A User-Centered Evaluation of Wayfinding in Outpatient Units of Public Hospitals in Malaysia: UMMC as a Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper addresses an important but less studied problem. I suggest the authors to carefully review their results and make sure that the conclusions are supported by the results. Also, some clarifications about the survey questionnaire is needed. It would help if the authors could attach the questionnaire to the paper. In addition, a careful proofreading or professional editing in English would be needed.

1. Table 1: what is the difference between factors and indicator? What are the findings of those papers?
2. P.2, lns. 55-57: different names and order are used for the four domains as compared to Table 1. Please be consistent.
3. P.4, ln.146: it is an incomplete sentence.
4. P.6 Figure 2: what are "Menara Selatan..." and "Trauma and Emergency"? Are they on the same campus as RUKA?
5. P.6, ln.184: "...referred to it..." has a grammar error.
6. Figure 2: it is unclear that RUKA serves as interfaces between outside clinics or Trauma and Emergency and secondary & tertiary care.
7. P.7, ln.188-9: it is not a sentence.
8. It seems that they have used 6 point likert scale; however, it is unclear what each of the six values mean.
9. p.10, ln.297: why is 3.98 a higher than average dissatisfaction? We need to see the original question.
10. P.10, ln.282: why is 3.84 lower than average?
11. P.10, ln.280-1: it is an incomplete sentence.
12. P.10, ln.290: what's "low usage map"?
13. P.10, ln.291-3: "comprehensible" differs from "complexity". The results interpretation is problematic.

P.11, lb.316: If 2.22 is the average number of times asking for directions, it shouldn't be displayed on likert scale figure.

14. P.12, ln.363: what is "LoE"? Please ensure to define acronyms at first mention.
15. P.12, lb.387-9: how is this conclusion based on the results?
16. P.13, ln.397: what's LoP? Why is ethnicity mentioned?
17. The conclusion talks about Malaysia specific wayfinding system; however, it's unclear which questions on the survey support it. Also, it talks about guidelines and temporal effects. The same question applies.

Author Response

please see attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A User-Centered Evaluation of Wayfinding in Outpatient Units 2 of Public Hospitals in Malaysia-UMMC as A Case Study – Review

1. Line 146 is incomplete. Also, what are the objectives of this study ?
2. In subsection “Sampling Technique and Data Collection Protocol” what was your threshold for considering that a person that was unfamiliar with the hospital? State how or on what basis was this threshold derived. Was this included in the questionnaire?
3. State all of your limitations of the research. For example, analyse the limitations of the modified questionnaire, the sample population etc.

Author Response

please see attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for making some good revisions. Here are some additional comments.

1. Table 1 should include the findings of those papers.
2. It should be mentioned in the text that "Menara Selatan..." and "Trauma and Emergency" are on the same campus as RUKA.
3. p.6, ln.203: "primary care carried out..." contains a grammar error. "Primary care" here should be referring to a room.
4. To my previous comment 6, I cannot find the changed text.
5. To my previous comment 8,  the set of questions and scale should be at the end of the paper.
6. To my previous comment 9, we still need to see the original question.
7. The conclusion is too short and does not include main results.

Author Response

please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision is acceptable

Author Response

thanks for the valuable comments 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for addressing my comments. A careful proofread is needed.

 Table 1. typos: "confienment" and "wayfiniding", "environmen". "onenhancing"->"on enhancing".