Individually Perceived Parameters of Residential Infrastructure and Their Relationship with Cardiovascular Risk Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is methodologically strong and the sample size contributes to the presumed findings. However, the data analysis and statements made in the paper should be approached with caution. Some recommendations are outlined in the accompanying paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you so much for your interest and a detailed analysis of our work. We have addressed all of your comments below.

 

Line 52 – we have revised it.

Line 64 – we have added the authors thoughts on possible intervention in urban planning, which can lead to a change in human behavior, promote a healthy lifestyle, and positively affect cardiovascular health of population to the relevance section of the article.

Line 107 – we have revised it.

Line 134 – we have added the section on physical activity to the results section of the study.

Results – we have formatted the first paragraph of the results section, and added a figure showing the scales of the NEWS questionnaire. The text below it describes in detail the percentage of persons dissatisfied with the infrastructure.

Line 162-165 – we have revised this section.

Line 170 – we have revised it.

Line 177-180 – we have demonstrated gender differences in persons dissatisfied with the infrastructure parameters. This section does not contain the description of the associations with cardiovascular risk factors.

Line 229 – we have revised it.

Line 258 – we have added data on physical activity that show a high percentage of people with low physical activity due to a remote location of the park.

Line 292 – we have added data on physical activity to the results section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The methodology could be improved and the end date of the study is not specified.

Repetitive discussion regarding some paragraphs already presented in the introduction, but acceptable.

In bibliographical references the DOI is not as specific as the http.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Regarding the English version, I have nothing to add.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you so much for your interest and a detailed analysis of our work. We have addressed all of your comments below.

 

This study is being carried out within the framework of the international PURE study; we have specified the end date in the manuscript (in the abstract and materials sections).

We have edited the references. We have addressed the relevant comment and edited the text of the manuscript.

 

The methodology could be improved and the end date of the study is not specified. Answer: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.

Repetitive discussion regarding some paragraphs already presented in the introduction, but acceptable. Answer: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.

In bibliographical references the DOI is not as specific as the http. Answer: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have received for review an article entitled ,,Individually perceived parameters of residential infrastructure 2 and their relationship with cardiovascular risk factors” which is being processed by the journal Healthcare.

Environmental factors, including those associated with infrastructure (especially pollution), play an increasing role in the onset and progression of various cardiovascular pathologies. Identifying the connection between these and the main CV risk factors has both diagnostic and therapeutic implications, so I congratulate the authors for the scientific research idea.

The proposed manuscript is one with impact, but I encourage authors to address the following issues to improve its quality:

Abstract - briefly presents the main aims of the study and the results obtained. Being clearly and concisely written, it increases the interest of the readers

 

Introduction - presents the problems of the theme, makes a detailed review and motivates the chosen research topic. However, I suggest the authors to insert a paragraph at the end of the section stating the purpose of the research (similar to the abstract).

 Materials and method

- the section should be reorganized and should specify separately - how the group was constituted, parameters followed (defined on the basis of good clinical practice guidelines), comorbidities (with appropriate bibliographical references), description of surveys used, statistical analysis, ethical issues

- the aspects presented in rows 82-86 should be mentioned in the results section.

- line 92 - the referenced guide needs to be updated - I suggest using the latest ESC versions

- to facilitate the understanding of the manuscript, I suggest the authors to make a table with each item evaluated with the questionnaire

 

Results

- text is not formatted - use justified

- on what criteria were the age groups chosen?

- a table showing the statistical results obtained for each item of the questionnaire should be included as an additional document

- figures facilitate the reading of the manuscript

- among the major risk factors - why were smoking or diabetes not included?

 

Discussion

- presents a comparative analysis of the data obtained with similar data from the literature, but needs to be extended

- the limitations of the research are not mentioned

- I also suggest that the authors include a section with suggestions for correcting the issues highlighted.

 In conclusion, the proposed manuscript brings to attention an extremely interesting topic, presenting scientific information with therapeutic and prognostic value, but needs major revision in order to be considered for publication.

Author Response

I

Dear reviewer,

Thank you so much for your interest and a detailed analysis of our work. We have addressed all of your comments below.

Introduction. We have added the aim of the study to this section, similarly to the abstract. We have addressed the relevant comment and edited the text of the manuscript.

Material and methods. We have added information regarding research ethics & consent ethics. We have added questions regarding physical activity (Lines 82-86) to the results section. Line 92 – we have added the mention of 2023 ESC/ESH recommendations. We have added a table to facilitate the understanding of the NEWS questionnaire scales. Moreover, we have added the study end date to this section and to the abstract. We have addressed the relevant comment and edited the text of the manuscript.

Results. We have realigned the text. The study was conducted within the framework of the international PURE study, which included respondents aged 35 to 70 years. We have used diabetes mellitus as a cardiovascular risk factor in the section mentioning disorders of carbohydrate metabolism. We have addressed the relevant comment and edited the text of the manuscript. We did not make additional tables on the results of associative relationships because the manuscript already contains several tables and figures. We have decided to show only statistically significant associations between the scales and cardiovascular risk factors in the text.

Discussion. The aim of the work is to establish associations between social factors (infrastructure parameters) and risk factors. The relevance of the research topic section contains the authors thoughts on possible intervention in urban planning, which can lead to a change in human behavior, promote a healthy lifestyle, and positively affect cardiovascular health indicators. We have addressed the relevant comment and edited the text of the manuscript.

Conclusion. We have added that the results of the study draw attention to an interesting topic. We have addressed the relevant comment and edited the text of the manuscript.

ntroduction - introduces the topic, gives a detailed overview and motivates the chosen research topic. However, I suggest the authors to insert a paragraph at the end of the section stating the aim of the study (similar to the abstract). Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.
Materials and Methods
- the section should be reorganized and should indicate separately - how the group was formed, the observed parameters (defined on the basis of good clinical practice guidelines), comorbidities (with appropriate bibliographic references), description of the studies used, statistical analysis, ethical issues
- the aspects presented in lines 82-86 should be mentioned in the results section. Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.
- line 92 - the referenced guideline should be updated - I suggest using the latest versions of ESC Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.
- to make the manuscript more understandable, I suggest the authors to make a table in which each item is assessed using the questionnaire Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.

Results
- text not formatted - use rationale Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.
- What were the criteria for selecting age groups? Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.
- A table showing the statistical results obtained for each questionnaire item should be included as an additional document. Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.
- The numbers make the manuscript easier to read Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.
- Why were smoking and diabetes not included among the major risk factors? Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.

Discussion
- Provides a comparative analysis of the findings with similar data in the literature, but needs to be expanded Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.
- Limitations of the study are not mentioned Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.
- I also suggest the authors include a section with suggestions for correcting the issues noted. Response: The comments have been corrected and presented in the manuscript.
In conclusion, the proposed manuscript brings attention to an extremely interesting topic, providing scientific information of therapeutic and prognostic value, but it needs significant revision for consideration for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your reply.
The manuscript has significantly improved, but your form of answer my observations made very difficult to me to have fluity at reviewing your modifications.
I reccommend you to write first the comment of the reviewer, then your answer. I had to donwload my peer review and be changing between three documents and it is not practical.

After reading the modified version of the manuscript and your specific answer to my observations, I consider that has improved enough to be considered for publication in Healthcare, thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language was fine.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed manuscript has been improved and can be considered for publication. The authors have responded to the requirements made.