Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative study on stigma against HIV among female sex workers and
general migrant women in eastern China
Version:1Date:27 August 2014
Reviewer: Maria Marcedes Avila
Reviewer's report:
Comparative study on stigma against HIV among female sex workers and
general migrant women in eastern China
Authors: Tiejun Zhang, Ying Yang, Feifei Lin, Tao Zhang, Feng Yu and Yanping
Zhao
MS ID : 3566832881211160
I consider the manuscript is acceptable with some Minor Essential Revisions. It is
an article of importance in its field which may contribute to improve education
and prevention among migrant women in China.
The language is generally acceptable.
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The important value of this study is the data obtained in each population.
Comparison between them is accessory to the results. Migrant situation should
be better described. Probably the authors should thoroughly explain why they
compare them. Even when the authors described similar characteristics between
them, it is probably more acceptable to describe both populations separately and
once stating that they have common characteristics, then compare some items.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The tables are suitable. However, titles in tables should be more explicit, total
numbers included, the period in which populations were recruited, etc. Tables
should describe what p values mean and the statistical method used.
More details on the questions on HIV knowledge should be included in materials
and methods or in the table given that no description is given of the 12 questions
they said they asked. I suggest the authors take into account the questionnaire
(HIV-KQ-18) described by Carey MP, Schroder KEE. “Development and
psychometric evaluation of the brief HIV knowledge questionnaire”. AIDS Educ
Prev. 2002;14(2):172–82.
The last question on stigma (most people believe that a person who has HIV is
dirty) is not clear. It means “what the volunteer personally thinks” and the
question is not well done, or it means “what they think the general population
thinks”.
The figures are redundant and at least one may be omitted.
Sex work is not defined, how many years in sex work, how many times in their
lives they practiced sex work?
3. Are the data sound?
The populations studied have an adequate number of volunteers included. The
data obtained through the questionnaires is valuable; however some data should
be completed.
No data on what the situation of FSW is reported. Are they legally accepted, are
they pursued by the police or other authorities, as is frequent in many other
countries?
This information is relevant to understand the situation of FSW and evaluate if it
is comparable with GMW.
The authors report that most of FSW are from karaoke bars or massage parlors.
Is this the same situation for those street working?
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Discussion should include more data on what is happening in other countries.
They limit it to a Ref. number.
Conclusions are slightly included in the Discussion. It would probably be more
outstanding if they are written separately.
Migrant situation in both populations might be point out in discussion.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Besides the limitations described by the authors, they should refer to what is
stated in 3.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building
both published and unpublished?
It seems so.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
I consider that it would be better if it is not a comparative study, but a study on
two populations including women at risk.