Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Effect of Educational Intervention on Improvement of Physical Activities
of Middle-aged Women
Version: 
1 
Date: 
11 Jul 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, I was a pleasure to read your manuscript. Please find below my
comments, questions, and suggestions concerning my revision. 
Methods/ discussion
There is a limited description of the strengths and the limitations of the study.
For instance, the information about how the loss to follow-up was controlled.
What does about the internal validity? The advantages and disadvantages of
using a cluster sampling method are not describe in the document. Quasi
Experiments specifically lack the element of random assignment to treatment or
control. Instead, quasi-experimental designs typically allow the researcher to
control the assignment to the treatment condition, but using some criterion other
than random assignment (e.g., an eligibility) The authors mentioned that
"Participants were randomly divided into two groups: intervention (n = 80) and
control (n = 80)" Could you explain this decision?
It is necessary to explain, which quasi experimental techniques were used for
creating a valid comparison group? For instance, such as regression discontinuity
design (RDD) or propensity score matching (PSM).
Concerning the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, could you provide
more information about what version was applied? Did the authors experience
any issue in terms of reliability and validity?
The Results section
Might be a minor issue, but is a bit confusing the use of dash sing to separate
decimals. Using an international standard writing system is recommended
(comma or dot)
I noticed there is a slight difference between statistical difference in the control
and intervention groups concerning the type of occupation (p value 0.02) and
income level (p value 0.03). Can you comment on it?
Table 3 should say "experimental group" instead of "Control".
In table 3 and 4, I recalculate some of T-test and it is not consistent with the ones
in the table. For example:
Table 4. After intervention. Experimental vs control. 
Decision-making balance, P-value 0.44. 
Thinking I obtained a P-value 0.0095.
Finally, 
In terms of the extend of the study knowledge of educational policies and
interventions. I would like the authors illustrate the promise as well as challenges
and limitations inherent in adapting this intervention to a bigger education
research, policy, and practice in Iran.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes