Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Women’s experiences of receiving care for pelvic organ prolapse: A qualitative study.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 01 Dec 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Fernanda  Surita  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Initially I thank you for the opportunity to review this article.  
 
Qualitative research has been gaining ground among scientific articles, however its method and 
analysis of results need the same or greater rigor of quantitative studies.  
 
 
Title:  
 
I suggest change to:  
 
"Women's experiences of receiving care for pelvic organ prolapse. A qualitative study."  
 
There is a lo t of information in the title. The "experience of women" already reflects the current 
concept of "person -centered care".  In my opinion the study design gets better at the end of title.  
 
 
Abstract:  
 
Please include "an intentional sample of 22 w…." in methods . 
 
I suggest that in the results or discussion the importance of the multi -professional team in 
approaching treatment options should be addressed.  
 
 
K-words: I suggest change "patient experience" for "woman experience"  
 
Exclude "health care delivery", change  "patient choice" for "woman choice".  
 
 
Introduction:  
 
too long  
 
I suggest to exclude   
 
line 95 -97  "In the reality of clinical practice, decisions are also likely to be influenced by 
practitioner skills, preferences and knowledge as well as availability an d access to treatments."  
 
line 121 -124 "A detailed understanding of women's experiences of interactions with different 
health professionals and health services throughout their prolapse care is essential to improve the 
person centered ness of services."  
  
Line 129 -139 " Within PROPEL, the local sites were 129 provided …to prove insightful for 
designing women's health services internationally." this can be briefly described in study 
methodology.  
 
  
Methods  
 
Sample: Please include that is an intentional sample  
 
Data Collection: KS and SW (one lead facilitator who was experienced in qualitative 
methodology and conducting focus groups, and one support facilitator who had knowledge in the 
subject area) - please in clude the academic background and profession of KS and SW.  
 
Was informed consent obtained for each woman participant? If yes, include in method.  
 
It is necessary to talk about the theoretical reference used before the software nVIVO  
 
 
Results  
 
Please change "Findings" for "Results"  
 
This topic is too long and tiring, needs to be reduced, there must be one or two "texts / speech" 
for each category or sub category. And at most two, when there is ambivalence.  
 
The results need to be rewritten in a more concise way. This part of the article does not grab the 
attention of the reader, needs to be more objective, the "texts / speech" can also be shorter. And 
very direct answers like "exactly" do not need to be included.  
 
Figure 2: Final coding framework for focus gr oup/interviews - I suggest a more creative figure to 
show the creation of the final coding framework  
 
 
Discussion  
 
It's the best part of the paper,.  
 
But it is not "a relatively small cohort of women" but an intentional sample in a qualitative 
analisys.  
To s ay that "meaning the generalisability of the findings is unclear" is to disbelieve the 
methodology used. This phrase needs to be rewritten.  
 
Both in the discussion and in the conclusions it is necessary to be very clear that the health care 
team must be mu lti-professional since this is not the reality in many places.  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
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 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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in t he 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, 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 
financial ly 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 incl uded 
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 Ope n 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