Title: Psycho-social experience of oocyte recipient women: a qualitative study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for reviewing such an interesting study. I hope I can contribute to
improving the article.
I make some considerations below.
Abstract:
results: the division of items doesn't look good to me, I suggest presenting the main categories
and then the subcategories
conclusion: I suggest you objectively describe what the psychological reactions are, using the
word diverse makes the conclusions very general.
Background:
Paragraph 1-
many psychosocial consequences: I suggest describing what these consequences are
Paragraph 2-
I suggest putting the marital problems mentioned after the first sentence and, in this way,
changing the structure of the paragraph to explain very objectively: the symptoms and related
psychological disorders and what they can cause for marital problems.
The third sentence needs to be rewritten, it is possible to use the donated oocytes, but I understand
that it is an option, as couples are not forced to use it, but rather, they make their choice to use
the method to have children, they could choose not to have them. them or adopt them, so you
need to rewrite that sentence.
I believe this phrase needs to be accompanied by a reference:
“Moreover, men have played their role in the reproduction of the offspring resulting from
assisted reproductive treatment via gamete sharing and their gender role has thus been played
in reproduction and genome sharing.”
The way the study objective is written needs to be revised, I suggest using an imperative verb:
understand, understand... I don't see the need to mention that it is a qualitative study in its
objective.
And in general, I suggest paying attention to the size of the paragraphs, making it more
homogeneous, it is possible to pass the key information of the introduction in paragraphs with
about 5 lines each, I suggest reviewing the structure with the adjustments mentioned above.
Methods
Paragraph 1-
I suggest that ethical approval be placed at the end of the section in a separate sentence.
I suggest organizing this paragraph only with information from the participants and removing
information about the collection period, for example.
I suggest a reference for which qualitative approach has been used and also for inductive content
analysis.
This phrase seems to me poorly placed in the inclusion criteria:
“having sufficient ability to provide rich and complete information to the researcher”
I suggest making it clear what is meant by rich and complete information or rewriting.
Paragraph 2-
I suggest summarizing the constant information and adding important information about: how
the initial contact was made with the participants, how the researcher/interviewer was involved
in the health services, how the location of the interview was...
Paragraph 3-
I couldn't understand it well, I think that an interview is a data collection technique, not a method,
and were two types of interviews carried out? Or was the interview conducted following a
semi-structured and in-depth script? Need to rewrite the writing of this paragraph to clarify this
information. As the sample was closed by saturation, it is necessary to place a reference on this
process.
Paragraph 5-
This paragraph provides a description of the external validation of the data, I do not understand
the use of the reference if it is an excerpt from the development of this study. I believe it is clearer
that they describe the internal and external validation to ensure the accuracy of data analysis and
verify the most appropriate place to use the reference 24.
Results
Paragraph 1
I realize that they had 3 refusals, I think it's important to talk about this situation.
The division of categories and subcategories needs to appear here very clearly, it is confusing
how they put it.
About category
It is well described, organized, but I miss a pattern when referring to the participants, sometimes
pointing out "one participant said", sometimes pointing out "many participants talked about it"
and sometimes pointing out "participant 20 talks about..." I suggest that standardize and use the
same way of referring to participants in all situations.
About categories 2 and 3
I believe they are also well described and organized. I maintain the same point about
standardizing the way in which participants are referred
Discussion
Paragraph 1
The objective brought here is different from the objective of the study, it is necessary to adjust
and I do not believe that identifying is a good verb for a qualitative study.
As I mentioned earlier, I think that here it is necessary to specify which:
“wide range of psychological responses”
Paragraph 3
I couldn't understand the information, I believe it is necessary to rewrite the excerpt to clarify
“Issues such as the offspring's relation with other family members determine the type of the
relationship between the offspring and other family members, which itself is determining of
being mahram, and its observance requires providing others with information about the genetic
origin of the offspring.”
Paragraph 4
The authors state that the participants pointed out several ways to deal with Spiritual
discouragement, however in the corresponding subcategory (1.4. Spiritual discouragement ) they
only bring the speech of one participant, I believe it is better to bring the other lines, illustrating
these different ways of dealing. in the discussion section.
I also ask if there were other studies talking about this topic (Spiritual discouragement) I saw that
other authors were not mentioned. If they really haven't found other studies, I think it's worth
pointing out in the discussion.
Paragraph 5
Again the generic phrase, I believe you need to specify: “wide range of psychological symptoms”
The questions about the bond need to appear as a suggestion for future research, as they are
not among the objectives of the work and I believe that it is too complex a topic to appear
superficially in the discussion.
“Although pregnant women who were in their second and third trimesters did not participate in
this study, the process of bonding in these women is one of the issues that need to be evaluated.”
In this excerpt, I also miss a reference, some quote reflecting on the same issues or the note
about not having found studies that reflected on the same item:
“Moreover, the influx of other negative emotions such as the fear of a third party's entering their
life and the subsequent feeling of disintegration of marital life, lack of control over affairs and
the experience of problems which are different from those of infertile women treated with other
assisted reproductive treatments made the women of this study use aggression as a negative
reaction to express their emotions.”
The generalization of qualitative research occurs in a naturalistic way, in view of this, the reader
needs to assess whether the results can help the development of care in a given region. without
limiting the reader's right to use the data.
Paragraph 7
I believe this paragraph needs to be restructured, talking about the participating group and not
about groups that did not participate.
Conclusion
I think the conclusion should be rewritten and objectively answer the study question. The present
study proposes to talk about the experience of the woman receiving donated oocytes, so the
conclusion must be based on the speech of this experience only. The rest is recommendation,
maybe it could be in the discussion section.
Success to the authors