An Evaluation of MINDFIT—A Student Therapeutic Running Group as a Multi-Layered Intervention in the United Kingdom

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to say thanks for the opportunity to review this article.

The article presented has a very interesting theme and important to the scientific community.

It presents the impact of a student therapeutic running group in university students mental health and well-being.

Overall, the article has a scientific and appropriate writing, including all the components of a good scientific research. The title and abstract are related with the content. The keywords are linked to the research, but two are not Mesh words, which can turn the article more hidden in data bases. The article has chapters and sub-chapters that are organized in a logic way, but maybe it’s not necessary to have so many sub-titles

Introduction allows the framing of the theme and the research itself. It comprises a sub-title “Summary”, that does not adequate in terms of the sequence of the text. 

The main goal is appropriate, but it’s sentence is not correct. 

Methodology is scientifically appropriate, despite some lack of information, especially in the presentation of the program and its sessions. Exclusion criteria of the sample are equal to inclusion criteria, but written in a negative form.

Results are adequate and complete, and the qualitative results should be more developed. Discussion is done according to the results of the study, allowing a comparison and analysis with the scientific current evidence. Authors present limitations of the study and has appropriate conclusions.

References are recent in their majority (less than 10 years), regardless the pertinence, are not according to the reference’s guidelines.

For this, we suggest the following corrections:

- Keywords should be revised to Mesh terms preferentially.

- Sub-titles and organization of introduction should be reconsidered. 

- Main goal should be corrected.

- Inclusion and exclusion need to be revised.

- In procedure, it’s not clear how the intervention was applied (duration of sessions, schedule, organization of the sessions, and other aspects). This should be presented.

- Text must be revised carefully. Many sentences are not well written or are not comprehensible.

- References should be corrected according to the instruction of the publication.

Thank you.

 

Author Response

Thanks for your helpful but critical comments on the Mindfit article. Please find the response to your comments attached. Please note these have the response to the other reviewers feedback as well. Revisions are mostly in track changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reading the article, reflected sound research methodology and intertwined two very pertinent health topics. The outcome was interesting and pertinent. The study stayed true to its purpose and was sufficiently detailed. Excellent. See details in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find attached our response to your helpful but critical feedback. The amendments are mostly in track changes but highlighted when not (for example the references). 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx