Title: Peers Empowering Peers-feasibility of a peer educator training program to prevent
diabetes
Version: 2 Date: 06 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editorial,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. Please find some comments as follows:
The authors present a study of the Peers Empowering Peers-feasibility of a peer educator training
program to prevent diabetes.
. They use Thirty AA women between the ages of 49 to 72 were enrolled in the 4-month
peer educator training program. The participants were required to attend a two-hour Diabetes
Prevention Program session every week for 16 weeks. The sessions covered the role of the
peer educator and encouraged participants to increase their physical activity and consume more
servings of fruits and vegetables daily. We noted the number of participants who successfully
completed the training and solicited their perspective regarding the strengths of the program and
suggestions to improve the program. Paired sample student t-test analyses were performed to
evaluate changes in body weight, self-reported physical activity, and fruit and vegetable intake
from baseline to week 16.
I have a few comments:
Reviewer comments
Spelling and grammar corrections need to be done.
Abstract
The abstract was well-written and explicit.
Please type of study in methods section ( in abstract)
Introduction
Overall, I think the study background provides enough data on the current empirical evidence
and the study rationale.
Methods
In the methods section please provide type study ( intervention…)
The study could have been better designed with a longer follow up and including multiple
centers.
There seems to be two versions of the abstract, one states the analytical methods the other does
not. Which is correct?
The training program was prepared for 16 week in 4 month targeted at the intervention group.
This seems like a very long training session; would it be possible to scale this intervention to
non-study populations? It sounds like it would require a great commitment, which might not be
feasible in natural environments. The amount of time involved might reduce the likelihood of
adoption of the findings.
What were the results of normality tests? Are there any graphics or statistics? The use of student
t-test makes me to presume that the tests showed normality, which may not be likely for scale-
type responses.
Again, the authors should include the conceptual frameworks (schema) for the study. The
conceptual frame facilitates a better understanding of the link among intervention session ,
primary and secondary outcomes, design, and implementation of the intervention.
The authors failed to provide empirical evidence on the sample size determination.
Intervention
The intervention was well described.
Results
The authors vividly described the results.
Discussion
The section is well-written by the authors. However, the authors should provide plausible reasons
why longer intervention 16 week for training?
Study limitations
The study has several limitations. The authors only reported a few.  For instance, the study used
a small sample and a lack of information on statistical power (power analysis).
Other limitations include the use of self-report questionnaires with the potential for selection
bias. The authors should explain the efforts taken to mitigate the limitations and how future
studies could avoid such methodological flaws.