Authors' Response to Peer Reviews of “Cognitive Factors Associated With Public Acceptance of COVID-19 Nonpharmaceutical Prevention Measures: Cross-sectional Study”

<jats:p />


Major Comments
1.The phrase "The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptance of COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical prevention measures in France", in the Objectives subsection should be moved to be the last sentence of the Background subsection in your Abstract.
Response: The sentence was moved to be the last sentence of the Background subsection in the Abstract.3. The last sentence of your Rationale is not suitable for this section, so I suggest removing it.
Response: This last sentence of the rationale was removed.
4. The starting sentence of your Specific Objectives should be part of your Rationale instead, so you may want to move that from there.
Response: The starting sentence of the Specific Objectives ("As nonpharmaceutical interventions play a considerable role…) was moved to the Rationale (page 4).
5. All weblinks in the body of your text should be cited as references.The journal to which this manuscript is submitted does not allow the use of weblinks in the body of the text.
Response: All weblinks were removed from the text.
6.The phrases "EPPM factors were estimated using an unweighted least-square factorial analysis, followed by a Promax rotation, and 5 factors were extracted accordingly" and "The raw scale scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale.Higher scores in the respective scales are indicative of greater perceived Response: These sentences were moved to the methods section (page 8).
7. Tables 1, 3, and 4 still need to be updated to comply with the journal guidelines.You will notice in this link [7] that item categories like "Age in years" and "Professional status" should be in their own row while the items under each category start on the next row.
Response: Tables 1, 3, and 4 now comply with the guidelines.Thank you for the guidance.
8. As part of the participant characteristics, kindly include the mean age of participants and if the mean age difference between men and women was statistically significant.
Response: It is now stated in the Results section that "The mean age (SD) was 46.9 (SD 15.9) years, and was similar between men (mean 46.4,SD 16.3 years) and women (mean 47.4,SD 15.5 years; P=.18)" (page 9).It is also stated in the Methods section that numerical data were compared with a 1-way ANOVA (page 8).9. Regarding your statement "The raw scale scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale", there is a serious debate about calculating Likert scale scores from responses.Kindly be clear on how you converted the responses to scores.
Response: It is now stated in the method section that "EPPM raw scale scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale: ([raw score − lowest possible raw score]/possible raw score range) × 100" (page 8).
10. Kindly include your Figure 1 in the body of the text.All figures uploaded online must also be included in the body of the text, as per the guidelines.
Response: Figure 1 is now included in the body of the text (page 12).11.Kindly move the first sentence of your Principal Results ("The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptance of COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical measures and, more specifically, to measure the public's acceptance of these measures and their association with COVID-19 perceptions") to be the starting sentence of your Conclusion.
Response: The sentence was moved to be the starting sentence of the conclusion (page 17).
12. Kindly ensure that all percentages reported in the body of your text (apart from those from other studies) are expressed in absolute values in parentheses; for instance, 20% (5/25).
Response: All percentages (except for averages) are now expressed in absolute values (Results section, pages 9-10).
13. Evidence suggests that there are also issues around sex and gender reporting [8][9][10].Since sex is biological, it will be good to make clear in your methods that the sex definition was based on self-reported sex [9].
Response: It is now mentioned in the Methods section that respondents had to report their gender (self-reported sex, page 7).Estimates for "female gender" are now reported in Tables 1, 3, and 4 for clarity.

2 .
Under Rationale, I think you should start the second sentence as "This study was based on the Extended Parallel Process Model."Response: The sentence was inserted in the text as recommended by the reviewer (page 4).