05571689

August 14, 2025, 14:37

Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript

Does the reader have a conflict of interest?

The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories

Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.

This is a well-designed and clearly articulated case-control study that investigates the psychological predictors of Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA) in children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) in Saudi Arabia. The authors use the Health Belief Model (HBM) as a theoretical framework but uniquely introduce and test "perceived understanding" as a key predictive construct. The central finding—that a caregiver's cognitive understanding of diabetes management is a more powerful predictor of adherence and DKA prevention than their emotional perceptions of severity or susceptibility—is both compelling and clinically significant. The study is methodologically sound for its design, and its findings offer a valuable, practical contribution to pediatric diabetes care and health behavior theory. However, there are few weaknesses that can taken into account to further increase the value of the study. 1. Use of modified scales: The authors correctly acknowledge that they adapted items from existing validated tools. While they demonstrated good internal consistency for most scales, the Cronbach's alpha for "perceived susceptibility" was only 0.68. This is generally considered the lower limit of acceptability and may have weakened its potential predictive power in the model. To build on this excellent work, the authors should consider formally validating their modified "perceived understanding" scale in a larger, more diverse Saudi population to create a robust instrument for future studies. 2. Extremely high correlations: The correlation coefficients between perceived understanding and the three adherence behaviors (r = 0.93 to 0.95) are unusually high for psychosocial research. This could suggest a degree of tautology or item overlap between the "understanding" and "adherence" scales—that is, the questions used to measure the two constructs may be assessing very similar underlying concepts. While this does not invalidate the primary finding, it is a point of methodological consideration. The authors could briefly address the very high correlation in the discussion as a point of interest, perhaps speculating on the conceptual overlap and how future instruments could be refined to better distinguish between cognitive understanding and the enactment of that understanding (adherence). 3. Single-center study: The research was conducted at a single tertiary military hospital in Riyadh. This limits the generalizability of the findings to other regions in Saudi Arabia or to different types of healthcare settings (e.g., non-military, rural clinics) where educational resources and patient populations may differ. 4. Caregiver-reported data: The reliance on caregiver reports for adherence behaviors is a potential source of social desirability and recall bias. This is a common and often necessary limitation in pediatric research but remains a weakness compared to objective adherence data (e.g., glucometer downloads, pharmacy records). Future studies should aim to incorporate objective measures of adherence to complement the caregiver-reported data and strengthen the validity of the findings. 5. Longitudinal design: A prospective, longitudinal study could establish the temporal relationship between improving understanding and subsequent improvements in adherence and clinical outcomes (e.g., reduced DKA incidence), thereby moving from correlation to demonstrating causality.

First, thank you very much for your professional comments on the article published in World Journal of Diabetes. Second, we read your comments with great interest. You are welcome to format your valuable comments into a Letter to the Editor and submit it online to World Journal of Diabetes at https://www.f6publishing.com. There are no restrictions on the number of words, figures (color, B/W) or authors for a Letter to the Editor. In addition, the article processing charge will be exempted for this Letter to the Editor. As with all articles published by the Baishideng Publishing Group, the Letter to the Editor will be published online after completing peer review. The guidelines for a Letter to the Editor can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/219. Finally, we look forward to receiving your high-quality Letter to the Editor, which will promote academic communication and lead the development of this discipline.