Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Given the prevalence of long-term conditions, particularly the T2D, this article is presenting an important piece of work. Overall, it is well written; however, there are opportunities to improve this article further. Below are few suggestions:

Introduction

Introduction is concise and comprehensive. Yet, there are few concepts, which can be explained for the benefit of readers.

-          I would suggest authors to specify device first, and then mention the phrase, ‘device-based data’.

-          Similarly, authors have used the phrase ‘device-based measures of SB’ without describing them first.

-          I have a question, out of curiosity. Authors mentioned that excessive time spent sitting is acknowledged as a distinct risk factor for all-cause mortality. Does sitting mean, just sitting and not doing anything and sitting on a computer table and doing some work will also considered as sitting? Such elaborations would be helpful for readers to understand the important background information, and may help understand this article better.

 

Material and methods

-          Authors have described this study as a dual-stage mixed methods study. It might challenge readers to understand fully from it. Is it sequential mixed methods study, or two stage qualitative study?

-          Again, clearly state if stage one was qualitative study, exploring professionals’ views in focus group settings? Idea is to use standard terminologies for readers to make sense quickly, if possible

-          Reading sub-section 2.2 Stage one: Designing iMOVE feels like authors are sharing findings in the methods section. For example, machine learning algorithms is something which would come out of consultative workshops. This sub-section should be used to describe how workshop participants were approached and recruited. How data was collected and analysed, and how requirement specifications were prepared. Similarly, did authors develop the iMOVE app’s workflow before the workshop or after the workshop? Most likely, it is an output of workshop, so should be described in findings section, rather than in methods. Same for logic flow.

-          Again for stage two: Focus group, authors are presenting mean age, which should be part of findings section. Also, details are needed about how participants were approached and recruited. I also wonder, if part of the discussion was related to face validity or usability or acceptability of the app? In short, objective of this focus group could be described in a better way.

-          For analysis, authors didn’t describe anything for stage one. Also, for stage two, why do you think that quantification of participants’ preferences is right thing to do, while there were only ten participants. I would suggest, at least avoid the use of such terms. You can say narrative and descriptive analysis instead.

Results

-          There is no overview of characteristics of workshops’ participants presented within the main body. I strongly recommend this to align with wider practice

-          Also, it is unclear how discussion within workshops happened and how responses were analysed and how specifications were identified and described. Most of these details will constitute methods section. In this section, I would like to see how many specifications were identified, how they were described and prioritised, which guided the development of prototype  version of the iMOVE app.  

-          Most part of the 3.1.2. should go into methods, justifying your rationale for choosing effective behaviour change techniques. Also, it is not clear if one or more workshops involved four researchers for evaluating the content. It was also not described, how that content was developed.

-          Stage two findings could be presented in a better way. Not clear to me

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I have found your paper very interesting and very significant for the people with T2D. It contains new and IT information. The theory is well established and useful.

Study design and methodology is adequate enough with well-presented results. I liked very much people’s opinion on the application (like qualitative study). The use of English, style and format are excellent. Well done!

Author Response

Please see the attachments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

After reviewing the article, I consider that it is well-founded and framed with a solid theoretical basis. This fact verifies the relevance of the development of the application that the authors propose in the article for people with type 2 diabetes in order to improve their quality of life. For this reason, I consider the article and the app proposal by the authors to be relevant for the readers of the journal. However, I consider that the conclusions proposed by the authors regarding the article are scarce, so in order to accept the article, I consider that they should be expanded, framing the main conclusions reached by the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf