al. TFOS DEWS II Epidemiology Report. Ocul Surf 2017;15(3):334–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vehof J, Hysi PG, Hammond CJ. A metabolome-wide study of dry eye disease reveals serum androgens as biomarkers. Ophthalmology 2017;124(4):505–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Peck T, Olsakovsky L, Aggarwal S. Dry eye syndrome in menopause and perimenopausal age group. J Midlife Health 2017;8(2):51–4. doi: 10.4103/jmh.JMH_41_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schaumberg DA, Uchino M, Christen WG, Semba RD, Buring JE, Li JZ. Patient reported differences in dry eye disease between men and women: impact, management, and patient satisfaction. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e76121. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Han SB, Yang HK, Hyon JY, Wee WR. Association of dry eye disease with psychiatric or neurological disorders in elderly patients. Clin Interv Aging. 2017;12:785–92. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S137580 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.de Castro JS, Selegatto IB, de Castro RS, Miranda ECM, de Vasconcelos JPC, de Carvalho KM et al. Prevalence and risk factors of self-reported dry eye in Brazil using a short symptom questionnaire. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):2076. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-20273-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kim E and Han S. Determinants of continuance intention to use health apps among users over 60: a test of social cognitive model. Int J Environ Public Health. 2021,18,10367. doi: 10.3390/ijerph181910367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(4):385–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hwang WJ, Jo HH. Development and effects of cognitive behavior-based healing programs using mobile apps. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7):3334. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18073334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Na KS, Han K, Park YG, Na C, Joo CK. Depression, stress, quality of life, and dry eye disease in Korean Women: a population-based study. Cornea. 2015;34(7):733–8. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000464 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Um SB, Yeom H, Kim NH, Kim HC, Lee HK. Suh I. Association between dry eye symptoms and suicidal ideation in a Korean adult population. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0199131. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–7. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bartlett JD, Keith MS, Sudharshan L, Snedecor SJ. Associations between signs and symptoms of dry eye disease: a systematic review. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1719–30. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S89700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lee S, Huh Y, Kim J. Finding optimal cut off points of the Korean version of the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening depressive disorders. Mood Emot. 2014;12:32–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams J.B. The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sahel JA, Bandello F, Dardennes R, Maurel F, Negrini C, Hieke K, et al. Anxiety and depression prevalence rates in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(4):1498–503. doi: 10.1167/iovs.06-0761 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Qian Y, Glaser T, Esterberg E, Acharya NR. Depression and visual functioning in patients with ocular inflammatory disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(2):370–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.06.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Asiedu K, Dzasimatu SK, Kyel S. Impact of dry eye on psychosomatic symptoms and quality of life in a healthy youthful clinical sample. Eye Contact Lens. 2018;44 Suppl 2:S404–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Weatherby TJM, Raman VRV, Agius M. Depression and dry eye disease: a need for an interdisciplinary approach? Psychiatr Danub. 2019;31(Suppl 3):619–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Fillingim RB, King CD, Ribeiro-Dasilva MC, Rahim-Williams B, Riley JL. Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings. J Pain. 2009;10(5):447–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2008.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cavdar E, Ozkaya A, Alkin Z, Ozkaya HM, Babayigit MA. Changes in tear film, corneal topography, and refractive status in premenopausal women during menstrual cycle. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2014;37(3):209–12. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2013.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Versura P, Fresina M, Campos EC. Ocular surface changes over the menstrual cycle in women with and without dry eye. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2007;23(7):385–90. doi: 10.1080/09513590701350390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Vehof J, Zavos HM, Lachance G, Hammond CJ, Williams FMK. Shared genetic factors underlie chronic pain syndromes. Pain. 2014;155(8):1562–68. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Koretz D, Merikangas KR, et al. The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). JAMA. 2003;289(23):3095–105. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.23.3095 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Doan L, Manders T, Wang J. Neuroplasticity underlying the comorbidity of pain and depression. Neural Plast. 2015;2015:504691. doi: 10.1155/2015/504691 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Walker AK, Kavelaars A, Heijnen CJ, Dantzer R. Neuroinflammation and comorbidity of pain and depression. Pharmacol Rev. 2013;66(1):80–101. doi: 10.1124/pr.113.008144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Senra H, Macedo AF, Nunes N, Balaskas K, Aslam T, Costa E. Psychological and psychosocial interventions for depression and anxiety in patients with age-related macular degeneration: a systemic review. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;27(8):755–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Schaumberg DA, Dana R, Burning JE, Sullivan DA. Prevalence of dry eye disease among US men: estimates from the Physicians’ Health Studies. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2009;127(6):763–768. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Moss SE. Klein R, Klein BE. Long-term incidence of dry eye in an older population. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85(8):668–674. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318181a947 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ayaki M, Tsubota K, Kawashima M, Kishimoto T, Mimura M, Negishi K. Sleep disorders are a prevalent and serious comorbidity in Dry Eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018; 59(14):DES143–DES150. doi: 10.1167/iovs.17-23467 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Keisuke Suzuki

5 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-12671Gender Differences in Dry Eye Disease symptoms associated with Psychological Health indicators among Adults using mobile mental health apps.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hwang,

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 20 2022 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: 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Keisuke Suzuki, MD, PhD

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 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

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"No"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf 

5. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

"No"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: The manuscript entitled “Gender Differences in Dry Eye Disease symptoms associated with Psychological Health indicators among Adults using mobile mental health apps” was an interesting research. The following comments can help the authors to improve it:

1-Please follow the journal instruction to provide a structured abstract if possible.

2-The whole manuscript needs to be revised in terms of English language.

3-The reference numbers in the main text are not sequential, and need to be corrected.

4-Abbreviations need to be presented in their full form in the first place that they are used.

5-The introduction section is so brief and the gap of knowledge needs to be explained with more details.

6- More information about the App needs to be added to the manuscript.

7-More information about the settings of the study and the reasons for excluding patients aged 61 or more need to be added.

8-As the number of women was higher than men, is there any possibility for bias in reporting the results? Why didn’t the researchers recruit the same number of patients for males and females?

Reviewer #2: In Result part:

1. Line 94-95: The first sentence was wrong. Please remove.

2. It would be better result if the author can analyses more in each age because as we know that dry eye mostly happens in aging female.

**********

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: Yes: Chulaluck Tangmonkongvoragul

**********

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 17;18(1):e0278921. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278921.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Oct 2022

Dear editor:

We would like to thank you and the reviewers of the Plos One for taking the time to review our article. We revised the manuscript, based on your comments. The changes are summarized below:

Reviewer #1:

Comment

The manuscript entitled “Gender Differences in Dry Eye Disease symptoms associated with Psychological Health indicators among Adults using mobile mental health apps” was an interesting research. The following comments can help the authors to improve it:

1-Please follow the journal instruction to provide a structured abstract if possible. [Response] Thank you for your comments. We revised it to be a structured abstract.

2-The whole manuscript needs to be revised in terms of English language.

[Response] Thank you for your comments. The manuscript was edited by English speaker.

3-The reference numbers in the main text are not sequential, and need to be corrected. [Response] Thank you for your comments. We confirmed the reference numbers again. Also, 6 references (number of 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17) have been added.

4-Abbreviations need to be presented in their full form in the first place that they are used.

[Response] Thank you for your comments. We have corrected the abbreviations to the submission format.

5-The introduction section is so brief and the gap of knowledge needs to be explained with more details.

[Response] Thank you for your comments. We added the introduction section. (Page 4, lines 61, 66-71)

6- More information about the App needs to be added to the manuscript.

[Response] Thank you for your comments. We added the App information in method section. (Page 4, lines 87-89)

7. More information about the settings of the study and the reasons for excluding patients aged 61 or more need to be added.

[Response] We agree with your comments. We added the reasons for excluding patients aged 61 or more and references. (Page 5, lines 95-98)

The previous study has demonstrated that over 60 age was a significant risk factor for dry eye symptoms. Therefore, older participants over 60 were not included. Also, we revised the manuscript to be exactly 60 years old. In addition, because it was reported that those over the age of 60 who used health apps had low self-efficacy, we excluded those over the age of 60.

8-As the number of women was higher than men, is there any possibility for bias in reporting the results? Why didn’t the researchers recruit the same number of patients for males and females?

[Response] Thank you for your comments.

There were more women who participated to use the health app. Therefore, we did not adjust to match the number of men and women in our statistical analysis. Since we showed the analysis results for men and women separately in Tables 1, 2, and 3, we think that it would not affected the results.

Reviewer #2:

Comment

In Result part:

1. Line 94-95: The first sentence was wrong. Please remove.

[Response] Thank you for your comments. We removed the sentence.

2. It would be better result if the author can analyses more in each age because as we know that dry eye mostly happens in aging female.

[Response] Many thanks for your comments.

We considered dividing the analysis into each age groups, but we did not include such an analysis because we excluded the old female group by adding to the reasons for excluding the age of 60 or older in the method. In addition, these sentences were described to the Discussion section. (page 16, line 303)

Sincerely yours,

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_2.doc

Decision Letter 1

Keisuke Suzuki

17 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-12671R1Gender Differences in Dry Eye Disease symptoms associated with Psychological Health indicators among Adults using mobile mental health apps.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hwang,

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 Dec 01 2022 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: 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Keisuke Suzuki, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript has been improved, but please make further minor revisions to the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments.

[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: (No Response)

**********

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: No

**********

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: I appreciate the authors for their time and efforts to revise the manuscript. However, it still needs to be improved in the following areas:

1- Again, the whole manuscript needs to be revised in terms of English language. Moreover, please be consistent when using (.), (-) and (,).

2- To report the results, we unusually use “sex” which is categorized to “male” and “female”. Please consider these two in the whole manuscript.

3- In the introduction section, the terms sex and gender were used next to each other. Please only use one term "sex".

4- Please revise the first paragraph of the methods section, if you are explaining inclusion and exclusion criteria in other paragraphs.

5- More information about the App needs to be added to the manuscript. Adding only two lines to the methods section is not adequate. Please add some figures of the App, too.

6- More information about the settings of the study needs to be added.

7- In the tables, there are a number of cells which show no label or figure. Please complete the tables or merge cells, etc.

**********

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.]

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. 2023 Jan 17;18(1):e0278921. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278921.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Oct 2022

I appreciate the authors for their time and efforts to revise the manuscript. However, it still needs to be improved in the following areas:

1- Again, the whole manuscript needs to be revised in terms of English language. Moreover, please be consistent when using (.), (-) and (,).

→Answer: We have revised all the marks to be consistent throughout the paper. Also, the manuscript was edited by an English native speaker.

2- To report the results, we unusually use “sex” which is categorized to “male” and “female”. Please consider these two in the whole manuscript.

→Answer: We have revised all “men / women” to “male / female” throughout the paper.

3- In the introduction section, the terms sex and gender were used next to each other. Please only use one term "sex".

→Answer: We have revised all “gender” to “sex” throughout the paper.

4- Please revise the first paragraph of the methods section, if you are explaining inclusion and exclusion criteria in other paragraphs.

→Answer: We have consolidated the paragraphs and modified them to fit the context.

5- More information about the App needs to be added to the manuscript. Adding only two lines to the methods section is not adequate. Please add some figures of the App, too.

→Answer: We have added some figures for improvement.

6- More information about the settings of the study needs to be added.

→Answer: As a primary study, this study was first aimed at examining the participants' mental health and dry eye symptoms. In the future, we plan to have participants use the healing program on a regular basis through a mobile app to investigate the intervention effect.

7- In the tables, there are a number of cells which show no label or figure. Please complete the tables or merge cells, etc.

→Answer: We follow the reviewer’s suggestion.

Best regards

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review comments_1023_1.docx

Decision Letter 2

Keisuke Suzuki

24 Nov 2022

Gender Differences in Dry Eye Disease symptoms associated with Psychological Health indicators among Adults using mobile mental health apps.

PONE-D-22-12671R2

Dear Dr. Hwang,

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,

Keisuke Suzuki, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have well addressed comments raised by reviewers.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Keisuke Suzuki

5 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-12671R2

Gender differences in dry eye disease symptoms associated with psychological health indicators among adults using mobile mental health apps

Dear Dr. Hwang:

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. Keisuke Suzuki

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 File

    (SAV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_2.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review comments_1023_1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES