Psychological Distress and Quality of Life of the Care givers of the Persons with Mental Disabilities

T SankaraPandian

Ph.D Research Scholar, Department of Social Work, Bharathier University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

V Lakshmanapathi

Ph.D Research Guide, Department of Social Work, Bharathiar University Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date


Accepted Date


Published Date



Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

Present research has been done with an aim to give an overview of psychological distress and quality of life of the caregivers of the persons with mental disabilities. The primary objective of the present study is to find out the relationship between the level of Psychological Distress and Quality of Life among the caregivers of Persons with Mental Disabilities (PMD). The study was done to understand the selected socio-demographic profile of the caregivers of the PMD, to measure the level of Psychological Distress & Quality of Life (QOL) of the PMD and to find out the relationship between the Psychological Distress & QOL of the PMD.

Major Comments

  1. Abstract is main part of any research study. The paper is missing the abstract which will give a narrative view about the entire study, analysis, findings and etc. So, the author of the paper should include an abstract which will give the summarized content of whole study and keywords of the study.
  2. Period and area of the study not given in anywhere of the study. The title is common not particular for any area or any hospitals or any community. So the researcher has to give clear-cut information on this.
  3. There was no mention of the limitations of the study, one of which is the apparently high dropout rate. Also, mention how your results compare to (reference given to author) another study which was published very recently.
  4. There is no information on the review of related literatures. If this study is first hand study the researcher should produce valid proof or can include the reference details on the study.
  5. Conclusion of the study is not a complete one. It will create diverse thinking about the entire study. The other readers of the paper can’t get the exact figure of result from the conclusion given in the paper. The author should write the conclusion based on the title, research findings.
  6. Suggestions are not based on the findings of the study. Researcher can consider the findings of the study before completing the suggestion part.
  7. Researcher can be highlight the research gap and pave the way for future research.

Minor Comment

  1. Clumsy of information are availing in the paper. It has to be structured as per the rules and requirements of article writing.
  2. Too many information has given randomly which is not particularly meet out the need for the study. The author should eliminate some data which is nor relevant to the study.
  3. For every reference there should be a footnote in the relevant pages.

Associate Editor’s Critique

The study has much strength where there was minor weakness also. The very important needed information of the study like abstract of the study, research methodology used and reviews of literature are missing. The author should include all the needed information for the study to strengthen the value of the paper.

Constructiveness of Comments

The review committee has given the constructive comments to the author /researcher.

Level of Detail of the Review

The review is fairly detailed, but the reviewer missed data inconsistence in the required field. There are minor corrections to be taken place before the final review.

Substantiation of Comments

The reviewer made comments on the paper with references.

Was the Review Biased?

The study was reviewed under ‘nil’ biased basis.

Recommendation from the Reviewer

I recommend that, this paper be accepted after the above mentioned minor revisions.