Reviewer's report
Title:Do high risk patients alter their lifestyle to reduce risk of colorectal cancer?
An observational study
Version: 1Date:14 October 2013
Reviewer: Karen Bronner
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The last paragraph of the background should be elaborated.
A growing body of evidence has revealed correlations between risk perception/
anxiety/ concern on medical condition and health behaviours. You are advised to
provide more literature review on this issue and specify what is already known
and what needs further investigation.
2. Methods are not well described and structured. It is recommended to provide
more details in particular about the study methods and measures rather than
writing the following sentence: “the methods are reported in greater detail
elsewhere”.
3. Methods: some definitions are missing (especially for non-New Zealanders
readers), as follows: NZGG category 1-3, The NZ Dep2006 index of deprivation
ordinal scale, scoring method of GAD-7.
4. Methods: the construct of the knowledge assessment isn’t clear (was it a
general question regarding CRC risk factors or specific questions on the
awareness of each recognized risk factor to develop CRC?). It is important to
note that lack of knowledge on specific risk factor may serve as a barrier to
lifestyle alteration.
5. Results: please address the correlation between the 3 perceived risk
perception classification (appropriate/underestimate/overestimate) and the
likelihood of behavioural change, e.g. fibre, red meat, alcohol, as well as
correlation to level of knowledge about risk factors.
6. Discussion: the last paragraph on page 11,which provides possible reasons
from the literature for higher likelihood of dietary change should be connected to
the first paragraph that reports this finding. Can you provide reasons which are
based on the collected data rather than previous studies?
7. Discussion: “it may be easier to change diet than alter smoking, alcohol intake
or body weight” - could you support this argument with relevant studies or it is a
personal opinion?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Please, add title to Figure 1.
2. The study cohort was comprised of a limited age group (56.5-59.3)
and almost only NZ European- it is advisable to address the homogeneity of the
cohort in the result and limitation sections.
3. Please consider using the following terms: introduction, study population/study
design, data collection and study measures instead of background, participants
and definitions, respectively.
Discretionary Revisions
None.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'.
Reviewer's report
Title:Do high risk patients alter their lifestyle to reduce risk of colorectal cancer?
An observational study
Version: 1Date:14 October 2013
Reviewer: Karen Bronner
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The last paragraph of the background should be elaborated.
A growing body of evidence has revealed correlations between risk perception/
anxiety/ concern on medical condition and health behaviours. You are advised to
provide more literature review on this issue and specify what is already known
and what needs further investigation.
2. Methods are not well described and structured. It is recommended to provide
more details in particular about the study methods and measures rather than
writing the following sentence: “the methods are reported in greater detail
elsewhere”.
3. Methods: some definitions are missing (especially for non-New Zealanders
readers), as follows: NZGG category 1-3, The NZ Dep2006 index of deprivation
ordinal scale, scoring method of GAD-7.
4. Methods: the construct of the knowledge assessment isn’t clear (was it a
general question regarding CRC risk factors or specific questions on the
awareness of each recognized risk factor to develop CRC?). It is important to
note that lack of knowledge on specific risk factor may serve as a barrier to
lifestyle alteration.
5. Results: please address the correlation between the 3 perceived risk
perception classification (appropriate/underestimate/overestimate) and the
likelihood of behavioural change, e.g. fibre, red meat, alcohol, as well as
correlation to level of knowledge about risk factors.
6. Discussion: the last paragraph on page 11,which provides possible reasons
from the literature for higher likelihood of dietary change should be connected to
the first paragraph that reports this finding. Can you provide reasons which are
based on the collected data rather than previous studies?
7. Discussion: “it may be easier to change diet than alter smoking, alcohol intake
or body weight” - could you support this argument with relevant studies or it is a
personal opinion?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Please, add title to Figure 1.
2. The study cohort was comprised of a limited age group (56.5-59.3)
and almost only NZ European- it is advisable to address the homogeneity of the
cohort in the result and limitation sections.
3. Please consider using the following terms: introduction, study population/study
design, data collection and study measures instead of background, participants
and definitions, respectively.
Discretionary Revisions
None.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Do high risk patients alter their lifestyle to reduce risk of colorectal cancer?
An observational study
Version: 1Date:14 October 2013
Reviewer: Karen Bronner
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The last paragraph of the background should be elaborated.
A growing body of evidence has revealed correlations between risk perception/
anxiety/ concern on medical condition and health behaviours. You are advised to
provide more literature review on this issue and specify what is already known
and what needs further investigation.
2. Methods are not well described and structured. It is recommended to provide
more details in particular about the study methods and measures rather than
writing the following sentence: “the methods are reported in greater detail
elsewhere”.
3. Methods: some definitions are missing (especially for non-New Zealanders
readers), as follows: NZGG category 1-3, The NZ Dep2006 index of deprivation
ordinal scale, scoring method of GAD-7.
4. Methods: the construct of the knowledge assessment isn’t clear (was it a
general question regarding CRC risk factors or specific questions on the
awareness of each recognized risk factor to develop CRC?). It is important to
note that lack of knowledge on specific risk factor may serve as a barrier to
lifestyle alteration.
5. Results: please address the correlation between the 3 perceived risk
perception classification (appropriate/underestimate/overestimate) and the
likelihood of behavioural change, e.g. fibre, red meat, alcohol, as well as
correlation to level of knowledge about risk factors.
6. Discussion: the last paragraph on page 11,which provides possible reasons
from the literature for higher likelihood of dietary change should be connected to
the first paragraph that reports this finding. Can you provide reasons which are
based on the collected data rather than previous studies?
7. Discussion: “it may be easier to change diet than alter smoking, alcohol intake
or body weight” - could you support this argument with relevant studies or it is a
personal opinion?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Please, add title to Figure 1.
2. The study cohort was comprised of a limited age group (56.5-59.3)
and almost only NZ European- it is advisable to address the homogeneity of the
cohort in the result and limitation sections.
3. Please consider using the following terms: introduction, study population/study
design, data collection and study measures instead of background, participants
and definitions, respectively.
Discretionary Revisions
None.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'.
assistant