Reviewer’s report
Title: 
‘I can no longer do my work like how I used to’: a mixed
methods longitudinal cohort study exploring how informal working mothers
balance the requirements of livelihood and safe childcare in South Africa.
Version: 
0 
Date: 
07 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
'I can no longer do my work like how I used to': a qualitative longitudinal cohort
study exploring how informal working mothers balance the requirements of
livelihood and safe childcare in South Africa. 
This paper investigates the issue of mothers returning back to work after
childbirth in South Africa. The authors employ mixed-methods using a
longitudinal cohort to follow women during and after pregnancy to understand
the transitions. This is an important and understudied area of research with
practical implications and I commend the authors for undertaking it.
However, I have a few questions and comments that I would like to see
addressed prior to publication:
Abstract
Please provide the total sample size within the abstract.
Given that this was a mixed methods study, the title should also reflect that
rather than stating it is qualitative. However, by reading the abstract, it is unclear
what quantitative data is being collected. Please specify this more clearly in the
abstract. 
Introduction
The introduction is well-researched and developed, but should also go into detail
about any existing studies that explore this area and what they have found about
some of the reasons mothers make these choices in similar contexts, etc.
Methods
What qualitative theory guided your research?
How did you estimate 20 participants would be sufficient for thematic
saturation? This number would be based on your qualitative approach and your
theory utilized, which are not stated.
Results
A lot of the quantitative information in the results section can be summarized
and then referred to in the tables.
The qualitative results section would benefit from a lead in paragraph where you
discuss how many themes and subthemes arose and then you explore each.
The qualitative data is very powerful and introduced well. Very important
details.
Discussion
Good discussion.
Study Strengths & Limitations
Lack of generalization shouldn't be necessarily listed as a limitation since the
goal of qualitative research is to be transferrable, but not generalizable.
Figures & Tables
Table 1 & 2 should have both counts and percentages to more easily understand
the data. Please also structure the tables to be consistent in structure.
References
Remember to provide DOIs in full links for each article when available, please.
General 
For qualitative research, there are several examples of quality guidelines to refer
to in order to ensure reporting of high quality research. It might be beneficial to
refer to both of these:
https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-
2018.pdf
http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/ISSM_COREQ_Checklist.pdf
Thank you for your attention and time on these changes!
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes