Adaptation and Validation of a Monkeypox Concern Instrument in Peruvian Adults

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Happy to review this unique research.

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract requires modifications, it does not express the article's main idea. Mostly, about the method. However, main points, main findings, and key points should be included.

line 42, and 176, expanding can be more descriptive hat proliferation. 

line 45, antiviral drugs. 

line 53, it is unclear what (converts) mean here. 

line 58, do you mean (emerging, discovery) in place of appearance? 

line 90, there seems to be a space in was. 

Table 1, shows the adaptation of questions to the current which is about EP-VIR-MONK and validated by experts. Can authors clarify why they did not use direct questions related to precautions against monkey-pox? For example; Have you read about the route of monkey-pox transmission?

Have you undergone further precautions to not get infected by monkey-pox?

Ref #1, 15, 18, 19, 23,   do not contain DOI or URL.

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The information provided in the manuscript is interesting and useful, but it needs some adjustments:

 Section 1. Introduction

The text is not systematized. The information is presented in a chaotic manner.

There is a repetition of the word “rise”.

Section 2. Results

I think that it is important the profession of people, who are included in the study. Health workers are generally at higher risk of fear, stress and other mental disorders, in the context of the pandemic.

            Section 3. Discussion.

The practical implications and benefits of the results should be specifically emphasized.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author

Improvement of the work is noted. 

Good luck