Online Review form-
Is the abstract of the article comprehensive?
If your answer is No, please provide suggestions
Reviewer's comment
1. No. Could be improved by stating 1) the settings where the literature was sourced and how it relates to settings of the study-Brazil/Latin America; 2) the search words are limited to Care giver COVID-19 and AD. The search did not include isolation/ lockdowns and yet this is a key variable the author is trying to analyse. The author should comment on the justification for the three search words and why the object of the study (COVID-19 Isolation commonly called Lock downs/ social distancing).
Author’s comment: We have included the word ” global” since we were not interested in an specific countries and papers from studies all over the world were included.
Online Review form:
Do you think the English quality of the article is suitable for scholarly communications?
If your answer is No, please provide suggestions
Reviewer's comment
2. Generally good. Has some typos that should be corrected.
Author’s comment: corrected.
Online Review form- Please provide your comments regarding the appropriateness of different sections of the manuscript.
Reviewer's comment
3. Overall, the manuscript is well written and comprehensive but can be improved. The title and abstract could benefit from stating the settings of the research. In the Methods and results section- The authors assessed quality of the articles but does not state the key quality considerations assessed. The authors should more clearly include how quality of the articles was assessed. The analysis table summarizes key information on each article such as title, year published, key findings but do not include country of the study, type of study and sample size. The authors should include country where the research was conducted, sample size. There is no section on limitations or strengths of the study and methods used. Integrative Lit Review has a limitation of combining several different methodologies and study designs which may lead to problems with accuracy, bias, or rigor. Similarly- strengths are not analysed- such as a good approach to evaluating the strength of the scientific evidence, identifying gaps in current research, identifying the need for future research, bridging between related areas of work, identifying central issues in an area, generating research questions, identifying a theoretical or conceptual framework, and exploring which research methods have been used successfully. While there are no human subjects involved in the research, there is no section that states ethical considerations. A comment on this might be useful.
Author’s comment: Included.
Online Review form: Do you think that the references in the manuscript are proper, recent and sufficient? If you have any suggestions, please write here.
Reviewer's comment: All references and citations are relevant and recent.
Online Review form: Are there ethical issues in this manuscript?
Reviewer's comment: None
Online Review form: Are there competing interest issues in this manuscript?
Reviewer's comment: None
Online Review form: Do you think the article is plagiarized?
Reviewer's comment:No evidence of plagiarism.