Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Women’s experiences of receiving care for pelvic organ prolapse: A qualitative study.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Dec 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Raquel  Vivancos  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The article has theoretical relevance, and its objective adds knowledge and quality to the practice 
of care. It is well written and clear in its methodological outline. However, some methodological 
aspects compromise the reliability of the study findings. T he following considerations come to 
improve the authors 'perspective on the work design.  
 
The study does not make use of a specific theoretical -methodological reference that subsidizes 
the authors' discussion regarding the content analysis findings in the literature. Although this is 
not an obligation, it confers robustness to the study and can enrich the discussion about the data. 
Considering that the main objective of the study was to know the experience of these women, the 
Phenomenology could be the theo retical methodological reference that would better meet the 
proposed objective. Such consideration follows as a suggestion.  
 
The text does not specify the criteria for inclusion or exclusion in the study.  
 
The sociodemographic data collection of the partici pants was not performed. Although this has 
been placed as a limitation, this is an important limitation from the point of view of knowledge 
of the sample profile.  
 
The losses were not justified. 39 accepted to participate in the study, but only 22 were incl uded.  
 
A mixed collection of data occurred by associating focus groups and telephone interviews, it is 
believed in the attempt not to decrease the number of participants because of the difficulty in 
gathering all in face -to-face focus groups. This was a maj or complicator of the study, as there is 
no homogeneity in the way the data were collected.  
 
The use of the saturation criteria in data collection was not mentioned. Could not the number of 
participants be expanded? Do the authors consider the results enoug h to meet the objective 
proposed by the study?  
 
In the results, an identified category was omitted by the authors because it was not related to the 
women's care experience. Such a data would need to be clarified, especially since the purpose is 
the experie nce of women and this should not be restricted to the researchers' inquiries.  
 
In the presentation of the article, there are many authors who were not described in terms of their 
respective participation in the study.  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 t his manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in t he manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 
financial ly 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 incl uded 
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 Ope n 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