Reviewer's report
Title:Development of an educational intervention for patients with Irritable Bowel
Syndrome (IBS) - a pilot study.
Version: 1Date:30 October 2008
Reviewer: Anne Kennedy
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. More details are needed about how the information needs of patients were
used to develop the content of the IBS school (and what their direct input was ie
were patients consulted on the content?). Who developed the written information
that was given to patients? Was this evidence-based or related to the knowledge
of the professionals who delivered it?
2. Specifics are needed about how the self-efficacy theory and General Theory of
Nursing were used to design both the content of the education and the evaluation
methods used. It is not clear how the outcome measures selected actually relate
to these theories.
3. How were the pre-IBS school interviews analysed? Did the findings from these
interviews influence the content of the education? It would be helpful to have a
section in the results describing any analysis done on these interviews. It is a
shame that no face to face interviews were done with the participants after the
IBS school.
4. Need to justify why a generic HRQoL was used rather than an IBS-specific
measure.
5. At this pilot stage, it is important to know what aspects of the education did not
work well – e.g. the attendance was not that good given that this was a tightly
selected small group – do the authors have any information on why people did
not attend sessions? More details on why goals weren’t met or only partially met
would be helpful.
6. A more critical appraisal of the IBS school is needed in the discussion. This is
a high intensity intervention requiring the involvement of five health professionals
– do the authors think that such an education intervention for this group of
patients is something that health service organizations would be willing to pay
for?
Minor essential revisions
1. The whole paper would be improved by someone editing it to improve the
translation from Swedish to English – the grammar and terminology is clumsy
and awkward in places and there are a few spelling mistakes.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Development of an educational intervention for patients with Irritable Bowel
Syndrome (IBS) - a pilot study.
Version: 1Date:30 October 2008
Reviewer: Anne Kennedy
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. More details are needed about how the information needs of patients were
used to develop the content of the IBS school (and what their direct input was ie
were patients consulted on the content?). Who developed the written information
that was given to patients? Was this evidence-based or related to the knowledge
of the professionals who delivered it?
2. Specifics are needed about how the self-efficacy theory and General Theory of
Nursing were used to design both the content of the education and the evaluation
methods used. It is not clear how the outcome measures selected actually relate
to these theories.
3. How were the pre-IBS school interviews analysed? Did the findings from these
interviews influence the content of the education? It would be helpful to have a
section in the results describing any analysis done on these interviews. It is a
shame that no face to face interviews were done with the participants after the
IBS school.
4. Need to justify why a generic HRQoL was used rather than an IBS-specific
measure.
5. At this pilot stage, it is important to know what aspects of the education did not
work well – e.g. the attendance was not that good given that this was a tightly
selected small group – do the authors have any information on why people did
not attend sessions? More details on why goals weren’t met or only partially met
would be helpful.
6. A more critical appraisal of the IBS school is needed in the discussion. This is
a high intensity intervention requiring the involvement of five health professionals
– do the authors think that such an education intervention for this group of
patients is something that health service organizations would be willing to pay
for?
Minor essential revisions
1. The whole paper would be improved by someone editing it to improve the
translation from Swedish to English – the grammar and terminology is clumsy
and awkward in places and there are a few spelling mistakes.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Development of an educational intervention for patients with Irritable Bowel
Syndrome (IBS) - a pilot study.
Version: 1Date:30 October 2008
Reviewer: Anne Kennedy
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. More details are needed about how the information needs of patients were
used to develop the content of the IBS school (and what their direct input was ie
were patients consulted on the content?). Who developed the written information
that was given to patients? Was this evidence-based or related to the knowledge
of the professionals who delivered it?
2. Specifics are needed about how the self-efficacy theory and General Theory of
Nursing were used to design both the content of the education and the evaluation
methods used. It is not clear how the outcome measures selected actually relate
to these theories.
3. How were the pre-IBS school interviews analysed? Did the findings from these
interviews influence the content of the education? It would be helpful to have a
section in the results describing any analysis done on these interviews. It is a
shame that no face to face interviews were done with the participants after the
IBS school.
4. Need to justify why a generic HRQoL was used rather than an IBS-specific
measure.
5. At this pilot stage, it is important to know what aspects of the education did not
work well – e.g. the attendance was not that good given that this was a tightly
selected small group – do the authors have any information on why people did
not attend sessions? More details on why goals weren’t met or only partially met
would be helpful.
6. A more critical appraisal of the IBS school is needed in the discussion. This is
a high intensity intervention requiring the involvement of five health professionals
– do the authors think that such an education intervention for this group of
patients is something that health service organizations would be willing to pay
for?
Minor essential revisions
1. The whole paper would be improved by someone editing it to improve the
translation from Swedish to English – the grammar and terminology is clumsy
and awkward in places and there are a few spelling mistakes.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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