Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Consent for Research on Violence against Children: Dilemmas and Contradictions
Previous Article in Journal
Three Local Organizing Strategies to Implement Place-Based School Integration Initiatives in a Mixed-Income Community
Previous Article in Special Issue
Invisible Vulnerabilities: Ethical, Practical and Methodological Dilemmas in Conducting Qualitative Research on the Interaction with IVF Embryos
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Exploring the Role of ‘Shadowing’ as a Beneficial Preparatory Step for Sensitive Qualitative Research with Children and Young People with Serious Health Conditions

Societies 2020, 10(1), 14; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10010014
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Societies 2020, 10(1), 14; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10010014
Received: 14 November 2019 / Revised: 24 January 2020 / Accepted: 28 January 2020 / Published: 30 January 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.  The topic regarding the use to shadowing for conducting research among children and young people with health conditions that are serious is an important topic. Some of the strengths of the study include the following:  this is an appropriate methodology to use for evaluation of this topic and the flow of the manuscript is logical. However, there are several limitations to this study. First, more details should be provided regarding the process used to conduct the literature review and how key concepts became a focus of the review. Secondly, more details should be provided regarding the use of the methods used to conduct this study. For example, more information is needed regarding: What criteria were used to determine the sample of those being shadowed? How were the dates/times for shadowing determined? What type of data collection tool (list of questions) was used? Thirdly, more details should be provided regarding the analysis of the data. For example, was any type of qualitative data analysis software used? Was the data entered into any type of software program for analysis or did it remain paper-based? Was a theme analysis conducted? If so, how was the theme analysis conducted? How many individuals coded the data? What factors were used to determine if saturation was reached? What type of quality check was performed in the field notes? Also, additional information should be provided to help enhance the rigor and credibility of the analysis that was conducted. For example, was there a triangulation of methods to check for consistency in the results?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

First, I propose the following style of abstract: Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions.

Please present more clearly the therm ''shadowing'', because it is not very understood.This therm is use in the article, and, also, in title.

In general, you must rearrange the article in accordance with the policy of journal.

In Introduction, please include more clearly the purpose of this study, hypothesis (if exist), and, also, research closed this subject, or current research in this direction. Please don't present information about methodology in this section, this thinks must present in chapter Methods.

The methodology is understandable, but the results presented in the text is too simple, also the statistical, only one table it is not enough. Please include in section results a few table/figures from the additional information, or do other.

Please include other research in chapter discussion on this direction, not only information detached from this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript Exploring the role of 'shadowing' as beneficial preparatory for sensitive qualitative research with children and young people with serious health conditions, I found very interesting, and after minor changes I'll recommend it to be published in Societes.

To improve the quality of this work I recommend to:

remove the acronym (CYP) from the title and start using it in the main text - you can also list it among the key words; replace the term participant-observation with participatory observation; I'll also consider the term desensitisation. Word insensibilization might be more proper; correct english in: line28 criticised; line50 conversate; line 76 naive=...layman in the research environment; in table 2. right side line5 ...patient has had many...; line 179 use plural - researchers; consider to use plural for the word researcher in all text, as the Authors described the general process and prepaerd recommendations for all; in table 1. include (list) the steps of shadowing; remove table 3. it's redundant, and try to include these information into the text; unify using apostrophes or cursive while quoting; in line 142 consider to reformulate the sentence and use the word consent, it's more scientific description of agreement; double check to may sure that all acronim used are explained - check last sentens in table 2. right side; try to add in conclusions some information from the professionals being shadowed, how they found this process might influence on researcher's rediness - if that data was collected; in conclusions - the Authors just repeat the results, but conclusion demand explanation i.e. ...shadowing let the researchers to be familiar with hospital environment,... through gathering experiences, direct contact with professionals, medical documentation,...etc. Try to go more deeper in concluding.

I hope that comments let the Authors improve the manuscript.

Congratulation for the very interesting and so needed projrct!

Kind regards,

Reviewer

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please rearrange the article in accordance with the policy of journal (with justify). In general, the authors made the required changes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop