Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Leonie Weyers 1,*,
  • Talitha Crowley 1 and
  • Lwandile Tokwe 2

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Osaremhen Ikhile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a qualitative descriptive study that exploring the preferences of adolescents living with HIV regarding the use of digital health technology for self-management in a limited resource setting. The study identified three major themes as well as a list of preferred features. The authors provide a well-written paper with thoughtful study design and discussion. Regarding to the research strategy and findings, reviewers only have minor comments that should be addressed prior to publication.

  1. Table 1 - Add unit (years) after "Age"
  2. Limitation - One more limitation is that study acknowledges that participants often rely on shared devices due to financial constraints, which could impact their engagement with digital health technology.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text requires stylistic processing, because sometimes it is difficult to understand what the authors mean.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  1. Consider clarifying whether “Participant Number” in the demographics table refers to the count of participants or is intended as a de-identifying code. Does this refer to the number of participants?
  2. Consider aggregating demographics into categories (gender, age groups, education, focus group) and reporting each as n (%) in a single table rather than listing individual attributes.
  3. Consider replacing “Participant X, aged 20, Focus Group 1” (pages 6-8) line with a neutral pseudocode to minimize identifiability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the Attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for making the updates.

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf