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 addressing the reviewer's comments. Your manuscript is now deemed suitable for publication
Please, address reviewer #2 comments.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The Authors have satistactorily addressed all concerns that have been raised.
Thank you for your illuminating responses to the reviewers' comments. But it is still needed minor revisions.
In the "Abstract" section the information about where the study was conducted should be added.
The article should be revised by a fluent English speaker and the grammatical errors should be revised.
"Turkey" should be changed as "Türkiye".
No comment.
No comment
The authors have revised the manuscript due to the comments. But needs some revisions for grammatical errors.
Reviewers raised several concerns about the design, methods, and results. These concerns need to be thoroughly addressed by the authors before the manuscript can be further evaluated for publication.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**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.
Materials and Methods
a) It is indicated that the study was conducted in family health centers. It is not described how many family health centers are in geographic area.
b) It is necessary to indicate how many individuals have been selected.
c) It is necessary to specify who has conducted the face-to-face interview.
d) It is not stated whether the participant was informed about the use and anonymization of the data and that survey responses guarantee the anonymity of each participant.
e) It is not given any information whether participants were not able to continue to the next question of the questionnaire if they failed to provide a response to an item.
f) It should be clarified whether the participants have received any gift or monetarily compensated.
g) It should be clarified whether a pilot study has been conducted.
h) The Authors should describe the survey questionnaire items.
i) The Authors should clarify about the face-validity testing of the questions with an explanation of the validity of the content of the questions with regard to the research aims. The Authors should clarify how they had estimated the reliability, or internal consistency, of the questions by using, for example the Cronbach’s alpha in order to measure whether or not a score is reliable.
j) One of major weakness is that the statistical analysis is not, strictly speaking, adequate, because it would be particularly relevant to describe the model(s) developed and the outcome(s), the variables included and the rationale why they are included to measure the associations between several characteristics and the outcomes of interest. Moreover, it should be indicated if the tests were one-side or two-sided.
Results
a) The response rate should be reported.
b) No information is given about those patients who refused to participate. Was there any attempt to quantify the response bias: information about non-responders. It would be useful to have some kind of indication of comparability with non-respondents. Is there any population-based data available? How did they differ from those in the sample, how representative is the sample and were the findings representative of Turkey?
Discussion
a) The pivotal role of midwives and of healthcare providers as sources of information with a positive impact towards vaccination attitudes and uptake should be stressed and studies supporting this statement should be added. For example, the following articles should be cited Miraglia del Giudice et al. Vaccines 2023;11(2): 222; Wang et al. Vaccines (Basel) 2021;9(3):29.
b) There is a lack of comparison with the results of recent studies conducted among pregnant women regarding the COVID-19 vaccination in other geographic areas. The work should therefore be enriched in such a way as to become self-supporting by photographing the context and what is around it in order to make comparisons. For example, the following article should be cited Saitoh et al. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2022 Nov 30;18(5):2064686; Germann et al. BJOG 2022 Apr 16:10.1111/1471-0528.17189; Miraglia del Giudice et al. Front Public Health 2022;10:995382.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
c) The paragraph regarding the limitations of the study should discuss all limits such as, for example, the study design, the recall bias, and the social desirability bias.
Tables and Figures
a) In Table 5 report only two decimals.
References
a) The manuscript is not well referenced. The References list is not updated, since several articles conducted in different countries and published on peer-reviewed journals have been not included.
See comments in Basic design
See comments in Basic design
The article should be revised by a fluent English speaker.
The article should be written in the same design (passive or active)For ex: We. did........ or It was done........
It was stated that the number of participants in the study was 938. But in tables total number is different in each questions. So can you explain why the total numbers were changed. If there were unanswered questions in the questionnaires it would be better to extract those questionnaires from the study.
Do you have any permission to do the study in FHCs.? If there is please state it in the manuscript.
How many FHCs are in Kahramanmaras and in which of them did you conduct the study?
In the tables p values should be written with using dot, not comma.
Please state the strengths of your study.
Please give the most important findings in the abstract.
"In addition, 2.8% of pregnant women lacked trust in their physicians." This sentence should be removed.
Good clear straightforward reporting.
The literature review is enough and up to date
Some minor typos (attached)
Clear setting, enough sample size
Clear recruitment plan.
Clear operational definition of study variables.
Valid findings and appropriate statical tests.
However, conclusion does not match with results.
Hesitancy rate is very low <3% , so this showed good attitude and knowledge.
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.