Title: The Impact of Health Coaching on the Prevention of Gestational Diabetes in Overweight/
Obese Pregnant Women: A Quasi-Experimental Study
Version: 0 Date: 25 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
This article presents a review of a quasi-experimental study titled "The Impact of Health
Coaching on the Prevention of Gestational Diabetes in Overweight/Obese Pregnant Women."
Through applying a health coaching model, the authors seek to shed light on the potential
benefits and outcomes of incorporating personalized guidance to mitigate the risks associated
with gestational diabetes and excessive weight gain.
Gestational diabetes, a prevalent health concern, poses significant maternal and fetal well-being
risks. Addressing this issue is paramount, especially for overweight and obese pregnant women
susceptible to its onset. The topic of preventing gestational diabetes and excessive weight gain
has garnered substantial interest due to its potential to enhance both short-term and long-term
health outcomes for mothers and their infants.
Major concerns:
The statement in your work is not entirely accurate when referring to the study as a "semi-
experimental" study. The term "semi-experimental" is not commonly used in research design
and might lead to confusion. The correct term to describe the design you are describing is "quasi-
experimental."
The provided statement mentions that 64 eligible overweight women at 12-14 gestational weeks
were "randomly divided" into two groups: the coaching group and the control group (usual care
group). However, this contradicts the fundamental nature of a quasi-experimental study.
In a proper experimental study, random assignment of participants to groups is crucial to ensure
that the groups are comparable at the start of the study, helping to minimize potential biases
and confounding variables. However, true randomization might not be feasible in a quasi-
experimental study due to various constraints, as previously discussed. Instead of "randomly
divided," the participants in a quasi-experimental study are typically "non-randomly assigned"
to groups based on specific criteria or conditions.
Minors concerns
In the abstract:
There is some confusion regarding the specific groups referred to in the results. The sentence
mentions a significant mean difference observed between "the two groups" regarding GWG and
total GWG changes. To ensure clarity, it would be helpful to explicitly indicate which groups
are being compared—whether the control or intervention groups. This clarification will enhance
the reader's understanding of the findings.
In the manuscript:
The authors are advised to place the references at the end of the sentence rather than interrupting
the sentence flow in the middle.
The term "gynecological population" is incorrect in this context when referring to pregnant
women or women in general. The word "gynecological" pertains explicitly to the branch of
medicine dealing with the female reproductive system's health, including issues related to the
female reproductive organs. It does not encompass the broader group of pregnant women or
women in general. In the given sentence, the intended reference seems to be pregnant women
or women at large rather than solely focusing on gynecological concerns. To accurately convey
the message, it is more appropriate to use "female population" or simply "women" instead of
"gynecological population."
Sample side
The authors mention that the sample size was calculated based on specific references, the
incidence of GDM in the usual care and intervention groups, and a target statistical power of
90%. However the rationale behind referencing sources must be explained.
Was it always the same midwife who called all the pregnant women, or were there multiple ones?
Results
I would appreciate an explanation of how the authors measured the high satisfaction reported
by women with phone health coaching during pregnancy.
Limitations of the study:
This sentence: ¨this study used a non-probability sampling method, while future studies that
use random sampling can provide evidence on this intervention; however, we performed a
randomized allocation in this study¨
The original sentence is confusing due to the placement of clauses and the use of multiple
concepts. It is unclear whether the "randomized allocation" mentioned later is about the current
study or if it is part of future studies using random sampling. The sentence might benefit from
better structuring and a more precise separation of ideas.
Coaching during pregnancy holds immense potential to enhance the well-being of expectant
mothers.I hope that you continue your investigations in this field, as there is a need for further
advancements. Best Regards