Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Technology as the Key to Women’s Empowerment: A Scoping Review
Version: 
0 
Date: 
25 Jan 2020
Reviewer: 
Shannon Wood
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your interest in this important topic and impressive work
synthesizing a vast literature base. As you've stated, women's empowerment is an
incredibly difficult concept to define and measure. As such, this manuscript
requires a number of additional details, including clarifying the disconnect
between the inclusion criteria and the stated research objectives, as well as
substantial restructuring of the Results and Discussion. Further, your manuscript
could benefit from narrowing your research objectives to allow for more in-
depth analysis and discussion of findings (see points below about measurement
of empowerment). Specific points are outlined below.
Abstract:
1. Background can be summarized more succinctly, with a more concerted focus
on empowerment, as this is your primary outcome.
2. Please specify inclusion criteria and ensure research objectives are consistent
throughout.
3. The discussion of technologies within healthcare settings is a new idea
presented in the Conclusion, an important one. As you clarify your research
question, please ensure that the main implications are consistent throughout. 
Background:
1. A pressing issue throughout the Background is the lack of focus on women's
empowerment. This is the outcome of your scoping review and is not mentioned
explicitly until the final paragraph. While you discuss SDG-5 and gender
equality throughout, a more concerted focus on women's empowerment,
including current definitions (and the definition you adopt for your inclusion
criteria) and measurement issues, could strengthen this paper. Narrowing the
Introduction to focus on technology and women's empowerment will also
increase clarity surrounding search terms/inclusion criteria and measurement
pieces within the Discussion.
2. The Background makes a strong case for gender inequality overall, however, a
stronger case could be made for gender gaps in technology. 
3. There is a disconnect between the research question introduced in the last
paragraph of the Background and the search strategy/inclusion criteria.
Specifically, there is no mention within the Background of the exclusive focus
on interventions only. It would be helpful to understand the rationale for this,
including types of possible technology interventions.
4. Overall, the Background could be better organized to increase clarity and
focus specifically on key points addressed in the research question.
Methods:
1. It would be helpful if the Arksey and O'Malley steps outlined on pg.5 lines 17-
34 were numbered, as they are referred to by number.
2. The "Review Question and Scope" section (pg. 6, lines 4-9) should be covered
at the end of the Background. Further, this question is different than
inclusion/exclusion criteria that excludes all studies not focused on interventions.
Suggestion to further refine research question to increase synergy with the
performed search. 
3. Technology interventions are rapidly evolving. It would be helpful if the
search was updated to reflect more recent years (ideally through 2019).
4. It would be helpful to have a bit more clarification about how the search terms
for empowerment were selected. Also consider including search term of
"autonomy" and "agency" as these are often conflated for empowerment.
5. As discussed previously, there is a disconnect between the study objectives
and the inclusion criteria. Specifically, the sentence beginning on pg. 9, line 38
should be clarified. If the inclusion criterion applied at full-text review is
different than that applied at title and abstract review, this should be stated and
criterion specified. 
6. It would be helpful for the "Scoping review management and analysis" section
to come earlier, or possibly as part of the "Review protocol, team, and expertise"
section. Specifically, more details about the management team during analysis
and roles of the research team should be included. Was each article double
screened separately at each stage of the review? How were discrepancies
resolved?
Results:
1. The Results section requires considerable reorganization to increase clarity.
Results should focus only on presentation of reviewed articles, with commentary
left for the Discussion (examples include pg. 11, line 21; pg. 14, lines 48-pg.15,
line 7). Further, key themes should be outlined more clearly and results
organized accordingly.
2. Though it would be long, it would be incredibly helpful to have one table with
all of the reviewed studies synthesized, including study population, country,
demographics, empowerment measurement, technology used, and key results.
It's very difficult to follow the Results currently without seeing more information
about the studies included.
3. Thank you for your attention to differences in definitions of empowerment—
this is certainly an issue for empowerment work! It would also be helpful to
discuss differences in measurement and tools used to measure empowerment. It
could also be helpful to include a sub-header within the Results to focus
exclusively on empowerment classification and measurement, as there are a
substantial number of paragraphs devoted to this topic. Again, be clear that this
is only the presentation of findings, with further commentary presented within
the Discussion.
4. How were ICT interventions categorized (Table 2)? Please outline this step in
the methods. How are you applying these classifications? It might be helpful to
organize results as such or incorporate otherwise.
5. There are a number of details in Figure 1 that are not specified in the Methods.
How were the key articles selected from which reference lists were reviewed?
What is the difference between screening 1, 2, 
and 3? In the full-text screening, it
appears that other exclusion criteria are applied that are not outlined in the
Methods (see methods point #5). Also, please clarify the rerun search in the
diagram, though this process is clear in text, and consider other ways to clarify
this Figure, as it is incredibly important for your paper.
6. Figure 2 is not particularly helpful and is very difficult to read. Please
consider synthesizing this information in another manner. 
7. Minor point: Do not need to state 51 as the denominator, as this has already
been defined.
Discussion:
1. After other points are clarified, particularly the research question and
organization of Results, the Discussion could use reorganization to increase
clarity and focus specifically on key findings and implications from this analysis.
The first paragraph should focus on key points—currently it is unclear what the
main findings are.
2. Please include demographic details summarizing studies (pg. 15, lines 14-16)
within the Results. Further, where did most of these studies take place? In
discussions about access and under-represented populations, it would be helpful
to know further information about demographics and geographic spread.
3. The statement that "exclusion criteria eliminated women not already owning a
mobile device, computer, or tablet" (pg. 15, lines 19-21) is confusing. When was
this stated? What about technology-assisted empowerment interventions? Please
clarify.
4. It is a bold statement to say that "women who do not have access to or who
cannot afford ICTs are disempowered due to lack of voice and participation
within the information society." The authors are urged to consider a more
holistic approach to empowerment, including other realms that women may be
empowered in. Further, some discussion of women's choice to own or engage
with ICTs should be included.
5. The paragraph discussing lack of measures of empowerment cited within
articles is worrisome. The presented measures of self-efficacy are very different
and warrant further analysis to understand whether these studies can be
compared. The authors are encouraged to be transparent about measures of
empowerment (or proxies for empowerment) in the analyzed articles via table of
results. Further, it might be worth considering narrowing the scope of this article
to focus more specifically on self-efficacy (or another specific dimension of
empowerment or technology) in order to expand the depth of this analysis. 
6. The attention to potential negative outcomes related to the use of ICT,
specifically cyber abuse, is appreciated—this is a critical issue and shortcomings
of ICTs overall should be addressed. However, authors are urged to focus their
Discussion overall on more in-depth analysis and Discussion pertaining to the 51
articles analyzed in this study and implications drawn specifically from this
analysis. 
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