JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Adaptive Leadership in Clinical Encounters with Women Living with HIV
Version: 1 Date: 22 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Mariana Maia
Reviewer's report:
Strong points:
This manuscript addresses the Adaptive Leadership for Chronic Illness, and it is an interesting
strategy to improve health education and adherence to care applied to women living with HIV.
There has been a higher global incidence of this health condition and it represents a challenge
to public health. This is so due to the fact that if women living with HIV don’t have adherence
to the health care, it will lead to higher costs and other special necessities.
The work clearly responds to the purpose of the study.
The discussion takes up the themes and sub-themes and the relationship between them.
Suggestions:
Abstract:
• Methods: The author should have mentioned the type of study, how many WLWH were
interviewed and how this number was defined.
• Results: The second sentence seems to be a conclusion, not a result. The authors should rewrite
according to the results presented in the text, showing the themes and subthemes.
Introduction:
• 1st paragraph - If the order of the sentences is changed, by placing the second sentence in the
beginning of the text, it will improve the flow of information of this paragraph and the link to
the next.
Methods:
• How many women were eligible?
• Where was this room where the interviews took place?
• The quote weren’t identified. The authors should do it, for example, by putting the  participants’
identification numbers in the research.
• Did participants provide feedback on results? If they did, the authors should write it in the
methods. If they didn’t, a study’s limitation section should be included to the manuscript.
• Were transcripts returned to participants for comments and/or correction? If they did, the
authors should write it in the methods. If they didn’t, a study’s limitation section should be
included to the manuscript.
• The interview protocol could be published as a suplement.
Title: Eating Behaviors, Attitudes, and Beliefs that Contribute to Overweight and Obesity
among Women in Lilongwe City, Malawi: A Qualitative Study
Version: 1 Date: 26 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Azita Fathnezhad-kazemi
Reviewer's report:
Dear author
The topic is very crucial to the field. The manuscript has some problems, and, I have some
comments.
The challenge that the researchers sought to discover has not been properly identified. In
some places, body size and sometimes eating behavior have been discussed. I suggest that you
specify exactly what you are looking to discover. The title also mentions overweight, while the
participants also included obese people. It seems that the purpose was to gain weight and that
corrections should be made in this regard throughout the manuscript.
Please write Inclusion and exclusion criteria, even if you have used participants from other
studies. Unfortunately, I couldn’t understand why did you select overweight and normal-weight
mothers of children < 5 years also these do not include obese women
You mentioned that “Saturation was reached at 12” but in the abstract and result section has
been reported there were 27 participants please explain more.
Where did the study take place and where did you have meetings with participants t?
How many participants were employed and housewives?
Please specify themes and categories?
Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any comments from Normal weight women about why did have
good shape of their body or eating behavior except poverty, didn’t they have any facilitator's
comments?
In the conclusion section, you mentioned “Women are not aware of the health implications
of obesity” How did you come to this conclusion? The results of your study have not been
mentioned women's awareness of the effects of obesity.
Title: Women's attitude towards intimate partner violence and utilization of contraceptive
methods and maternal health care services: an analysis of nationally representative cross-
sectional surveys from four South Asian countries.
Version: 1 Date: 31 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Research on how attitudes towards violence impacts a woman’s health under different contextual
settings is crucial as it can inform violence prevention intervention programming amongst
vulnerable communities. The authors have addressed a very important topic of research that can
certainly add knowledge to the field of violence prevention. The pooled analysis of regional
datasets with large sample sizes is an asset. However, there are some concerns that need to be
addressed.
Afghanistan has very high levels of IPV justification (almost all women-94%, justify IPV in one
way or another).  Did the authors consider why this is so?  How much of a woman’s attitude is
driven by deep-rooted societal norms that normalize/justify violence against women?  Did the
datasets include measures for actual violence experienced by the respondents? If so, why did
the authors look at justification of violence?
Did the authors look at heterogeneity across the 4 surveys, especially considering the large
variation in the rates of justification across the studies?
Could the authors explain why Bhutan seems to have high levels of access of ANC services?
How much of woman’s agency to access services is driven by family settings/living
arrangements?
Why does the interaction model adjust for area of residence if you are looking at interaction of
area of residence and main exposure?
The authors need to discuss the country/study differences in IPV justification and Maternal
health.
With almost all respondents in Afghanistan having the exposure (justifying IPV), I wonder how
much information is gained from this study.
Title: Improving intervention design to promote cervical cancer screening among hard-to-
reach women: assessing beliefs and predicting individual attendance probabilities in Bogotá,
Colombia.
Version: 1 Date: 24 Oct 2021
Reviewer:  Claire Nightingale
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. It presents a really important topic, and takes
an impressive methodological approach to it. The findings provide some concrete areas in which
to focus interventions aiming to increase screening.
The paper is really well written and presented. A few things I was left wondering: I would be
interested to understand what the current screening coverage is in Bogota? Is this free for women
to access? Also how is Colombia going with vaccine coverage? Has there been any local trials
of home based-HPV testing? You mention that economic evaluations of this are required, but
what about intervention trials?
More specific comments:
Abstract:
The conclusion statements don’t seem to relate directly to the results presented in the abstract?
Minor comment: In the abstract, in the conclusion – “strength”, should be “strengthen”
Introduction:
On p 3. By this statement, Additionally, accurate predictions of individual no-show probabilities
could improve resource allocation by identifying patients that should be prioritized – do you
mean that people predicted to be no-shows should not be offered appointments, or that resources
should be allocated to supporting them to attend?
Methods:
How are screen-eligible women invited/reminded to attend for screening?
Can you surmise on the very high uptake of survey participation, considering that you are
working with a group who is less engaged? Was their an incentive offered? How were women
invited?
Results:
Are there confidence intervals to accompany the p values in table 5 and 6?
Table 6: The OR for patients 25 – 30 is 0.93, and that for patients 30 – 59 is 0.94 are very
similar. It seems odd to say that young patients are less likely to attend appointments, when this
is everyone below 60 years. Am I reading this correctly that it is only those over 59 who are
more likely to attend? What was the sample size for each of these categories?
Title: Improving intervention design to promote cervical cancer screening among hard-to-
reach women: assessing beliefs and predicting individual attendance probabilities in Bogotá,
Colombia.
Version: 4 Date: 23 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Claire Nightingale
Reviewer's report:
The authors seem to have responded to my queries. The paper is very long, there are some
sections that perhaps could be revised. For example, the first four lines of the methods are not
needed. And while the description of vaccine hysteria is very interesting, it still doesn't quantify
current vaccine uptake, and therefore is probably superfluous to the manuscript.
I suggest including the confidence intervals for the OR in the abstract. and in the abstract
conclusion - there is reference to "alternatives" but it is not clear what this refers to? alternative
what? screening options? models of care?
Minor change: p4 line 82 - refers to cervical CANCER behaviours, I think that the authors mean
cervical SCREENING behaviours?
Title: Improving intervention design to promote cervical cancer screening among hard-to-
reach women: assessing beliefs and predicting individual attendance probabilities in Bogotá,
Colombia.
Version: 5 Date: 25 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Claire Nightingale
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript after the last round of feedback and
changes. The manuscript is much improved, and reads well. I am satisfied that the authors have
addressed the feedback
Title: Change  of  contraceptive  preference  after  the  free-LARC  program  for  Thai  teenagers
Version: 0 Date: 09 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
This report evaluates the change in LARC use (specifically implant use) before and after e a
government-support program in Thailand that provided LARC methods free of charge.  The
study found that implant use increased significantly from 2.4% to 9.1%.
The strengths of the study are the large sample size and the fact that a policy of no-cost LARC
was evaluated before and after implementation.  The use of multivariable methods is also a
strength.
The weaknesses include poor writing: the manuscript needs to be carefully edited by someone
more familiar with the English language.  There are also some analyses performed that were not
pre-specified, the Tables are confusing, and the Figure is not helpful.
Specific comments:
1. ABSTRACT: Rephrase the 1st sentence – very difficult to understand.
2. ABSTRACT, Results: what do you mean by rates of “subdermal implant, progestin only
pills?”  Are you missing an “and?”  Only one increased rate (which is actually a percentage, not
a rate) is provided: 2.4 to 9.1%. (I do not believe POP use changed very much.)
3. It is interesting that even though the free of charge LARC program was only for adolescents,
implant use in older women also increased.  Thus, there is a time effect separate from the policy
change.
4. BACKGROUND:  Much of the text was difficult to understand.
5. METHODS:  no need to capitalize methods (copper IUD, levonorgestrel IUD, vaginal ring,
etc.)
6. METHODS:  Provide the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria.
7. METHODS:  Was the study IRB approved or exempt?
8. RESULTS:  Please separate out the demographics in table 1 from the Outcomes
(Contraceptive use, bottom of table 1).  Use of contraception of the entire cohort and how it
changed over time should be provided PRIOR to subdivision by age.
9. RESULTS:  I did not find Figure 1 to be helpful.
10. RESULTS:  Why do a subgroup analysis by post-partum or non-postpartum (Table 3)?  Was
this driven by a specific hypothesis?
11. DISCUSSION:  The discussion was very difficult to understand.  Start with a paragraph with
the key findings.  I did not understand the first paragraph: too general and poorly written.  Much
of the text in the discussion is confusing and difficult to understand.
12. DISCUSSION:  Comments re: bone loss at the bottom of page 10 go beyond the data
presented.  You did not study bone health.
13. Again, I had a very difficult time understanding phrases and sentences (e.g. “…….to select
the appropriate contraception inequity.” (????)
Title: Change  of  contraceptive  preference  after  the  free-LARC  program  for  Thai  teenagers
Version: 0 Date: 21 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors described contraceptive use among reproductive-aged women attending family
planning clinic at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital before and after the free of charge of
LARC for adolescents.
Overall this manuscript is well written and interested. Below are questions, comments, and
suggestions.
Introduction:
As this study was conducted among Thais, the authors should provide more details regarding
contraceptive prevalence among this population group.
The authors mentioned that LARC has the lowest failure rate and higher continuation rate. Are
there any previously published articles regarding this statement among Thais?
The authors stated that myths, attitudes, awareness, and misperceptions differ among ethnicities.
Are there any previously published articles regarding this statement among Thais?
Methods:
Please be consistent - Multivariate/ multivariable model?
Please provide the readers with more details regarding the free of charge program, whether this
applies to participants with all ethnicities or only specific ethnicities. As far as I know, this free
of charge program only applied to Thai adolescents in 2014.
Please provide the readers with more details regarding the ethnicities of participants.
Please provide the readers with more details regarding the protocol of contraceptive services
at this clinic.
Why do all participants need to pay for the contraceptive on their own? How about the country
reimbursement policies?
Results:
Please provide the readers with more details regarding the adjusted odds ratio - which variables
were included in the final model?
Why did the authors decide to conduct sub-group analysis in the non-post partum group?
Please provide the readers with more details regarding the types of visit - whether postabortion
care include those with an unwanted pregnancy? What kind of services include in the follow-
up visit?
Since the authors included 9543 women during 2009-2018, whether these women visit the family
planning clinic only once during the nine years? If they did more than one visit, which visit did
the authors include in the analysis?
Discussion:
The authors stated that the increase of implant used in this study supports the hypothesis that the
upfront cost is the obstacle. As the free of charge program offers both implant and IUD, why
were a very low number of participants interested in IUD?
The authors stated that using an implant is a good sign for long-term bone health issue. Please
provide a reference to this statement.
The authors stated that the limitation of this study was the incomplete data. However, the authors
did not mention this issue in the result section.
Is there any additional strength in addition to the large sample size?
Title: Change  of  contraceptive  preference  after  the  free-LARC  program  for  Thai  teenagers
Version: 2 Date: 04 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded to all my previous suggestions. At present, my only concern is the
appropriateness of the statistical method. If some subjects were included in the analysis more
than once,  the logistic regression analysis should account for the non-independent observations.
Title: Young mothers' use of and experiences with mental health care services in Ontario,
Canada: a qualitative descriptive study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this study. It focuses on understanding the service
use experiences of young mothers during the perinatal period. The study used in-depth semi-
structured interviews and a purposive sample of young mothers (N=29) who met criteria for a
mental disorder. The study used content analysis and quantitative data.
One limitation of the study as it is currently written is its lack of any focus on a theoretical
framework and little attention to the service use conceptual frameworks for young adults,
including previous samples of young adults that included young mothers. In a revision, I strongly
suggest the authors seek out and at least recognize these literatures (See Munson et al., 2012;
Ben-David et al., 2019). Indeed, many of the findings of this study are related to this previous
work among other marginalized groups of young adults with psychiatric disorders.
A strength of the study is the purposive sampling of young mothers who vary in their service
use at the time of the interview. This is rare in service use research and it is important.
Methods and analytic strategy are very well written and concise.
Please explain why the socioeconomic variable is only reported by a small percentage of the
sample?
Data are rich and informative
In the discussion and conclusion, I would focus attention on methods to develop and co-produce
engagement interventions with young mothers as opposed to proposing a method of care that
the authors deem appropriate. Collaborating with the young mothers on the solutions will surely
lead to more effective and sustainable solutions.
Again, the main limitation is that this elegant study is not framed at all in the previous literature
on young adult mental health service use, and thus it misses an opportunity to see its findings
in the context of other similar studies.
Title: Young mothers' use of and experiences with mental health care services in Ontario,
Canada: a qualitative descriptive study
Version: 2 Date: 14 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
All my comments have been addressed adequately.
Please confirm the following Line 171-174. The highest services utilization was 28-74. does that
mean a person had up to 74 visit within last 12 months? Please provide minimum and maximum
number of visit for the total sample.
Please check table -1 relationship status should add up to 100%.
Title: The Effect of Nutrition Education for Cancer Prevention Based on Health Belief Model
on Nutrition Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Iranian Women
Version: 0 Date: 15 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript discusses Using a Health Belief Model to Assess Nutrition Education for Cancer
Prevention among Iranian Women is an interesting title.  In terms of editing, the manuscript is
generally properly written, although requires minor corrections. However, it brings very little
from the point of originality and novelty.
Introduction:
1-most of  your references are outdated  and needs to update and replace with new works
3-The introduction does not support the whole of your subject
4-add some reports related to nutritional education in the world and its impact to reduce risks
of cancer
5-The relationship between nutrition education and cancer risk reduction is not clearly seen in
the introduction and is expressed in separate and irregular sections.
Methods:
1-why Exclusion criteria were not conducted?
2-why are inclusion criteria limited just to women aged 19-70?
3- Sample size good. Would it not be better to have the Data Collection follow the Sample size
and sample method? After this then the Participants could be described.
4-what could be possible advantages to outweigh the disadvantages associated with this model?
5- More specific goal(s) should be communicated to the reader - more codified with a more
precise description.
Result:
1-The results were largely satisfactory
Title: The Effect of Nutrition Education for Cancer Prevention Based on Health Belief Model
on Nutrition Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Iranian Women
Version: 1 Date: 11 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for amending the text and including most of my suggestions/comments. I believe the
clarity and quality of your article has been improved  a lot after the revisions, well done!
A few comments related to the new text:
Line 249-251: 'we conducted this study population among' should be 'we conducted this study
among'. 'me is needed' should be 'men is needed'. I would say 'additional research' instead of
'additional study'. besides, personally I would never write 'women who are usually housewives',
be careful with this type of statements.
Table 7 - 'Example of item description' I would write 'Example question'
Line 183-184: I would not say 'before buying food' simply because food is the most important
thing to buy. I would write 'in addition to' or something, so it is clear they have more things to
spend their money on.
Line 229-233: This section should be rephrased. The sentence 'The reason for participants
vegetable intake was assessed through the questionnaire': I believe fruit should be added,
since the following sentences are related to fruits and not vegetables. Also, (when reading the
following sentences again) I believe it should be reasons for NOT eating was assessed, since
the following sentences are referring to barriers for why not consuming FV. Please rephrase so
it suits the content.
Typo: please write 'Limited budget' instead of 'limited budget'. Please rewrite, first: it needs to be
'of THE participants' and '10% of THE PARTICIPATING women' . Also, I would not write 'our
society' because that can create confusion for the reader as society is the whole population, while
I believe the author refers to the 'study sample', please amend. Besides, the sentence 'Around
10% of women believed that preparing fruits is time-consuming' misses the statement that it
was holding them from consumption. This should be added to make it complete, since maybe
all women believe preparing fruit is time consuming, but not per se experience that as barrier/
reason for not eating it.
Title: The Effect of Nutrition Education for Cancer Prevention Based on Health Belief Model
on Nutrition Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Iranian Women
Version: 3 Date: 25 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for amending your manuscript.
Only one minor comment:
Line 236: 'A small part of study sample' please add 'the' or 'our' before the word 'study sample'.
No further comments.
Title: Intimate Partner Violence Among Pregnant Women in Kenya: Forms, Perpetrators and
Associations
Version: 1 Date: 11 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Oluwaseyi Somefun
Reviewer's report:
Intimate partner violence among pregnant women in Kenya: forms, perpetrators and associations
This paper examines a particularly important subject matter beneficial for maternal and child
health. This was an interesting, well-written submission of exploring the existing literature
and linking their findings to what available studies have done. Overall, this paper makes a
contribution to the body of knowledge on violence against women.
Abstract
I do not think there is a scarcity of epidemiological literature on this topic, so I suggest the
authors change this wording, particularly because 2014 is not an updated data even if it is the
available national data.
What do the authors mean by “empowering health care workers”? Educating or training. If yes,
they can simplify this.
Introduction
The sentence that starts with “in particularly” should be changed to “particular”
Apart from the “dearth of violence literature” in Kenya, are there other reasons why this study is
important in this context? Perhaps authors can briefly mention how the consequences of violence
in pregnancy affects women and children in Kenya.
In the methods section, “refugee” should be plural.
Discussion
Are the reported cases in health facilities not self-reported? Why is a woman more likely to
disclose in a health facility in her community and not in a survey?
I don’t understand why authors are trying to link results from a 2014 data with the ongoing
pandemic in the second paragraph.
In the fourth paragraph, authors contradict what was reported in the first paragraph on their
results being similar with what other studies in Kenya have found.
Authors may want to consider this paper (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32757726/)  when
explaining the association between age and time to violence.