Peer Review of “Determinants of Periodic Health Examination Uptake: Insights From a Jordanian Cross-Sectional Study”

This is a peer-review report for “Determinants of Periodic Health Examination Uptake: Insights From a Jordanian Cross-Sectional Study.”

Round 1 Review

The following items were noted in this paper [1].

• Periodic health examination (PHE) uptake: Only 27.1% of participants underwent a PHE in the last 2 years.
• Predictors: Significant predictors include recent visits to a primary health care facility, monthly income, and knowledge about PHEs and preventive health measures.
• Nonsignificant factors: Gender, marital status, smoking status, and BMI did not show a significant association with PHE uptake.

Strengths

1. Comprehensive analysis: The study employs a robust methodology, combining descriptive, inferential, and multivariate statistical techniques to provide a thorough understanding of PHE uptake.
2. Significant predictors identified: Key factors influencing PHE uptake were identified, offering valuable insights for health care providers and policy makers.
3. First of its kind in Jordan: This study fills a gap in existing knowledge by being the first to investigate PHE uptake in Jordan.

Negative Points and Areas for Improvement

Cross-Sectional Design

• Limitation: The study’s design limits the ability to establish causality.
• Improvement: Future research could benefit from a longitudinal approach to better establish causal relationships between the identified predictors and PHE uptake.

Convenience Sampling

• Limitation: This method may introduce selection bias, and the online survey format may lead to measurement bias.
• Improvement: Employing a more randomized and stratified sampling method could enhance the representativeness and validity of the findings.

Limited Generalizability

• Limitation: Results may not be generalizable to populations outside of Jordan or those not included in the sample.
• Improvement: Expanding the study to include diverse populations and different geographic regions would provide a more comprehensive understanding of PHE uptake.

Survey Instrument

• Limitation: The questionnaire’s comprehensiveness and relevance to the Jordanian context might not have been fully ensured.
• Improvement: Pretesting the survey with a larger and more varied group, followed by adjustments based on feedback, could improve its applicability and accuracy.

Behavioral Factors

• Limitation: The study did not find a relationship between behavioral factors and PHE uptake, which contradicts findings in other contexts.
• Improvement: A more detailed investigation into cultural and societal influences on health behaviors in Jordan is needed to clarify these results.

English Language and Clarity

• Limitation: The manuscript contains some grammatical errors and awkward phrasings, which can detract from its readability.
• Improvement: A thorough review and editing for language and clarity by a native English speaker or professional editor would enhance the manuscript’s quality.