Associations Between Self-Perceived Psychosocial Stress and Markers of Adiposity in Ga Mashie, Urban Ghana: Evidence from a Cross-Sectional Population-Based Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an article that investigates the relationship between self-perceived psychosocial stress and adiposity markers (BMI and waist-to-height ratio) in adults in Ghana.

 

Introduction

They present a solid contextualization of the global and regional obesity problem, showing a good connection between psychosocial stress and adiposity, supported by several references. They also manage to justify why the work was carried out in the specific geographic area. However, it seems to me that it is a little long, sometimes with some repetition of concepts, so I suggest that it be made more effective and more objective.

 

Methodology

This section contains a clear and detailed description of the study design, sampling and inclusion/exclusion criteria. They use bibliographical references to justify some of the procedures. They mention the validity of the scale, including in the Ghanaian population, so the entire process is well described. In line 161 there is an explanation of the organization due to the “small number”, which could be further explored/explained.

 

Results

The authors use 3 tables and 2 figures to graphically present the results. The presentation is clear and well-organized. The statistics used allow us to trust the results. There are some data that seem to have not been considered (for example, sex and stress?), I don't know if this was on purpose or because they did not fit the design conceived by the authors. Pay attention to the captions, which could be a little more informative.

Discussion

Structurally, the discussion is correct, with an analysis of the data and comparison with other articles, from Africa and elsewhere. It seems to me, however, that it could be more direct and concise, as there are some places where there is a repetition of ideas, without this changing or contributing to more specific information. Perhaps they could also address the possible importance of longitudinal studies, their impact and the importance of this work in this path.

Conclusions

In this section, the authors present concise ideas focused on what the work actually conveys to us. They could highlight the future importance that this work can add to programs to improve the reality studied.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The work submitted for evaluation is of a good standard. The layout is correct, the sections form a logical whole, the methodology is appropriate, and the conclusions are supported by current references. However, I suggest adding research questions and hypotheses at the end of “1. Introduction.” Then, in “4.1. Summary of findings,” add answers to the research questions and verification of the hypotheses. This will raise the work to a higher scientific level. Thank you!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for sharing the document again. The article clearly highlights the changes made, and the response document created by the authors allows for an intuitive analysis of the entire process.
In my opinion, the authors made a significant effort to respond to my suggestions, so I have nothing further to add at this stage. I can only suggest a final rereading to try to mitigate any potential errors that may have occurred.
Best of luck for the future.