Effects of Potential Support Program on Drowning Prevention among Primary School Students in Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that some text should be removed from the introduction as it does not add anything new and is too far off topic. For example: "If the brain is de
prived of oxygen for 4-5 minutes during drowning children, this can lead to disability or death [3]. Drowning prevention focuses on airway and breathing before applying chest compressions [7]. Children need to receive emergency medical care after drowning, where 71% were taken to the hospital and 97% were found to receive wrong help, exacerbating
the child's condition [3]. For the family, drowning affects the mental health and the economy of the parents, as most of the children have to be hospitalized for a long time [8]."
It is hard to understand the meaning of this part of the introduction: "They are at an age where they can care for themselves to be healthy and accepted by a group of friends. The study of knowledge and attitudes about health was positively correlated with healthcare behaviors among school children [14]." I would suggest to reformulate this and similar parts of the text to sentences starting with "The study conducted in ... revealed ...", etc.
" the Ministry of Public Health" - please, define a country as it is an international journal.
I think that this paragraph should be moved to the discussion: "Therefore, a potential support program for preventing drowning in school children
should incorporate proactive preventive action by focusing on the development of students' potential in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward drowning prevention. As a community nurse practitioner, the researcher plays a role in promoting health and preventing risks that may occur in school-aged children, including prevention of drowning as drowning problems tend to increase. The researcher realized the importance of this problem and therefore aimed to study the effects of the program on enhancing students' potential in drowning prevention using House's concept of social support as a framework for developing a program to support students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes to protect themselves from drowning [20]"
I think that this paragraph is more appropriate for the Methods section: "
The Potential Support Program on Drowning Prevention, based on the concept of social support by House (1981) [20], emphasizes the promotion of the students’ potential together with the teachers to promote knowledge, ability, and positive attitudes toward self-prevention against drowning. The focus consists of support in four areas: 1) Emotional support would be provided through discussions; knowledge exchange; and relationship-building to create trust, positive thoughts, and feelings in conducting activities. 2) Informational support would be provided, where children would learn in small groups to cultivate skills on self-prevention from drowning as well as skills to use safety equipment. 3) Instructional support would be provided through equipment support, learning guides for kids, a manual for nurses, and learning materials along with time and advice given to children on using the manual for self-directed learning. 4) Appraisal support would be provided to assist children in assessing their potential before participating in the program. There would be a reflection on what has been learned and practiced, as well as an assessment of one's knowledge, opinions, feelings, and potential."
Regarding the sample size, the 120 participants is far away from the representative sample size if talking about the children population in Thailand. Such sample size might represent a village but not a whole country. If this study is a pilot study, I think that description of the sample size calculation could be omitted. If the Authors decided to leave this calculation, then the size of the general children population should be provided and the choice of the coefficients explained. Also, it sounds very strange that only 2 schools were selected from 109 schools. School's environment might have a huge impact on children's attitudes and behavior. This should be included in the limitations of the study.
One more limitation of this study, I think, is a significantly larger number of girls than boys. Sex is an important factor when we are talking about behavior.
"0.00***" should be changed to "<0.001"
I think that "df" and "t" values can be omitted as for 99% of the readers they do not tell anything, I guess.
When talking about statistically significant differences, I would suggest to write "statistically significant increase in..." or "statistically significant decrease in..." This would give a reader much more information.
The conclusions. "The difference ... was quite significant." - what does that mean?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer of the Journal
Please find the attached file that contains our manuscript entitled " Effects of Potential Support Program on Drowning Prevention among Primary School Students in Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand" First of all, I am very gladful and thank you very much for the opinions and suggestions of experts to make my manuscript clearer, more appropriate and more accurate. And I have revised already the issues as the expert suggestion, and edit of the English language with the proof of experts who use English as their native language.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Introduction: Remove some sentences, and remove one paragraph to the Methods section, and the Ministry of Public Health as a country.
Response 1: I have additional adjustments already
Point 2: Results; the significant p-value; of 0.000 should be changed to 0.001
Response 2: I have additional adjustments already.
Point 3: Conclusion, Limitations
Response 3: I have additional adjustments already
Thank you so much for being so attentive to our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Kiatkamjorn Kusol
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract:
- rewrite it, offering structural and of content information about the program (House, 1981), and avoiding repeated information
- verify formating of all numbers
- ensure that readers adequatly know which numbers belong to which group (e.g., adding "respectively" after descriptive results)
Introduction:
- antepenultimate and last paragraphs, use third person ("researchers")
Measures and Research Instruments:
- use third person ("researchers")
Statistical Analysis:
- explain why you did not opt by a mix ANOVA
- inform about normal distribution and introduce effect sizes
Results:
- ensure that readers adequatly know which numbers belong to which group (e.g., adding "respectively" after descriptive results)
- Table 2- explain why you have decided to choose as experimental group the one with higher (althoug not significant) mean scores before participating in the program
- Table 3- short note: experimental group also reduced standard deviation, meaning that group became more homogeneous after intervention
Discussion:
- experimental group higher (althoug not significant) mean scores before participating in the program must be included in the limitations of the study
- consequently, recommendation for careful conclusion based on statistical results must be mentioned
Research suggestion: if you follow these children, you can make a study about effect of the programme in drowning prevention (e.g., in both groups, how many of them dealt with drowing and how)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer of the Journal
Please find the attached file that contains our manuscript entitled "Effects of Potential Support Program on Drowning Prevention among Primary School Students in Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand" First of all, I am very gladful and thank you very much for the opinions and suggestions of experts to make my manuscript clearer, more appropriate and more accurate. And I have revised already the issues as the expert suggestion, and edit of the English language with the proof of experts who use English as their native language.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Abstract
Response 1: I have additional adjustments to avoid repeated about the program, verify the formatting of numbers, and adding respectively after results already.
Point 2: Introduction
Response 2: I have additional adjustments from research to researchers already.
Point 3: Results
Response 3: I have decided to sample school one as the experimental group, and school two as the experimental group. I have additional adjustments adding respectively already.
Point 3: Limitations
Response 3: I have additional adjustments already
Thank you so much for being so attentive to our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Kiatkamjorn Kusol
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Quality of the manuscript has been increased. However, not all of my comments have been taken into account. For example, sample size calculation and selection of only 2 schools out of 109. It is hard to understand the meaning of the last sentence of conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer of the Journal
My manuscript entitled " Effects of Potential Support Program on Drowning Prevention among Primary School Students in Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand" I am very gladful and thank you very much for the opinions and suggestions of experts to make my manuscript clearer, more appropriate, and more accurate. And I have edited the English language with the proof of experts who use English as their native language.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments: Minor Revision
Point 1: The quality of the manuscript has been increased. However, not all of my comments have been taken into account. For example, sample size calculation and selection of only 2 schools out of 109.
Response 1: I have written in 2.2 Measure already about sample size calculation and random sampling, I used the red color.
Thank you so much for being so attentive to our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Kiatkamjorn Kusol
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
