Next Article in Journal
Effectiveness of a Self-Fitting Tool for User-Driven Fitting of Hearing Aids
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Influence of Physical Activity Upon the Experience Sampling Response Rate on Wrist-Worn Devices
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 20
10.3390/ijerph182010595
Review Report
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Self-Efficacy Mediates Acculturation and Respite Care Knowledge of Immigrant Caregivers

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(20), 10595; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010595
by Shu-Fen Kuo 1, I-Hui Chen 1, Tsai-Wei Huang 1, Nae-Fang Miao 2, Kath Peters 3 and Min-Huey Chung 1,4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(20), 10595; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010595
Submission received: 5 August 2021 / Revised: 24 September 2021 / Accepted: 29 September 2021 / Published: 10 October 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented interesting work, but the discussion needs improvement.

A more detailed comparison of own results with those of other researchers is recommended. It is proposed to separate from the section discussion, subsection limitations and implications of research results for professional practice. Please specify the conclusions of the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aimed to investigate relationships among acculturation, self-efficacy, and respite care knowledge in immigrant caregivers, and to determine the mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between acculturation and respite care knowledge.

The abstract is too long. It shold be more concise. Avoid keywords like Background, methods etc in the abstract. Please, look at other papers publish in this journal and follow that model of abstract.

A separate section for literatire review is required.

Highlight in the introduction the novelty of your study compared to previous studies.

Is the sample representative to the population?

A section with the mathematical description of the method is necessary.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient is computed for data with normal distribution. You should check this before.

Explain what you have in table 2: F (p)/t (p)/r (p).

The section of conclusions should be extended. Mention limits of the study, future directions of research.

Add more refereces from literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The results are rare. Tables are shown, but mostly (removing the sociodemographic data is not commented).

If the study was conducted in 2019, how did COVID-19 affect the study and the data collection?

It is necessary to indicate it. Indicate the months of data collection, indicates 2019, but not the period. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper could be published. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, Thanks for reconsidering my reviews, I believe that after the modifications, the manuscript contributes great interest to scientific knowledge,

Sincerely

Back to TopTop