Title: Effects of sexual counseling and education based on self-efficacy theory on the sexual
function of women with breast cancer
Version: 1 Date: 21 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Title:   Effects of sexual counseling and education based on self-efficacy theory on the sexual
function of women with breast cancer
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:
The manuscript presents " Effects of sexual counseling and education based on self-efficacy
theory on the sexual function of women with breast cancer " which is interesting. However,
the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Many parts are unclear.
Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify
recommendation for publication.
For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties
and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract
and introduction.
Abstract:
I would suggest providing the subjects' information in the abstract.
What was the diagnosis criteria for subjects?
No explanation was given about the questionnaires, problem statement, methodology and the
conclusion!
What was your analytical method?
The method part is incomplete.
Introduction:
There is no high coherence to express the research approach.
Authors must add new references to manuscript from the confident English journal.
The structure of the introduction is weak (problem statement, scientific gap …).
Where are the hypotheses or the study questions? Authors need to provide rationales and
hypotheses in a clearer and more precise manner in the introduction.
I feel the introduction needs more work to better structure it, make it significant/important, and to
be able to emphasize the contribution of the current study to the existing literature more clearly.
Can you also more explicitly formulate research questions with regard to the study question(s)
or related hypotheses that you can come back to in the discussion afterward?
Method:
The method section requires more details. I would expect to see the design of this study, and
how the author(s) aimed to analyze their hypotheses.
the mean and standard deviation (x ##S.D.)
What was the diagnosis criteria for participants?
It is better to present the work process as a flowchart.
Results
Structure of tables is not standard.
Conclusion:
Discussion and conclusion are not so strong. The authors should properly articulate the variables
in the discussion of the results. It need to be rephrased to a considerable extent and written
much more concisely. In the discussion section, the author should add explanation of results.
The authors make correct influences from research design and data analyses and link findings
back to original hypotheses and proposes of the study.
In the contribution section, the paper should make a theoretical contribution, fill gaps in current
knowledge.
Moreover, the manuscript could be substantially improved by relying and citing more on recent
literatures about self-efficacy theory on the sexual function such as the followings:
Gholizadegan Rayat et al. (2023). Effectiveness of Psycho#Religious Sexuality Education upon
Anger and Depression of Iranian Female Adolescents: The Relationship of Quality Family
Relationships and Birth Order. Journal of Religion and Health (2023) 62:1070–1089.
Saffariantoosi, et al. (2024). The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior in
the relationship between career self-efficacy and career success among construction project
managers in Mashhad. Current Psychology, 1-14.
Ensandoost, et al. (2021). The Effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on
Pain Perception and Pain Self-Efficacy in Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.
Rehabilitation, 8(1), 25-34.
Based on the above comments the claims in the discussion made cannot be substantiated, so the
authors should re-write the paper in a more logical way in order to be much clearer for readers.
I appreciate the authors' efforts but it is one good reason more for trying again to express their
ideas in a more generally acceptable and grammatically correct way.
Regards.