Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Men's Awareness of Cervical Cancer: A Qualitative study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 15 Mar 2018  
 
Reviewer: Lize Maree  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is an interesting study with well presented results. It is indeed so that this is an under 
researched topic, however, there are some recent studies conducted in Africa focusing on men 
and cervical cancer. With the exception of one reference, the work on some aspect of men and 
cervical cancer is more than 10 years old. Please consider the more recent literature.   
The background needs some revision. The world incidence of the cervical cancer was described, 
but nothing was said about the incidence in the region and in Korea. SO - the reader does not 
know whether this is a significant problem or not. The background f ocuses on vaccination whilst 
this is only a part of the prevention of cervical cancer. For instance, the participants were asked 
about prevention but the reader does not know how cervical cancer is prevented in Korea. How 
does screening work in Korea? What  about the role of men in the prevention of cervical cancer - 
it is much more than being vaccinated. The last sentence in the background talks about 
investigating men's awareness, which could maybe be changed to describe as you used a 
qualitative descripti on. In addition, did you really emphasize the role of men in the prevention of 
cervical cancer or did you describe their perceptions. As already mentioned the role of men, 
except for having the vaccine is not included in the background.  
The methods are not  well described. The abstract mentions this is a descriptive qualitative study 
but this was not mentioned as part of the design. In addition, qualitative description allow 
researchers to present a comprehensive summary of the phenomenon investigated. Maybe  you 
can inform the reader what qualitative description is and why you chose this design? The setting 
is not described. The reader is also not sure who the population was and what the inclusion 
criteria were. How was the first participant recruited? Why di d you have 12 men in the study? 
Did you reach data saturation - if not, what informed the sample size? I assume an interview 
guide was used - so maybe you can consider adding a table with the questions you asked. What 
you said you asked is very broad. Did you use probes and prompts during the interviews?  
The data analysis refers - did you transcribe the data immediately after the interview. Maybe you 
can add after the interview? Whilst content analysis is the preferred method of analysing 
descriptive qualit ative data, you did not only use content analysis as the data were also grouped 
to present the types of awareness. What informed this method of analysis? Maybe a template 
based on the your theory or some other work? Please clarify.  
The results are well de scribed. However, the themes arising from the data should be introduced 
before it is presented. Maybe you can say how many themes arose from the data and what they 
are. It is not clear why some of the words are highlighted? Maybe you can remove the lines o r 
explain the rational for doing this.  
The discussion refers - maybe you could say that the study was designed to present a 
comprehensive summary rather to identify? This would be in line with qualitative description. As 
already mentioned there are more r ecent work as than of Verhoefen that you could add. It is not 
clear how the study referring to women (lines 21 to 26) fits in. What the reader found interesting 
is that men's prevention role in terms of using condoms and being monogamous was not 
mentioned in the interviews. This should be a discussion point as, once again, the role of men in 
cervical cancer is much more than the vaccine.  
The methodological considerations refer. Did you use member checks or how did you verify the 
data? Did the participant r ead the interview after it was transcribed? What is the gender of the 
persons who conducted the interview? Did you use reflexivity when analysing the data? The 
research preparation is indeed impressive but also very patronizing. Although I have great 
admir ation for the academic standing of the research team, hierarchy is not conducive when 
gathering data from the everyday person. SO, rather tone this down and explain the nature of the 
relationship between the team and the participants.  
The conclusion refer s - as you did not consider all the work conducted in this field, rather change 
you claim that this is one of the first studies. Maybe you could say this is one of the few studies 
describing men's awareness. The last sentence of the conclusion should be re phrased as it is not 
clear what it means.  
There are some language issues to attend too.  
In summary, this is interesting work, which adds to the body of knowledge on the role of men in 
preventing cervical cancer. Their knowledge is indeed not good - simila r to the rest of the world.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in t he 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 wr itten 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 i n 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 receive d 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 agre e 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 alo ng 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 repo rt 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