The Swiss Brain Health Plan 2023–2033

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review interesting and informative manuscript entitled “The Swiss Brain Health Plan 2023-2033”. The manuscript has been well developed and presented.

The content is interesting

Please

Provide clearly conceptualizing steps of the Swiss Brain Health Plan (SBHP)

Specify the study method and design

Format the manuscript according to a review paper (Protocol study)

Follow PRISMAP statement to organize the manuscript 

Please provide a section method which presenting the steps of the work

It is noteworthy that manuscript be ended with a summary of the work

 

Author Response

Response: We thank the reviewer for his valuable comments. We have vastly modified the manuscript accordingly. However, we do not propose to reformat the document significantly as we believe this is not consistent with the nature and objectives of our manuscript. We did not provide a PRISMA diagram since this is not a systematic review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review article entitled "The Swiss Brain Health Plan 2023-2033” by Bassetti et al. outlines a comprehensive plan for addressing brain health and disorders in Switzerland. It is well-structured and effectively communicates the urgency and importance of a holistic public health approach to this issue. While the manuscript is comprehensively written, there are some concerns in its present form that need to be addressed before it is deemed fit for publication.

• The abstract provides a clear overview of the manuscript, outlining the context, purpose, and key sections of the Swiss Brain Health Plan. However, the abstract is quite lengthy and could be more concise for clarity. Moreover, there are numerous grammatical issues that need to be corrected.

For example, a) “to be able to realize our potentials as individuals but also for a fair” should be “to be able to realize our potential as individuals, and also for a fair”.

1. b) “caregivers and patients organizations” should be "caregivers and patient organizations.”
2. c) “Patronage and or co-organization” should be “Patronage and/or co-organization”.

Similarly, there are many such typos and errors that should be corrected.

• The introduction effectively explains why the Swiss Brain Health Plan is necessary. However, it should also briefly touch on the plan itself to give the reader a glimpse of what to expect in the paper. While the text is generally well-written, there are a few grammatical issues and awkward phrasing that could be refined for improved clarity and readability.

For example, a) “recent peer-reviewed publications more then 1 in 3 persons” should be “recent peer-reviewed publications, more than 1 in 3 people”.       b) “and considerations on which is rooted the initiative” should be “and considerations on which the initiative is rooted”. There are many more mistakes like these; please review them thoroughly.

• The introduction of the WHO's definition of brain health and the discussion on its role in overall health are valuable. However, the narrative could be more concise and focused, as it becomes quite detailed and repetitive at times.

Ensure consistent terminology and style throughout the section to maintain a cohesive narrative. Elaborate any abbreviations at the beginning of the manuscript and use abbreviations afterwards throughout the manuscript. E.g, “Mental (psychiatric) disorders (MD)” has been used during the beginning and also in between at times. Follow a consistent style.

There are numerous grammatical errors that should be corrected. For example, a) “Europe had a brain disorder for total estimated costs of 798 billions Euros” should be corrected as “Europe had a brain disorder for a total estimated cost of 798 billion euros”.  b) “still insufficient in terms of effectivity” should be “ still insufficient in terms of effectiveness”.

·       The manuscript occasionally uses somewhat complex sentence structures that could be simplified for improved clarity. For instance, in Section 2, the sentence "Major advances were made in the targeted (precise) prevention of dementia and stroke," might benefit from rephrasing for clarity.

·       There's some redundancy in phrases like "The years 2020-2022 marked a paradigm shift in terms of recognizing the importance of brain health 'as a whole' and for the entire spectrum of neurological disorders." It's clearer to state this more succinctly.

·       Some sections could benefit from more effective transition sentences to guide readers from one topic to the next.

·       Although the manuscript is thorough, it's quite lengthy. Consider a concise executive summary at the beginning to highlight key points for readers.

·       The manuscript currently lacks a concluding section that summarizes key takeaways and reiterates the main message. A well-structured conclusion can help reinforce the plan's importance and encourage readers to support its implementation.

·       The figures and tables are not properly formatted and presented.

 

The manuscript presents a well-considered and important plan for addressing brain health. With suggested improvements in clarity, formatting, transitions, the inclusion of a concise executive summary, a concluding section and extensive grammatical corrections, the authors can enhance the manuscript's impact and accessibility.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is thoroughly written; however, there are numerous grammatical issues that should be properly checked and corrected. 

Author Response

The review article entitled "The Swiss Brain Health Plan 2023-2033” by Bassetti et al. outlines a comprehensive plan for addressing brain health and disorders in Switzerland. It is well-structured and effectively communicates the urgency and importance of a holistic public health approach to this issue. While the manuscript is comprehensively written, there are some concerns in its present form that need to be addressed before it is deemed fit for publication.

• The abstract provides a clear overview of the manuscript, outlining the context, purpose, and key sections of the Swiss Brain Health Plan. However, the abstract is quite lengthy and could be more concise for clarity.

 

Response: We thank the reviewer for his feedback. We slightly modified the abstract in order to improve the readability. However, we prefer not to shorten it substantially.

 

• Moreover, there are numerous grammatical issues that need to be corrected.

For example, a) “to be able to realize our potentials as individuals but also for a fair” should be “to be able to realize our potential as individuals, and also for a fair”.

1. b) “caregivers and patients organizations” should be "caregivers and patient organizations.”
2. c) “Patronage and or co-organization” should be “Patronage and/or co-organization”.

Similarly, there are many such typos and errors that should be corrected.

 

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out these grammatical issues. We have made corrections accordingly.

 

• The introduction effectively explains why the Swiss Brain Health Plan is necessary. However, it should also briefly touch on the plan itself to give the reader a glimpse of what to expect in the paper. While the text is generally well-written, there are a few grammatical issues and awkward phrasing that could be refined for improved clarity and readability.

For example, a) “recent peer-reviewed publications more then 1 in 3 persons” should be “recent peer-reviewed publications, more than 1 in 3 people”.       b) “and considerations on which is rooted the initiative” should be “and considerations on which the initiative is rooted”. There are many more mistakes like these; please review them thoroughly.

 

Response: We appreciate your feedback. We carefully reviewed and corrected the grammatical problems and awkward phrasing mentioned to improve the clarity and readability of the text. Also, we have added few lines outlining the goal of the Swiss Brain Health Plan.

 

• The introduction of the WHO's definition of brain health and the discussion on its role in overall health are valuable. However, the narrative could be more concise and focused, as it becomes quite detailed and repetitive at times.

Ensure consistent terminology and style throughout the section to maintain a cohesive narrative. Elaborate any abbreviations at the beginning of the manuscript and use abbreviations afterwards throughout the manuscript. E.g, “Mental (psychiatric) disorders (MD)” has been used during the beginning and also in between at times. Follow a consistent style.

There are numerous grammatical errors that should be corrected. For example, a) “Europe had a brain disorder for total estimated costs of 798 billions Euros” should be corrected as “Europe had a brain disorder for a total estimated cost of 798 billion euros”.  b) “still insufficient in terms of effectivity” should be “ still insufficient in terms of effectiveness”.

 

Response: We thank the reviewer for his valuable contribution. We have corrected the errors. However, we decided not to shorten our text.

 

 

• The manuscript occasionally uses somewhat complex sentence structures that could be simplified for improved clarity. For instance, in Section 2, the sentence "Major advances were made in the targeted (precise) prevention of dementia and stroke," might benefit from rephrasing for clarity.

 

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have adapted the manuscript accordingly.

 

 

• There's some redundancy in phrases like "The years 2020-2022 marked a paradigm shift in terms of recognizing the importance of brain health 'as a whole' and for the entire spectrum of neurological disorders." It's clearer to state this more succinctly.

 

Response: Many thanks for this comment. We have slightly simplified this sentence.

 

 

• Some sections could benefit from more effective transition sentences to guide readers from one topic to the next.

 

Response: We want to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback. However, we have opted not to incorporate these suggestions into the manuscript, as we believe they might make the manuscript longer, which is contrary to our objectives.

 

 

• Although the manuscript is thorough, it's quite lengthy. Consider a concise executive summary at the beginning to highlight key points for readers. The manuscript currently lacks a concluding section that summarizes key takeaways and reiterates the main message. A well-structured conclusion can help reinforce the plan's importance and encourage readers to support its implementation.

 

Response: We express our gratitude to the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. We have now added few lines outlining the goal of the Swiss Brain Health Plan in the introduction section already. Moreover, we have now provided a concise executive summary and concluding section, numbered section 4 at the end of the manuscript. It is also briefly mentioned in the abstract.

 

 

 

• The figures and tables are not properly formatted and presented.

 

Response: Thanks to the reviewer for this comment. We have added the title ‘figure and tables’ to the section where figures and tables are presented. However, to our knowledge the journal does not have strict and detailed formatting requirements.

 

 

The manuscript presents a well-considered and important plan for addressing brain health. With suggested improvements in clarity, formatting, transitions, the inclusion of a concise executive summary, a concluding section and extensive grammatical corrections, the authors can enhance the manuscript's impact and accessibility.

 

Response: We thank the reviewer for his valuable comments. They were much appreciated.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have examined the manuscript entitled : The Swiss Brain Health Plan 2023-2033, wherein the authors elegantly described  the "Swiss Brain Health Plan" (SBHP) to ensure adequate  brain health. Theme of this manuscript is well-presented and good enough to attract the young researchers for the further fine tuning of this model to be tested under various other brain disorders. 

Author Response

Response: We thank the reviewer for his positive review.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper by Bassetti et al. is an extremely important and interesting paper that highlights how crucial the enhancement of brain health is in today's world and in the future. It offers a wealth of information on past and current gaps and outlines strategies to fill them and to promote brain health at all levels in the population. I am sure it will be of great interest to both the scientific community, decision-makers for future action plans, and the general population. I only have a few minor suggestions for the Authors:

- Please add some details on age-related aspects. Which strategies are most useful in specific age groups and which are applicable to any age considered? Who should apply them (e.g. what could a general practitioner do? What could a II level centre do?) in your opinion? 

- Please provide some examples of precision medicine in neurology, e.g. how it could be implemented, at which levels of the health service. 

- Please give a few more examples of the lines of research currently active in neuroscience that, in the Authors' opinion, are most promising for future applications in brain health prevention. 

 

Author Response

The paper by Bassetti et al. is an extremely important and interesting paper that highlights how crucial the enhancement of brain health is in today's world and in the future. It offers a wealth of information on past and current gaps and outlines strategies to fill them and to promote brain health at all levels in the population. I am sure it will be of great interest to both the scientific community, decision-makers for future action plans, and the general population.

Response: Many thanks to the reviewer for his positive assessment of our manuscript.

 

I only have a few minor suggestions for the Authors:

• Please add some details on age-related aspects. Which strategies are most useful in specific age groups and which are applicable to any age considered? Who should apply them (e.g. what could a general practitioner do? What could a II level centre do?) in your opinion? 

 

Response: Thank you for those questions. We have adapted Box 2 accordingly.

 

 

• Please provide some examples of precision medicine in neurology, e.g. how it could be implemented, at which levels of the health service. 

 

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have added few bullet points concerning precision medicine.

 

 

• Please give a few more examples of the lines of research currently active in neuroscience that, in the Authors' opinion, are most promising for future applications in brain health prevention. 

 

Response: We thank the reviewer for his comment. More research is needed for effective prevention of brain disorders. We have added a short additional paragraph add the end of chapter 5.