All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The comments in the previous revision are now addressed and have been assessed.
Sample size calculation- Anticipated proportion of 50% is mentioned. But what is the outcome variable here, as a proportion of what? Please mention that.
Sampling method- Mention the total number of nurses available and how 400 were selected by convenience. Mention problems because of convenience sampling in limitations.
Results- Table-1 percentages are not revised. Also changes in tables are not reflected in the results description.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The revisions made to the manuscript greatly enhance the manuscript. The manuscript reflects clear methods and analysis. The disucssion and implications flow well from the results. The attention the authors gave to responding to the prior review comments is appreciated and has resulted in a well written paper that will contribute to knowledge in the field.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have done the necessary modifications and have given justifications for the comments by the reviewers.
Abstract: The abstract is concise but requires minor revisions for clarity and completeness. The methods section needs improvement, and the exact number of participants should be clearly stated as either 388 or 400.
Main File:
Methods:
1. Study Design: Lines 110 to 114 should be relocated to the introduction section for better contextualization.
2. Lines 115 to 118: These lines are ambiguous and should be revised for clarity.
3. Sample Size Details: The sample size details, including how the number of participants was determined, should be provided.
4. Sampling Method: The use of convenient sampling poses a risk of selection bias. Discuss how this potential bias was addressed or mitigated.
5. Language of the Instrument: The language of the instrument used in the study should be specified.
6. Cross-Cultural Adaptation Method: Provide a more comprehensive description of the cross-cultural adaptation method used.
7. Content Validity of Questionnaire: If content validity assessment was conducted, provide a clear description of the methodology. The current description seems inappropriate.
Results:
1. Percentages Presentation: Percentages are presented out of the total value, but since groups are of unequal size, it is recommended to use column percentages to enhance clarity.
Table-2:
1. Simplification of Table-2: Simplify the presentation of Table-2 by grouping stages as Pre-treatment, Pre+Post, Pre+During, and Every stage, and calculate percentages based on a total of 384 for overall and respective response totals in subgroups. Revise the description of results accordingly for improved readability.
Discussion:
1. Repetition of Results: Ensure that results presented in the discussion section are not repetitive but are instead analyzed and contextualized.
Conclusions:
1. Generalization to India: Reconsider the generalization of study findings to all of India, as it may not be appropriate. Provide a more nuanced interpretation of the scope of generalization based on study limitations.
2. Limitations and Biases: Clearly outline the limitations and biases of the study and explain the measures taken to reduce or control them. This will enhance the transparency of your research.
Please use STROBE checklist and write the entire manuscript adhering to it.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
This paper addresses an important topic in cancer care. The writing is mostly clear and references cited appropriately. Title and abstract adequately represent contents of paper.
The authors may have misstated the study design as observational, whereas cross-sectional survey/questionnaire methods were used. Adding validity and reliability data regarding the questionnaire would aide in interpretation of instrument used. Additional source citations for instrument would be advised espcially where instrument description mirrors published instrument information. IRB approval was obtained. The authors are commended on their high response rate.
Data from questionnaires is included in table format. Addressing instrument scoring would be helpful, as it is unclear if single item analysis is best. Adding a section of potential limiations would be informative for readers. Conclusions relate to findings.
Line 94 - authors describe nurses in very general terms when nursing roles vary quite a lot depending on setting of care. Since the population of the study is inpatient nurses, addressing more specifically role of nurses in tertiary care settings, might be more appropriate, especially in regard to ability/time for health education.
no comment
The effort the author has put to explain is appreciable
sample size calculation may be explained little in detail.
It is understood from your questionnaire, which you have attached the study was primarily designed to asses the physical activity beliefs and practices
Is the study intended to assess the healthy eating practices also? kindly justify
Ethical clearance certificate may be attached to verify the same.
Conclusion may be rephrased
First the study findings may be concluded
in second half of conclusion the implications can be stated.
Please follow the annotated PDF for further small comments
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.