Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Portuguese Version of the CANHELP Lite Bereavement Questionnaire
, Amélia Ferreira 1, Ana Rita Abrantes 2, Cristiana Gomes 3, Joana Saraiva 4, Laetitia Teixeira 5, Daren K. Heyland 6, José Martins 7,†, Sara Pinto 8 and Olga Fernandes 9Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
ABSTRACT: the abstract comprises the content of the study adequately.
INTRODUCTION: Could the authors enlighten what they consider to be ‘cultural adaptation’? And how they employed this concept in this study? [75] Could the authors describe more clearly why they preferred the CANHELP instrument over the FAMCARE instrument?
METHODS: the translation process is clearly described and adequately performed, as well as the method of validation. The cross-cultural adaptation process is mentioned in the title but could be more clearly described in this section (see introduction). [131] Do the authors consider the selection of participants and procedure (time between death of loved one and time of interview) subject to bias risk? The data-analysis procedure is adequately described and substantiated. It may be of interest to the readers to describe the content of the items of CANHELP.
RESULTS: The data are clearly described and analyzed.
DICUSSION: [237] the limitations also described under ‘methods’ and the consequences for the results of this study the could be discussed more extensively.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for reading our work and allowing us to improve it. We believe that this version is better and clearer for any reader.
After the two reviews we received, we updated the article. These were the bigger changes we made:
We added a paragraph regarding cultural adaptation on the materials and methods section; We also added a paragraph, in the same section, regarding the timing of the interviews’ conduction; We added, as requested, the item description of the validated instrument.
Best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I have found the paper extremely interesting, especially that it touches on an issue that is so significant. The paper is comprehensible and does not feature any repetitions. The research has been constructed appropriately. The findings have been presented clearly and the discussion is related to research results. The literature has been collated appropriately. One might suggest the Authors could consider amendments broaden their analysis introducing elements referring to regions outside Portugal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for reading our work and allowing us to improve it. We believe that this version is better and clearer for any reader.
After the two reviews we received, we updated the article. There were the bigger changes we made:
We added a paragraph regarding cultural adaptation on the materials and methods section; We also added a paragraph, in the same section, regarding the timing of the interviews’ conduction; We added, as requested, the item description of the validated instrument.
Best regards.
