Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  Comments and suggestions for authors are attached below

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. I find it impeccable from a methodological point of view. Easy to read, great bibliographical support and meets all the requirements to be published. My sincere congratulations to the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors:

The manuscript is of interest/relevant.
However, I think the authors need to improve it.
My suggestions/recommendations:
- on page 3 (line 139): correct "objectives" to "objective";
- strengthen the "introduction" with more current references ( in the period 2019- 2021 only 5 references are presented);
-need to improve table 1; I suggest: split the table in two (separate 1ST & 2ND from 3RD & 4TH); introduce lines separating each session; introduce a column referring to the strategy followed.
- in relation to sub-section 2.3, there is a notorious lack of characterization of the intervention. For example: they need to describe the strategy followed (and why this strategy...) in the sessions; they need to describe the duration of each session.

Rev

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf