Secondary School Students’ Well-Being as an Effect of Outdoor Physical Activity versus Indoor Activity and Inactivity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an important subject since nature and sustainability are one of our main worries. Also physical activity or inactivity are another chalenge for health and well-being.

However i have some questions and some sugestions

1) Line 40 and 41-your choice could be more justified. Why have you choose those determinants of well-being

2) line 137 - please explain what is the meanning of the words "sno" and "ses"

3) Please explain how was made the recruitment of the sample. were the 306 students from the same school? This could be a powerfull bias.

So, as students the curriculum of physical activity course was the same for all the students and maybe classes were in indoor context? Please explain the influence of being students and her mandatory curriculum in the possible answer of this sample

4) I believe that if authors have results of the sample in a table and not in text that could me more easier for readers. Number, gender, age, etc etc for a better characterization of this sample. Where in her educational path are these students?? Are they big or smaller students (morphologically speaking). Only from city or from a rural environment?

5) Were the questionnaires used, already validated for this population? Please clarify in the text (for both questionnaires)

6) I believe that in line 162 at the beginning should be "The" and not "he". Please correct.

7) The H3 hypothesis is some way confusing the purpose of this work. This should be something that would be results of the study and that would be analyzed and reflected on and not as a study hypothesis from the start. Putting this assumption (H3) makes this study too basic and perhaps a little silly... (sorry...). I really believe that this hypothesis should notm be part of this study. Authors could really only make a good reflection on results. Indeed they must do it (compare by genders) but not as an hypothesis. In my point of view...

8) line 237 and 238 "...the natural....in adolescence". This is a judgement of authors. Currently, with the level of environmental education in our schools, this cannot be said without good justification and reasoning. I think authors should reformulate this statement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We are very grateful for your many constructive comments, by taking into account which this manuscript certainly has a new and improved quality. Below are our responses:

Q1) Line 40 and 41-your choice could be more justified. Why have you choose those determinants of well-being

In the revised version of the manuscript we have tried to justify this in lines 41-53.

Q2) line 137 - please explain what is the meanning of the words "sno" and "ses"

This is a serious error. These abbreviations are given in Polish. In the revised version of the document, the purpose of the research has been formulated with this comment in mind.

Q3) Please explain how was made the recruitment of the sample. were the 306 students from the same school? This could be a powerfull bias.

So, as students the curriculum of physical activity course was the same for all the students and maybe classes were in indoor context? Please explain the influence of being students and her mandatory curriculum in the possible answer of this sample

Q4) I believe that if authors have results of the sample in a table and not in text that could me more easier for readers. Number, gender, age, etc etc for a better characterization of this sample. Where in her educational path are these students?? Are they big or smaller students (morphologically speaking). Only from city or from a rural environment?

Q5) Were the questionnaires used, already validated for this population? Please clarify in the text (for both questionnaires)

A very comprehensive commentary on your suggestions can be found in the Material and methods section and is verifiable through the document's change tracking option. In addition, we understandably accepted the suggestion to create a table with the characteristics of the study group (line 196).

Q6) I believe that in line 162 at the beginning should be "The" and not "he". Please correct.

This is an obvious editing error that we have corrected and in the revised version the correction is on line 225.

 

7) The H3 hypothesis is some way confusing the purpose of this work. This should be something that would be results of the study and that would be analyzed and reflected on and not as a study hypothesis from the start. Putting this assumption (H3) makes this study too basic and perhaps a little silly... (sorry...). I really believe that this hypothesis should notm be part of this study. Authors could really only make a good reflection on results. Indeed they must do it (compare by genders) but not as an hypothesis. In my point of view...

We have carefully addressed this suggestion when deciding to remove H3.

 

8) line 237 and 238 "...the natural....in adolescence". This is a judgement of authors. Currently, with the level of environmental education in our schools, this cannot be said without good justification and reasoning. I think authors should reformulate this statement.

We have turned this categorical authorial judgement into a more open question. A correction to this section of the text can be found in lines 321-323.

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the opportunity to review the interesting article Is Well-Being the effect of outdoor physical activity as a form

of sustainable youth education? Confrontation with indoor

physical activity and inactivity; I have the following suggestions about it:

 

- Consider the possibility of reducing the size of the title, and make reference in it to the fact that the study is in adolescents attending school.

- Improve the wording of the last paragraph of the introduction, especially line 137. It would also be interesting to differentiate between a general objective and other secondary objectives of the study

- In the material and methods section there are numerous deficiencies that must be corrected: 1.- Provide a detailed description of how the sample was selected 2.- How informed consent was obtained 3.- Indicate the approval code of the Ethics Committee of research, 4.- Indicate how the self-classification variables were evaluated in the type of physical activity. 5 Indicate why these evaluation questionnaires were chosen and not others. 6.- Indicate the validity and reliability parameters of each questionnaire. 7.- It is recommended that the hypotheses be comparisons of two variables, not three, due to the subsequent difficulty of analyzing their fulfillment.

- The start of line 162 is wrong.

- Line 203 with instructions should not be put.

- Consider the possibility of improving the quality and size of figures 1, 2 and 3.

- Improve the integration and size of the tables with the text, in some cases they are very close.

- In the discussion, clearly indicate the limitations of the study, the practical public health recommendations derived from the study, as well as the lines of future research generated from the results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We are very grateful for your many constructive comments, by taking into account which this manuscript certainly has a new and improved quality. Below are our responses:

Q1. Consider the possibility of reducing the size of the title, and make reference in it to the fact that the study is in adolescents attending school.

This change has been made (lines 2-3).

Q2. Improve the wording of the last paragraph of the introduction, especially line 137. It would also be interesting to differentiate between a general objective and other secondary objectives of the study

Significant changes relating to this suggestion are found in Chapter 2 Nature and Well-being - an overview (lines 143-165), created on the advice of another Reviewer.

Q3. In the material and methods section there are numerous deficiencies that must be corrected: 1.- Provide a detailed description of how the sample was selected 2.- How informed consent was obtained 3.- Indicate the approval code of the Ethics Committee of research, 4.- Indicate how the self-classification variables were evaluated in the type of physical activity. 5 Indicate why these evaluation questionnaires were chosen and not others. 6.- Indicate the validity and reliability parameters of each questionnaire. 7.- It is recommended that the hypotheses be comparisons of two variables, not three, due to the subsequent difficulty of analyzing their fulfillment.

We have attempted to fully address almost all of these comments in the Material and Methods chapter. These changes include lines 167-183, 185-188, 204-208, 217-225, 234-243, 265-268 and 278-279 in the revised version of the manuscript. Among the research hypotheses, 2 of the 3 are a comparison of 2 variables. Following your suggestion and a suggestion to remove this hypothesis made by another reviewer, we decided to omit it without abandoning the interpretation of gender conditioning in the Results and Discussion. 

Q4. The start of line 162 is wrong.

Q5. Line 203 with instructions should not be put.

Q6. Consider the possibility of improving the quality and size of figures 1, 2 and 3.

Q7. Improve the integration and size of the tables with the text, in some cases they are very close.

We have corrected all these editorial and technical errors, as indicated by the tracking function for changes made to the manuscript.

Q8. In the discussion, clearly indicate the limitations of the study, the practical public health recommendations derived from the study, as well as the lines of future research generated from the results.

We have tried to take this extremely important aspect very seriously. You will find extensive commentary on it in the final paragraphs of the Discussion (lines 421-450).

Reviewer 3 Report

I want to thank the authors for their interesting submission on the influence and potential interaction of physical activity and time outside on the general mood and self-esteem of adolescents. While I think that the paper is well-written and that the topic is interesting, there are several issues that need to be addressed before the paper is ready for publication. These issues can be mainly categorized as (i) conceptual, (ii) structural, (iii) methodological, and some are only (iv) minor.

Conceptual. First, it is not quite clear what type of contribution that the authors want to make in this paper, which should be obvious for the reader towards the end of the introduction (e.g., is the potential interaction of time in nature and physical activity the novelty, or is the focus on adolescents?9 I would suggest that the authors include a research question towards the end of the introduction to further highlight their contribution. Second, a clear definition of what part of the population the authors consider to be “adolescents” should be included and how the age range of 16-19 years was chosen. Third, it is not abundantly clear why general mood and self-esteem were chosen as dependent variables for this study and how they are defined in the context of this study. The authors should make sure that their selection is motivated and that a working definition for each of these variables is provided before the “Materials and Methods” section.

Structural. First, the Introduction section is currently quite long, and does not even include the hypotheses that are to be tested. In addition, a discussion of previous research is then continued in the Discussion section (mainly pages 7 and 8), which should have been included in earlier parts of the paper, which are used to motivate and contextualize the conducted study. I would therefore suggest that the authors shorten the Introduction section and end it with the overall research question for this study and then include a Theory section. In this new section, previous research can be discussed in more detail, the dependent variables can be introduced, and for each variable hypotheses can be presented. Second, in the Discussion section a discussion of the potential limitations of the current study is missing and the potential for future research should also be highlighted more prominently.

Methodological. First, there are many methodological details missing that need to be added by the authors including: (i) the country in which the study was conducted as it is not apparent, for example, which “government” the authors are repeatedly talking about; (ii) the recruitment procedures for the study (e.g., were adolescents recruited from one specific school?); (iii) how the grouping of individuals in the subject was conducted (i.e., how were physical activity and time in nature assessed and used to form groups?); (iv) in a 2x2 study setting, there should be four study groups, but one (i.e., nature exposure, but no physical activity) is missing. The authors need to address this issue; (v) the psychometric indices mentioned on p. 4 should be reported.

The authors should also more generally motivate why they grouped individuals based on characteristics that are not nominally scaled. Why did they not ask, for example, individuals about their average weekly time in nature (without physical activity for recreational purposes), physical activity indoors, physical activity outdoors and then use these interval-scaled values to test interaction effects? If there is no clear reason for the choice of the current design in combination with the lack of a study group, then I would consider this a study design that is inadequate of answering the overall research question concerning interaction effects.

Minor. Figures 1-3 use inappropriate scales for their Y-axes. For GMS, the scale should start at 1 (0 is not possible) and for SES the Y-axis should show the full scale (from 10 to 50) otherwise it is exaggerating the found effect.

Overall an interesting study, but more information and some additional effort is needed in order for it to be ready for publication. I hope that the authors can find value in my comments and wish them all the best for their future research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We are very grateful for your many constructive comments, by taking into account which this manuscript certainly has a new and improved quality. Below are our responses:

Conceptual

Q1. First, it is not quite clear what type of contribution that the authors want to make in this paper, which should be obvious for the reader towards the end of the introduction (e.g., is the potential interaction of time in nature and physical activity the novelty, or is the focus on adolescents? I would suggest that the authors include a research question towards the end of the introduction to further highlight their contribution.

We have responded to these valuable suggestions by making significant improvements to the content (lines 153-165).

Q2. Second, a clear definition of what part of the population the authors consider to be “adolescents” should be included and how the age range of 16-19 years was chosen.

We have commented on this concern at lines 185-188.

Q3. Third, it is not abundantly clear why general mood and self-esteem were chosen as dependent variables for this study and how they are defined in the context of this study. The authors should make sure that their selection is motivated and that a working definition for each of these variables is provided before the “Materials and Methods” section.

We have commented on this concern in the form of a substantial addition to the Introduction chapter at lines 41-53.

Structural

Q1. First, the Introduction section is currently quite long, and does not even include the hypotheses that are to be tested. In addition, a discussion of previous research is then continued in the Discussion section (mainly pages 7 and 8), which should have been included in earlier parts of the paper, which are used to motivate and contextualize the conducted study. I would therefore suggest that the authors shorten the Introduction section and end it with the overall research question for this study and then include a Theory section. In this new section, previous research can be discussed in more detail, the dependent variables can be introduced, and for each variable hypotheses can be presented.

The revised structure of the paper includes a division into chapters Introduction and Nature and Well-being - an overview, where we have tried to address your comments. We would very much appreciate your indulgence as it was the suggestion of the second reviewer to place the research hypotheses in the Material and methods chapter.

Q2. Second, in the Discussion section a discussion of the potential limitations of the current study is missing and the potential for future research should also be highlighted more prominently.

The discussion has been supplemented with extensive commentary on the limitations of the current study and the potential for future research.

Methodological

Q1. First, there are many methodological details missing that need to be added by the authors including: (i) the country in which the study was conducted as it is not apparent, for example, which “government” the authors are repeatedly talking about; (ii) the recruitment procedures for the study (e.g., were adolescents recruited from one specific school?); (iii) how the grouping of individuals in the subject was conducted (i.e., how were physical activity and time in nature assessed and used to form groups?); (iv) in a 2x2 study setting, there should be four study groups, but one (i.e., nature exposure, but no physical activity) is missing. The authors need to address this issue; (v) the psychometric indices mentioned on p. 4 should be reported.

The Methods section has been extensively revised. These changes include lines 167-183, 185-188, 204-208, 217-220 and 234-243 in the revised version of the manuscript, and lines 442-450 in the Discussion section.

Q2. The authors should also more generally motivate why they grouped individuals based on characteristics that are not nominally scaled. Why did they not ask, for example, individuals about their average weekly time in nature (without physical activity for recreational purposes), physical activity indoors, physical activity outdoors and then use these interval-scaled values to test interaction effects? If there is no clear reason for the choice of the current design in combination with the lack of a study group, then I would consider this a study design that is inadequate of answering the overall research question concerning interaction effects.

Questions asked around Covid-19 were more pertinent in terms of general attitude e.g. I like the outdoors than specific questions subject to scaling e.g. how many hours. Why? Because this exact number was difficult to give (variable) in changing pandemic circumstances. For additional commentary on this, see the manuscript at lines 204-208 and 445-450.

Minor

Figures 1-3 use inappropriate scales for their Y-axes. For GMS, the scale should start at 1 (0 is not possible) and for SES the Y-axis should show the full scale (from 10 to 50) otherwise it is exaggerating the found effect.

The revised version of the manuscript has incorporated these changes you suggested.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to see the answers to questions Q3 and Q4 that authors do not adress and in my point of view are important questions.

The existence of table 1 is clear but to understand taht X+/- SD is for age we need to read the name of the table..... 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We are very grateful for your many constructive comments, by taking into account which this manuscript certainly has a new and improved quality.

We apologise for referring too generally to questions 3-5. Too many questions from 3 reviewers were the reason for this generalisation.

Regarding the details:

In the first two sentences of the Material and methods chapter we described the school being the research space.

The 4th paragraph of the Material and methods chapter contains an important description specifying the extent of participation in physical activity by adolescents.

In the 5th paragraph (second sentence), we have considered the place of this period of school life in the whole education system. In the same paragraph (lines 196-202), we referred to exclusions related to the physical parameters of the subjects.

As can be seen from the description in lines 202-203 - this is a school located in a city.

Reviewer 1: The existence of table 1 is clear but to understand taht X+/- SD is for age we need to read the name of the table.....

Authors:This is indeed an oversight on the part of the authors. Mention of age was made in Table 1.

Thank you for your exceptionally insightful look at this manuscript.

Thanks to you, we have found many more elements that could enhance its quality.

Kind regards,

Marcin Pasek

Reviewer 3 Report

I want to thank the authors for the effort they put into their revision. Overall the issues I have raised have been sufficiently addressed.

The only reason why I am recommending a minor revision rather than direct acceptance though is that the added sections should be checked again for spelling and logic. For example, on line 257 the authors state that 256 participants should be used in each group. I think that the size of the overall sample is meant here, otherwise the authors would have not met this criterion.

In any case, I wish the authors all the best for their future research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We are very grateful for your many constructive comments, by taking into account which this manuscript certainly has a new and improved quality. Below are our response:

Question: The only reason why I am recommending a minor revision rather than direct acceptance though is that the added sections should be checked again for spelling and logic. For example, on line 257 the authors state that 256 participants should be used in each group. I think that the size of the overall sample is meant here, otherwise the authors would have not met this criterion.

Answer: This is a significant error on the part of the authors, which has been corrected.

Best regards,

Marcin Pasek