Diabetes Mellitus—Digital Solutions to Improve Medication Adherence: Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A review article by Georgieva et al. entails the role of digital technologies in improving the rate of medical adherence and consequently the success of treatment regimes. The article is well-written. Few minor points to be considered by authors:

- The first paragraphs of the introductory sections appear without numbered citations; though references #2 to 9 appear without linked citations. This might be caused by a technical issue in the reference management software, Please fix!

- Line 55: IDF not IFD. List the name of the International Diabetes Federation in full first, then put its abbreviation in brackets.

- When referring to "Type 2 Diabetes" it is recommended to abbreviate as T2D and to keep it consistent throughout the manuscript. Please fix the following lines: 84, 87, 111.

- Line 129: don't start paragraphs with an abbreviation, write in full!

- Table 3. Present the third (benefits) and fourth (barriers) columns as bulleted lists.

The English of the manuscript is of an acceptable academic quality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to the authors:

Here are some critical comments on the provided data in the manuscript:

1: Limited Data and Generalization: The abstract begins by stating that medication adherence is a major problem, but it doesn't provide a specific source or data to back up this claim. It mentions only a 50% adherence rate in developed countries without citing the source or specifying which countries. This lack of concrete data weakens the foundation of the review.

2: Lack of Current Data: The abstract mentions studies conducted up to August 2023 but doesn't provide any specific data or findings from these studies. It's essential to include key findings and statistics to make the abstract more informative.

3: Overemphasis on Benefits: The abstract predominantly highlights the benefits of digital health technologies for medication adherence, such as improved glycemic control and patient engagement. While these benefits are important, it should also address potential drawbacks or limitations of these technologies to provide a balanced view.

4: Inadequate Discussion of Barriers: The abstract mentions barriers briefly but lacks a comprehensive analysis. It is crucial to delve deeper into these barriers, discussing their implications on the effectiveness and adoption of digital health technologies for medication adherence.

5: Lack of Context: The abstract introduces the Chronic Care Model (CCM) but does not explain it or provide context for readers who may not be familiar with this framework. Providing a brief explanation of the CCM would enhance understanding.

6: Absence of Recommendations: The abstract concludes by stating that ongoing research is necessary to fine-tune interventions. It would be beneficial to include some recommendations or insights into potential areas for improvement based on the findings of the review.

7: Clarity and Formatting: The abstract could benefit from improved formatting for clarity. The information is presented in a dense, paragraph-like format, making it challenging to read and extract key points. Using bullet points or subheadings could enhance readability.

8: Citation and Attribution: The abstract includes references to specific studies but does not provide complete citations (e.g., publication date, journal name, volume, page numbers) for these studies. Complete citations are essential for readers who wish to explore the referenced research further.

9: Language and Clarity: Some sentences in the abstract are quite long and complex, making them challenging to follow. Simplifying the language and sentence structure would improve readability and comprehension.

10: Data Presentation: The abstract mentions specific findings from studies (e.g., percentage reductions in HbA1c levels) but does not provide a summary or comparison of these findings. Including a concise summary of key results would help readers grasp the overall impact of digital health technologies on medication adherence.

In summary, the manuscript could be improved by providing more specific data, discussing barriers in greater detail, and presenting information in a clearer and more reader-friendly format. Additionally, providing context for the Chronic Care Model and citing sources accurately would enhance the quality of the manuscript.

 

 

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I do not have further comments.