Title: Breast cancer treatment and recovery: pets’ roles as emotional buffers and stressors
Version: 1 Date: 18 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the invitation to review your manuscript. This paper investigates an area of
psychosocial oncology that is often overlooked in research and clinical care – how breast cancer
and its treatments relate to the experience of having a dependent pet. A strength of this research
is the innovation of the research topic and the implication of raising awareness of this aspect of
patients’ and families’ lifestyle, well-being and support needs.
As a clinician in the area of psychosocial oncology, I think it would be excellent to include
concrete suggestions regarding how health care providers and community partners can utilize
the results herein in their work. This could be in the form of inclusion of a reference to relevant
interventions or research that has explored this, or if these do not exist, it would be informative
to report that and offer creative ideas. For example, there are community-based charitable
organizations that offer free group-based classes intended to promote social, physical, and
emotional well-being (https://wellspringalberta.ca/portfolio/pole-walking/) and very actively
work to include family members/support persons. These organizations represent valuable allies
to research and health care systems when it comes to implementing evidence-based findings
into accessible services.
A piece of constructive feedback is for the authors to be mindful of the impact of important
language as it relates to a person, or group of people’s identities. For example, the term
“survivor” is used throughout, which may or may not accurately represent the experience of
all participants (e.g., those who have been recently diagnosed and only beginning or awaiting
active treatment, as well as people living with metastatic breast cancer). The terminology has
particular significance when used in line 247 to summarize the study sample.
Similarly, the authors use the term “women” when discussing the literature (e.g., line 84) and the
study sample (e.g., line 405) and it may be better to say something like “people experiencing/
diagnosed with breast cancer” to be inclusive of those who are underrepresented in breast cancer
research. In line 531, the authors demonstrate an intention of inclusivity when they suggest
broadening the scope of future research to other populations (males and survivors of different
types of cancers); it would be prudent to use consistent language that is reflective of all persons
(for example, expanding the research to non-female-identifying persons and people coping with
different types of cancers). The following resource may be of interest with respect to guidance
on best practices in equity, diversity and inclusion in research: https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/
funding-financement/nfrf-fnfr/edi-eng.aspx#5_1
Given that this is such a novel area of investigation, it is sensible that the authors adapted existing
measures developed in the context of child parenting (e.g., PCQ) for the purpose of this study.
This also allows for meaningful contrast and comparison of the experience of caring for a pet,
to that of parenting children. However, given the authors’ assertion that this is an area worthy of
further exploration and attention, it may also be important to speak to the necessity of developing
novel measures to study this phenomenon; or at least include some discussion re: the limitations
of utilizing measures that were intended to capture a similar, yet different, construct.
Lines 500-506: This paragraph reads as somewhat redundant. You may wish t consider
condensing and merging the content with other information in the paragraph above and below.
Re: Line 102 “and other parents with cancer” -  It is unclear who this is intended to represent…
Other female parents (mothers)? Women with all stages (survivors and those living with cancer)?
Line 252-254 (“A total of 154 (75%) reported having no children 5 years of age or younger at
home, 139 (67%) reported no children 5-10 years of age, and 135 (65%) reported no children
11-18 years of age”) might read more clearly and meaningfully if reported inversely (i.e.,
reporting how many people had 1 or more children in each age range).
Check for consistency re: US vs. U.S. spelling throughout.