Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 15th, 2017 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 7th, 2017.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 23rd, 2017 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on September 7th, 2017 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on September 12th, 2017.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

You have now made all requested amendments to the manuscript and we are happy to advise you that it has now been accepted for publication.

Version 0.2

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The authors are to be congratulated for attending to almost all of the constructive criticisms from the first round of review. I have the following two areas in which the manuscript can still be improved:

1. The font size in Figure one still appears to large, especially in comparison to Figure two. I therefore suggest you make the font size in Figure one smaller is initially requested by reviewer one.

2. I also do not feel you have quite address the comments from reviewer to regards to the definition and usage term older adult. As you have a minimum age of 50 years to participate in this study, I suggest you used this explicit term (adults aged 50 years or greater) or perhaps middle-aged and older adults throughout the manuscript.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

It was great to see that you post for feasibility design on a theoretical framework, in this case one described by Thabane. As suggested by reviewer two, please be careful to ensure that you more clearly describe how the physically data is to be collected. Based on the positive feedback from the two reviewers and myself, I am happy to notify you that you are able to submit a revised version of this manuscript to PeerJ.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Comments for the author

Authors have done a wonderful work describing their feasibility study which would help them carry out a larger randomized controlled trial in future. The manuscript is very well written in professional English.

I have few minor specific comments which are detailed below:
L40: Please mention if the values in L41 are Mean+/-SD or Mean+/-SEM or something else?
L47: "questionnaire."
L148: Consider replacing "reticence" with something simple.
L219: "was randomly assigned"
L224: "the group"
Figure1: Consider reducing the size of Figure 1
L258: "were 44"
L306: "wheelchair usage might"
Table 2: What is DC1, DC2, HUI. Consider describing them in a footnote of this Table.
L366: "training) were tabulated"
L371: Use the Greek symbol alpha
L390: Why there is n=7 in Table 3's title and not n=9? Also in Table 3, to be consistent consider using 8.0 and 26.0 for the range.
L455: "expositions"
L464: "identifies that"
L482: "Moving forward,"
L516: "frustration with his/her"
L517: "attend the post-treatment"

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

1. The introduction of this paper reviewed sufficient past related research and have a clear field background for this study.

2. Article structure, figures, tables, and data are provided appropriately.

Experimental design

1. This study which used 2 x 2 factorial design RCT, recruited 18 participants with a retention rate of 94% and practiced their mHelath MWC skills training program for older adults met the good technical standard in experimental design.

2. The method of this study was also described clearly with detail information to replicate.

Validity of the findings

1. The results of EPIC Wheels group post-treatment questionnaire showed that participants had high satisfaction of the program, however, there is a need to state how those questionnaires were distributed and administrated to clarify if participants felt free and comfortable to give their feedback without being afraid of ruining their patient-trainer relationship.

Comments for the author

1. According to the definition of WHO and ageing and aged research, most developed world countries have accepted the chronological age of 65 years as a definition of 'elderly' or older person. However, in this study, participants were aged 55 and older. Please reconsider if the title still remind the use of "older adults" or only use the participants who are aged 65 and older.

2. Gender always plays an important role on the level of involving interventions or programs in ageing and aged related studies. Please add gender information and possible demographic background (age distribution, race,...etc.) to understand the overall look of the participants.

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.