Reviewer's report
Title:Standpoints of Roma women regarding reproductive health
Version:4Date:29 January 2015
Reviewer: Zeljka Nikolic
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The aim of the article “Standpoints of Roma women regarding reproductive
health” was to address a very important public health questions: to examine the
attitudes of Roma women to reproductive health.
The authors mostly adhere to the Journal's guidelines for authors. The title
describes the article clearly. The abstract respects the content of the article.
Method and Results are well written and provide high quality information on this
issue, particularly because it is based on the qualitative methodology as well as
on the carefully chosen sample (purposeful) which is representative for the
Hudeje/Vejar settlement.
As written in Method section, the instrument (semi-structured questionnaire) had
tree areas. Going through results and discussion sections I have not noticed any
of these categories explained in this way.
From the manuscript it seems that two themes overlapping (treatment at a
gynaecologist and comprehensive treatment). Actually, from the text description I
can conclude that in the first part the authors wanted to explain the
consequences and conditions when Roma women visit a gynaecologist and in
second the attitudes which include attitudes to a gynaecologist, communication
and understanding between Roma women and staff, occurrences of
discrimination and their inclusion in preventive programs. So, it is necessary to
reorganize these parts of results and discussion.
Discussion and conclusions are not well balanced. Conclusion is too long. As it is
given in instructions for authors: Conclusion should state clearly the main
conclusions of the research and give a clear explanation of their importance and
relevance.
In Table 2 there are two basic fields which are not well matched with categories.
They are not mentioned anywhere in the manuscript. The authors should
consider this issue and change the concept of basic fields.
It would be helpful if the authors comment on strengths and weaknesses of the
study. (The attitudes of Roma women who did not want to participate in research
may differ from those who did. Is it possible that it may be a limitation of study?)
It is a pity that the authors did not report more certain literature which supports
the subject. It should be improved in marked places in the manuscript. (See the
comments below)
It is written in English but contains multiple syntax and punctuation errors as it
may not have been first written in the English language so it needs major editorial
review.
Minor Essential Revisions
Page 2
Line 34: Atlas.ti software is mentioned only in Abstract. It is important to include
this in Method section.
Page 4
Line 75: “…the degree of contraception…” My suggestion is: “…the level of
contraceptive use…”.
Line 79: “Gender inequality” requires reference.
Line 82: Start new paragraph with “In Slovenia, Roma women…”.
Page 5
Line 97-98: Start new paragraph with the sentence “In spite of the…”.
Page 6
Line121-123: Try to summarize strengths (contribution) and limitations of the
study in a new paragraph (as written above) not in Introduction but in Discussion
section.
Page 7
Line 159: Information about socio-demographic characteristics of the interviews
women and Table 1 should be moved to Results section.
Line 160-162: instead: “Adult Roma women took part…” put: “Only Roma women
who voluntarily wanted to speak about their feelings and standpoints regarding
reproductive health took part in research.” Otherwise, it makes confusion.
Page 8
Line 171: If I understood correctly Trebnje is municipality where Hudeje/Vejar
settlement is located. Anyway, it should be explained in Method section.
Line 177: My suggestion is to put the full explanation for written consent (the
whole footnote) into manuscript.
Page 9
Line 185: Where is the explanation for “2”?
Line 192: What is the meaning of (e.g. 25)? Is 25 a number of reference? If it is,
there is no need to put e.g. in front of number.
Page 10
Line 207: In the whole 3.1.1. part the topic is overall personal health (in general)
not health care so this subtitle should be renamed.
Line 211: Under “personal health care” in the lines below, it is talking about
healthy life styles as a determinant of health and not about health care so here is
also need to make a change and define correctly the term.
Page 12
Line 256: Use the term reproductive health and not “gynecological health”.
Page 13
Line 273: Why is visit written in italic?
Line 280: I do not understand the meaning of the sentence: “When I was
pregnant, than to get contraceptive.”
Page 14
Line 298: My advice is to be consistent with terms so everywhere in the
manuscript should be used term Roma women (not Roman women).
Page 15
Line330: I would say that this 3.1.5. part describes comprehensive treatment at
the gynecologist department or gynecologist clinic so it should be noted.
Page 17
Line 372: Sampling technique used in research (Purposive sampling) should be
explained and written in Method section.
Line 375-376: References cited only as a number in brackets (6), (19, 28, 29).
Line 378: This is a repetition of the first sentence from 3.1.1. Health care section.
Try to avoid repetition.
Line 380-382: What is scientific basis that you deem this? You need to complete
this part with some references.
Page 18
Line 393: What is meant by the "younger generation"? What is the age limit?
How do you explain that fact that younger generations visit gynecologist more
frequent than older generations?
Line 396-398: “The research results do not accord…” From this description it
seems that Roma women do not go to gynecological clinics in order to save their
reproductive health. Do you have some data which confirm this statement?
Line 406: “Walk-in” treatment which was introduced in other countries. In which
countries and what kind of treatment is “walk-in” treatment? You need references
for this.
Page 20
Line 433: Instead of “Only in such a manner can...” put “Only in such a manner
good relations with Roma women can be established…”
Page 28
Pay attention: Themes in table 2 are different than themes in the results section.
For example, treatment of reproductive health (written in table 2) is different than
dealing with reproductive health is (written in manuscript).
In Table 2, a field “number of codes in the individual category” for category
“educational strategies for Roma women” is empty. Why?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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.