Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Factors associated with breast cancer screening awareness and Practices of women 
in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia  
 
Version: 0 Date: 24 Sep 2018  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: To view the full report from the academic peer 
reviewer, please see the attached file.  
 
REVIEWER COMMENTS FROM REPORT: Breast cancer can be deadly and thus 
effective and early screening is important. But before all this, women need to be made 
aware of breast cancer and its screening. There is particular lack of awareness in 
developing countri es, especially poor populations. Therefore, this study is a step in right 
direction.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
I have some suggestions for the authors to improve this work further – 
 
Firstly, In the very first paragraph, authors cite breast cancer statistics from 2012. This is 
too old. More recent statistics should be provided.  
 
Secondly, it would be ideal to provide some statistics from Ethiopia, preferably from 
Addis Ababa, the focus of this study.  
 
Have the authors noticed any change in perception - post vs. pre interviews?  
 
Looks like a majority of women trust self -examination as the primary screening for breast 
cancer. How effective is this? Are women even aware of the right way to conduct such 
examination? Are they trained at some level for this? If not, how  reliable and trust worthy 
is this method? Do some women actually facilitate breast cancer diagnosis through self -
examination?  
 
It is mentioned that high -income women are 3 -times more likely to be aware of breast 
screening methods. Does this awareness actua lly translate into three -times higher 
examinations in this population?  
 
Mentioning of year 2015 in the title makes this article sound very old. I recommend 
deleting '2015' from the title. On a side note, what made authors wait so long to publish 
these resul ts? Have they conducted any more follow -up or more detailed analyses since?  
 
Does religion play any role in these dynamics? The percentages for 2 reported religions 
do not add upto 100%. Are there any other major religious/ethnic groups as well? Can 
this an d any other related missing information be added to patient demographics in the 
table as well.  
 
I notice discrepancies in formatting. For example, there is a line gap between some 
paragraphs in Discussion, but not all. Also, some paragraphs in Discussion ar e too small. 
I suggest combing very small paragraphs into bigger paragraphs.  
 
The last bar in Figure is formatted differently from others. Any reason?  
 
Good and poor practices mentioned in Figure 2 need to be adequately defined.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIO NS: 
 
see comments above  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the 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 written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the man uscript:  
 
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 financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially f rom 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 com peting 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers 
with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilize d for these reviews. This 
reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons 
Attribution License attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for 
completing the review within a specified timeframe. Honorar ia for reviews such as this 
are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.  
 
I agree t o the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be 
included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, 
my named report including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along 
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 report 
can be in cluded as confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal