Next Article in Journal
Identifying Spatial Matching between the Supply and Demand of Medical Resource and Accessing Carrying Capacity: A Case Study of Shenzhen, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Perceived Environmental Attributes: Their Impact on Older Adults’ Mental Health in Malaysia
Previous Article in Journal
Aging with HIV: Increased Risk of HIV Comorbidities in Older Adults
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Policy Framework for Producing Age-Friendly Communities from the Perspective of Production of Space
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 4
10.3390/ijerph19042361
Review Report
ijerph-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

What Should Be Considered When Evaluating the Quality of Home Care? A Survey of Expert Opinions on the Evaluation of the Quality of Home Care in Japan

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(4), 2361; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042361
by Seungwon Jeong 1,2,*, Yusuke Inoue 3, Yasuyuki Arai 4, Hideki Ohta 5 and Takao Suzuki 2,6
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(4), 2361; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042361
Submission received: 5 January 2022 / Revised: 12 February 2022 / Accepted: 14 February 2022 / Published: 18 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Toward Healthy Aging and Age-Friendly Communities: Advances in Methods, and Challenge for Implementation Research)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript seems to be interesting. However, English editing throughout the manuscript must be required. 

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which helped us considerably improve our paper. As indicated in the following responses, we have taken all reviewers' comments and suggestions into account in the revised version of our paper. This manuscript received a language editing service.

I appreciate your consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors carried out a survey among home care professionals (above all doctors and nurses) to determine the most important indicators of home care quality. The main feature of their result is prioritizing patients´ and family members´ satisfaction with the care, which is not so important if evaluating the quality of hospital care.

The paper is well written and can serve as a good background for future investigation and construction of an evaluation tool.

Although the impact of the paper may be reduced due to focusing exclusively on the Japanese situation, it can be published in its current form.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which helped us considerably improve our paper. As indicated in the following responses, we have taken all reviewers' comments and suggestions into account in the revised version of our paper. 


I appreciate your consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I consider the work to be interesting and relevant, for which I congratulate the authors.  However,

1.- I believe that the introduction is underdeveloped, especially from a theoretical point of view.


2.- As for the instruments used, I believe that it would be richer for the research to complete the surveys with discussion groups, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis.

3.- Finally, I believe that the conclusions could be further developed to give more meaning to the research.

Regards.

 

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which helped us considerably improve our paper. As indicated in the following responses, we have taken all reviewers' comments and suggestions into account in the revised version of our paper. 


I appreciate your consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for your revision. The revision is sufficient.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks to the authors for their efforts.  I consider that the proposed questions have been answered as far as possible.
Best regards.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

 

Back to TopTop