Title: Structural Equation Modeling of the Impact of Disease Activity on Inflammatory Bowel
Disease Control: The Mediating Roles of Self- Efficacy and Self-Management Behaviors
Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-While the measures are well-explained, further clarification on how each of the key constructs
(disease activity, disease control, self-efficacy, self-management behaviors) will be modeled
in SEM could be useful. Specifically, how the variables will be treated as latent or observed
variables in the analysis could be explained more explicitly. For instance, is IBD-Control-8
treated as a latent variable or summed up as a single score? Clearer details about the measurement
model would improve the reader's understanding.
-While the statistical significance of the relationships is reported (e.g., disease activity’s direct
effect on disease control, # = -0.715, P = 0.001), effect sizes could be discussed more explicitly to
underscore the practical significance of the results. For instance, how much variance in disease
control can be explained by disease activity, self-efficacy, and self-management behaviors
combined? This would help contextualize the magnitude of the effects in practical terms and
might influence clinical recommendations.
-While the discussion references multiple studies, it could better highlight how this study's
findings advance the field or offer new perspectives. For example, while it confirms previous
findings regarding self-efficacy and disease activity, it would be helpful to emphasize how the
study's findings fill gaps or offer novel contributions, especially regarding the non-significant
effects found (e.g., disease activity on self-management behaviors). Providing a clearer contrast
between this study's findings and those of prior research would help situate it more definitively
within the literature.
-The discussion mentions that disease activity did not significantly impact self-management
behaviors and that the effect was borderline significant when combined with self-efficacy.
While this is noted, further exploration of why disease activity does not directly influence self-
management behaviors in this study would strengthen the interpretation. For instance, might
other factors, such as patient beliefs, healthcare access, or support networks, explain the lack
of a direct relationship? Delving deeper into potential explanations for this finding could offer
more nuanced insights.
Title: Structural Equation Modeling of the Impact of Disease Activity on Inflammatory Bowel
Disease Control: The Mediating Roles of Self- Efficacy and Self-Management Behaviors
Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-While the measures are well-explained, further clarification on how each of the key constructs
(disease activity, disease control, self-efficacy, self-management behaviors) will be modeled
in SEM could be useful. Specifically, how the variables will be treated as latent or observed
variables in the analysis could be explained more explicitly. For instance, is IBD-Control-8
treated as a latent variable or summed up as a single score? Clearer details about the measurement
model would improve the reader's understanding.
-While the statistical significance of the relationships is reported (e.g., disease activity’s direct
effect on disease control, # = -0.715, P = 0.001), effect sizes could be discussed more explicitly to
underscore the practical significance of the results. For instance, how much variance in disease
control can be explained by disease activity, self-efficacy, and self-management behaviors
combined? This would help contextualize the magnitude of the effects in practical terms and
might influence clinical recommendations.
-While the discussion references multiple studies, it could better highlight how this study's
findings advance the field or offer new perspectives. For example, while it confirms previous
findings regarding self-efficacy and disease activity, it would be helpful to emphasize how the
study's findings fill gaps or offer novel contributions, especially regarding the non-significant
effects found (e.g., disease activity on self-management behaviors). Providing a clearer contrast
between this study's findings and those of prior research would help situate it more definitively
within the literature.
-The discussion mentions that disease activity did not significantly impact self-management
behaviors and that the effect was borderline significant when combined with self-efficacy.
While this is noted, further exploration of why disease activity does not directly influence self-
management behaviors in this study would strengthen the interpretation. For instance, might
other factors, such as patient beliefs, healthcare access, or support networks, explain the lack
of a direct relationship? Delving deeper into potential explanations for this finding could offer
more nuanced insights.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Structural Equation Modeling of the Impact of Disease Activity on Inflammatory Bowel
Disease Control: The Mediating Roles of Self- Efficacy and Self-Management Behaviors
Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-While the measures are well-explained, further clarification on how each of the key constructs
(disease activity, disease control, self-efficacy, self-management behaviors) will be modeled
in SEM could be useful. Specifically, how the variables will be treated as latent or observed
variables in the analysis could be explained more explicitly. For instance, is IBD-Control-8
treated as a latent variable or summed up as a single score? Clearer details about the measurement
model would improve the reader's understanding.
-While the statistical significance of the relationships is reported (e.g., disease activity’s direct
effect on disease control, # = -0.715, P = 0.001), effect sizes could be discussed more explicitly to
underscore the practical significance of the results. For instance, how much variance in disease
control can be explained by disease activity, self-efficacy, and self-management behaviors
combined? This would help contextualize the magnitude of the effects in practical terms and
might influence clinical recommendations.
-While the discussion references multiple studies, it could better highlight how this study's
findings advance the field or offer new perspectives. For example, while it confirms previous
findings regarding self-efficacy and disease activity, it would be helpful to emphasize how the
study's findings fill gaps or offer novel contributions, especially regarding the non-significant
effects found (e.g., disease activity on self-management behaviors). Providing a clearer contrast
between this study's findings and those of prior research would help situate it more definitively
within the literature.
-The discussion mentions that disease activity did not significantly impact self-management
behaviors and that the effect was borderline significant when combined with self-efficacy.
While this is noted, further exploration of why disease activity does not directly influence self-
management behaviors in this study would strengthen the interpretation. For instance, might
other factors, such as patient beliefs, healthcare access, or support networks, explain the lack
of a direct relationship? Delving deeper into potential explanations for this finding could offer
more nuanced insights.
assistant