Next Article in Journal
Determining Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Landraces from Türkiye Using SSR Markers
Next Article in Special Issue
Targeted Anti-Mitochondrial Therapy: The Future of Oncology
Previous Article in Journal
Maternal Microbiota Modulate a Fragile X-like Syndrome in Offspring Mice
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/genes13081407
Review Report
genes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

FHH Quick App Review: How Can a Quality Review Process Assist Primary Care Providers in Choosing a Family Health History App for Patient Care?

Genes 2022, 13(8), 1407; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13081407
by Grant M. Wood 1, Sander van Boom 2, Kasper Recourt 3,4 and Elisa J. F. Houwink 3,4,*
Reviewer 1:
Zisis Kozlakidis
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Genes 2022, 13(8), 1407; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13081407
Submission received: 14 June 2022 / Revised: 27 July 2022 / Accepted: 3 August 2022 / Published: 8 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetics and Pharmacogenetics in Primary Care)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Your manuscript is well -structured and the arguments follow in a logical order.

Having said that, the following aspects could be further improved:

- Has such a 'reductionist' approach been implemented before on eHealth apps (beyond FHH)? It would be good to know if successful examples exist elsewhere.

- The selection of the 25 questions is based on personal expertise, have they been validated?

- Is there a case study or model application of the recommended questionnaire available? i.e. has it been tested at all?

- While you mention potential barriers for the adoption of eHealth apps into routine practice in primary care, your discussion does not directly address such identified aspects from previous studies.

- Please provide 1-2 sentences of potential limitations of this recommended approach. 

Author Response

Reviewer #1

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

 

Dear authors,

thank you for the the interesting article. I can only comment from my GP perspective.I am not very familiar with process evaluations.

Abstract

There is too much space between line 12 and line 13

Methods

Could you drescribe more in detail how you manage to reduce the 81 to 25 questions? How many GPs where involved in the selection-process? How was it done?  Could you add another figure or flowchart to make it clearer?

Why did you not involved patients in this process? Please adress this in the discussion.

Results

P. 7, question 24:  What means „HL7 FHIR and GA4GH?“

P 8 line 197: what means „SNP“?

P 8 line 203: the information about the diseases are mentioned too late, please put them into the introduction.

Discussion

It remains a bit unclear, if patients or GPs should be the future users. How should the app be designed, that disadvantaged groups  can also use them? What about patients who are not so tech-savvy (geriatrics, dementia, migrants...)?

Figure 1: What means  EMR?

 

Author Response

Reviewer #2

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for addressing the reviewer's concerns.

Back to TopTop