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 revising your manuscript to address the concerns of the reviewers. I am satisfied that their comments have been addressed. The manuscript is now ready for publication.
**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.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** PeerJ's policy is that any additional references suggested during peer review should only be included if the authors find them relevant and useful.
**Language Note:** When preparing your next revision, please ensure that your manuscript is reviewed either by a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter, or by a professional editing service. PeerJ offers language editing services; if you are interested, you may contact us at [email protected] for pricing details. Kindly include your manuscript number and title in your inquiry. – PeerJ Staff
Dear authors,
Thank you for your contribution. Here are my comments
I would suggest improving the literature and hypothesis, and the goals structure, as follows:
I recommend enriching the introduction by elaborating on the psychological relationship individuals have with their bodies during illness, particularly in contexts such as post-cancer recovery. Addressing themes like body image, self-compassion, and emotional adjustment would provide a more nuanced background. Additionally, the hypothesis and research goals should be more clearly structured and articulated.
In the discussion section, it would be beneficial to incorporate current literature on the integration of artificial intelligence in healthcare, especially regarding its role in enhancing patient-centered care and addressing human-centered challenges. Exploring these topics would strengthen both the theoretical foundation and the practical relevance of the manuscript.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
- Methods: The recruitment process must be better presented. Second, questionnaire descriptions must be added
Yes, I would suggest supporting your conclusions better with the current literature.
The article used the C-PPCI instrument for psychometric assessment. Those were essential instruments for advanced cancer patients. The authors wrote the article in a technically correct, professional, and unambiguous manner.
The article included an introduction, methods, statistical analysis, results, discussion, limitations, conclusion, abbreviations, and references.
The article included seven appropriate tables, all of which were relevant to the title.
The abstract should be self-contained with relevant results.
The article had some grammatical mistakes that should be read again and corrected, please.
-
-
The article's aim had two objectives: the first was to translate English into Chinese. The second was the reliability and validity of the C-PPCI, so my suggestion is to write more understandable and accurate.
My overall impression is that, due to significant language issues, unclear phrasing, and the overall writing style, it would be difficult for readers to remain engaged and follow the study findings. The authors are to be commended for designing a study that assesses the concurrent validity of the Chinese version of the PPCI by correlating it with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and the Distress Thermometer. However, the manuscript is poorly written, and this major limitation should be addressed as a priority.
Overall, the Introduction is overly long and contains redundant information, making it insufficiently concise to engage the reader’s interest.
Lines 195 to 198: Roth and colleagues from the MSKCC, New York, were the first to publish the ‘Distress Thermometer’ to rapidly screen for psychological distress in patients with advanced cancer nearly three decades ago. Ref.: Rapid screening for psychological distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. Cancer 1998 May 15;82(10):1904-8. It would be nice for you to mention this original work, which was translated by Tang et al, subsequently.
Line 202: typo error ‘test-rest reliability.’
Table 5. Main text uses TLI. However, Table 5 says TFI.
This manuscript uses an excessive number of uncommon abbreviations. All abbreviations should be defined in the footnotes of each table to ensure clarity and ease of interpretation.
Lines 51–52: The phrase ‘reliving physical, psychological, social, and spiritual sufferings’ appears to be a typographical error. It seems the authors intended to write ‘relieving,’ as ‘reliving’ conveys the opposite meaning.
I found the manuscript difficult to read due to numerous language issues. In many instances, the English conveys a different meaning than what the authors likely intended. Additionally, the table legends are consistently brief and unclear, which makes it more difficult to interpret the study findings.
Lines 120-121: ‘In comparison with three instruments about attitude and needs from patients’ perspective mentioned above.’ It is difficult to determine the authors’ intended meaning.
-
-
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.