Evaluation of the Impact of Informal Settlements on the Physical and Mental Health of Residents—Case Study Santa Marta—Bogotá, Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear colleagues,

I am glad that I had the opportunity to read your article. It brings into discussion a topical topic, namely Assessment of the impact of neighborhood informality on the inhabitant's physical and mental health.

What is the research gap that the results of this study fill? What is new about this study compared to other studies from other regions of the world? I think that the current topic should be presented/analyzed more in the introductory part from the perspective of what already exists in the specialized literature.

What were the limitations of the study?

What can you tell us about the follow up?

Sincerely,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,
We are responding to your comments in the attached file.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the article is very interesting and worth publishing. Nevertheless, I have a few specific comments:

(1) The paragraph (lines: 74-79) is too general. Please discuss this in much more detail

(2) I didn't understand anything from parts of paragraph 94-99. Please write it differently: more clearly and in more detail.

(3) Subchapter 2.1. - I suggest that you describe in more detail what indicators were included in the analysis. Alternatively, provide a reference to table number 1

(4) Subchapter 2.2. - I suggest moving to the introductory chapter. And in Chapter 2, leave only methods and data sources

(5) Table 1 and the mathematical formula (line 227) look very interesting. My congratulations

(6) I really appreciate diagrams 1-6. They are really decent and valuable. However, I have doubts whether they should not be included in the next chapter? (depends on what opinion the other reviewer has here).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We are responding to your comments in the attached file.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While this paper reports on an incredibly important issue and one in need of greater scholarly examination, in its current form the paper lacks coherency across research methods and outcomes. There needs to be much better explanation of the relationship between the presentation of neighbourhood indicators of informality, the presentation of the Equation and subsequent application of this, and then the presentation of the causal diagrams. There also needs to be better explanations of the Indicators in Table 1 - exactly  what was counted and how this was done - specifically regarding averages - and whether numbers were derived for all indicators. There is also a need to clarify the use of qualitative and quantitative research approaches.

The paper requires a total re-think regarding how the material can be coherently presented and explained.  The Discussion is the best part of the paper, but it is not clearly explained how these conclusions were derived from the actual research, rather than a close reading of the literature.  

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English written expression is poor - with the exception of the Discussion (although this requires editing). The paper requires significant work to bring the English expression up to a reasonable standard so that the message of the paper is clear - currently it is not clear.  In some sections, inappropriate terminology is used, as well as poor sentence structure.    

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We are responding to your comments in the attached file.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept the article in present form.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Authors. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised paper has substantially improved the initial submission, especially in the English writing. This is an important topic and the paper has the potential to make a contribution to better understanding the complex and intertwined nature of informal settlements and their impacts on residents' health across the life course.  In particular, the strength of the paper is its attention to the interrelated nature of multiple factors that contribute to physical and mental health problems for informal accommodation residents.  Also, using an action research framework for the study.

Nevertheless, while the manuscript is much improved, there are still significant concerns with the submitted paper and further substantial revisions are required.

It is also noted that I do not have the expertise to comment of the mathematical formula used in the research.  

The Introduction is way too long and includes material that does not belong in the introduction.  There needs to be a separate 'Background' section with relevant literature.  This should also include the material currently in 2.1.  Sub-headings to assist with understanding for the reader are also required.

The Introduction wrongly includes material related to research methods - this is then repeated in the 'Materials and Methods' section (2).  This is where it belongs. And there should be no repetition. 

The Introduction needs to include an overview of the structure of the paper.  

It is suggested that the case study site warrants its own section where it is described, and there is at least one map, and possibly some images of the informal settlements, to help the reader understand the nature of the housing, associated infrastructure (lack thereof) and the settlement geographic extent.  

Methodology section needs to include English references on action research which is research that includes participants in its design, execution and analysis. 

Tables 1 and 2 – need to improve the setting to be less spread across the page would enhance the readability of these tables.  Perhaps this will be done at pre-publication stage?   

Make sure you detail the nature of the organisations mentioned in the paper.  

Importantly the Methodology section needs to include more on how residents were involved in the study given its action research frame.  Methodology section also needs to include information about conducting site observations in the field.

Results: Some text to introduce this section is needed - coming before the tables (but perhaps this can be addressed with better table setting out).  The main issue with presentation of the study results, both in the ‘Results’ section and ‘Discussion’ is the unsubstantiated claims made in the text about the impact of different aspects of informal residency on health and the presence of evidence for them.  There is much reference to the Figures, which show interrelationships of factors impacting on health and wellbeing (which is very good and insightful) but these Figures do not back up many of the very specific claims made in the text.  There is mention of what the community expressed during the research, but this is not reported in the paper.  Accordingly, revisions are required to clarify how the claims made in the text are backed up by the results.  It may be that the authors will need to pull back on some of the claims (unless they can find references to support them) and focus more on the interrelationships between the myriad factors that contribute to the health challenges for residents in informal settlements.  Much more needs to be included from the research participants in terms of their experiences of life in the informal settlements.  This is at the heart of action research.  This will make for a much more convincing and evidential study and a very worthwhile contribution to understanding.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See comments above - English is much improved but the paper requires further revisions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We have taken all your comments into consideration. We have taken advantage of the fact that an important part of the research team is gathered in Italy to make a detailed revision of the whole document.
I hope this version is to your satisfaction.
Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper (version 3) is a significant improvement on the initially submitted paper and the second revision (although there are a few instances where expression has been complicated in this #3 version). 

This is an interesting and important study.  The key words need to be improved as does the abstract to ensure that readers wanting to know about the issues of informal settlements get to find this paper once published. For example, what is meant by ‘morbimortality processes’?  Do not over-complicate the abstract – both in content and methodological description.

 

All figures need to be sourced.

There are some incomplete references which need to be fixed so all details are included.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still some issues with English expression (minor to more significant) - especially in terms of clarifying some issues and not over-complicating the text.  This is exacerbated in sections with overly long sentences - these need to be edited. The authors need assistance to do this.

There is a need for editing assistance from the journal editors.  

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, We have taken your comments into account and have made the changes, which are in red in the document we sent again. These changes are related to the summary, the authorship of the images and the review and inclusion of a bibliography. Regarding the comments on the writing in English, this will finally be made by the magazine. We have already notified Ms. Una Li (the person in charge of the process) about this issue and we will assume the cost that this represents.