Knowledge and Attitudes around First Aid and Basic Life Support of Kindergarten and Elementary School Teachers and Parents in Taif City, Saudi Arabia
, Matooqa Abdulkareem Alnemari 2, Manar Abdullah Altowairgi 2, Atheer Hammad Altowairqi 2, Nouf Mohammed Alshamrani 2, Maryam Aljaid 1, Sultan Al-Malki 1, Abdullah Khayat 1, Ahmad Alzahrani 1 and Anwar Shams 3,4,5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, I appreciate the work you have done as it is clear from the results that there has been a lack of such activities so far.
The study has several limitation that you had clearly addressed in the paper. I see another one: you are placing teachers and parents into the same cohort. I wonder if the results were more representative adn informative if the groups were separated or if you focused on teachers only. In its current form we do not know if and to what degree these two populations intersect and if that matters at all. Some teachers are also parents of children in the selected age group. Does that interfere with the analysis of the results at all?
In the Introduction section please specify the first two references - what country/region do the numbers relate to?
It would also be helpful if you provided some insight into the current state regarding First Aid and/or BLS courses that are available in the region (availability, accessibility, organized by whom, target populations?).
Lines 108 thru 114 of the Introduction belong to the Discussion section not Introduction.
Methods
Please describe the setting in more detail - it is not clear how big Taif region/city is, population size etc.
The tools of Data Collection should be described in more detail here - the definition of knowledge levels should be included here (instead of in the Results section (lines 195-198). Also how was attitude assessed, what was considered positive attitude? It is also not clear whether the tool as a whole was validated or just the knowledge part?
Statistical tests used in the analysis should be mentioned.
Only few minor typos and minor issues that can be improved with minor revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article. The article is interesting, but it needs to expand the literature, complete the discussion and major language corrections especially concerning the correct names used in resuscitation and first aid area.
1. please analyze whether the conclusions are sufficiently precise. Admittedly, the conclusions can not be a duplication of results, but nevertheless should be more based on the results obtained.
2. please analyze whether the Recommendation paragraph after the Conclusions should not be partially included in the conclusions and removed.
3. in the discussion section there are too few references to the global literature, this topic has been analyzed many times and deserves a much broader discussion based on a more extensive literature. Please check how many literature items are possible for this type of article in our journal and maximize the opportunity to refer to publications of authors from all over the world.
4 Please describe Figure 1 according to the requirements of the journal, including changing the word percent to %. "first step if person breathing but no response to" cannot be given in abbreviated form please change the figure.
5. please rework all figures so that they comply with the requirements of the journal. It is about their description, ane given on the figures and the graphic design.
6. the phrase "1 press/1 second" should be changed to 1 compression/1 second.
7. what is the appropriate depth and speed for chest compressions -> Replace speed with rate.
8. please change the format of the participant survey to make it more readable. What I mean is to arrange the formatting of the text in a different way, so that it is more readable, and the boundaries between questions and answers should be pronounced
9.There are a lot of papers on this topic, so the introduction should better justify the need for this type of research,
The authors do not use the correct nomenclature for CPR and first aid.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors addressed all comments correctly. I have no further comments on the manuscript.
