Reviewer’s report
Title: 
“I’ll tell you what’s important to me…” –  Lessons for Women’s Health
Screening
Version: 
0 
Date: 
17 Mar 2020
Reviewer: 
Jill Waalen
Reviewer's report:
This article describes a qualitative study of a Human-centered Design process to
develop a screening tool for women's health to include questions about Intimate
Partner Violence. 
It was conducted among a Central Appalachian community
and involved input from 11 community members, providers and staff. 
The study
was conducted using a defined process and interviews were conducted by a
medical anthropologist. 
The results are interesting and were put into practical use
to improve the women's health questionnaire.
A few more details are needed. 
Most involve more detailed description of
selection and number of participants so that generalizability can be assessed.
1. P. 2, lines 31- 36: 
The breakdown of the sample size of n=11 is unclear . In
this specific passage, 6 community members are mentioned plus 7
providers/staff, which does not total 11. 
Also, it appears that some of the
community members participated in only some of the sessions. 
Perhaps a flow
chart of some sort indicating the sessions and the participants in each would
help? 
Regardless, clarification is needed.
2. Selection of the sample is not clear. On p. 2, 
lines 17-18 it mentions that the
study was conducted within a network of clinics and yet the sample size was
only 11, to also include providers and staff, so it seems that the participants
represented only a small number of clinics. 
Also, the selection process is
described as "Purposive and opportunistic."- The word "purposive" should be
defined and the actual process should be described in more detail. 
For example,
how many potential participants were approached to participate and how many
actually did, etc. Also unclear what it means on P. 3, line 16 where it describes
SuzieQ as being "the only current patient in the HCD sessions.."
3. Discussion should include more comparison of the current results with what
exists. 
i.e., how does the checklist developed from this process differ from what
was used in the past and what is commonly used in other clinics. 
The Discussion
should include references. Comment on the perceived generalizability of the
findings and the use of the process would be helpful.
Minor points
1. Not clear throughout that mainly focused on IPV. 
Either this should be made
more clear or more information should be given on the other elements in the
Questionnaire.
2. P. 1, line 22: 
not clear what a "growing framework" is.
3. P. 1, line 29: discourage use of "etc." - drop or be more specific, e.g. "and
other …."
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to
be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal