The Concept of Child-Centred Care in Healthcare: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think it is important to understand child-centered care and I applaud you going more in depth to find out more about it. Your research questions were good. Here are some suggestions that I think will help strengthen the manuscript.

I thought the discussion pg 2 lines 56-66 were a bit out of place. I was unclear why you brought in FCC here. It seems like it would fit better in the discussion) (pg 17, 474).

Figure 1-I am unclear what 'wrong' outcomes, settings, or study design refer to.

I am a bit unclear how your search strategies and looking at research articles helped answer the question of what is the definition of CCC. (pg 15, paragraph starting on line 371) alludes to the definition found-but the way the search happened didn't lend itself to this.

In the results it made it sound like the themes identified for possibly identified before the analysis was done and then the articles were force fit into them. These themes also don't answer the research questions.

You answer your research question in the discussion-usually it is in the results. That being said the question about applicability of CCC and limitations on page 17-uses only 1 reference (which I am unclear if it was even from the review). The paragraph on line 15 should be expanded. This seems like an important point.

I hope these are helpful.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive, constructive and insightful comments about our paper and our intention to examine child-centred care. We have thought about these carefully and have made revisions as suggested or have refuted a few of your points where we think this is appropriate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript covers an interesting and original topic.

It is a scoping review focused on the concept of child-centred care in 112 

healthcare.

The introduction could be shortened in order to strictly focus on the main aspects, offering, at the same time a good balance between being synthetic and providing sufficient background information. Please revise.

The methods are well described, however the PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study design) is missing. please add.

The search strategy and keywords used should be specified for each database. Please, consider adding it as supplementary materials.

Results are detailed and well presented, however, figures or a graphical abstract might improve the clarity and the interest of readers. Please consider this suggestion.

The discussion and conclusions are well written.

The tables are exhaustive. 

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive review and your comment about our work being original and interesting. We have addressed all your comments. Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is useful and applicable from a qualitative point of view. They should delve into other more quantitative aspects based on evidence in future works.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and the feedback you have provided. Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf