A Survey-Based Study on Physical Activity Promotion for Individuals with a Current or Past Diagnosis of Cancer in Canada

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the manuscript titled ‘A survey-based study on physical activity promotion for survivors of cancer in Canada’, the authors explored the status of Physical Activity discussion between oncology care providers and the Patients receiving the said healthcare. The findings of the study suggest that there has been an improvement in discussion around the topic between healthcare providers and patients, however, it has not been translated quantitatively into the more sufficiently active patients receiving oncology healthcare. The introduction is well-written and described in detail the background of the study with relevant literature. The method section contains sufficient material and is explained comprehensively. The findings are explained adequately. The limitations are also given. All in all, the study adds to the literature and can be published in the Current Oncology journal.

Minor comment: The authors used the term ‘survivors’ a lot during their discussion and also for the description of patients undergoing treatment. It is suggested to use other terminology such as ‘Oncology-care seekers/Patients/Current Patients etc. The term ‘Survivor’ can be used but not in all cases. In this study, only the patients who underwent treatment and for whom the relapse has not occurred could be termed, survivors. If there is a possibility of differentiating patients undergoing treatment (64 % mentioned in patients’ characteristics) or had treatment in the past  (35 %) and went to general checkups and were surveyed it can bring another parameter into the discussion. And if there is a difference among these groups regarding the status of physical activity or discussion with oncology healthcare providers, then please discuss why it could be the case.

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewer for their thoughtful and positive comments. Please see attached document for response to these comments. We hope they address their concerns.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for opportunity to review manuscript entitled ‘‘A survey-based study on physical activity promotion for survi-2 vors of cancer in Canada’’ for Current Oncology journal. The authors briefly examined prevalance and correltes of physical activity interactions between cancer  survivors and their cancer care team.  As an experinced article editor and reviewer, I think the article is well-written and deserves to be published in this journal. However, moderate revisions required before publication of article.  The required revisions reported section by section and when possible with suggestions.

Abstract

1. Page 1, Line 25: Please report following (p=0.02)  p value with three decimal and add a space before and after =.

Introduction

2. Page 1, Line 45: Is following correct B-cells post exercise?  I think it must be only B-cells.

3. Page 2, Line 52-53: I is very difficult to understand following sentence outside the physical exercise field. Iit is better to rewrite following sentence with simpler words ‘ ‘twice weekly resistance training in-52 cluding two sets of 8 to 15 repetitions for all major muscle groups at an intensity of at least 53 60% of a 1 repetition maximum.’’

4. Page 2, Line 59-60: The citation/citations needed for following sentence ‘ ‘Much research has described barriers to exercise participation from a patient’s perspective.’’

5. Page 2, Line 68: I am not able to understand following abbreviation QEP’s; Authors must remove it or provide its long name its first use.

6. Page 2, Line 78:  Please change following ‘ ‘These findings speak to…..’’ speak to is not a appropriate scientific statement. I think , it is better to write  ‘ ‘these finding indicate the…..’’  

7. Page 2, Line 89:   Please remove following  ‘ ‘Purpose:’’

8. Page 2, Line 90-92:   A single sentence may not constitute a paragraph please move following ‘ ‘The purpose of this study was to explore the prevalence and content of discussions 90 regarding physical activity promotion between survivors of cancer and their oncology 91 care team at a cancer institution in Ontario, Canada.’’ the above paragraph. Moreover, add a transition sentence before aim sentence.

9. Introduction General, Optional: I think authors repeated two times the same factors one from patient, and other from healthcare provider. The combining two of them in a single paragraph may prevent some repetition. Alternatively, authors can reduce second part between Line 73-88.

10. Introduction General: Apart from this correction, this section is well written.

Method

11. Page 2, Line 94:   Please correct ‘‘Study Design:’’ as ‘ ‘Study Design’’ More simply, move two dots.

12. Page 3, Line 98-99: Please move following sentence to procedure section. It is more suitable place for this statement ‘‘ The Hamilton Integrated Research 98 Ethics Board (HiREB) approved this study (ID#: 10572).’’

13. Page 3, Line 100: Please correct ‘‘Participants and Setting:’’ as ‘ ‘Participants and Setting’’ More simply, move two dots.

14. Page 3, Participants and Setting Section, General: Authors must add some basic demographic including gender distribution of sample, minimum and maximum age with its mean and standard deviation to this section. In this form, it did not give any information about participants.

15. Page 3, Line 115: Please correct Procedure: as Procedure

16. Page 3, Line 126: Please correct Research Instrument: as Instruments

17. Page 3, Instruments Section, General: Author must rearrange instrument section with subheadings. It looks very messy in this form. Authors may use questionnaire parts for subheadings. Moreover, authors must add The Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire internal consistency reliability calculated in their study.

18. Page 3, Instruments Section, General: Following sentence ‘ ‘Questions included multiple choice (responders select one response), multi-select (responders select all responses that apply), scaling questions (7-point Likert scale), and open-ended questions.’’ is more suitable for beginning of this section after questionnaire parts.

19. Page 3, Instruments Section, General: Following sentence is more suitable for Presedure section ‘ ‘The …… took approximately 10 minutes to complete.’’

20. Page 4, Line 147: Please correct Data Analysis: as Data Analysis

21. Page 4, Line 156-157: Following statement is not true and must corrected ‘ ‘All analysis was 156 conducted in STATAv15 with significance set at p<0.05.’’ the correct version is ‘ ‘All quantitative analyses were conducted in STATAv15 with significance set at p<0.05.’’

22. Page 4, Line 157: Add a space before and after < . The correct is p < 0.05.

23. Method General: Apart from this correction, this section is well written.

Results

24. Page 4, Line 159: Please correct Participant Characteristics: as Participant Characteristics. This problem prevalent along the manuscript. Please correct it all the manuscript including tables (e.g., Sex: ).

25.  Page 4, Line 164: N representing total sample size must be italic in Table 1. Moreover, add a space before and after =.  N & % must be italic in Table 1. N must small in N & %.

26. Page 4, Table 1 : Age (years): mean, SD is missing in Table 1.

27. Page 5, Table 2 : N must small in Table 2 as frequencies represent subgroups.

28.  Page 5, Table 2 : Please correct Mean (SD) as M (SD)   M and SD must be italic.

29. Page 7, Table 3 : ALL big Ns must be small in Table 3. Authors must report all p values with three decimal.

 

Discussion

30.  Discussion, General: The practical/clinical implications of study findings are completely missing and must be added to Discussion section preferably after the limitations or in Conclusion section.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewer for their detailed and thoughtful comments. Please see attached document for response to each comment. We hope they address their concerns. Thank you again for your time.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Thanks for opportunity review revised manuscript previously I reviewed.  I would like the thanks to authors. They make a good job for improving quality of their manuscript. Authors revised the manuscript as I requested with a good will. In this form, Introduction reflects very well the previous studies and study aim, Method section and Result section is correct, and Discussion section adequately synthesis to previous study findings and current study results. Overall, I have no further comment regarding to manuscript and recommend accept decision. I congratulate to authors and wish them success on their future endeavors.