Health Education Intervention Programs in Early Childhood Education: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This systematic review aimed to analyse health interventions implemented in an institutional environment, for children aged 3- 6 years is excellent and the authors show an outstanding critical thinking when dealing this complex issue

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

we are very honored that you have formed such a positive opinion about our manuscript and recommend it for publication without any changes. We thoroughly studied the methodology of systematic reviews and the requirements of the journal “Education Sciences”.

Reviewer 2 Report

Recommendations for the authors of the article:

1. It is necessary to correct the section of the article: "abstract". There is a lack of used research methods and research limitations (the authors also did not describe research limitations at the end). A description of the structure of the issues described in the article should also be added. Similar remarks should be taken into account in the introduction to the article.

2. Add a section: "Literature review".

3. The article lacks a description of the impact of institutional economics on the development of health education. These issues should also be presented in the "Literature Review".

4. In the article the conclusions of the studies should be given in sub-paragraphs. This section requires a lot of substantive reinforcement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

we are very thankful for your comments and suggestions to improve the quality of our paper. According to the comments we have modified our manuscript. Below you can find our answers to your comments.

“1. It is necessary to correct the section of the article: "abstract". There is a lack of used research methods and research limitations (the authors also did not describe research limitations at the end). A description of the structure of the issues described in the article should also be added. Similar remarks should be taken into account in the introduction to the article.”

Thank you for your suggestion. We have completed the abstract and added research limitations to the manuscript.

During the presentation of the methods and results, we followed the standards for systematic reviews (PRISMA 2020 Checklist, Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria), based on the guidelines of prestigious educational and health science journals, and paid special attention to the study of systematic reviews published in “Education Sciences”.

“2. Add a section: "Literature review".”

Thanks for your remark, the theoretical background of the examined topic can be found in chapter "Introduction" 1.1. subsection following the structure of most systematic reviews. Since the theoretical background consists of only one subsection, we did not consider it necessary to have a separate "Literature review" chapter title.

“3. The article lacks a description of the impact of institutional economics on the development of health education. These issues should also be presented in the "Literature Review".”

Thank you for comment, we agree that the issue of institutional economics is of fundamental importance in terms of the institution's operation and educational activities. Regarding health education, the factors of institutional economics are primarily manifested through personal, material, and other infrastructural conditions, which are detailed in subsection 1.1.

Observations based solely on infrastructural development without pedagogical intervention were not the focus of our systematic review, we specified this in the exclusion criteria (subsection 2.1).

“4. In the article the conclusions of the studies should be given in sub-paragraphs. This section requires a lot of substantive reinforcement.”

Thanks for your remark. Conclusions for each of the studies included in the analysis can be found in the Supplement (Table S.2). Due to the wide variety of topics covered in the reviewed studies and scope limitations, we primarily formulated general conclusions about the research conducted in the examined area.

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript of considerable interest for the dental sector, requires a major revision before evaluating a possible publication.

 

Abstract: very generic, highlighting the data collected more clearly.

 

 

Keywords; very generic, add specific ones that are registered on MeSH.

 

Introduction: add all the risk factors that develop the risk of caries (butera et al.) and all the minimally invasive systems that can regulate the oral microbiota. (scribe et al).

 

Materials and methods: well described, risk of bias table missing.

 

Discussion: all future preventive approaches are lacking, trying as much as possible to reduce the risk of oral lesions, and the assiduous use of biomimetic hydroxyapatite for a proactive approach.

 

 

Conclusion: Add proactive action

 

 

Bibliography: add references required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

we are very thankful for your comments and suggestions to improve the quality of our paper. According to the comments we have modified our manuscript. Below you can find our answers to your comments.

“Manuscript of considerable interest for the dental sector, requires a major revision before evaluating a possible publication.”

Thanks for your remark, we agree that oral health is an important area of health education, and that establishing it in early childhood is of particular importance. Our systematic review focuses on preschool/kindergarten health education interventions, of which only one study dealing with oral hygiene was included in the review. Accordingly, our approach to health education can be said to be holistic, with oral hygiene being just one aspect of it.

“Abstract: very generic, highlighting the data collected more clearly.”

Thanks for your comment. We did not conduct empirical data collection, we executed a systematic review. The methodology of this was explained in detail in our study (section 2), and we also highlighted its key elements in the abstract.

“Keywords; very generic, add specific ones that are registered on MeSH.”

Thank you for your suggestion. Our review is basically from an educational science perspective, many relevant educational science keywords are not included in the MeSH database. We have completed the keywords as you suggested.

“Introduction: add all the risk factors that develop the risk of caries (butera et al.) and all the minimally invasive systems that can regulate the oral microbiota. (scribe et al).”

Thank you for your advice. At the same time, we think that exploring the risk factors of dental diseases in such detail does not fit the content of the study, since we focused on developing the health-supporting habits of preschool children.

“Materials and methods: well described, risk of bias table missing.”

Thanks for your remark. Risk of bias tables can be found in the supplement (Table S3-S5).

“Discussion: all future preventive approaches are lacking, trying as much as possible to reduce the risk of oral lesions, and the assiduous use of biomimetic hydroxyapatite for a proactive approach.”

Thank you for your suggestion. These topics are not related to the purpose of our systematic review, oral health only appears in one examined study, however not from a medical science point of view, but from a health education point of view.

“Conclusion: Add proactive action. Bibliography: add references required”

Thank you for your advice. We formulated the conclusion regarding health promotion based on the reviewed studies. Formulating proactive action specifically in the field of oral hygiene was not among the goals of the study. Our aim was to provide an overview of the health education interventions carried out in the preschool institutional environment.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, I think in this version the article is scientifically, methodologically and empirically on a good level. Congratulations. I wish you scientific and professional success.

Reviewer 3 Report

THE CHANGES SUGGESTED IN THE FIRST ROUND OF REVISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN THE TEXT