Reviewer's report
Title:Encountering medical patriarchy: The gendered doctor-patient
communication experiences of female overactive bladder patients with male
urologists in Hong Kong
Version:2Date:7 January 2015
Reviewer: Pytha Albers
Reviewer's report:
General remarks
The question posed by the author is an interesting one and worth researching. A
qualitative research method with a phenomenological approach is most
adequate. The study is overall well written and adds new knowledge on the lived
experiences of women with OAB with the communication with their male
urologists in China, Hong Kong. It needs however some English editing.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. line 186/187: as a single researcher you conducted a recoding process to
eliminate subjectivity and bias. Did you check validity and reliability of your work
otherwise? E.g. did you ask the interviewed women to check the transcripts?
Were there no co-researchers that gave you feedback on any part of your work
to avoid subjectivity and flaws in your work? This a major concern and should be
considered in the discussion/limitations of the research.
Minor essential Revisions:
1. The methods, results, discussion and conclusion sections overall seem
somewhat lengthy with some repetitions.
2. line 71 prevalence worldwide specify; why not add here the ‘estimated’
prevalence in Hong Kong and explain why this is an estimation
3. line 70-74 Please use and refer to terminology for OAB definition and
symptoms conform ICS IUGA standards (Haylen BT, De Ridder D, Freeman RM,
Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An international urogynecological
association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the
terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodynam.
2010;29(1):4-20.)
4. line 85: are ‘under the chronic care of urologists’: what do you exactly mean,
rephrase
5. 126: why did you choose 30 women ? Saturation or are these the same
women as in the prior study you refer to?
6. Some editing issues: 253: ‘as I do not’ 256: ‘made her urologists feeling
difficulty’ 323: whom, were appeared 402/403; 447: indeference?
Discretionary Revisions
1. 78: ‘presumably rising’ explain why
2. 78/79: Impact reference suggestion ( Coyne K, Sexton C, Irwin D, Kopp Z,
Kelleher C, Milsom I. The impact of overactive bladder, incontinence and other
lower urinary tract symptoms on quality of life, work productivity, sexuality and
emotional well-being in men and women: results from the EPIC study. BJU Int.
2008;101(11):1388-95)
3. 80: add a OAB specific reference
4. 81/82: additional reference besides your self-reference
5. 87: give %
6. 90-95: here you suggest there is some Chinese literature on gender-related
doctor-patient communication, if so please refer
7. 95: reference to give? How do you know? Patient registration family or
urological practice?
8. 101: add the reference
9. 100-104 Describe your background as an explanation for your interest/relation
for this group and as it is known that physician researchers elicit different
interaction than social scientists (Richards H et al. The doctor or the girl from
university? Considering the influence of professional roles on qualitative
interviewing. Fam Pract 2002;17:71-5.
10. 107: did you do a try out of the interview guide? How did you use the guide?
11. 109: add individual interview. (justify the choice for an individual interview in
stead of a focus group interview at this point or further on in your data collection
method) Add references.
12. 136: interview guide: did you ask any additonal follow-up questions or adapt
questions after several interviews?
13. 164-167: add reference
14. 169: quite long time for an OAB patient. Were they free to go to the bathroom
during the interview?
15. 171 give also euros
16. Discussion: Start with your main findings
17. The interpretation of the data are supported by the data. However,
recommendations to improve OAB care could also be focused on the
doctors/urologists and their education related to diversity to make the discussion
more balanced.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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'