Title: A postpartum functional assessment tool for women based on the International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
Version: 2 Date: 02 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Eric Lawer Torgbenu
Reviewer's report:
A postpartum functional assessment tool for women based on the International Classification
of Functioning, Disability and Health
I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript, which aims to determine the postpartum
functional assessment tool for women through the Delphi method. I believe the manuscript is
well written and it addresses such an important area in the field. However, I have the following
few comments for the authors to consider in improving the quality and readability of the
manuscript.
1. I would be expecting more than just a reference to the fifth sentence in the background when
authors began with “…Studies have….” However, provided only a reference.
2. In recent times, we have come to understand the role of caregivers and more especially
consumers (voice of patients/ active participants) rather than seeing through the lenses of
Experts. How has authors incorporated this in their assessment of the tool.
3. Authors mentioned in their research that “..15 experts from 11 cities in 10 provinces including
Jiangsu, Tianjin, Shenzhen, Liaoning, Jilin, Yunnan, Hainan, Zhejiang, Heilongjiang, Shanghai,
etc were selected to participate”. I would be interested to know which criteria was used in
selecting this particular cities. Was it based on convenience and what is that selection criteria?
4. I am curious about what the “positively high” designation under the professional title means
in Table 1.
5. How did authors decide to send round 15 questionnaires at the first round? Is there any
justification about the determination of the 15 questionnaires? Again, was it just about the total
number of the Experts group? This should be clarified.
6. I am not quite sure but it would have been better for authors to write numbers beginning
sentences in words.
7. What is the number system of Tables used in this manuscript? Where are the two other tables
and then we have Table 4?
8. It is quite impressive that just after 2 rounds of Delphi, a consensus was reached among
Experts of this study. What do authors note to be the reason for this quick consensus considering
the number of Experts and diversity of the participants?
9. I see a chunk of the third paragraph under the discussions could be best placed in the methods
section.
10. Authors mentioned that the choice of Experts for this study might impact the outcome of
the study. How has the authors catered for this limitation in their choice of the participants for
the study?
11. The use of “we” in this sentence “…we need to conduct further assessment of..” under the
conclusion is not clear to me. Could authors revise for clarity.
12. Authors may indicate within the text where Tables 2 and 3 should be placed.
13. I would love to understand how the assessment using this tool differ or is similar to other
works used in different parts of the world. Could authors compare this outcome to others done in
other parts of the world? Has the tool been evaluated by others in other parts? And Why should
it be for only postnatal women alone? Please clarify.
14. To be more technical, I wonder the Delphi method was chosen. Has authors considered other
methods such as the Nominal group technique which allows for more discussion of items and
provides enough room for evaluation. Justify?