Next Article in Journal
Effects of Cardiorespiratory Exercise on Cognition in Older Women Exposed to Air Pollution
Next Article in Special Issue
Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Young Taiwanese Female Nursing Students with Irritable Bowel Syndrome—A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Transnational Child Sexual Abuse: Outcomes from a Roundtable Discussion
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring Behavior of People with Suicidal Ideation in a Chinese Online Suicidal Community
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

An Instrument to Measure Mental Health Professionals’ Beliefs and Attitudes towards Service Users’ Rights

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(2), 244; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020244
by Francisco José Eiroa-Orosa 1,2,3,* and Laura Limiñana-Bravo 1,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(2), 244; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020244
Submission received: 26 November 2018 / Revised: 11 January 2019 / Accepted: 11 January 2019 / Published: 16 January 2019

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article addresses the important topic of professionals’ attitudes towards mental health service users by developing an instrument to measure their attitudes. I suggest modify reference to its appropriateness as a longitudinal measure (eg p3), since it was developed only with point in time data, so its sensitivity to change has not been tested. It would have been preferable to frame the topics, particularly the four dimensions in the positive, rather than currently in the negative, so as not to further stigmatise people. The article presents all the results of all stages with very big tables and long reference list, which is a bit overwhelming, and does not leave room for the final instrument, which would be better as the priority. The language over mental health consumers/users/patients/people/they/one/individuals is inconsistent (eg Table 2) and sometimes disrespectful. I suggest make consistent to an international norm and use that in the final instrument. Table 2 note mentions italics which don’t appear in the table.

I cannot comment on the rigour of the quantitative analysis.

It should be edited for academic English.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to resubmit the manuscript entitled “An instrument to measure mental health professionals’ beliefs and attitudes towards service users’ rights”. We are very thankful for all your insightful comments. We have tried to address all the issues raised and have accommodated and incorporated all necessary revisions. Below you can find all points raised and our respective annotation to the modification. We will upload first a clean version of the manuscript, tables and figures, followed by a tracked changes version of the modified documents in the editorial application. We look forward to your comments.

With best regards

Francisco José Eiroa-Orosa

Review table

Reviewer

Our Response

The   article addresses the important topic of professionals’ attitudes towards   mental health service users by developing an instrument to measure their   attitudes.

Thank you   very much



I suggest   modify reference to its appropriateness as a longitudinal measure (eg p3),   since it was developed only with point in time data, so its sensitivity to   change has not been tested.

Thank you   for the observation. We have deleted references to longitudinal information.



It would   have been preferable to frame the topics, particularly the four dimensions in   the positive, rather than currently in the negative, so as not to further   stigmatise people.

Thank you.   We have done so, giving the option to the questionnaire users to   conceptualise in one way or the other.



The   article presents all the results of all stages with very big tables and long   reference list, which is a bit overwhelming, and does not leave room for the   final instrument, which would be better as the priority.

Thank you   for this great suggestion. The final instrument, with different parameters is   now shown in table 2. The old table 2 has been moved to the annexes.



The   language over mental health   consumers/users/patients/people/they/one/individuals is inconsistent (eg Table   2) and sometimes disrespectful. I suggest make consistent to an international   norm and use that in the final instrument.

We have   done our best to do this consistent in the manuscript. We cannot change the   word ‘patient’ from the items as they have been already tested and they are   done using professionals’ language (i.e. we need professionals to think about   these phenomena the way they usually do).



Table 2   note mentions italics which don’t appear in the table.

 

Thank you   for pointing out that. Table 2 has been moved to the annexes as per your   above comment. Now italics appear correctly.



I cannot   comment on the rigour of the quantitative analysis.

The   methodology has been reviewed by an expert statistician.



It should   be edited for academic English.

 

The article   has been reviewed by a native speaker.


Reviewer 2 Report

Important topic.  I appreciate the authors' drawing attention to professionals' attitudes to the rights of patients/persons served as a challenge that needs to be addressed, and pointing out the lack of a validated and accepted tool for measuring those attitudes.  Such a tool is needed to assess and fix this problem.   The paper as written, however, needs some work.  1)  It is over-written - too long and provides more than the reader needs - not just in the 76 references!!! but in the text itself.  The section offering criticism of contemporary practice could be much more concise.  2)  Editing is needed, especially for the English, in which there are both some errors (I won't try to list them here) and some sentences that are over-wordy, need to be simplified to be more effective.   3)  The particular methodology to be used in validating a study like this - the refinement and validation of a scale like this - is beyond my competence and deserves someone specialized in that area.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to resubmit the manuscript entitled “An instrument to measure mental health professionals’ beliefs and attitudes towards service users’ rights”. We are very thankful for all your insightful comments. We have tried to address all the issues raised and have accommodated and incorporated all necessary revisions. Below you can find all points raised and our respective annotation to the modification. We will upload first a clean version of the manuscript, tables and figures, followed by a tracked changes version of the modified documents in the editorial application. We look forward to your comments.

With best regards

Francisco José Eiroa-Orosa

Review table

Reviewer

Our Response

Important   topic.  I appreciate the authors'   drawing attention to professionals' attitudes to the rights of   patients/persons served as a challenge that needs to be addressed, and   pointing out the lack of a validated and accepted tool for measuring those   attitudes.  Such a tool is needed to   assess and fix this problem.   The   paper as written, however, needs some work.

Thank you   for your review.



1)  It is over-written - too long and provides   more than the reader needs - not just in the 76 references!!! but in the text   itself.  The section offering criticism   of contemporary practice could be much more concise.

We have   shortened the introduction ostensibly. Now we have 74 references, 38 of them   are from past measures (table 1). We hope that 36 references are an   acceptable number for a validation paper.



2)  Editing is needed, especially for the   English, in which there are both some errors (I won't try to list them here)   and some sentences that are over-wordy, need to be simplified to be more   effective.

The   article has been reviewed by a native speaker.





3)  The particular methodology to be used in   validating a study like this - the refinement and validation of a scale like   this - is beyond my competence and deserves someone specialized in that area.

The   methodology has been reviewed by an expert statistician.

Reviewer 3 Report

Well written paper, structured  coherent and balanced in its theoretical and methodological part. The topic dealt in it is innovative . It raises a key issue such as beliefs of mental health professionals towards users rights and defines and implements a model.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to resubmit the manuscript entitled “An instrument to measure mental health professionals’ beliefs and attitudes towards service users’ rights”. We are very thankful for all your insightful comments. We believe that, according to your letter, we do not have to make any changes on your part. However, other reviewers have suggested changes. Thus, we will upload first a clean version of the manuscript, tables and figures, followed by a tracked changes version of the modified documents in the editorial application. We look forward to your comments.

With best regards



Back to TopTop