UNCRPD and Sport: A Comparative Analysis of European States Parties Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of this paper is to analyze sport through the CRPD reports submitted by EU and EEA (and UK) countries. The authors’ analyses demonstrate the varying approaches countries are taking to in effort to meet CRPD standards, as well as potential gaps in both implementation and reporting. Notable in the findings is that few programs even mention the Kazan Action Plan, and less than half mention Assisted Technologies. The paper illuminates the fact that countries have vastly differing approaches to supporting the rights of people with disabilities to participate in sport. Understanding these differences in approaches can improve collaborative efforts between countries or with international organizations such as Special Olympics. Additionally, noting the gaps in implementation and reporting, this paper can be used as a starting point to develop tools and resources to better educate countries on the CRPD standards and the Kazan Action Plan as well as what to include in the report. A major strength of this paper is that, to my knowledge, this is the first paper to do such a large comparative analysis of UN member state reports regarding sports.

 

Major recommendations:

 

• I’m confused about the importance of identifying all mentions of Assistive Technologies. I’m not sure how the incorporation of AT within sections not related to sports is relevant. If the goal is to demonstrate that countries are incorporating AT broadly, but many do not mention it in the context of sport, I think you could provide a sentence about how 100% of countries included it in the report by only 48.4% of countries included it in the context of sport. Otherwise, you could remove these broad results to keep the paper focused.
• I suggest reorganizing the discussion. I found it a little hard to follow. I recommend the following outline:
  • Summarize main findings—currently this is only one sentence. I recommend you remind readers of key results. Add a short paragraph about what information was included, what was often missing, and that every country approached meeting the CRPD standards differently.
  • Interpret findings—You have some of this information already. I like that you point out that missing data doesn’t necessarily mean absence, but I recommend organizing that thought process into one paragraph demonstrating all the examples you have (not reporting existence of Paralympics or Special Olympics, national program in Ireland, etc)
  • Limitations—you have this section. I agree with the limitation you have here.
  • Implications and significance to the field—You have some of this sprinkled in the discussion, but I think it would strengthen the paper to organize a paragraph or two about why your findings are important and what people can learn from them. Consider moving the sentence from line 401-404 up to this section.
  • Future direction—you started this as the very last sentence of the paper. I would shift it here and elaborate on what you mean here. Why is exploring the progressive realization of rights important? How might you investigate the incorporation of ATs?
  • Conclusion—Yours is decent but consider adding a stronger closing sentence.

 

Minor suggestions:

• You’re using both UNCRPD and CRPD—select one and be consistent throughout
• I think there is something missing in the sentence in line 112-115. Review and fix.
• You have two opening sentences that are very similar in lines 162-168. Select one.
• In lines 248-249, you say accessibility was 3^rd but in the table accessibility is tied with legislation.
• In line 254, you have n=14 but in the table you only have 13 countries listed in the chart—should it be n=13 or is a country missing from the table?

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Please find attached our detailed responses to all the comments provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Methods:

• Lines 125-126: it is stated that "a series of secondary questions emerged..." Are these the questions that are highlighted in the closing paragraph of the introduction? This should be clarified. 

Discussion:

• Opening with reiteration of the aims / research questions would be beneficial prior to beginning to summarise results
• Line 367: Missing reference 
• Line 370: Repeated sentence from Line 367-368?
• Line 374: It is stated that the authors propose a set of reporting recommendations; however these do not appear to be clearly articulated in text. There inclusion is recommended to increase the utility of this manuscript. 

Limitations:

• The limitation listed is more-so a de-limitation of the available data as well as a limitation of the study search strategy, clearly articulating the difference between these is recommended. Detailing limitations such as including only high-income countries would also be pertinent here. 

References:

• There are inconsistencies in the formatting of references which should be addressed, including the potential removal of reference numbers given that numbers are not included in text. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There remain some grammatical errors (e.g., line 110 should say 'state reports' and line 112 should say 'of achieving rights').

Consistency with use of capitalisations and abbreviations (e.g., Assistive Technology vs assistive technology vs AT; State Reports vs state reports vs State Party Reports) should be applied throughout. 

Sentence lines 262-264 requires revision

Sentence line 393 requires revision (? vary --> varies)

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Please find attached our detailed responses to all the comments provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Title: The title should include the inclusion of EEA and UK state reports instead of just using “European”. This is to ensure that key terms are covered for readers to search relevant articles.

 

 

Methodology section:

1. State who are the authors responsible for filtering and extracting data from the reports. How were any discrepancies in themes resolved?
2. Page 4, Line 173-174: “However, it is worth noting that three of the eight countries have signed the Optional Protocol to the UNCRPD but have not yet ratified it (UN Treaties” – please state which country in question have signed the protocol.
3. I believe it is best if the EU countries are given numbers to represent them and outlined as numbers in the Table instead of just reporting the percentage. Furthermore, the numberings should be segregated into East and West Europe, Scandinavian countries and others. This is to give the readers a clearer perspective on the distribution of with the corresponding country.
4. Use a figure/chart to present the saturation of themes on the extracted categories mentioned: policy framework, accessibility and funding, programmes and initiatives, and community engagement.
5. Were all reports written in English? Seeing that EU and EEA countries have different languages, how were the contents translated?

 

 

Results section:

1. Table 1 should include the percentage analysis of all 6 thematic categories, rather than writing them in long winded paragraphs. It is easier for the readers to read and digest the overall picture of the themes. The current iteration only reports 3 of the themes.
2. Why is the column for accessibility and funding empty for Malta in Table 2? If not available, it should be indicated with NA, similar to the others.
3. In Table 6, column article 19, why was the percentage labelled as 54.4%? Shouldn’t it be 54.8%?
4. Add what sort of assistive technology in sports have been mentioned by the articles
5. 32 countries were included in the search terms and strategies but only 31 countries had their own reports, mention which country did not have any reports of its own, and why this is so.

 

 

 

Discussion section:

1. Discussion section could include how these policy frameworks affect the participation rate, physical activity level and percentage of distribution in sports according to demography
2. Are there any correlations between wider policy coverage with better sports adoption, participation and adaptation?
3. Are there any major differences in policy frameworks between East vs West EU or EEA vs EU countries?

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Please find attached our detailed responses to all the comments provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

For re-consideration:

Reviewer comment: Use a figure/chart to present the saturation of themes on the extracted categories mentioned: policy framework, accessibility and funding, programmes and initiatives, and community engagement.

Author's response: Thank you for the helpful suggestion. We appreciate the interest in strengthening the presentation of our findings. In this instance, however, we feel that depicting “theme saturation” through a figure or chart would introduce a quantitative framing that is not
aligned with our qualitative thematic approach. We have therefore retained the narrative presentation while ensuring the themes are clearly articulated

Reviewer rebuttal:

Saturation of themes is a qualitative approach and not a quantitative approach. The authors could reconsider this presentation of results for this work. It aids readers immensely in understanding the scope of the work.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. Please find attached our detailed response to the comment provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf