Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Perceptions of Mexican Women Regarding Barriers in Mental Health Services in Primary 
Care.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 07 Nov 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Nancy  Feeley  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Abstract  
 
The meaning categorization technique may not be familiar to readers. Please explain.  
 
The conclusion is related to the method used and not the findings. Perhaps focus on findings and 
implications for health care delivery.  
 
 
Methods.  
 
It is unclear who the study participants were and how and why they were chosen and by whom. 
This needs to be explicit and clear. Were the women using primary care services for mental 
health issues ?  
 
If that is the case, might it be informative to include persons who have not a ccessed services as 
they too will have insights about barriers.  In the results section it seems they came to the clinic 
for physical health problems but this is  unclear.  
 
What observations were made? Page 7. It seemed that only interviews were conducted . This 
requires clarification.  
 
The interview guide should be included or at least some details. This is important to determine 
whether the guide actually shaped the findings. This is particularly important as the paper 
indicates there were thematic axes. Not clear what these were?  
 
 
Results.  
 
The results lack rich description. Some of the quotes do not offer anything new beyond what is 
stated and merely repeat the text that describes the sub category. See page 12 line 30. Better 
quotes could be selected or else omit such quotes.  
 
In th e results section pages 9 -10 there is considerable description about the setting and how care 
is organized. This would be better placed in background and or methods.  
 
Each sub category of main headings has a heading. The result is that the headings take m uch 
space that would could be used to more fully describe the findings in each sub category.  
 
"social imaginary" is not a common concept and requires explanation. Page 15. There is a 
footnote but this definition should be placed in the text.  
 
The finding s described on page 15 lines 7 -19 were not clear.  
 
 
Discussion.  
 
The study findings are not linked to existing knowledge. How do the barriers identified in this 
study compare to those of previous studies? How do they differ? What does this study add. The 
discussion is mostly a summary of findings.  
 
Study limitations are not discussed. The fact that interviews were conducted in waiting rooms is 
a major limitation of this study and needs to be discussed. There would be little privacy and this 
would limit di sclosure.  
 
Writing. The are one sentence paragraphs and this needs to be addressed. The manuscript 
requires careful editing for typographical errors, grammar and missing words. The abbreviation 
for primary care is introduced but not always used throughout the paper. The references to papers 
not in English may be problematic as most readers will not be able to access.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unabl e to assess  
 
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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 
financial ly 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 unde r 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