Interventions Designed to Support Physical Activity and Disease Prevention for Working from Home: A Scoping Review
, Alec Cobbold 1, Matthew Beck 2, Tracy Nau 1, Christopher Standen 3,4, Chris Rissel 1,5, Ben J. Smith 1,6, Stephen Greaves 2, William Bellew 1 and Adrian Bauman 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
see file attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
See the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a scoping review of physical activity interventions for individuals working from home. the paper is generally well-written and is a very timely topic, given the COVID-19 pandemic and changing working conditions around the globe. That said, I finished the review feeling like I'd missed some pages. It was extremely brief, and, aside from the one table, there was no description of any of the studies or their findings. The discussion section is well written, but discussed the field in general and where it should go rather than discussing the findings from this actual review. Granted, this is a scoping review not a systematic review, but more exploration of the included studies and discussion of their findings would be helpful. Introduction: -the introduction is very well written, and highlights what a timely topic this is Methods: -could the authors explain why they limited the studies to those in high-middle income countries? Results: -the authors have provided a summary of the studies, but no information about the common outcomes or measures used; there is very little information presented about the actual studies. Since there are so few, the authors could provide a more detailed overview of them. As is, there is relatively no information provided about the studies themselves or their findings Discussion: -the discussion is well written, but focuses mostly on the research context and future directions. As is, there is very little discussion of the actual findings from the reviewAuthor Response
See the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is fine and worth publishing as it is.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you. We have expanded the results and discussion sections of the paper as suggested by Reviewers 1 and 2 and have attached it for your persual.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have done a commendable job revising the paper. They have adequately addressed my comments.
