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.
Thank you for your revised submission. I am satisfied that you addressed the concerns of the reviewers, and am happy to accept your paper for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Bob Patton, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have adequately addressed my comments. Therefore, I have no further comments.
The authors have adequately addressed my comments. Therefore, I have no further comments.
The authors have adequately addressed my comments. Therefore, I have no further comments.
Thanks for accommodating the feedback, I have no further comments.
No further comments.
No further comments.
Thank you for your submission. The reviewers have identified a number of concerns that must be addressed.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
- Lines 145-165 describe the advantages and the disadvantages of your group brainstorming approach and should be moved to the background or the discussion section.
- In line 280, please indicate what t-tests were used. For example, independent two-sample t-tests. Please indicate what P-value was used to determine statistical significance. For example, two-sided p-values < 0.05 were used to determine statistical significance.
- For Figure 2, please reformat the x-axis to show “0”, “1”, “2” .. “25”, with an interval of one instead of five.
- Please convert Figure 3 to a bar chart, with x-axis representing the type of cluster and y-axis showing the average importance ratings.
- Please update Figure 4. For example, in Figure (a), create 6 panels, each representing a different cluster: “technical aspects and advertisement“, “ease-of-use and self-monitoring”, “Personalized information and support”, “motivational aspects”, “goal setting, goal review and rewards”, and “social features“. In each panel, show a bar chart with x-axis indicating two groups: active subgroup and inactive subgroup, and y-axis indicating the mean ratings of that cluster. Please also add the p-values to the graph.
- Please add p-values from comparing between active vs. inactive subgroups to Table 1.
- In table 2, you don’t have to show t and df. Please show the mean and the SD in each group instead. Please also indicate if the p-values here were Bonferroni corrected or not. Please also describe how you conducted the Bonferroni correction in the statistical analysis section.
- In the Procedure section, please elaborate on how the statements from participants were recorded. Were they audio-recorded or recorded on digital post-its? In the data analysis section, please clarify when the statements were processed by the researchers. Were they processed during the group brainstorming? How the disagreements between the researchers were resolved? In what format the statements were accessed by the researchers who did not attend the brainstorming session?
no comment
(1)
The overall writing is clear, but some sentences are long and complex. Consider breaking them down for better readability.
(2)
While well-integrated with existing literature, consider citing more recent studies where applicable.
(3)
Please ensure consistent use of terminology (e.g., 'e-Health' and 'mHealth'). Clarify and use one term consistently throughout.
(4)
Please review the sentence structure and grammar for enhanced readability.
(1)
Good use of a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methods.
(2)
The user-centred approach is appreciated, where participants generated ideas and rated them without steering based on theory.
(3)
The online interaction due to COVID-19 measures is understood. However, please consider it may have excluded those with less digital literacy, impacting generalizability.
(1)
Insightful discussion on social features. You may explore further why these features received lower ratings despite recommendations in the literature.
(2)
The discussion on credibility support is brief. You may consider expanding on why participants did not prioritize it and discuss potential implications for future interventions.
(3)
It would be beneficial to elaborate on the implications for future research. Specify aspects to explore in more detail and how findings could apply to different target groups or contexts.
(4)
The conclusions effectively summarize key findings. However, consider highlighting any novel contributions and how the study advances the field.
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.