Integrating Mindfulness into the Subject of Physical Education—An Opportunity for the Development of Students’ Mental Health

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

# Though overall the submission reads well & science appears reasonably sound, there are many English language errors scattered all throughout the manuscript. Therefore, a thorough language polishing/editing/review is strongly suggested.

# Discussion section mainly the limitation section required tightening up of language.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we wish you well.

Please find attached a letter in response to your comments. We thank you and appreciate your work very much as it helps us to improve our manuscript.

We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.

Yours sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Thank you for asking me to review the paper “Integrating Mindfulness into the subject of Physical Education. An opportunity for the development of students' mental health”. Daily worries are concerning for the psychological maladjustment of the person, especially the youth, who must cope with stress related to various potentially dangerous conditions, with the likelihood of developing depression and/or anxiety symptoms and related health problems, at a physical and social level. In this context, the authors aimed to assess the effects of mindfulness practices on the ability of students to focus their attention on external, internal or kinesthetic factors, awareness in acting and acceptance.

The subject under study is certainly important, especially in the historical period we are experiencing. The article presents interesting results but, it must be improved, especially for some methodological concerns.

Abstract: Abstract is too long and: the main objective is lost in the background and method used.

Introduction: while the title seems interesting for the readers, the authors do not frame their work in the current emerging priorities raising anxiety, depression etc. and impacting negatively on the mental health, especially in the youth (refer to articles with DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911929). Then they must report the knowledge already existing and that they will consider. Finally, they must show what they want to do and how they want to do it.

Methods: the scientific methods must be better clarified. How was the sample selected and why? What is the reference population? Was a minimum sample size evaluated? How did the biases were avoided?

Discussion: the limit section is very small. I think that the authors can work on it. I think that discussion must be separate by conclusion. A final section reporting the main international contributions of the study to the literature and the implications in terms of public health must be reported.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we wish you well.

Please find attached a letter in response to your comments. We thank you and appreciate your work very much as it helps us to improve our manuscript.

We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.

Yours sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the Editor for giving me this opportunity to review this article. Mental health has always been an important topic for the youth. I am personally very interested in this topic about integrating mindfulness into the subject of physical education. However, there are several problems with the manuscript that raise significant questions about its readiness for publication at this time. 

Major:

Abstract:

1) The sections of background and method were over-detailed, while the section of results was too brief.

Introduction:

2) The authors described previous research sufficiently and clearly, but I did not recognize how this study contributes to prior studies. The authors should not say with certainty that “there are few studies that have implemented.”(P4, Line164) , refering to the article published in 2008.

Materials and Methods:

3) The sample method should be described more detailed.

4) Did the facilitator(s) who conducted the mindfulness training receive formal training for mindfulness teaching and obtained the corresponding qualification?

5) I wondered whether all the participants completed the experimtent.

6) It would be better to supplement the information about the reliability and validity of each scale originating from this study.

Results:

7) The result of the common method bias test should be explained firstly.

8) There are no basic descriptive statistical analysis results.

Discussion and Conclusion：

9) The author should be more rigorous in the discussion. Viewpoints should be based on the results of statistical analysis. For example, The opinion at the end of the firt paragragh (P7, Line 309-312) was not in line with the related results of “3.4. Repeated-measures analysis of variance mixed model (ANOVA 2 x 2)” (P7, Line 291-300).

Minor:

10)The definition of mindfulness should be marked with reference.(P2, Line 89-90)

11) Which phrase is abbreviated MF?(P4, Line 164)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we wish you well.

Please find attached a letter in response to your comments. We thank you and appreciate your work very much as it helps us to improve our manuscript.

We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.

Yours sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

the paper was improved and it is now suitable for publication

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have responded to  all  my comments and suggestions in an appropriate manner.