Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. I thank you for the comments and suggestions to our manuscript. Next we describe the changes that we have made.

ABSTRACT

Line 18 Abstract section: the variables AM, and S, are noted only as abbreviations, without previously noting the whole term.

ANSWER: This observation has been attended to, the correct name of the variables were corrected.

 

INTRODUCTION

In my opinion, this section is too long. I also suggest clearly singling out the aim in this section.

ANSWER: We have modified the introduction, reduced the length, but also added four studies that reviewer 3 suggested to us.

We have included an additional paragraph with the purpose of the investigation.

 

Lines 80-88. The last paragraph in the section Introduction does not belong to the Introduction. It is probably the review with suggestions of one of the authors who reviewed the whole article. Please, remove thid paragraph from the Intro- duction.

ANSWER: In the corrected version we have not identified this paragraph with errors. It was correctly cited according to Vancouver Standard and the author's idea was synthesized occupying little space.

 

Lines 75-79: Please summerize the text in this paragraph with an emphasis on the research objective.

ANSWER: We have removed the mention of the study referred to.

 

BACKGROUND

Generally, I suggest summarizing some paragraphs in this section (especially in the second part) with emphasis on the main indicators of the mentioned research which is important for the present study.

Lines 117-124. The paragraph is too extensive. I suggest summarizing the text and avoiding abbreviations.

ANSWER: We have included the suggested observations; the changes were made. We have shortened the length of this section; we have improved it.

 

Lines 125-136 The paragraph is too extensive. I suggest summarizing the text.

ANSWER: Made according to the suggestion.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample collection - In my opinion, there is no precise description of the study group. Please define how many respond ents filled out the questionnaire, how many were eliminated based on the inclusion criteria, and how many based on unfilled questionnaires, if there were any.

ANSWER: Once the responses to the Google form were obtained, the subjects amounted to 1,386, however, upon careful review, 44 subjects had to be eliminated (21 said they were retired, widowed, or divorced, all under 20 years of age; 11 were born or live in another country, 12 did not complete their answers) in order to avoid possible bias in the information.

 

Table 1. Remove the last row of the Table 1 and the total number of the participants define after the Title of the table (N=1342). In the actual table, the Total number is not in the proper place.

ANSWER: In all the Tables the data N=1342 was removed. Other comments have been addressed.

 

Lines 166-174 - Sample characteristics. I think the text in this section can be further summarized, as Table 1 alone demon- strates what is mentioned.

ANSWER: 166-174 does not talk about sample characteristics, however, it has already been summarized.

 

Line 218 – The abbreviation IFIS is not clear as it is not seen to which term it belongs.

ANSWER: IFIS has been replaced by SIFI.

 

Lines 222- 229 - Summarize the description of the sociodemographic information.

ANSWER: We have summarized information, we have improved this section:

Sociodemographic file. It included information on age, sex, place of residence (Li-ma/Province), employment status (permanent job, temporary job, unemployed, retired), sports practice (yes/no), hours of sleep per day (4 hours or less / 7 hours or less / 9 hours or less), marital status (married, single, widowed, divorced or separated), education (primary school / secondary school / technical / university / no education), if you had COVID-19 illness (yes/no).

 

RESULTS

This section is very extensive. There are too many tables. Some results may be presented in the text, especially those which defined significant differences in one variable or only in some part of them (Table 4, Table 9). It seems to me that 3 or 4 tables with the main results would be enough, without giving so much detail. Have the authors considered the use of the appendix for table T2? Some of the analyzes can be transferred to the appendix.

ANSWER: We have removed four tables, therefore the length of this section has been reduced.

 

I suggest that you explain all abbreviations used in the tables under the tables.

ANSWER: We have added the abbreviations and their meaning to the foot of the table.

 

Figure 1 – text is not written in English.

ANSWER: We have changed the Figure 1. This version is in English.

I also suggest that you note all abbreviations used in Figures 2 and 3, under the Figures.

ANSWER: At the bottom of figures 2 and 3 we have added a note with the following information: Anxiety: Death Anxiety (Dimensions: Fear of agony, Fear of end of life, Fear of death). Suicidal Idea: Suicidal Ideation (Items: IDE_SUI1, IDE_SUI2, IDE_SUI3, IDE_SUI4, IDE_SUI5).

 

DISCUSSION

I do think the findings are very relevant and correlate with the results. The study results are discussed clearly and concisely.

 

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions correlate with the results. The Conclusion section must name what is concluded from the results found, in more understandable and realistic terms and leaving aside statistical terms. Also, it should be emphasized that depressive symptomatology is the best predictor of suicidal ideation followed by loneliness.

ANSWER: The conclusions were improved, and we have included the suggestions of reviewer 1.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript describes suicidal thoughts during COVID-19 pandemic. This is a very interesting and relevant topic. Overall, the article is well written and the statistical methods applied describe the data well. 

However, there are some comments:

1. in the introduction, the sentence about the purpose of the 56-59 study had better be removed. The purpose of the study is mentioned at the end after the description of its actuu ality.

2. In the methods, specify age as the mean and standard deviation. Or indicate so that it is clear how individuals are distributed by age.

3. there are too many tables in the results. I would recommend the authors to remove some, write the data in the text, and the tables, if necessary, move to the appendix. 

4. Add a more general conclusion in the conclusion section, describe how this study will be useful for psychiatrists and medicine, and describe future perspectives. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. I thank you for the comments and suggestions to our manuscript. Next we describe the changes that we have made.

1. in the introduction, the sentence about the purpose of the 56-59 study had better be removed. The purpose of the study is mentioned at the end after the description of its actuuality.

ANSWER: We have not changed. In lines 56 - 59 is the research question, not the purpose of the study.

2. In the methods, specify age as the mean and standard deviation. Or indicate so that it is clear how individuals are distributed by age.

ANSWER: We have included what was requested here.

3. there are too many tables in the results. I would recommend the authors to remove some, write the data in the text, and the tables, if necessary, move to the appendix. 

ANSWER: We proceed to delete the following Tables: Table 4 (ages), Table 5 (marital status), Table 7 (hours of sleep) and Table 8 (Covid). While Figure 3 was moved to Appendix B.

4. Add a more general conclusion in the conclusion section, describe how this study will be useful for psychiatrists and medicine, and describe future perspectives. 

ANSWER: It has already been improved according to suggestions. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The current study aimed to determine the influence of the variables as death anxiety, loneliness and depression on suicidal ideation in adults sample during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The paper provides scientific contribution to the wide panorama of studies investigating on mental health of general population during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The topic is interesting enough and qualitatively good to be published. However, some changes and explanations to improve quality of manuscript, especially in conceptual terms, for his acceptance should be done.

“Abstract section”

In the ‘abstract section’ the sentence “Predictive, basic non-experimental design with the cross-sectional measurement using previously validated questionnaires, with the use of structural equation modeling, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural regression” should be written better and more clearly.

The results are well described but there is no the conclusions. The Authors should add them.

 

Introduction section

It would be very useful to contextualize at a national level the data collected considering, for example, the different impact of Covid 19 at a and socio-economic geographical level.

In the ‘introduction section’ the bibliography is appropriate and updated. However, it would be useful to mention, for example, recent international studies (1,2,3,4,5,6 listed below). For example a recent Italian study through qualitative and quantitative data aimed  to identify potential predictors of traumatic distress during Covid -19 by focusing on emotional and cognitive correlates of social confinement in a sample di young adults.  The Authors found the dysfunctional cognitive thinking style “All or nothing” as significant predictor of traumatic psychological distress. Furthermore, 36% of the sample reported anxiety symptoms, whereas 26% showed depressive symptomatology and 31.1 %  reported feeling of loneliness. The three main areas impaired were: changes in the sleeping pattern (68%), difficulty in concentration (67%), and loss of energy (58.6%).  Another recent UK population survey showed in young adults, coping poorly and with pre-existing mental health conditions were significantly associated with suicidal thoughts and self-harm; in addition, the loneliness was significantly associated with suicidal thoughts but not self-harm.

The Authors could report studies on the relationship between suicidality and mental disorders during the Covid-19 Pandemic. In fact, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable subpopulations, including those with severe mental illness (SMI).

 “Materials and methods section”

The methods and procedures are well described.  The tables are exhaustive for the accurate data presentation. In addition to the questionnaires the Authors use a sociodemographic file which includes all sociodemographic information. Why did the authors not include clinical questions about, for example, previous contact with psychiatric services or previous psychological problems, factors suggesting a pre-existing psychological vulnerability?

‘Conclusions section’

In the ‘Conclusions section’ the Authors should report how their study contributes to achieving the Global Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Globally, the clarity of the manuscript is overall good enough in the language style, syntax, and sentence construction.

1.   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33384623/

2.   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8718341/

3.   https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00435-7/fulltext

 

4.   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35906234/

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. I thank you for the comments and suggestions to our manuscript. Next we describe the changes that we have made.

“ABSTRACT SECTION”

In the ‘abstract section’ the sentence “Predictive, basic non-experimental design with the cross-sectional measurement using previously validated questionnaires, with the use of structural equation modeling, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural regression” should be written better and more clearly.

The results are well described but there is no the conclusions. The Authors should add them.

ANSWER: We have corrected the abstract; we have attended the recommendations of reviewer 3.

INTRODUCTION SECTION

It would be very useful to contextualize at a national level the data collected considering, for example, the different impact of Covid 19 at a and socio-economic geographical level.

In the ‘introduction section’ the bibliography is appropriate and updated. However, it would be useful to mention, for example, recent international studies (1,2,3,4,5,6 listed below) …

ANSWER: We have included the four references you recommended, and we have reduced the length, removing some references. We have withdrawn theses, since, not having gone through peer reviewers, they did not guarantee scientific rigor.

 “MATERIALS AND METHODS SECTION”

The methods and procedures are well described.  The tables are exhaustive for the accurate data presentation. In addition to the questionnaires the Authors use a sociodemographic file which includes all sociodemographic information…

ANSWER: We recognize that this is a very important data, at the time we did not add it. Therefore, this is part of the limitations of the study.

‘CONCLUSIONS SECTION’

In the ‘Conclusions section’ the Authors should report how their study contributes to achieving the Global Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

ANSWER: This recommendation has been taken into account and has been added to the conclusions.

Globally, the clarity of the manuscript is overall good enough in the language style, syntax, and sentence construction.

ANSWER: Thank you very much for your evaluation of our work.