Reviewer's report
Title:Influences on visit retention in clinical trials: Insights from qualitative
research during the VOICE trial in Johannesburg, South Africa
Version:3Date:4 June 2014
Reviewer: Cynthia Woodsong
Reviewer's report:
I am keen to see this work published, and have no major compulsory revisions to
suggest.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Since "serial ethnographic interviews" are not a standard methodology used in
microbicide research, it would be helpful to provide a bit more information about
these. For example - How does such an interview differ from an IDI, other than
the interview is repeated? Why were serial ethnographic interviews conducted
outside of the clinic?
2. "Mothers, daughters, partners -- social obligations to others" : Since the paper
subsequently discusses additional types of social obligations, the authors might
consider referring to obligations in this section as "familial" obligations. Also in
this section, the authors say that "...male partners also supported women's
intentions..." but they do not indicate if this is all, most, or some partners. Further,
in this paragraph, the authors state that the outreach team contacted male
partners to reach the female participant, but they do not indicate if the female
participant had given permission to do so, or if this was an understanding for all
participants.
3. The sentence "However, when planning ahead was possible" could be
rephrased to make it more clear that the trial made allowances for the provision
of additional study supplies.
4. The authors might clarify what is meant by "a doctor's note from the trial clinic,"
and the circumstances under which this was provided. There is a later reference
to a "clinic attendance letter," but it is not clear if this is the same thing as a
doctor's note.
5. The clinic context: This section described the length of time people waited at
the clinic, but it does not mention the transport time to and from the clinic. The
authors might consider adding something about typical transport time.
6. In the discussion section, the third paragraph starts off with a statement about
disclosure, but the relationship of disclosure to the rest of the paragraph is not
clear. Doe the authors mean that informed family members and employers were
more supportive of participation? What did the "negative experiences" (last
sentence in this paragraph) have to do with disclosure?
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Abstract: It is a bit unusual to read an abstract with a methods and results
section that is largely a list. The authors might consider casting this a bit
differently.
2. The authors might avoid using the word "trialist," as it is jargon that may not be
understood by a your wider readership.
3. METHODS: In the first sentence, the authors should clarify that the VOICE trial
site they associated with was in Hillbrow. The sentence currently reads "The
VOICE trial was conducted in Hillbrow..." but earlier they stated that the VOICE
trial was conducted in 3 countries (and there were multiple sites in South Africa).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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'