Breaking the Cycle: Holistic Digital Solutions for Overlooked Challenges of Children with Special Needs in Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read such an interesting work!

Please review the considerations 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their encouraging feedback and constructive comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript. The responses to the comments are attached as a separate file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. The article presents an interesting and timely topic, particularly the focus on mHealth applications in LMIC. Please see my feedback and clarifications that I think if addressed would strengthen the article.

Abstract

• Line 12: The mention of “traditional support models” is ambiguous. Please clarify which specific models are being referred to—are these clinical, community-based, or educational frameworks? Providing a brief explanation would strengthen the abstract's clarity.

Main article

• Line 35: Since examples from high-income countries are provided, it would improve clarity and balance to include comparable examples from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for contrast.
• Lines 48–49: Please offer more context for the reports mentioned. Indicate which countries were included in these assessments and explicitly state how these reports connect to the country discussed in the following paragraph.
• Line 66: There is inconsistency here. While the previous paragraph refers specifically to Sri Lanka, this line broadens the scope to South Asia. Please align the geographical scope or clarify the transition.
• Lines 67–70: The text would benefit from citing the source(s) of the models mentioned. Additionally, specify what models are being discussed to provide more substance.
• Line 86: While consent from the school principal is noted, please clarify whether ethics approval was obtained to conduct the study. Was the Global Research in Autism and Neurodevelopment (GRAND) involved in the ethical clearance process?
• Line 118: The reference to "specialized care" is too general. Please elaborate on the type of care being discussed and how it supports your argument.
• Lines 127–134: It is unclear whether these points reflect the authors’ original insights or are based on prior research. Please clarify and cite references if these statements are drawn from existing literature.
• Lines 146–153: This section appears to repeat ideas presented earlier (Lines 128–130). Please streamline the content to avoid redundancy and improve clarity.
• Lines 165–179: The paragraph lacks specific examples and evidence to support the argument. For instance, which culturally relevant interventions or equity-focused policy frameworks are being referenced? Greater detail would enhance the argument’s credibility.
• Line 181: When discussing other countries, please name them explicitly and provide appropriate citations.
• Line 193: More detailed information about the “Thrive by Five” app is needed. When and where was it developed and implemented? What were the measurable outcomes, and what studies evaluated its impact?
• Line 196 onwards: Several points regarding the mHealth app require clarification:
  • Is the app freely accessible or subscription-based?
  • How does the app differentiate between users such as therapists and psychologists, especially in terms of authentication (e.g., registration/licensing numbers)?
  • How will the dashboard experience vary for different user roles?
  • While integrating screening tools is valuable, considerations around the adaptation and validation of translated tools need to be addressed. Additionally, discuss copyright, scoring protocols, and plans for public dissemination.
• The app recommendations are relevant and interesting; however, consider organizing them using clear labels and sub-labels to help readers visualize the app’s design and features.
• Line 254: Consider enabling school-level dashboards within the app. This would benefit allied health professionals working in organizational settings by allowing for multi-tenant use based on institutional needs.
• The suggestion regarding progress reports is promising. However, it would be useful to reference any existing research that supports increased participant engagement through similar app-based solutions.
• While the inclusion of technology-driven therapies is appreciated, the manuscript lacks clarity on how these interventions address the needs of individuals from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Please elaborate on access-related challenges and describe how effectiveness will be evaluated in such populations.
• Line 353: It is unclear how a mood-tracking feature would help parents understand their child’s emotions. Please provide a more direct explanation of how this function would work in practice and support parent-child interaction.
• Line 479: The phrase “countries” is used too broadly in this context. Please revise for precision and tie it more closely to the argument being presented.

 

Thank you

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their encouraging feedback and constructive comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript. The responses to the comments are attached as a separate file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my queries.