Reviewer's report
Title:Encountering medical patriarchy: The gendered doctor-patient
communication experiences of female overactive bladder patients with male
urologists in Hong Kong
Version:2Date:28 January 2015
Reviewer: Doreth AM Teunissen
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer’s report
title: Encountering medical patriarchy: The gendered doctor-patient
communication experiences of female overactive bladder patients with male
urologist in Hong Kong
I would like to thank you for allowing this privilege to review this original paper
that addresses an interesting and challenging issue regarding experiences of
female OAB patients with male urologist in Hong Kong. However, there are
certain comments that should be considered prior to the publication of this
research. Please find my comments below.
First, I will complement the author with this manuscript. It’s a well described
qualitative study and gender differences is in important issue in patient-doctor
communication . Especially in case of OAB there is little attention for patients
experiences in their communication with the doctor.
Discretionary revisions
1) In the paragraph background-significance the author only describes the aim of
the study. WHAT”S THE RESEARCH QUESTION OF THE STUDY?
2) in the paragraph methods-data collection the author describes ‘ thirty
participants were sampled from the self-help group’. HOW MANY FEMALES
PARTICIPATE IN THE SELF HELP GROUP IN TOTALLY?
3) The paragraph methods-data analysis The design of the study is well
described and well done. I have only certain comments about the validity and
reality. The author describes; ‘To improve validity and reality of the analysis the
researcher did a recoding process one month after the first coding.’ In qualitative
studies it is strongly recommended to use a second researcher to analyse the
data also. A recoding, as in this study, will eliminate some bias in interpretation
but a qualitative analysis are always subjective. A second researcher can
decrease the subjectivity of the analysis.
4) In the paragraph methods-participants the author describes the characteristics
of the participants. This part of the manuscript should be described in the result
paragraph.
5) in de result paragraph the manuscript starts with ‘ because of the gender
difference ………’. The following themes ‘sense of embarrassment, ‘feeling of not
treated seriously etc……’ are the themes the female experienced in the
communication. In the most of them the female related the experience to gender
difference but not all the themes. Feeling of not being treated seriously and
especially the short consultation time is not a gender difference I think. I should
change the first sentence in ‘ Most of the participants regarded their
communication with their urologist in the treatment as unpleasant. During …..
etc. By the participants, most of themes were related to gender difference.
6) in the result-embarrassment paragraph I think theme 2 and 3 are related to
each other. Female patients are embarrassed because an examination the
bladder area is near to the reproductive organs. It’s better to focus in the 3e
theme on embarrassing when a male doctor ask about sexual life.
7) in the discussion paragraph the author gives a well balanced description of the
results and is adequately supported by data. Only in the 2e sentence I should
add particularly; ‘ In my study ……….treatment experiences particularly due to
gender ………I really think that most of the communication difficulties, but not all,
are related to gender.
8) Also in the discussion-conclusion paragraph I should not state that all the
communications difficulties are due gender difficulties.
9) in the discussion-limitation paragraph I should add that may be the participants
a self-help group are a selection of the female who have bad experiences with
treatment and/or communication
minor issue not for publication
10) In the result section the first sentence after the citation of patients thought
you wil remove the tab .
I confirm to post this reviewer’s report on the website along with the article.
Dr. T.A.M. Teunissen, Radboud university medical center
Dept. of Primary and Community Care, Gender & Women's Health
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare tthat I have no completing interests'below.