Reviewer’ s report
Title: Challenges and Opportunities Confronting female-headed households in Iran: A Qualitative
Study
Version: 2Date: 25 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
This paper explored the challenges and opportunities faced by female-headed households in Iran.
Through a well-organized qualitative study, the authors were able to thematically outline theessential challenges faced by women whose husbands have died. The strength of the paper lies inthe application of a rigorous method which contributes to results that are transferable to settingssimilar to the study context. While I find the paper to be of interest and worth publishing, it is voidof an appropriate theory and has a few limitations that need addressing.
1.I like the fact that the authors used Guba and Lincoln to assess the trustworthiness of the study;
however, just saying "the Guba and Lincoln criteria were used to assess the quality of the researchresults" in the abstract is not enough. It is better to outline the criteria than make reference to thesource of the criteria.
2.In the study setting, the authors indicate "participants in the study included 26 female-headed
households whose wives had died". I think this is typo that needs to be corrected; if not, pleaseclarify whether the marriage is heterosexual or homosexual.
3.Kindly provide the name of the institution that gave approval to the study and please add the
ethical approval number.
4.It is not clear from the manuscript what qualitative research approach was used in this study.
Was it phenomenology or grounded theory?? Since the authors report the use of semi-structuredinterviews, it seems to me that they probably used phenomenology. Please explain why and how itwas used.
5.The authors reported the average time for the interview which is appropriate. It will be
informative to know the time range (min-max) for the interviews.
6.As commented for the abstract, it will be good if the authors do away with the phrase Guba
criteria and the Lincoln and Guba Criteria. It sounds more like a cliché. The authors may want tooutline the criteria and cite the authors at the beginning of the paragraph.
7.The authors report that qualified research experts and practitioners in the field of female-headed
households also assisted in the data analysis and coding process. The authors should specificallyindicate the number of experts and practitioners, and document the type of expertise.
8.While I appreciate the use of the trustworthy criteria in assessing the rigor of the study, I am
wondering whether the authors used member checking to ensure the transcripts reflected the report
of the participants. Also, it is not obvious from the study how the authors were reflexive of their
own experiences when interpreting the experiences of participants.
9.The results were well organized although I ask that the authors add the age and trade of the
participants to identify the narratives. This gives more meaning to the narratives.
10.I find the authors use of 'female-headed households' as a better expression than 'women head of
households.' Please be consistent throughout the manuscript.
11.With the discussion, the authors should first outline the objectives of the study followed by the
key findings of the study. They can then take each of the findings and discuss.
12.The authors should consider moving the paragraph on strengths and limitations before the
conclusion. It makes the paper structural coherent.
13.The reviewer encourages the author (s) of this paper to give some time to proofreading and
editing of the paper. Attention should be paid to punctuations, sentence structuring, andappropriate paragraphing in the entire article. Also, avoid long sentences which tend to concealmeaning.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
YesAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration 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'
Reviewer Publication Consent. 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) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.
(default)