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 submitting the revised version of your manuscript. After carefully reviewing the changes, I can confirm that all reviewers' comments and suggestions have been appropriately addressed.
Based on this assessment, I am pleased to inform you that the manuscript is now ready for publication. Congratulations.
Dear Author,
Thank you for taking all the comments positively. The quality of the paper was enhanced.
The paper is satisfactory for publication.
Regards,
The methods section is well-written.
The finding is well-presented.
The paper is satisfactory for publication.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Passed.
Passed.
Passed.
The authors have addressed all the comments.
Good luck!
Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Factors Influencing Health-Promoting Behavior Among Single Mothers in Kelantan: A Cross-Sectional Study." The reviewers have provided comprehensive and detailed feedback, which I believe will be invaluable in enhancing the scientific quality and rigor of your study.
The reviewers have raised important concerns regarding the scientific structure of your manuscript, particularly in the areas of hypothesis development, research questions, and theoretical framework. I would like to highlight the following key points for your attention:
Hypotheses and Research Questions: It is essential to clearly articulate the research questions and hypotheses guiding your study. These should be explicitly stated and aligned with the theoretical framework you are using. Reviewer #1 specifically pointed out that the research questions and hypotheses are missing, and the significance of the study is not clearly established. Addressing this will strengthen the foundation of your research and provide a clearer focus for the study.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework: Your manuscript would benefit from a more robust theoretical and conceptual framework. Reviewer #2 noted that while you mentioned the Health Belief Model (HBM) as part of your study, the application of this framework needs to be more explicitly integrated into the formulation of your hypotheses and the interpretation of your results. This will enhance the coherence and scientific validity of your study.
Introduction and Background: The introduction should provide a deeper understanding of the variables under investigation, supported by references from previous studies, particularly those conducted in Malaysia, other Asian countries, and globally. Reviewer #1 emphasized the need for more context on single mothers' mental health issues and a clearer explanation of why these specific factors were chosen for study. This will help justify the study’s significance and relevance.
Methods and Data Presentation: The methods section needs to be more detailed (Reviewer #2) , particularly regarding the recruitment process, data collection methods, and sample characteristics. Additionally, there were concerns about the adequacy of the statistical methods used and the interpretation of the results. Reviewer #3 suggested that you reconsider the use of simple linear regression and instead explore associations among demographic variables and the main study variables. Ensuring that your statistical analysis aligns with your research questions and hypotheses is crucial for the validity of your findings.
Cultural and Contextual Considerations: The discussion should better connect your findings with the cultural context of Kelantan and the broader implications for health-promoting behaviors among single mothers. Reviewer #1 and #3 both highlighted the importance of discussing the role of Malay culture, as well as potential governmental or societal interventions that could be relevant to your study's findings.
In light of these points, I strongly encourage you to revise your manuscript to address the issues raised by the reviewers. A more structured and scientifically rigorous approach to hypothesis development, supported by a well-defined theoretical framework, will significantly improve the quality of your study.
Title: Factors influencing health-promoting behavior among single mothers in Kelantan: A Cross-sectional study (#102588)
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your effort in studying such an important issue of health-promoting behaviors among single-mothers. Kindly find the following feedback:
Title: I suggest revising it as the “Kelantan” is not well-known to international readers. In addition, would you please clarify this point, how did you measure the HPB of single mothers based on the health beliefs on CVD and did you exclude the mothers with CVD? Please revise the study title and aim based on this feedback.
This paper is original. However research questions, and hypothesis are missing, and the significance of the study is not clear.
Abstract:
1. I suggest adding another sentence with the introduction focusing in the single mother.
2. Kindly revise the objective and make it short and concise. Why did you specify that you will measure the “average HPB score”?
3. Method: What do you mean by “comprehensive”?
4. Line 39: “perceived severity” something is missing here.
5. Line 42: “perceived benefits” of what?
6. Lines 45 to 46; are not clear.
Introduction:
1. The introduction needs to provide a deep understanding of the variables with references from previous studies in Malaysia, Asian countries, and worldwide to provide a strong justification and significance for the study.
2. More information about single mothers' mental health issues needs to be added.
3. Did you follow any framework?
Methods and Materials:
1. Please mention the recruitment process, total sample size, and how did the data were collected online, or by paper.
2. Line 94 “with no underlying CVD”, is this inclusion or exclusion criteria? And why did you involve it?
3. Line 139: CFA please mention it in full.
4. Line 143: Data collection needs more elaboration about participants' requirements and survey filling.
Results:
1. Line 168: it was mentioned that 92.6% are Malay, and the others are Chinese, and Indian, while this contradicts the exclusion criteria (line 94).
2. Please add the US dollar with the RM regarding income to be understandable for international readers.
3. Heading in line 181 did not reflect the result in Table 4. Please revise.
Discussion:
1. Need to link the results with the role of the Malay culture and previous studies.
2. I suggest adding the end implication for practice to enhance single-mother HPBs.
Conclusion:
1. Need to add the summary of the result.
References:
1. References need to be updated to be not more than 5 to 10 years old unless its classical references.
*This paper is original. However research questions, and hypothesis are missing, and the significance of the study is not clear.
*More information is needed regarding ethical consideration. Methods section missing some important information.
Results need to be reviewed and links tables with text.
The manuscript met the standard of the journal and is also a well-defined topic for today's context. kindly avoid grammatical errors in the manuscript to avoid rejection.
The methodology part does not sound good, there are a few suggestions to get more clarity, as to why the sample size varies for each objective instead of 242 remaining for all the objectives.
no comment
kindly cite more reviews of recent years.
The manuscript was well-written in English, and I did not find complex sentences. However, I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.
All the factors proposed in the abstract and introduction were reported or analyzed in the findings. Also, the authors did address a theoretical/conceptual framework (HBPs) that supports their hypotheses. Before delving to the aims of your study, could the authors talk about the governmental role, if any, towards single mothers?
No issues were noted regarding the article structure, tables or raw data.
Overall, the method section is well-structured and provides a clear outline of the study's design, data collection procedures, data analysis, and ethical considerations.
Line 141-142: “The fit indices are RMSEA=0.046, SRMR=0.062, CFI=0.814 to 0.821, and TLI=0.805 to 0.811. The overall factor loadings for each item are more than 0.4.” The authors should report that the goodness-of-fit indices were poor in accordance with the Hu and Bentler criteria: Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) of ≥0.95, comparative fit index (CFI) of ≥0.95, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of ≤0.06. Regarding your statistical analysis section, what was the reason for the use of simple linear regression analysis. I believe you were assessing the influence of certain variables on two dependent outcomes. Correct? Instead, you could examine the associations among and between the demographic variables in addition to the main study variable.
Line 187: The proper statistical term is influence when a regression analysis is used. Relationships or associations are used when a Pearson correlation analysis is used.
While the study may have limitations in terms of generalizability, it appears to be a well-structured investigation exploring relevant Factors influencing health-promoting behavior among single mothers in Kelantan. Yet, future study may explore other important factors or implement mixed method approaches. There are some areas where it could be improved, particularly in terms of implications and future study recommendations for instance from the Malaysian culture or society/governmental role which may work as the protective factors/ tailored based intervention for single mothers in Kelantan.
No additional comments.
Thank you and good luck.
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.