Parental Knowledge and Awareness about Shaken Baby Syndrome in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study
, Basma A. Al-Jabri 1, Salah Aldeen L. Ramadan 2,*, Abdulaziz M. Alshehri 2, Abdulaziz S. Alsheikh 2, Hanan Hassan Mushaeb 2, Sara Faisal Albisher 2 and Maab Sadek AlSwealh 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Estimated Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity of improving my personal understanding of the topic of SBS by means of a very well written and documented paper.
In your cross-sectional study on a sample of around 500 Saudi adults, Authors have identified a relatively low understanding of SBS, associated with the diffuse willingness to improve the knowledge of this condition.
From my point of view, not only this article is consistent with the aims of PedRep but it deserves the eventual acceptance after some minor improvements.
First of all, please improve the "limitations" section. At the moment, the section is very short, and fails in the handling of the main limits of this study, and more precisely: 1) the potential sampling bias (how were participants recruited?); 2) the implicit limits of web-based surveys (i.e. the potential self selection of participant among individuals having a better propensity towards the sharing of personal conditions; those having higher familiarity with new media, etc); 3) the potential social desirability bias well mirrored by the imbalance between the very low share of individuals having a good understanding of this topic and the very high share of individuals wanting to improve their knowledge: how an individual may aim to improve his/her understanding of a certain topic having a very basic knowledge of it?
Second, a very minor one: please provide the personal income of participants not only in SAR but also in Dollars or Euros in order to improve the comparability of this variable for international readers.
Third, please provide the potentially targeted individuals in order to calculate the dropout and the actual response rate.
Fourth: why didn't you perform a multivariable analysis assuming as the outcome variable the attitude towards the willingness to improve the understanding of SBS?
Author Response
The authors would like to thank all the reviewers on their valuable comments. All comments were considered, and the manuscript was modified accordingly. The changes were highlighted in yellow and marked up using the track changing function.
- (Reviewer 1) please improve the "limitations" section. At the moment, the section is very short, and fails in the handling of the main limits of this study, and more precisely: 1) the potential sampling bias (how were participants recruited?); 2) the implicit limits of web-based surveys (i.e. the potential self selection of participant among individuals having a better propensity towards the sharing of personal conditions; those having higher familiarity with new media, etc); 3) the potential social desirability bias well mirrored by the imbalance between the very low share of individuals having a good understanding of this topic and the very high share of individuals wanting to improve their knowledge: how an individual may aim to improve his/her understanding of a certain topic having a very basic knowledge of it?
Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for taking time to review our manuscript. We are aware of the possible limitations of the study. The limitation section now is expanded as suggested by the reviewer.
- (Reviewer 1) please provide the personal income of participants not only in SAR but also in Dollars or Euros in order to improve the comparability of this variable for international readers.
Response: We have provided the income in Dollars as suggested by the reviewer.
- (Reviewer 1) please provide the potentially targeted individuals in order to calculate the dropout and the actual response rate.
Response: We have added the targeted population, the calculated drop out and the actual response in the subjects and methods Section.
- (Reviewer 1) why didn't you perform a multivariable analysis assuming as the outcome variable the attitude towards the willingness to improve the understanding of SBS?
Response: Thanks for this comment. We have further added the multivariable analysis in the result section. A new table was added to the result section “table5”.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear colleagues,
thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your paper.
I must admit that it is an interesting topic that is related to many disorders.
But I must also admit that you need to improve your paper a lot.
First things first, you have to sign your names and your affiliations.
You need to improve your Introduction. Explain more about what Shaken Baby Syndrome is. What disorders or disabilities causes? The prevalence of that phenomenon. Explain more about the factors that affect it. Use more references. Write the significance of your research. Elaborate on the Introduction.
You have to elaborate more on your methods. What sampling method have you used? Write more clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. Explain further your statistical analysis. When did you use Pearson analysis? When is Fisher's test? What do you mean by "whenever applicable''. Explain. Why didn't you use postpartum depression as a factor? Wasn't it important?
Your discussion is fair, but you need to consider postpartum depression also. Find references.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank all the reviewers on their valuable comments. All comments were considered, and the manuscript was modified accordingly. The changes were highlighted in yellow and marked up using the track changing function.
- (Reviewer 2) First things first, you have to sign your names and your affiliations.
Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for taking time to review our manuscript. All authors’ names and affiliations have been signed.
- (Reviewer 2) You need to improve your Introduction. Explain more about what Shaken Baby Syndrome is. What disorders or disabilities causes? The prevalence of that phenomenon. Explain more about the factors that affect it. Use more references. Write the significance of your research. Elaborate on the Introduction.
Response: We have expanded the introduction as requested. The updated introduction is including the definition of Shaken Baby Syndrome, the prevalence, the risk factors, and the disabilities caused by this syndrome. Further references have been inserted. The significance of this research was highlighted in the introduction as well as the discussion section.
- (Reviewer 2) You have to elaborate more on your methods. What sampling method have you used? Write more clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. Explain further your statistical analysis. When did you use Pearson analysis? When is Fisher's test? What do you mean by "whenever applicable''.
Response: We have expanded the methodology section as requested. The updated method section is including the sampling technique, clearer inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Further explanation replaced the phrase “whenever applicable”.
- (Reviewer 2) Why didn't you use postpartum depression as a factor? Wasn't it important?
Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for bringing our attention to “postpartum depression”. We agree with the reviewer on the importance of postpartum depression as a risk factor. We included this factor in the introduction and the discussion sections.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I am satisfied with all your changes. Good luck.
