The Impact of Pain, Threat Perception and Emotional Distress on Suicide Risk in Individuals with Colorectal Cancer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the changes made.

Best regards

Author Response

Coment 1: 

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the changes made.

Best regards

 

Response: 

We appreciate the reviewer's kind words.
It has been a pleasure to improve the manuscript thanks to their suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all reviewer concerns and have greatly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Coments 1: The authors have addressed all reviewer concerns and have greatly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's kind words.
It has been a pleasure to improve the manuscript thanks to their suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting article but it does not include in a transversal way the metaparadigms of nursing such as care. The impact from the profession. I consider that it is more an argument of mental health and psychology, not specific to nursing and should be submitted to another more generic journal such as Healthcare, for example from MDPI.

Author Response

Comments 1: It is an interesting article but it does not include in a transversal way the metaparadigms of nursing such as care. The impact from the profession. I consider that it is more an argument of mental health and psychology, not specific to nursing and should be submitted to another more generic journal such as Healthcare, for example from MDPI.

Response: 

 

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your perspective and understand your concerns regarding the focus on the metaparadigms of nursing, particularly in terms of the profession's impact on patient care.

We acknowledge that the primary focus of our study is on psychological factors such as pain perception, threat perception, and emotional distress, which are closely related to mental health and psychology. However, we believe that these factors are highly relevant to the field of nursing, especially in the context of patient-centered care for individuals with chronic conditions such as colorectal cancer.

Nurses play a crucial role in the holistic management of cancer patients, not only by addressing their physical needs but also by providing psychological support and fostering a therapeutic environment that can significantly impact patient outcomes. The emotional and psychological well-being of patients is integral to the nursing metaparadigm of "person," which encompasses the holistic care of the individual.

In light of your feedback, we have added a discussion on the specific contributions of nursing to the care of colorectal cancer patients within the framework of our study. This includes the role of nurses in assessing and managing psychological distress, facilitating communication between patients and other healthcare professionals, and providing education and support that addresses both the physical and emotional needs of patients.

We hope these additions satisfy your concerns and demonstrate the relevance of our work to the field of nursing. We believe that by highlighting the critical role of nurses in addressing both the psychological and physical aspects of patient care, our manuscript aligns well with the objectives of the special issue on chronic disease.

Thank you for your constructive feedback, which has allowed us to improve the manuscript.

Best regards,

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the manuscript submitted for review interestingly presents an important public health problem, which is the risk of suicide among cancer patients.

However, I have a few comments:

1. "Introduction" - I propose to develop the description of the nurse's role in patient care in the discussion, not at the introduction stage (lines 73-82)

2. "Materials and methods" - corrected subsection numbers; I suggest moving the descriptive statistics of the study group and details about the diagnosis to the results (96-100)

3. the purpose of the study is repeated many times in the manuscript [apart from the introduction, e.g. in the description of the method (167-168) or in the discussion (226-227)] - there is no need for this

4. I suggest removing Figure 1 (the content comprehensively describes the results obtained) or presenting the results in a different graphical form

5. lack of scientific discussion based on the results of other studies; I propose to expand the discussion in this respect

6. the discussion does not cover the topic of nursing care, which includes both an introduction and a summary; I propose to move the fragment of the summary (277-283), similarly to the fragment from the introduction (73-82), to the discussion

7. although the need for psychological support is emphasized in the discussion, examples of such support appear only in the summary (288-290); I propose to discuss this issue in detail at the discussion stage

8. the study has significant limitations, I propose to mention them at the end of the summary (264-273)

9. the bibliography is well-selected, but contains some older items, so I recommend updating them whenever possible.

Best Regards

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Methods - The authors should provide more detail regarding colorectal cancer staging. What staging guidelines were used? What characterizes the different stages? The authors should also move all statistics to the Results section instead of reporting the percent of participants at each cancer stage within the Methods section.

Comment 2: Results - The authors note that "According to their diagnosis, 52.11 % of the sample suffered from colon cancer, 23.94 % rectal cancer and the other 23 .94 % sigmoid cancer." I advise avoiding the term 'suffered from' because that is a qualitative assessment and it is impossible given the current study design to know if patients were indeed experiencing suffering from their disease process. I advise revising to, "Study participants carried a diagnosis of colon cancer (52.11%), rectal cancer (23.94%), or sigmoid cancer (23.94%).

Comment 3: It is unclear why sigmoid cancer is separated from colon cancer. The sigmoid is part of the colon. Please clarify and revise appropriately. I advise either combining colon cancer and sigmoid cancer as 'colon cancer' or if the author are able they may also consider separating by anatomical region, such as right colon vs. left colon (these regions carry prognostic as well as surgical management differences) or as cecum/ascending colon vs. transverse colon vs. descending colon vs. sigmoid colon.

 

Author Response

please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a paper that does not meet the objectives of the journal  in the metapradigms of nursing such as care, nursing already has instruments to diagnose the risk of suicidal behavior from the perspective of the profession as established by the NANDA diagnoses, for this reason I reject the publication of this article in this journal and I invite you to publish it in a journal relevant to the topic or more generic of the MDPI such as Healtchare for example, in addition there are no nursing researchers or academics involved in this paper who could give their contribution or explain the limitations of the absence of the phenomenon from caring sciences

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf