Exploring Strategies to Support Adolescent Mental Health after Parental Divorce: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The mental health of adoelscents following divorce is an important area of research. Overall, the manuscript requires considerable review. The introduction would benefit from clear definitions of key constructs and links to relevant conceptual frameworks. The key research question requires more refinement. The method requires more detail regarding the search strategy and keywords. the broad inclusion criteria seemed to be a reflection of a poorly defined research question. The tabel describing the studies requires more specific details regarding key findings, as they relate to the research question. The findings appeared to describe key program, and not provide a synthesis of the body of research. The discussion could benefit from a more detailed discussion of implications - including legal, cultural and economic factors that may impact rates of divorces, and the infrastructure available to support families. 

Author Response

The authors included definitions of the key concepts and linked it to the relevant framework. The research question was redefined. More information regarding the search strategy and keyword have been inserted. More information regarding the key finding were provided. And information was added to the discussion around the implications of this research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for inviting me to review this manuscript.

The review focuses on strategies/interventions that address the mental health impact of divorce on adolescents.

I have some comments to improve this manuscript:

Abstract:

Please mention the key findings and conclusion in the abstract.

Introduction:

The existing literature on the topic is well-covered.

Line 65: “Adolescents whose parents are separated due to divorced”: please correct it to divorce.

Methods:

Please explain if you used (PRISMA-ScR) as all the items on the checklist were not reported. All add the reference of the tool.

Can you please clarify how the screening/study selection was done?

Results

Lines 112-113: “Ultimately, full-text documents were excluded due to a lack of relevance and language barriers” this sentence is not clear. What exactly was excluded?

The figure and table under results are not separate sections to be given numbers such as 3.1 and 3.2.

Lines 226-232: the paragraph contains recommendations for future research and practice. Please move it to the recommendation section.

Please refer to the PRISMA-ScR subsections under results.

General comments:

Please follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist as you stated in the manuscript.

Author Response

PRISMA -ScR was used and this was explained in the paper. Line 112-113 has been removed. The figures labelling was corrected. and the recommendation was moved to the recommendation section. The PRISMA-ScR checklist was followed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the concerns raised adequately.

Author Response

The reviewer stated that the revisions were adequate.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Thanks for inviting me to review this manuscript (again).

1. Lines 16-17: “Although parents, caregivers or teachers of these adolescence reported improvement after the intervention, adolescence reported no affect” Adolescents not adolescence. Also change it in line 78 and 81, 124. the word affect should be effect.

2. Lines 28, 29: Please add a reference to the WHO definition of mental health

3. Line 92 (again): please add the PRSIMA-ScR reference:

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-0850

4. Line 141: Please indicate that figure one is the PRISMA flow diagram, and remove number 3 from the figure caption ( figures and tables are not considered subheadings).

Results:

5. Please add a subheading to the paragraph starting from lines 129-138 (before the flow diagram) which can be:  3.1. search results and included studies characteristics

6. Line 169: presentation of the results: it should be 3.2. and better to change it to review findings as it focuses on the findings from the included studies.

7. Lines 240-246: “It is recommended that…” if these are the authors’ recommendations, please move them to the discussion section. If the recommendations are extracted from the included studies, please add references.

8. Lines 285-288: “ research recommends that ..” which research? Please add references.

Please respond to the reviewers' comments point by point.

Author Response

1. improvement after the intervention, adolescencereported no affect” Adolescents not adolescence. Also change it in line 78 and 81, 124. the word affect should be effect.
   1. I have made the recommended changes.
2. Lines 28, 29: Please add a reference to the WHO definition of mental health 
   1. This reference has been added.
3. Line 92 (again): please add the PRSIMA-ScR reference: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-0850
   1. This reference was added.
4. Line 141: Please indicate that figure one is the PRISMA flow diagram, and remove number 3 from the figure caption ( figures and tables are not considered subheadings). 
   1. This has been corrected.

Results:

5. Please add a subheading to the paragraph starting from lines 129-138 (before the flow diagram) which can be:  3.1. search results and included studies characteristics
   1. This has been added as suggested
6. Line 169: presentation of the results: it should be 3.2. and better to change it to review findings as it focuses on the findings from the included studies.
   1. This has been changed as suggested.
7. Lines 240-246: “It is recommended that…” if these are the authors’ recommendations, please move them to the discussion section. If the recommendations are extracted from the included studies, please add references.
   1. As recommended it was moved.
8. Lines 285-288: “ research recommends that ..” which research? Please add references.

This has been corrected.