Reviewer’s comment 1

Author’s comment(If agreed with the reviewer, correct the manuscript and highlight that part in the manuscript. Authors must write his/her feedback here)

Is the manuscript important for the scientific community?

Please write a few sentences explaining your answer

Yes, This article has value for occupational therapy practitioners, and members of the interdisciplinary team that work with clients with cancer. It informs practitioners about and clients about the benefits of OT for the population of study.

Is the title of the article suitable?

Do you have any alternative Title in your mind?

Well titled, no alternative title in mind.

Is the abstract of the article comprehensive?

If your answer is No, please provide suggestions

Yes, however, I would like to see a sentence on the implications added to the conclusion for this abstract.

Do you think the English quality of the article is suitable for

scholarly communications?

If your answer is No, please provide suggestions

Yes, excellent quality of the written text.

Please provide your comments regarding the appropriateness

of different sections of the manuscript.

All sections were well written and consistent with the construct expected from the respective sections in a scientific journal or scholarly publication.

Do you think that the references in the manuscript are proper,

recent and sufficient?

If you have any suggestions, please write here.

Yes, current references and well cited.   I would recommend modifying the in text citation of the OTPF to (AOTA, 2020) from (OTPF, 2020).

Reviewer’s comment

Are there ethical issues in this manuscript?

(If yes, Kindly please write down the ethical issues here in detail)

None, the confidentiality was maintained of the clients, incentives were disclosed, and the project was approved by the IRB

Are there competing interest issues in this manuscript?

None that I could perceive in this submission

Do you think the article is plagiarized?

If yes, please justify your answer and send us some proof.

No, I did not perceive any plagiarism in whole or part when reviewing this article.

Do you think a Disclaimer is required to explain the history

of this manuscript?

(As in most cases chapters of reference books

are extended versions of previously published articles in some journals)

None that I am aware of

PART 3: Declaration of Competing Interest of the Reviewer:

Here reviewer should declare his/her competing interest. If nothing to declare he/she can write “I declare that I have no competing interest as a reviewer”

Guideline

MARKS of this manuscript

Give OVERALL MARKS you want to give to this manuscript

( Highest: 10  Lowest: 0 )

Guideline:

Accept As It Is: (>9-10)

Minor Revision: (>8-9)

Major Revision: (>7-8)

Serious Major revision: (>5-7)

Rejected (with repairable deficiencies and may be reconsidered): (>3-5)

Strongly rejected (with irreparable deficiencies.): (>0-3)

9

This submission was pleasure to read, well structured, good design, and logical progress throughout the submission.  

The minor revisions would include consideration for the intext citation for the OTPF-4 to AOTA, 2020. There is one sentence that on page nine that I would consider citing or rewording on Pg. 9. Yet in order to initiate and receive reimbursement for occupational therapy intervention a referral from a physician is required.  If no in text citation can be added, I would reword to convey that a referral may also be needed due to license requirements, to perform the evaluation and render intervention for potential reimbursement.