Title: Young women’s perspectives on a user-friendly self-sampling intervention to improve
the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections in underserved communities in KwaZulu-Natal
South Africa
Version: 7 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Johanna Deka
Reviewer's report:
Reviewers’ comments
Comment 1
Sentence 34 and 35 should have included the theoretical foundations that underpins this study,
and their significance to this research.
Comment 2
Sentence 38 should have provided justification for the sampling technique selected.
Comment 3
Sentence 43 should have provided methods used for analyzing data, and justification for the
methods selected.
Comment 4
It is unclear whether the journal requirement allows authors to use First Peron Singular. For
example, sentence 66 the author used “we”. Sentence 80 “our”. Consistency is important. The
author must choose to use either first person or third person singular in the manuscript.
Comment 5
Sentence 96 to 100, all the sentences start with self -sampling, and this sound repetitive.  If the
author used self-sampling in sentence 96, sentence 97, the author could start the sentence with
for example, this technique….
Comment 6
Sentence 111 uses first person “we”
Comment 7
Sentence 117 “our”
Comment 8
Sentence 112 “we”
Comment 9
Sentence 128 to 139…. It is unclear what informed the inclusion/ exclusion criteria OR were
there any techniques used that guided the inclusion/ exclusion criteria?
Comment 10
Sentence 179 “Silent generation” refers to Individuals born between 1928 and 1945. Individuals
between the ages 18-24.  Are classified as generation Z. Kindly correct your sentence as it is
misleading. This study is based on the latter and not the former. It is better to write “silent
members vs silent generation”
Comment 11
Sentence 185 “After this, the participants ranked all contributions according to individual
importance”. The reviewer expected authors to have used “Matrix Ranking Method” which is
useful for datar analysis especially in the context of this research. It identifies relationships
between items based on their significance and patterns. As a result, it is unclear what processes
were followed to record participants responses. The author needs to elaborate more on this
section. See this technique in the handbook by Hope & Timmel (1999). DOI:10.1093/cdj/bsv019
This section introduces Content Analysis (CA). For example, it introduces concepts, and how
these concepts relate to each other and their frequencies then link these to thematic analysis
(TA), which is the next section. Matrix diagram would have given a clear picture of concepts
emerged, their relations and frequencies to each other.
Comment 12
Sentence 198-203 does explain a bit the concern raised in comment 12. However, it would have
been better to give a diagrammatic presentation of how items were recorded and ranked. This
method would have allowed for transparency as the reviewer would see what concepts came
up, their relations to each and their frequencies particularly in the context of this study. In other
words, information provided in this section is not transparent and rigorous.
Comment 14
Sentence 489 see “we did not…”
Comment 15
This study provides insights and technological advancement, and surely it will add value to the
body of scientific research.