Next Article in Journal
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Ascitic Fluid of Cirrhotic COVID-19 Patients: Case Series and Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
High- and Low-Cost Healthcare Utilization for Cancer and COVID-19 Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
COVID
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/covid5040057
Review Report
covid-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Students Towards COVID-19 Guidelines in Bushbuckridge Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province

COVID 2025, 5(4), 57; https://doi.org/10.3390/covid5040057
by Riborn Sibuyi 1, Bumani Solomon Manganye 1,* and Gudani Goodman Mukoma 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Seung-Yoon Rhee
COVID 2025, 5(4), 57; https://doi.org/10.3390/covid5040057
Submission received: 26 February 2025 / Revised: 13 April 2025 / Accepted: 14 April 2025 / Published: 16 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section COVID Public Health and Epidemiology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is of limited relevance because it does not provide innovative findings, addresses a topic that has been extensively researched, and has little impact on the current scenario. Its descriptive methodology does not analyze causal factors or challenges to compliance with COVID-19 guidelines. In addition, the applicability of the findings to future pandemics is not explored in depth, limiting its scientific contribution.

1. The keywords must be consistent with the multilingual thesaurus DeCS/MeSH - Health Science Descriptors/Medical Subject Headings. 

2. Lack of scientific novelty - The study confirms a good level of knowledge, positive attitudes and proactive practices of students regarding the COVID-19 guidelines, but does not present significant new findings or innovative theoretical contributions. Similar studies have been widely published during the pandemic.  

3. Limited impact - The study suggests that students should continue to be educated about the COVID-19 guidelines, but does not provide an in-depth analysis of how this can be done in an innovative way or integrated into broader public policy.

4. Include the limitations of the study.

Author Response

 

Comments 1: [The keywords must be consistent with the multilingual thesaurus DeCS/MeSH - Health Science Descriptors/Medical Subject Headings.]

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the keywords in the abstract to follow the DeCS/MeSH thesaurus….[The revised change can be found on page 1, lines 29-30.]

Comments 2: [Lack of scientific novelty - The study confirms a good level of knowledge, positive attitudes and proactive practices of students regarding the COVID-19 guidelines, but does not present significant new findings or innovative theoretical contributions. Similar studies have been widely published during the pandemic.]

Response 2: We are grateful for the reviewer’s feedback; however, we respectfully hold a different perspective on this matter.

The scientific novelty of this study lies in its exploration of learners' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding COVID-19 in a local context, revealing knowledge gaps, media consumption patterns, and behavioural inconsistencies. These findings highlight the complexity of public health education, particularly among youth, and emphasise the importance of targeted, context-specific educational interventions that address both cognitive knowledge gaps and behavioural barriers.

Comments 3: [Limited impact - The study suggests that students should continue to be educated about the COVID-19 guidelines, but does not provide an in-depth analysis of how this can be done in an innovative way or integrated into broader public policy..]

Response 2: Agreed. We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comment. We appreciate the reviewer's observation regarding the lack of an in-depth analysis of how COVID-19 education can be innovatively implemented or integrated into broader public policy.

 

We acknowledge that while our study emphasises the importance of continued education on COVID-19 guidelines, the scope of the study focused primarily on assessing learners' knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Given the nature of the study, which aimed to collect and analyse data from learners in a specific geographical area, we did not explore in detail the innovative methods of implementation or discuss broader policy integration.

 

However, we agree that it would be valuable for future research to explore innovative educational methods—such as the use of digital platforms, gamification, peer-to-peer education, and interactive media—in enhancing the effectiveness of COVID-19 education. Additionally, we recognise the importance of integrating these educational efforts into broader public health policy to ensure sustainability and consistency across different regions and age groups.

 

In response to your suggestion, we plan to address these areas in future studies by:

 

Exploring innovative educational strategies that have been effective in other public health crises, and assessing how such methods can be adapted for the specific needs of learners.

 

Examining how COVID-19 education can be integrated into national and local health policies, and how these initiatives can be better coordinated between schools, health agencies, and the broader community.

 

Investigating policy-driven approaches that can support ongoing education through curriculum changes, public awareness campaigns, and the engagement of multiple sectors in health education.

 

We believe that these additions would strengthen our understanding of how to maintain effective education on COVID-19 and contribute to long-term public health preparedness.

 

Comments 4: [Include the limitations of the study.]

Response 2: Agreed. We have, accordingly, revised the discussion section to include the study limitations. The statement reads as follows: “This study has several limitations. The cross-sectional design restricts the ability to establish causality, and the reliance on self-reported data may introduce social desirability bias. The focus on a specific geographic area and sample may limit the generalisability of the findings. Future research could address these limitations by employing longitudinal designs, using more diverse sampling methods, incorporating observational data, and exploring psychological and cultural factors that influence behaviour”.

 

This change can be seen on page 11, lines 350 to 355.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has the potential to contribute to designing effective COVID-19 guidelines in the study's specific context. 

This paper has the potential to contribute to designing effective COVID-19 guidelines. Below are a few revision suggestions.

  1. Abstract: Provide information about the total number of study samples.
  1. Line 51: Please provide a detailed explanation of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) that contribute to adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures. What specific types of knowledge, attitudes, and practices do the authors refer to? Please review and cite previous research that has examined KAP, as the current study is not adequately situated within existing literature.
  1. Line 200: Please explain the reason behind people considering both radio and newspapers as unreliable sources. This appears somewhat counterintuitive and requires further explanation.
  1. Line 357: Be specific about the educational efforts. What particular educational measures can be implemented to reinforce accurate knowledge of symptoms, correct misconceptions, and promote preventive practices?

 

Author Response

 

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  1. Comments 1: [Abstract: Provide information about the total number of study samples.]

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the abstract to include information on the total number of study samples. The revised statement read as follows: “A total sample size of n = 364 was determined using the Raosoft sample size calculator, with a margin of error (e) of 5% and a confidence level of 95%. Out of the total, 357 respondents who returned the assent forms participated in the study”. [The total number of samples was inserted as recommended by the reviewer –on  page 1, lines 18 to 20.]

 
  1. Comments 2: [Line 51: Please provide a detailed explanation of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) that contribute to adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures. What specific types of knowledge, attitudes, and practices do the authors refer to? Please review and cite previous research that has examined KAP, as the current study is not adequately situated within existing literature.]

 

Response 2: Agreed. We have, accordingly, revised the introduction to emphasise this point and cited more relevant literature on page 2, paragraph 3, lines 57 to 71.

  1. Comments 3: [Line 200: Please explain the reason behind people considering both radio and newspapers as unreliable sources. This appears somewhat counterintuitive and requires further explanation.]

Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised to emphasise this point. This might have been due to the fact that students watched more TV and were on the internet most of the time during lockdown – page number 5, paragraph, and lines 203, 204, and 205.]

 

  1. Comments 4: [Line 357: Be specific about the educational efforts. What particular educational measures can be implemented to reinforce accurate knowledge of symptoms, correct misconceptions, and promote preventive practices?.]

Response 2: Agreed. We have, accordingly, revised the discussion section to emphasise this point.

This change can be seen on page number 11, paragraph 2,  lines 362 to 366.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The requested corrections have been made.

The requested corrections have been made.

Author Response

There were no comments pending. All corrections were submitted. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript. I have a few additional suggestions for further refinement.

  1. Line 58: Please specify that “KAP” stands for knowledge, attitudes, and practices.
  2. Lines 69-71: This sentence repeats the content from lines 53-55. Please revise.

Author Response

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  1. Comments 1: [Line 58: Please specify that “KAP” stands for knowledge, attitudes, and practices.]

 

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting this point. We agree with the reviewer’s comment and have accordingly added that “KAP” stands for Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices, as recommended. This revision can be found on page 2 of 13, paragraph 2, lines 54–55.

 
  1. Comments 2: [Lines 69-71: This sentence repeats the content from lines 53-55. Please revise.]

 

Response 2: Agreed. The repetitive information in lines 53–55 was removed from paragraph 2 on page 2 of 13, while the statement in lines 65–68 remains unchanged.

 

Back to TopTop