Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Perspectives of pregnant and postpartum women and obstetr ic providers to promote 
healthy lifestyle in pregnancy and after delivery: A qualitative in -depth interview study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 15 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: Sue Pullon  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The paper is now much improved.  There is however, still insuffic ient information in the text 
about the analysis of the women's responses and the provider responses, despite an initial 
separate analytic process for the two groups now being mentioned (although not very clearly) in 
the response to the review comments.   
 
The stages of analysis should be made explicit in the Data analysis section of the paper. I'm 
assuming from the comments (see responses to points 12, 13 and 23, from reviewer 2 and 
Reviewer 3) that there was an initial stage of analysis where the results fr om the two different 
groups were considered separately, even though the themes are presented as overall themes in 
the results section.  
 
Supplement 1 and supplement 2 now provided are helpful. These make it obvious that the first 
(the interview guide for th e women) has a broad scope and asks about healthy behaviours 
including weight management, whereas the provider interview guide is far more focused on 
weight management. This further reinforces the need to address and describe the stages in the 
analytic pro cess in more detail before the manuscript is suitable for publication.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, pleas e 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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspe cts require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the 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, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the 
publi cation of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 curr ently 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 understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named repo rt 
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 understan d that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal