Title: Exploring the foundations of a digital health information service for patients with
inflammatory bowel disease: A mixed method study in Gravitate-Health
Version: 1 Date: 11 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This study investigated key aspects for promoting digital self-
management among patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). It explored patients'
health information needs and the preferences of both patients and healthcare professionals
(HCPs) regarding digital IBD healthcare services. It is interesting to see data from three sources.
The manuscript provides detailed information and recommendations that can help researchers
in this area design and develop IBD self-management platforms with the desired features.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please find my suggestions as below:
Methods
1. Could you please specify the languages in which the interviews are being conducted and
whether any translation of quotes was required for the presentation of results?
2. It is worth mentioning that how the data from both patient interviews and focus groups were
analyzed, triangulated, and presented together to ensure trustworthiness of qualitative data.
Results
1. Probably change the word “density” of patients because it was unclear.  Nearly 50% of patients
with a disease duration of less than 5 years.
2. Referring to table 1, what the range 0-56 refers to?
3. Table 3, for medical treatment, could you please state the number of patients with no treatment.
What are the biological treatments? Infliximab etc? Please state the drug names.
4. By “medical doctors”, do you refer to general physicians or including surgeons and
gastroenterologists? Do you have any demographic information for healthcare professionals?
Year of practice, department of practice etc?
5. Add demographic parentheticals after quotes as patient age or duration of diagnosis may affect
their needs and preferences. Any observed patterns?
Example: "The xx' (Patient 1, 62 year-old, diagnosed for 10 years)
Discussion and conclusion
1. The platform likely allows patients to report and share patient-reported outcome measures or
past symptoms with their healthcare providers. Probably to add some insights on how the digital
health information platform application could allow data sharing with primary or secondary care
in provision of personalized care.
2. To improve the flow of the paper, consider moving the recommendations and Table 6 to the
section before limitations, rather than placing them in the conclusion.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No other comments.
Title: Exploring the foundations of a digital health information service for patients with
inflammatory bowel disease: A mixed method study in Gravitate-Health
Version: 1 Date: 11 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This study investigated key aspects for promoting digital self-
management among patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). It explored patients'
health information needs and the preferences of both patients and healthcare professionals
(HCPs) regarding digital IBD healthcare services. It is interesting to see data from three sources.
The manuscript provides detailed information and recommendations that can help researchers
in this area design and develop IBD self-management platforms with the desired features.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please find my suggestions as below:
Methods
1. Could you please specify the languages in which the interviews are being conducted and
whether any translation of quotes was required for the presentation of results?
2. It is worth mentioning that how the data from both patient interviews and focus groups were
analyzed, triangulated, and presented together to ensure trustworthiness of qualitative data.
Results
1. Probably change the word “density” of patients because it was unclear.  Nearly 50% of patients
with a disease duration of less than 5 years.
2. Referring to table 1, what the range 0-56 refers to?
3. Table 3, for medical treatment, could you please state the number of patients with no treatment.
What are the biological treatments? Infliximab etc? Please state the drug names.
4. By “medical doctors”, do you refer to general physicians or including surgeons and
gastroenterologists? Do you have any demographic information for healthcare professionals?
Year of practice, department of practice etc?
5. Add demographic parentheticals after quotes as patient age or duration of diagnosis may affect
their needs and preferences. Any observed patterns?
Example: "The xx' (Patient 1, 62 year-old, diagnosed for 10 years)
Discussion and conclusion
1. The platform likely allows patients to report and share patient-reported outcome measures or
past symptoms with their healthcare providers. Probably to add some insights on how the digital
health information platform application could allow data sharing with primary or secondary care
in provision of personalized care.
2. To improve the flow of the paper, consider moving the recommendations and Table 6 to the
section before limitations, rather than placing them in the conclusion.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No other comments.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Exploring the foundations of a digital health information service for patients with
inflammatory bowel disease: A mixed method study in Gravitate-Health
Version: 1 Date: 11 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This study investigated key aspects for promoting digital self-
management among patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). It explored patients'
health information needs and the preferences of both patients and healthcare professionals
(HCPs) regarding digital IBD healthcare services. It is interesting to see data from three sources.
The manuscript provides detailed information and recommendations that can help researchers
in this area design and develop IBD self-management platforms with the desired features.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please find my suggestions as below:
Methods
1. Could you please specify the languages in which the interviews are being conducted and
whether any translation of quotes was required for the presentation of results?
2. It is worth mentioning that how the data from both patient interviews and focus groups were
analyzed, triangulated, and presented together to ensure trustworthiness of qualitative data.
Results
1. Probably change the word “density” of patients because it was unclear.  Nearly 50% of patients
with a disease duration of less than 5 years.
2. Referring to table 1, what the range 0-56 refers to?
3. Table 3, for medical treatment, could you please state the number of patients with no treatment.
What are the biological treatments? Infliximab etc? Please state the drug names.
4. By “medical doctors”, do you refer to general physicians or including surgeons and
gastroenterologists? Do you have any demographic information for healthcare professionals?
Year of practice, department of practice etc?
5. Add demographic parentheticals after quotes as patient age or duration of diagnosis may affect
their needs and preferences. Any observed patterns?
Example: "The xx' (Patient 1, 62 year-old, diagnosed for 10 years)
Discussion and conclusion
1. The platform likely allows patients to report and share patient-reported outcome measures or
past symptoms with their healthcare providers. Probably to add some insights on how the digital
health information platform application could allow data sharing with primary or secondary care
in provision of personalized care.
2. To improve the flow of the paper, consider moving the recommendations and Table 6 to the
section before limitations, rather than placing them in the conclusion.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No other comments.
assistant