Reviewer's report
Title:Levels and correlates of physical activity and body mass index among
Saudi women working in office jobs in Riyadh city.
Version:1Date:30 November 2015
Reviewer: Janet Shaw
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. It is difficult for the reader to understand the analyses based upon the methods
as written. I suggest the authors more clearly define the levels of PA used in
analyses (sometimes this is two levels as in Table 4 on the prediction of low
levels of PA) and for descriptive purposes, three levels are defined. The same is
true for BMI. Sometimes the analyses are for prediction of overweight and
obesity (two levels combined) and for descriptive purposes, four levels are
provided.
Because the analyses address low levels of PA, should this be reflected in the
title and/or aim of the study?
2. The methods indicate that mean (SD) and median (IQR) of PA variables were
calculated, but only the median and IQR are provided. As is common with PA
assessment, the data are not normally distributed. The distribution should be
more fully described and the authors should note that only median and IQR will
be presented (this was done for PA and BMI). Was BMI also non-normally
distributed? If not, a mean and SD makes more sense.
3. Also with respect to median and IQR, it is very difficult to interpret the IQR as
one number that encompasses the full range of the 25th to 75th percentiles of
the distribution. It is recommended that the authors provide two numbers for each
IQR-the bottom and top of the range.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The authors recognize the limitation of relying on self-report of data, especially
PA. Many are now using objective measures by accelerometry as the standard
for collecting PA for purposes of collecting surveillance data. Data from NHANES
clearly illustrates the differences observed between objectively and subjectively
determined PA data. This would be helpful to read in the section on limitations
with the recommendation that objective means of determining PA should be used
in follow up studies in this population. If objective measures of PA present a
cultural limitation in Saudi women, this could be discussed as well, and the
authors can reinforce the culturally-tailored PA instrument used in this study.
2. The authors recognize that it would have been wise to use a PA-specific
self-efficacy questionnaire (p. 13, line 311), which would have been advisable
since they did choose a PA-specific social support questionnaire. Considering
that general self-efficacy can be high especially in those with high levels of
education, are the results on self-efficacy in this study just a reflection of
education? If so, this illustrates bias already mentioned by the authors.
3. In methods, the mean self-efficacy score was used to divide the group into
high and low categories (p. 6, lines 125-126), but for PA social support, the
median was used to divide the group (p. 6, lines 133-134). It would seem
appropriate use the median for both. And then in the results, the social support
score was described with the mean, but not the median as described in methods.
(p. 8, lines 177-178)
4. First sentence of the discussion (p.10 line 223) should define the women as
"working in office settings"
5. Page 12, line 278, the word "incidence" should be changed to "prevalence"
Discretionary Revisions
1. The last table (number 5) on reasons to be active and inactive would be much
more interesting if provided by level of PA. Or perhaps among those with the
highest and those with the lowest levels of PA.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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.