Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Determinants Factors to Pap smear Screening Among Married Women in
a City of Sout Iran: Applying the BASNEF Model
Version: 
3 
Date: 
21 Mar 2020
Reviewer's report:
The paper presents a very well conducted study (at least 
in its theoretical basis,
for the practical point of view the reporting does not allow to understand). It is
really important that this paper will be published, but methods are really poorly
described. The statistical analyses are unclear and should be presented more
scientifically. 
Introduction
The introduction is now clearer and less redundant. It still lacks a clear 
definition
of the objective of the study: "Here are reported the results of a survey to
investigate the factors affecting the attitude and the behaviors of women
regarding pap smear…"
Methods
The methods are still very poorly reported:
The sample size determination is not described: what is the expected prevalence
and what is the precision to be reached?
How were women contacted? By phone? When attending again to the clinic?
Face to face by presenting at their home? In any case, these are other "hidden
inclusion criteria" as having a phone number in clinical record, or attending
again (this would be the most selective), or having an address registered in
clinical records (this could be virtually not a hidden criterion since virtually all
should have a registered address).
How was the interview conducted? Once contacted the women were
immediately interviewed? Was the questionnaire self-administered or conducted
by an interviewer?
For behavior you have just one item that seems to be dichotomous. How could
you compute a value for the Cronbach's alpha? 
Data analysis: please explain all the steps: descriptive analysis; Cronbach's
alpha; correlation between factors; table 3????; then the logistic. 
I suppose that the authors are using the symbol "/" instead of "." I am not sure, if
so they should change since "/" is universally the sign for a ratio. 
Table 3: I still do not understand what is reported in table three, surely it is my
fault, but I do not understand what the signs mean. Supposing that they are
numbers between 0 and 1 reported as 0/025 instead of 0.025 and that are
regression coefficients, I do not understand what is the distribution of the
dependent variable "behavior" that is 1 item dichotomous. 
What is the
standardized factor and unstandardized factor? Please explain in the methods
how factors are standardized and what does it mean in the interpretation of the
results: i.e. if standardization has been conducted to report the scale from the
minimum value to the maximum value and then the score of the j subject is
expressed standardized in this range, this means that the coefficient in regression
represents the increase in the dependent variable for going from the theoretical
minimum to the theoretical maximum of the independent variable; if you
standardized using the observed range as minimum and maximum the meaning
of the coefficient is different and means the 
increase in dependent variable from
the minimum observed to maximum observed of the independent variable. This
is important to interpret the coefficient. 
Table 4: reporting the coefficient and its standard error AND the OR is
redundant and confusing. What is the range? Is it the range in values of the
independent variable? If yes report in the first column, below the variable label.
Please explain well how independent variable are numerically constructed
(standardized or not?) and so what the coefficients or ORs mean.
Results
It is important that in the first paragraph of the results the authors present the
response rate and reasons for non-response: not reachable or refusals, if possible
(and should be because you started from medical records) reports the main
demographic characteristics of responders and non-responders (age,
residence…). 
Please edit the tables.
Discussion
It has been improved. I do not agree with conclusions: if only 10% of the
variability is explained by the variables included in the BASNEF model, you can
suppose that these variables are difficult to measure (may be…) or that other
variables are much more important, such as the opportunity to receive an offer of
Pap, the logistic, encountering someone that suggests you to make the Pap… i.e.
all those variables linked to the offer and to the availability of and access to the
service, that showed to be very effective in other countries to rise the pap test
coverage. 
The new sentence in the conclusions starts with a repetition.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
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.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
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 financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from 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 competing 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.
I declare that I have no competing interests
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for 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 included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal