Title: Reflections on Timing of Motherhood - A Qualitative Online Study with Women of
Reproductive Age.
Version: 3 Date: 12 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Overall comments:
The aim of this study was to explore reflections on the timing of motherhood among Danish
women of reproductive age who had not yet had children within a social media setting. This
study contribute to the existent literature by confirming what is already known in regard of
factors influencing timing of motherhood. However, the setting of this study is new.
The manuscript is well written and it’s structure is easy to follow. However, some issues must
be addressed before recommending approval of this manuscript. See my comments below.
I have divided my comments in major and minor.
Specific major comments:
Introduction
I am aware that women are the target group of this study. However, I recommend having a larger
perspective in the introduction by using parenthood and not only motherhood. We know from
the existing literature that parenthood is of importance for both men and women, and that having
children most often relies on a consensus between the two. We also know that many of the same
factors influence the preferred timing of parenthood among men and women. I suggest using
“parenthood” in the introduction and wherever else possible.
The section “Fertility awareness”:
In my opinion, this section lack studies within FA. The two studies mentioned seems a bit
randomly selected. I suggest only adding reviews or adding more studies within the area. Other
studies of interesting could be: Ren et al.  2023 (review).
The section “Factors influencing the postponement of motherhood”:
Again the studies mentioned seems randomly selected. Why these and not others? A number
of studies have looked into the same: Eriksson et al. 2012, Eriksson et al. 2013, Lampic et al.
2006, Petersen et al. 2016, Svanberg et al. 2006, Thompson & Lee 2011, Tydén et al. 2006,
Vassard et al. 2016).
In regard of your setting (social media setting), I miss an elaboration on the benefits for choosing
this particular setting.
Methods
The section “Study design”:
Please elaborate on the use of a social media setting. I understand it is thoroughly discussed in
another paper but a brief description is needed in this manuscript.
Further, you describe “defining the assumptions” before conducting the study. Please elaborate
whether these are your assumptions and what your assumptions were.
The section “recruitment and setting”:
Your recruitment criteria entail being heterosexual. I find it difficult understanding why this was
necessary. Is your assumption that homosexual women have completely other reflections on the
timing of motherhood? If yes, why?
Discussion
Although your focus in this study is on women, I recommend referring to/comparing with
existing studies that I know have found similar results (e.g. about whom you compare yourself
with, the importance of social norms, and giving up things in life) among men.
Conclusion
You write in the introduction that what is new about this study is the social media setting. You
end by concluding that “Discussing the timing of motherhood in an online community with other
women of reproductive age has the potential to support women’s reflections on when and if
they are ready to pursue motherhood”. This is all very well for the women who participated.
However, what are the benefits of this method at a society level? And does this method add
something particular to the research field? I think your conclusion is a bit vague and need to
be taken to a higher level.
Specific minor comments:
Abstract
The abstract should be edited in accordance to suggested changes made in the manuscript.
Introduction
The section “Postponed motherhood”:
You write that the tendency of postponing motherhood is present in both other Nordic countries
and western countries in general. However, this tendency is seen in many other parts of the
world too.
The section “Fertility awareness”:
I suggest adding the definition of Fertility awareness (FA), so there is no doubt for the reader
what is meant. The definition can be found here: Zegers-Hochschild et al., 2017.
Methods
The section “Data collection”:
You describe the total length of the transcripts, which include discussions from all three focus
groups I assume. It would be beneficial if you could provide the length per focus group too.
You mention that the use of emojis contributed to richness of data to this study as it enabled
nonverbal communitation. I agree. However, I also see a potential weakness of this, as it is not
possible to know what emotions people put into a specific emoji. Please elaborate on this in
your study.
Findings
Overall, I like your description of findings. It is a bit long, though. I suggest removing some of
the quotes to make it shorter.
Page 12, line 1: The first sentence below the theme “Feeling the pressure” is too long. Please
rephrase.
Discussion
Page 22, line 4: you write “women in this study were compared with their female friends and
colleagues”. Who compared the women? I assume you mean that women compared themselves
with…? Please rewrite this.
Conclusion
In line 6 you write that women of reproductive age experience pressure from e.g. family, which
you describe is either experienced positive or negative. I would suggest rephrasing this, as
pressure is a very negative word. A suggestion could be “interest from”.