Effect of Behavioral Activation for Women with Postnatal Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I find the meta-analysis very interesting and novel. A good development throughout the text, both in introduction, methodology and results. It would highlight the inconclusive but interesting elements of the discussion and therefore it should be reviewed. Otherwise I think it is a very publishable article.

Author Response

COMMENT: I find the meta-analysis very interesting and novel. A good development throughout the text, both in introduction, methodology and results. It would highlight the inconclusive but interesting elements of the discussion and therefore it should be reviewed. Otherwise, I think it is a very publishable article.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the work is interesting and will interest readers of the scientific journal.

The study was based on a meta-analysis which included only 2 scientific studies by the same author. This is a limiting element of this study, but it does not reduce its scientific significance.

The introduction is written well. The overall study design and methodology show no flaws. The work is written carefully and the topic has been analyzed in detail. The statistical analysis is done correctly. The evaluative element is the interestingly written 'Discussion' and 'Future Research' parts, the conclusions drawn from the study are correct.

In my opinion there are a few small things that could be improved:

1.Summary – not interesting. I propose to reword them.

Introduction: line 49 ((please expand the abbreviation CBT used for the first time in this section).

2. Introduction: line 61 (please expand the abbreviation BA used for the first time in this section).

3. Figure 2 and Figure 3 require a brief discussion.

4. Correct part ‘References’ as required by MDPI Journal https://www.mdpi.com/journal/nursrep/instructions#references

Author Response

COMMENT: The topic of the work is interesting and will interest readers of the scientific journal. The study was based on a meta-analysis which included only 2 scientific studies by the same author. This is a limiting element of this study, but it does not reduce its scientific significance. The introduction is written well. The overall study design and methodology show no flaws. The work is written carefully and the topic has been analyzed in detail. The statistical analysis is done correctly. The evaluative element is the interestingly written 'Discussion' and 'Future Research' parts, the conclusions drawn from the study are correct.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you.

COMMENT: Summary – not interesting. I propose to reword them.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: In the revision, we reworded the abstract section carefully to make the message being conveyed clearer as per the comment. Our revision can be found in track changes in the revised manuscript.

COMMENT: Introduction: line 49 ((please expand the abbreviation CBT used for the first time in this section).

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing this. We have revised as per the suggestion. Our revision can be found in track changes in the revised manuscript (page 2, line 49).

COMMENT: Figure 2 and Figure 3 require a brief discussion.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: in the revision, we have added discussion regarding Figure 2 and Figure 3. Our revision can be accessed track changed on page 5 and 6.

COMMENT: Correct part ‘References’ as required by MDPI Journal https://www.mdpi.com/journal/nursrep/instructions#references

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing this. In the revised version, we have ensured that the "References" section aligns with MDPI's style for citations and reference lists.

Reviewer 3 Report

Firstly I would like to praise you for choosing a subject about mental health and behavioral therapy non the less. However there appear to be a few minor issues. Even though it is explained in the abstract, I also suggest you describe the CBT abbreviation in the introduction. Another weakness of the study is not only the fact that the sample size is very small, but it also contains studies conducted by the same research team. Thus I recommend mentioning this in the limitations section.

Author Response

COMMENT: Firstly, I would like to praise you for choosing a subject about mental health and behavioral therapy non the less. However there appear to be a few minor issues. Even though it is explained in the abstract, I also suggest you describe the CBT abbreviation in the introduction.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you. We have revised it as per the suggestion (page 2, line 49).

COMMENT: Another weakness of the study is not only the fact that the sample size is very small, but it also contains studies conducted by the same research team. Thus, I recommend mentioning this in the limitations section.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing this. In the revision, we mentioned that only two studies met the inclusion criteria; however, both were conducted by the same research team. The studies, conducted by the same researchers with similar methods and the delivery of the intervention through the same online platform, contribute to a lack of diversity in the available evidence. Our revision can be found in tracked changes on page 9, lines 330-334.