Reviewer's report
Title:Perspectives on cervical cancer screening among educated, Muslim
women in Dubai (UAE) - A qualitative study
Version:3Date:3 August 2015
Reviewer: Kath Peters
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
There are lengthy paragraphs throughout the discussion which need to be
broken up to enhance flow and coherence of individual arguments.
Some further details about method, sample etc required regarding individual
studies about Muslim women in the background section.
The content under the heading Methodological considerations is a little
confusing. The first 2 sentences belong with methodology. The next 2 sentences,
Lines192-195 are not necessary. Suggest include a heading "Rigour" and clearly
identify how rigour was maintained in various processes of the study and remove
other information. Meaning is not clear in Lines 207-210
Line 253 Need to be explicit about the type/nature of prior knowledge
Line 324-326 - This content does not flow well. The text refers to an Emerati
woman while the quote is from an expat. Also, reconsider word choice -
'discomfiture' suggest use discomfort.
Line 345 - it is not clear who 'they' refer to. Clarification is required for context.
Line 403 need to specify whether dollars are referred to are US?
Line 420 Suggest replace 'commonest' with most common.
Line 447. CC is not a STI - suggest rephrase this sentence
Line 469. Rephrase for clarity and to reflect that these were beliefs held by
participants in this study.
Line 474. The authors need to clarify which study they are referring to.
Line 477 A new paragraph would be helpful here.
Line 483. Please replace 'female' with women
End of line 490. Suggest insert new paragraph here to enhance readability
Line 490-507 presents good arguments but needs to be closely edited to
enhance flow and understanding.
Lines 508-516 - was there a specific reason for pain experienced in these
women? Possible FGM or other difficulties?
Line 534 - Does being accompanied by a family member indicate a desire for
social support? Or is this a cultural requirement as is indicated in the findings?
Line 547-548 - Rephrase.
Line 572-575 Content does not link or flow well.
Conclusions are largely Implications for practice - suggest indicate this and just
use lines618-634 for conclusion.
Minor Essential Revisions
Rephrase line 24 to amend grammatical error.
Line 29. Suggest rephrase content here. Screening does not prevent CC but it
can prevent greater morbidity and mortality associated with CC through early
intervention.
Line 31 - suggest change text from singular to plural ie Interpretivist and social
constructivist epistemological approaches were used
Line 32 Data is plural - suggest change to Data were collected via....
Line 42 suggest remove the word 'only' from the sentence
Line 58. The authors once again seem to indicate that screening can prevent CC.
Suggest rephrase to acknowledge that screening does not prevent CC, it just
allows for early intervention and therefore results in more positive health
outcomes.
Line 60-63 is too brief for a stand-alone paragraph.
Line 75, change 'are' to 'is'
Line 82 - change 'was' to 'were'
Line 157 Data is plural - change 'was' to 'were'
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests