Next Article in Journal
Child Maltreatment Reporting Practices by a Person Most Knowledgeable for Children and Youth: A Rapid Scoping Review
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Social Capital on Multidimensional Poverty of Rural Households in China
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of COVID-19-Related Social Isolation on Behavioral Outcomes in Young Adults Residing in Northern Italy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Wellness Impacts of Social Capital Built in Online Peer Support Forums
 
 
Systematic Review
Peer-Review Record

Risk Factors Associated with Preventable Hospitalisation among Rural Community-Dwelling Patients: A Systematic Review

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(24), 16487; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416487
by Andrew Ridge 1,2,*, Gregory M. Peterson 1 and Rosie Nash 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(24), 16487; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416487
Submission received: 10 October 2022 / Revised: 2 December 2022 / Accepted: 3 December 2022 / Published: 8 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Capital and Rural Health)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an attempt on community care to find out the contributing risk factors for PPH in rural communities. It is a meaningful systematic review research to discuss the risk factors from different dimenion (such as individual and services) associated with PPH in rural community.

Thanks for the opportunity to peer review.

The purpose of the research is clear and consistent. Comments and suggestions are below as following

1.The authors did not describe the acronym for ACSH, IQR in footnote of table 2.

2.The acronym for AH and NHA have described in the footnote in table 2. However, those words were not shown in Table 2.

3. Please check the correctness of the number (416.5) for the key findings of Slimings and Moore [37] Australia in table 2 “….. in the adjusted model with 416.5 (95%CI −597.6-−235.5; p <.001) and …...,

4.Could the authors describe clearly the risk of bias about the detailed items of Newcastle-Ottawa Scores in table 3?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript fully addresses this research topic, with the only recommendation that since more than half of the articles were excluded from duplicates, the authors must be more explicit in their search strategy to explain why this phenomenon occurs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, congratulations to the authors for their work. As the only aspect to modify, I would suggest that in the introduction more information should be included and the paragraphs should be better linked between them. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop