Sexual Satisfaction in a Sample of Italian Women during the COVID-19 Lockdown Period

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much, dear authors, for the opportunity to read your text. This one, although very interesting, has some areas of opportunity that could improve its academic quality and clarity:

1.  The use of acronyms without prior explanation makes it difficult to understand the abstract. It is important that all acronyms are defined at the time of their first appearance in the document to ensure that the reader can follow the content without confusion.

2.     It is suggested to elaborate on the choice of cisgender women as participants in the study, as it is mentioned in the title as a relevant aspect. It is necessary to clearly explain and argue why this group was chosen and how it affects the results of the study. This should also be included as a limitation of the study because of the ethical and methodological implications.

3.    More information is needed about the participants, such as their age, background (rural or urban areas) and educational level. These factors may influence participants' responses and perceptions, so it is crucial to include this information for a better interpretation of the results.

4.     It is essential to clarify whether the measurement instrument was developed by the authors or whether a pre-existing one was used. In addition, information on the validation process of the instrument and its reliability should be included. It would be beneficial to add the instrument as an annex so that readers can review it in detail.

5.     The ethical considerations section needs to be expanded. It is critical to detail how the project's ethical protocol was implemented, how the process was regulated, and how the data was handled in terms of privacy. Given that the data are highly sensitive, it is crucial to provide clarity on these aspects to ensure the integrity and transparency of the study.

6.     It would be useful to note whether participants are from rural or urban communities and, if possible, include information on their religious affiliation. These factors may influence participants' responses and perceptions, especially in relation to the issues addressed in the study.

7.     It is suggested that special attention be paid to the limitations related to participants' perceptions and to discuss possible theoretical and practical implications of the findings. In addition, it would be valuable to include suggestions for future lines of research that may emerge from the results of the study.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Below are the comments on the changes requested by the auditors. We also specify that changes made in the text have been highlighted in yellow, with the exception of bibliographical references.

 

 

REVIEWER 1

Thank you very much, dear authors, for the opportunity to read your text. This one, although very interesting, has some areas of opportunity that could improve its academic quality and clarity:

The use of acronyms without prior explanation makes it difficult to understand the abstract. It is important that all acronyms are defined at the time of their first appearance in the document to ensure that the reader can follow the content without confusion.

• We have revised the abstract, making it easier to read. The use of acronyms has been avoided.

2. It is suggested to elaborate on the choice of cisgender women as participants in the study, as it is mentioned in the title as a relevant aspect. It is necessary to clearly explain and argue why this group was chosen and how it affects the results of the study. This should also be included as a limitation of the study because of the ethical and methodological implications.

• As the choice of cis-gender women was more a matter of participants' selection from the database than a theoretical choice, we deleted its mention in the title and in the abstract and further elaborate the choice of this selection in the methodological section.

More information is needed about the participants, such as their age, background (rural or urban areas) and educational level. These factors may influence participants' responses and perceptions, so it is crucial to include this information for a better interpretation of the results.

• The required variables have been added to the results section.

It is essential to clarify whether the measurement instrument was developed by the authors or whether a pre-existing one was used. In addition, information on the validation process of the instrument and its reliability should be included. It would be beneficial to add the instrument as an annex so that readers can review it in detail.

• We have added the tool we developed as an appendix. In addition, we have further clarified the use of standardized tools, such as the GHQ.

The ethical considerations section needs to be expanded. It is critical to detail how the project's ethical protocol was implemented, how the process was regulated, and how the data was handled in terms of privacy. Given that the data are highly sensitive, it is crucial to provide clarity on these aspects to ensure the integrity and transparency of the study.

• We added a specification in paragraph 2.1. Sample Characteristics and Data Collection

It would be useful to note whether participants are from rural or urban communities and, if possible, include information on their religious affiliation. These factors may influence participants' responses and perceptions, especially in relation to the issues addressed in the study.

• We added the variable on the context of origin (rural/urban). However, we could not add the variable on religious affiliation as it was not originally collected. This point represents a limitation of the study.

It is suggested that special attention be paid to the limitations related to participants' perceptions and to discuss possible theoretical and practical implications of the findings. In addition, it would be valuable to include suggestions for future lines of research that may emerge from the results of the study.

• We added new insights to the limitations of the study

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors congratulations for your hard work. The pandemic was a true disaster but as any disaster an opportunity for greatness also. many achievements have been made during COVID19 era, and most of all solidarity! every aspect of human life was in jeopardy, including sexual life, hence the nececity to investigate the impact on it. 

If i may, I would like to share some thoughts-remarks-recomendations with you:

1. Please clarify the exact mechanism of recruiting women

2. Please clarify the exact conditions of women not living alone but without partner or children. Was it with family, parents or a roommate? 

3. How come and you didn't use the FSFI questionnaire?

4. I quote your words"Future research should replicate this study with longitudinal designs to confirm the directionality of the relationships and explore the long-term effects of the COVID-19  lockdown on sexual satisfaction". Such a thing obviously cannot happen since we are no longer in a lock-down status, only a retrospective analysis can be made with lots of bias, don't you agree?

5. I totally agree with you, you have a strong sample which can produce good quality data.

Again congratulations for your work, best of luck upon your future research!

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Below are the comments on the changes requested by the auditors. We also specify that changes made in the text have been highlighted in yellow, with the exception of bibliographical references.

 

REVIEWER 2

Dear authors congratulations for your hard work. The pandemic was a true disaster but as any disaster an opportunity for greatness also. Many achievements have been made during COVID19 era, and most of all solidarity! every aspect of human life was in jeopardy, including sexual life, hence the necessity to investigate the impact on it.

If i may, I would like to share some thoughts-remarks-recomendations with you:

1. Please clarify the exact mechanism of recruiting women

• The methodology used to recruit the women was clarified in the section Sample Characteristics and Data Collection

2. Please clarify the exact conditions of women not living alone but without partner or children. Was it with family, parents or a roommate?

           

3. How come and you didn't use the FSFI questionnaire?

• The absence of the FSFI questionnaire is a limitation. The questionnaire was not used as the study did not originally measure sexual satisfaction during covid, but was part of a larger study. Therefore, the sexual satisfaction part was neglected.

4. I quote your words "Future research should replicate this study with longitudinal designs to confirm the directionality of the relationships and explore the long-term effects of the COVID-19  lockdown on sexual satisfaction". Such a thing obviously cannot happen since we are no longer in a lock-down status, only a retrospective analysis can be made with lots of bias, don't you agree?

• Totally agree, this part has been removed from future studies.

5. I totally agree with you, you have a strong sample which can produce good quality data.

Again congratulations for your work, best of luck upon your future research!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the manuscript by Matilde Buattini et al entitled "Sexual satisfaction in a sample of Italian cisgender women during the COVID-19 lockdown period". This is an interesting article whose purpose was "to explore how psychological, relational, and sexual well-being might be related to and influence sexual satisfaction".

 Here are my observations:

Title

-I would suggest the authors remove the word "cisgender" from the title.

Introduction

-Line 102: Define sexting, not all readers know its meaning.

-If you insist on keeping the word cisgender in the title, please clarify its definition in the Introduction. The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to criticism. On the other hand, the term was added to the dictionary in 2015, making it unfamiliar to older readers.

Materials and Methods

-Add an “Ethical Considerations” section that further explains what the Informed Consent Statement was about. Report the effort you made to preserve the anonymity of the study participants.

Results

Table 1: The concepts of mean and standard deviation do not make sense in dichotomous answers (NO - YES). Please remove.

Discussion

-The age of the sample seems to be younger than the average age of the Italian population. If true, there is a problem with the representativeness of the sample, which the authors should point out in the limitations of the study.

-Add a Conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Below are the comments on the changes requested by the auditors. We also specify that changes made in the text have been highlighted in yellow, with the exception of bibliographical references.

REVIEWER 3

I read the manuscript by Matilde Buattini et al entitled "Sexual satisfaction in a sample of Italian cisgender women during the COVID-19 lockdown period". This is an interesting article whose purpose was "to explore how psychological, relational, and sexual well-being might be related to and influence sexual satisfaction".

 Here are my observations:

Title

I would suggest the authors remove the word "cisgender" from the title.

Introduction

Line 102: Define sexting, not all readers know its meaning.

• A clear explanation of sexting and its impact has been added in the introductions section.

If you insist on keeping the word cisgender in the title, please clarify its definition in the Introduction. The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to criticism. On the other hand, the term was added to the dictionary in 2015, making it unfamiliar to older readers.

• The word cisgender in the title and most of the text has been removed. In the section Sample Characteristics and Data Collection, the fact that the sample is represented by cisgender women is mentioned and a brief explanation is given.

 

Materials and Methods

Add an “Ethical Considerations” section that further explains what the Informed Consent Statement was about. Report the effort you made to preserve the anonymity of the study participants.

• A better explanation was added to the ethical considerations section.

Results

Table 1: The concepts of mean and standard deviation do not make sense in dichotomous answers (NO - YES). Please remove. (elimina RIGHE dalla tabella e metti nel tesTO)

• Removed

Discussion

The age of the sample seems to be younger than the average age of the Italian population. If true, there is a problem with the representativeness of the sample, which the authors should point out in the limitations of the study.

• Added within the limits

Add a Conclusion section.

• Added

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am grateful for the attention given to the comments made in the first review.

Thank you for addressing each and every comment.

For my part, I consider that the text has been considerably improved and is ready for possible publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you for your valuable advice in improving our manuscript and for this second feedback on our work. 

Our best