Title: A postpartum functional assessment tool for women based on the International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
Version: 2 Date: 11 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
It is an interesting topic, but it is very difficult to follow, and my major concerns are written
below.
The aim is not clear in abstract it says, “….this study aims to determine the postpartum functional
assessment tool for women”, but also in the abstract it says “ ….were analyzed to test the
reliability of the assessment tool” and in the method it says “Content validity…..” Confusing
to know what is studying?
Text is written about changes in women’s life, but in different ways, like :…..physical and
psychological changes in women's life (in abstract) ……critical transition period for the mother,
the baby, and , the family at the physical, psychological, and social levels (first sentence in the
background), and To support the biopsychosocial approach….(background page 2).
In the manuscript it is written about ICF as a theory. My opinion is that it is not a theory it is a
model: “The ICF conceptualizes a person's level of functioning as a dynamic interaction between
her or his health conditions, environmental factors, and personal factors. It is a biopsychosocial
model of disability, based on an integration of the social and medical models of disability”. That
must be clarified.
Under the heading “Screening and establishment of the ICF item pool and development of
the initial questionnaire” It is about that, but it is very hard to understand which International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health is used and how was the initial questionnaire
developed? Is it the one by Bulhões É R F N et al or is it based and developed from another one?
It must be clearer and more explained how it is used.
The method and result are not clear.
Why not use the values "very important", "important", "moderately important", "not very
important" and "not important" in the tables and not the points 5 points, 4 points, 3 points, 2
points and 1 point, then it is easier to follow. How was the decision in relation to the components
for example “Body functions component” it is not in the supplementary file.
Before presenting Table 1 it is important to summarizing it in text above the table. Information
about the experts is collected and presented in table 1. But no information in relation to gender
is in the table, but collected?
The result in relation to round 1 and 2 must be clearer which item did not fulfill the criteria. It
must be presented in a more detailed way.
Personal factors, as it is written now it can not be understood. Which was the reason behind
choosing the factors: Age, Educational background, Economical background, Occupational
background, Position in the family, Personal attitudes, Lifestyle.
The discussion must be developed, now some parts can be rewritten and moved to the results.
The results are not discussed. There are many important results to discuss for example, why are
items scored as not very important from the first to the second round.
A detail in the text: In this study, the item pool of postpartum functional assessment for women
was constructed based on ICF (a total of 83 items, detailed data are shown in Table 1), it must
be in a supplementary file and not Table 1.
All references are not written in a proper way.