Title: Natural Patterns of Social Support for Physical Activity Participation in Newly Matched
Breast Cancer Survivor Dyads
Version: 1 Date: 15 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study aims to describe the natural support environment for breast cancer survivors and
ideal matching by describing characteristics ideal for improving PA. This is interesting work
and an important area in need of further understanding and exploration. This manuscript has the
potential for contributing to our knowledge of how best to improve social support for physical
activity in breast cancer survivors. However, there are several limitations with the design and
analysis, including limited description of qualitative and quantitative data integration, as well
as small cell sizes. Further, there is a limited description of the parent study which make it
challenging to understand the study design. Last, the conclusions could use some tempering to
ensure the data is not overextending the implications from the current findings. Since no physical
activity data is presented, we don’t actually know if a “good match” will facilitate engagement
with physical activity. Below are more detailed recommendations that I believe will strengthen
this paper and I hope that the authors find helpful.
Methods
Cite 29- Mentions that social support recommendations were provided—what does this entail? A
more detailed description would help the reader to understand guidelines for being a supportive
partner.
Baseline survey- under measures, it is stated that reasons for exercising was measured on a 4-
point scale, but 3 is described as the highest possible rating. Was it a 3-point scale or did the
authors mean 4 was the highest possible rating? This should be clarified.
When describing measurements and the scale, recommend being consistent with how they are
described. Sometimes an equal sign is used and sometimes parentheses are used.
Analysis
The analysis does not describe how participants were grouped to be good match, neutral, poor
match. Further, there is no description of how quantitative and qualitative data were integrated
to make these cross comparisons by group. Last, based on the sample size, it does not seem
appropriate to make cross comparisons by quantitative data. The cells are unbalanced and quite
small in 2 of the groups. While there are interesting trends, it does not add much value by
comparing these groups when it wasn’t powered or described at all in the analysis. There are no
effect sizes and appears to be preliminary trends. Recommend removing the cross comparisons
to strengthen the paper and describing how data were integrated.
Results
What were the characteristics of the partner? It seems important considering the goal is to match
participants to optimize social support.
Limitations
Given the nature of the pandemic being socially isolating, these results should be interpreted
with caution. Since there is no matched control, we have no way of telling how much these were
influenced by historical context. Recommend describing this as a limitation.
Conclusions
There is a bit of overreach with the conclusions. Without any actual PA data, we don’t actually
know if these a good match or certain characteristics facilitate PA engagement.