Next Article in Journal
Antibiogram of Urinary Tract Infections and Sepsis among Infants in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Next Article in Special Issue
Using Communication Tools to Explore Young Siblings’ Experiences of Having a Brother or Sister with Pediatric Palliative Care Needs
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Preterm Birth on Sleep through Infancy, Childhood and Adolescence and Its Implications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Psychosocial Difficulties in Preschool-Age Children with Beckwith–Wiedemann Syndrome: An Exploratory Study
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Gender Differences in Caring for Children with Genetic or Rare Diseases: A Mixed-Methods Study

Children 2022, 9(5), 627; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9050627
by Shao-Yin Chu 1,2,3, Chin-Chen Wen 4,* and Chun-Ying Weng 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Children 2022, 9(5), 627; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9050627
Submission received: 24 February 2022 / Revised: 31 March 2022 / Accepted: 22 April 2022 / Published: 27 April 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest to improve the qualitative approach description; please insert more details and references about the process. Because content analysis is unique in that it has both a quantitative  and a qualitative methodology 

Author Response

Thank you for this suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for your work. It is a manuscript that addresses a problem that deserves to be investigated. However, there are a number of elements that need to be reviewed in depth. Below are the main elements that require further reflection:

  • The description of the instrument needs further substantiation - why was it chosen? What is Cronbach's Alpha? And with the choice of question for the qualitative part of the study as well, what was the reason for selecting that question and not another?
  • The variability of the children's "diseases" is very wide. Would it be possible to encompass it into categories so that the data could be more easily cross-referenced in the results and statistical relationships drawn?
  • The procedure should go in another subsection.
  • There should be more justification as to why such a sample and the size of the sample. At what point is generalization of the results possible?
    Thank you for your time. 

Author Response

Thank you for this suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors:

 

The manuscript: "Gender differences in caring for children with genetic or rare diseases: A mixed-methods study" is well written and it indicates a great important information.

It is clear and easy to read, and it consideres different points which are of interest for readers, researchers and families. 

I recommend you to include in the methods part a flowchart to understand in a better way the population who was added in the study.

 

Thank you very much.

Author Response

Thank you for this suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for your work to improve the manuscript. Another aspect that I would recommend is to review the use of the third person plural. The third person singular should be used to make the work more objective in the writing. Thank you very much for your attention.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop