Sport and Physical Activity Participation by Weight Groups in School-Aged Hungarian Children

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

In my opinion, the paper is quite clear and interesting but some changes are needed.

First of all, in the Introduction section, I would underline the scientific rationale based on current and past evidence from the literature. Then, in the title, as it is evident throughout the paper, I would refer to Hungary.

In the Discussion and the Conclusion sections, I think that major changes are needed: as you will see in the attached file, some parts are more suitable to the Introduction, while in the Discussion you should rather compare your result to other studies. Both sections should state why, based on your data, physical activity levels, sports participation, parents' support, and active travel increased despite a significant annual increase in overweight and obesity prevalence in children.

Regarding the Parent's support to children, I would advise you to take a look at this paper: 

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(16), 8698; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168698

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English form is fine, however, some suggestions have been given.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My main concern with the paper is that the researchers relied on questionnaires to collect data but descriptions there are no descriptions and definitions for the questionnaires. Identifying what the questionnaires are designed to assess is helpful along with adding the validity and reliability scores of each questionnaire.

Provide the name of each questionnaire that was used as well as the reliability and validity of the questionnaires.

Please provide a description of each questionnaire that was used, such as what did each questionnaire measure.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript compares physical activity and organized sports participation between different weight classifications in children. This includes a large sample size, a focus on a relevant public health issue, and the use of comprehensive data collection methods. However, several weaknesses can be suggested such as the reliance on self-reported data, potential sampling biases, and limited exploration of the underlying causes of the observed behaviors. Additionally, the cross-sectional design restricts causal inferences. Nevertheless, the novelty of the study can be questioned.

Specific comments:

-          Please, consider providing more information on methods/procedures, in the abstract, for better understanding.

-          The introduction could benefit from a clearer articulation of the study's research questions or hypotheses. Moreover, the relevance of the study should be better highlighted. Perhaps, how do the findings of this study fit into the broader literature on childhood obesity and physical activity?

-          The methods section should include more details on the validity and reliability of the self-reported measures. Moreover, what steps were taken to minimize biases in the online data collection process?

-          Did not understand quite well how the weight was measured or determined. Please, clarify.

-          The analysis primarily uses descriptive statistics and chi-square tests, which may not fully capture the relationships between variables. More advanced statistical methods could provide deeper insights. Please, adjust the results, accordingly.

-          The paper could benefit from a more critical discussion of its limitations and potential sources of bias.

-          More discussion should be included on how the study’s findings inform public health interventions aimed at increasing physical activity among children.

-          Please, provide and discuss the limitations of the study.

 

-          The conclusion should be more specific and objective. Then, some implications of the findings for policy and practice can be provided. 

Author Response

Please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I think the paper has now been improved.

Best regards

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised version is better, thank you!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and helpful suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on the changes and thanks for all clarifications. Nevertheless, some issues should be addressed and clarified.

 

In the abstract, please, p-value cannot be <0.00. Please, replace by p<0.001 if applicable. Also, revise and correct values presented (for example, p<0.0.2)

The methods section is improved with scientific support, but more detailed procedures should be included. For example, the sequence of steps performed until data collection so that replication can be performed, how the sample was chosen, and contacted, and how they have assessed and filled the questionnaire, …

Also, in methods, the authors did not provide information about procedures taken into account to minimize biases for online data collection.

 

Tables should be improved so that are easier to understand. Or example, participants were children? Or only their parents? What is “other” in parents?

Please, be careful because the p-value can never be = 0.00. it is mathematically impossible. This should be corrected throughout the manuscript.

Please, remove duplicate results from the text and tables. The data should be provided only once, or in the text or in the table. Moreover, the results sections should be reduced. Some information is almost discussion, and this should be more concise and precise.

 

 

Please, be careful in some sentences in the discussion section because of support. For instance, “our findings indicate that higher education of parents is beneficial, which concurs with results from high income or western countries.”. Please, provide references to support the second part of the sentence. Please, revise the discussion regarding this kind of issue. 

Author Response

Please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx