Interpersonal Determinants of Suicide Risk Among Young Adults: A Cross-Cultural Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find the comments:

1. "Moderated mediation and SEM comparative analyses will be conducted to identify predictors of suicide risk in each cultural context". Not will be conducted, but were conducted.
2. Abbreviation use should be checked. ACSS (line 27) was not introduced.
3. Conclusions in the abstract are very generic and do not reflect the specific findings of the study. Reconsider.
4. Adding more keywords (up to ten) would be beneficial.
5. This was cross-sectional research, but causal language was used. Please pay attention to this.
6. The introduction is somewhat long. Section 1.4 has a strange name taking into account that basically an introduction is based on previous research. Overall, try to streamline the introduction, and add a short conclusion after each paragraph as some paragraphs are not summarized (like a paragraph within lines 119-125).
7. Hypotheses are usually formulated in present tense. Overall, hypotheses are unclear. For instance, "H1: Interpersonal communication and perceived social support will be negatively associated with ‘depression’ and ‘suicidal risk’, but can have a differential influence in each culture, as for example, in Japan, communication may be more indirect and social support more implicit". What does "a differential influence" mean? How will it be checked? What are the indicators of this differential influence? OR
   "H3: The relationship between perceived burdensomeness, thwarted belongingness, 204
   and ‘suicidal ideation’ may differ in magnitude depending on the culture (Spain vs. Ja- 205
   pan), since emotional expression, and the concept of ‘being a burden’ or ‘not belonging’ 206
   may have different cultural weights.". May differ in magnitude, but how exactly in each country? Please specify hypotheses.
8. The similar problem is related to research questions. For insntace, "Do social support and interpersonal communication have a differential impact in each cultural context (Spain vs. Japan)?" Impact on what? Moreover, this is not a longitudinal research to talk about impact, influence, effect etc.
9. Lines 222-227: Please indicate whether these data were used previously in published publications. If yes, indicate whether overlapping analyses exist. Please justify this is not salami slicing.
10.  Participants should be described in a table form (lines 233-261).
11. Examples of items in each measure should be presented.
12. Incorporating other considerations in the Measures section (lines 321-326) is not recommended. 
13.  Section 2.5 and 2.6 are overlapping. Restructure.
14.  Results: Standardized factor loadings are above 1. It is impossible (Tables 1 and 2, values like 1.204 or 1.011). Please recheck and recalculate CFA.
15. Tables 3-4: abbreviation TD. What is it? Do you mean SD? Skewness and kurtosis should be also presented.
16. Effect sizes should be calculated for all analyses. Data from lines 464-469 can be easily incorporated in the table to improve readability. Many analyses were described in the text, mentioning a lot of numbers. Why don't you use tables to present numbers?
17. Descriptive statistics and Pearson/Spearman correlations for all study variables were not presented.
18. I would suggest mentioning less important analyses in Supplementary Materials. The paper has a lot of analyses and data. It looks overwhelmed.
19. Quality of Figure 2 is low. Axes are not described.
20. Where are standard SEM results like fit indices? I did not find them. 
21. The Discussion section looks like the Results section, with a lot of statistical details, without proper contrasting the obtained results with past evidence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Causal language, hypotheses etc. should be reconsidered. See the review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question addressed by the research is to analyse the mediating role of interpersonal communication and perceived social support on the variables stood out from the ITS, examining their effects on suicide risk, and in depression, as a comparative outcome variable, in young adults from two different cultural origins, Spain and Japan. The topic is orginal and it does address a gap in the field. This study follows an observational, cross-sectional and correlational design. The inclusion criteria were being a young adult between 18–40 years old of 260 Spanish and 177 Japanese nationality, and ones residing in other countries different from the origin were excluded.Methodology applied correctly.The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

A section called "Implications for Clinical and Academic Practice" would be welcome prior the ,,Conclusion” paragraph, as it would increase value of this work.The recommended paragraph would be more readable in the form of bullet points rather than as a single text.The implications should include indisputable messages resulting from this research. The references, tables and figures, all of them, appropriate.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer: European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education

Manuscript ID: ejihpe-3957952

The article titled: Interpersonal Determinants of Suicide Risk among Young 2 Adults: A Cross-Cultural Study

This study explores the influence of interpersonal variables - interpersonal competence, perceived social support, and constructs from the Interpersonal Theory of 15 Suicide (ITS) - on suicidal behaviour in two culturally distinct samples. A total of 437 participants (Spanish sample: n = 260; Japanese sample: n = 177). The results indicate, among other things, that social support was a consistent protective factor against depression and suicidal ideation, and interpersonal competence showed protective effects only in the Japanese sample. Perceived burden stood out as a strong predictor of depression and suicidal ideation in both samples, and suicidal ideation strongly predicted suicidal behavior. The findings offer useful information for developing suicide prevention strategies and contribute to refining the ITS framework in cross-cultural settings.

The article presents a study with results of interest, and well written. The study developed, the objectives set ant the rigor of the procedure followed justify its acceptance for publication in European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education.

Next, I make some suggestions that could clarify the subject investigated.

• On page 2, line 46, when ITS is first mentioned, it is recommended to better understand the theory by pointing out the variables it includes.

 

• In section 1.2., in addition to providing data from Japan, it would be best to add data from Spain.

 

• Given that the age range of the sample is 18 to 40 years, I believe the most appropriate term is adults rather than young adults.

 

• I would also recommend improving the quality of the figures.

 

• In tables, I recommend that the variable names be indicated directly or at least that the acronyms used be explained.

 

• The terms sex and gender are used. It is advisable to clarify or standardize their use.

 

• The sample size and lack of representativeness could be added as limitations of the study.

 

• The discussion would be enriched by expanding the analysis on the cultural differences found and possible factors involved.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved in a satisfactory way. I still believe that many unnecessary tables/figures are presented in the main text. For instance, Figure 1. It can be easily moved to Supplementary Materials.

Separate Conclusions were presented, but they are somewhat unspecific and do not refer to these specific findings. Moreover, they were presented in a statistical, not psychological way, decreasing the readability and comprehensibility of this study.

Section 4.1 has somewhat strange title. Please restructure. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf