Home Isolation and Online Support Strategies during Mild COVID-19 Pandemic Waves in Thailand: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article shows some promise, but it is short of the quality required for publication in its current state. Here are my recommendations

1. Introduction: Your background section should be changed to introduction. And in very clear terms, explain the main contributions of your paper in your introduction. In its current state, your contributions are implied rather than stated. Write the main contributions of your paper to academic research and practice.

2. Materials and Methods (methodology): I am sorry, it is impossible to write a scientific article without spelling out precisely where your data is coming from. You must absolutely include a methodology section right after your introduction. Tell us exactly where your facts and data are coming from. It does not have to be too lengthy, and you can certainly include secondary sources of data such as prior publications. Furthermore, you must state the method of your review/analysis. Is this a systematic review, a conventional literature review or a scoping review.

3. Results: Create a results section and move all your texts from the current sections 2 to 5 to it.

4. Conclusion and Limitations: Your contributions should be included in your conclusions too. And try to include the limitations of your study.

I wish you good luck!

Minor correction. Your article is readable. But you can read it again (especially the first paragraph) and edit it properly. There are some missing words and/or mistakes within it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. What is the purpose of this report? The manuscript is labelled a "review", but it lacks the basic requirements for a review: research questions to be addressed, a systematic search of the literature for relevant studies, and a method for consolidating findings from identified studies.

2. The study purports to investigate the effectiveness of home-based isolation ("HI"), but this was not done. The report presents introductory and background material describing the time-line of the COVID-19 epidemic in Thailand and associated public health measures. Then there is a description of HI policy and procedures. Good, so far. But at this point, I want to know the objectives of the HI program and how you propose to determine if they have been achieved, and statement of research questions or hypotheses, and I see no such statements. Next, explanation of study methods is missing: identification and recruitment of a study cohort and control group, what outcomes are of interest and how are they measured. Results are missing: describe baseline characteristics of the study cohort and control groups, quantitative measurements of outcomes, and statistical analysis of disparities between the groups.  Discussion of findings is needed: what answers do the findings provide to the research questions, are the hypotheses supported, strengths and limitations of the research method.

3. The material in this report could be presented as a case report of the COVID-19 situation and the public health response in Thailand. However, such a report would also require some statistics describing the incidence of COVID-19 (and variants thereof): cases, hospitalizations and deaths, among demographic groups, among geographic regions within Thailand, and changes in incidence over time.

4. This manuscript is not suitable for publication. I advise that it be rejected. I advise the authors to think clearly about the purpose of their report, and then focus their efforts accordingly.

The authors' use of English is satisfactory.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Home isolation and online support strategies to mild COVID-19 epidemic waves in Thailand: preparing for the next

This study reports the isolation experiences (“outpatient self-isolation” (SI), “home-based isolation” (HI), and “community-based isolation” (CI) conducted in Thailand during the pandemic. The comments refer exclusively to the Thai experience and are therefore of limited interest to the community of readers. The authors should compare the Thai experience with that of other Asian and non-Asian countries.

in dealing with the limitations of the HI strategy, the authors fail to report the reasons for the non-compliance. Individuals have suffered greatly from isolation, and it has also been the main stress factor for healthcare workers in the Covid hub-hospitals, as demonstrated by the PSIC longitudinal study conducted in Italy. Authors should at least cite these issues as a limitation.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article needs some proofreading

Proofread the article for any minor errors.

Reviewer 2 Report

 1. Even if considered as a "scoping review", this manuscript still lacks the basic requirements: research questions to be addressed, a systematic search of the literature for relevant studies, and a method for consolidating findings from identified studies.

2. I accept that the referenced [as 23] previous publication [Mongkolsucharitkul P, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response against Mild-to-Moderate Breakthrough COVID-19 in Home Isolation Setting in Thailand. Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Jul 15;10(7):1131. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10071131. PMID: 35891295; PMCID: PMC9318962.] reported what I would describe as an ex post facto cross-sectional study of factors predicting clinical and immunological outcomes among a cohort of COVID-19 cases managed in home isolation. The methodology and findings do not need to be repeated. The current manuscript adds nothing new or substantial to the evaluation of home isolation.

3. This manuscript still seems mostly a case report of the COVID-19 situation and the public health response in Thailand. As such, you would be permitted to include some description of your model case management system and opine about the lessons learned. However, as I said before, such a report would also require some population health statistics describing the incidence of COVID-19 (and variants thereof): cases, hospitalizations and deaths, among demographic groups, among geographic regions within Thailand, and changes in incidence over time. In my view, this would be the most direct path to an original and publishable report.

4. The authors still have not established a clear rationale for this report. The subsequent report is disorderly and confusing. This manuscript is still not suitable for publication. I advise that it be rejected.

Reviewer 3 Report

the authors have revised the manuscript