Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Knowledge on cervical cancer and perceived barriers to the uptake of
HPV vaccination among health professionals.
Version: 
2 
Date: 
28 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
BMC Women's Health. BMWH-D-20.00462R2
Title: KNOWLEDGE ON CERVICAL CANCER AND PERCEIVED
BARRIER TO THE UPTAKE OF HPV VACCINATION AMONG HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS
The authors have made appreciable effort in correcting the work. Some areas of
changes seem to be confusing. Some figures changed are different from what
was presented on the table. For example Ever used Pap smear screening was
presented as 29.2 % in the previous submission but now written as 37% but still
reading 29.2 on table 2. You need to go through the work and edit both the
figures, grammar and style of presentation. 
Abstract
Background is one word and should not be broken. 
There is need to review the
use of the verb explore for a quantitative study. 
Background to the Problem
The background captured the essence of the work but there are various editorial
errors that need to be corrected especially spacing and punctuations. The last
sentence says explore, is this a qualitative study?
Methodology
Instrumentation: The authors did not explain the validation of the instrument as
no reliability coefficient was stated. 
Result
The result presentation needs to be reorganized. There is need to put the items on
the tables under appropriate headings. 
On table 2: Knowledge towards cervical cancer? Did you ever had PAP test is
not a knowledge question, it is more of a utilization or uptake question and
should not be part of that table.The grammar is also wrong, should be did you
ever 'have'. Moreover, this should be Ever utilized Pap Smear test. 
Table 3 Knowledge towards HPV & HPV Vaccination? 
Have you or your family
members vaccinated for HPV? This not a knowledge question 
Willingness to receive HPV vaccine this should not be under knowledge. 
Reason for not having HPV vaccination- do you want to find out their personal
reasons for not utilizing vaccinations or is this really a knowledge
question??????????????
The results were presented using questions instead of the stems. There is need to
correct and revise this. 
Review and crosscheck the result presentation. 
Discussion 
The authors supported the findings with assertions and discoveries of authors
and researchers on the variables of interest. However, there is need to still
improve on the discussion to show the difference from the other previous
studies. 
Finally, I will suggest that the authors take time to correct, revise and edit the
work before the paper is accepted. 
Thank you.
Dr Chizoma M. Ndikom 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at
Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you
will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be
able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the
Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you
as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For
example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile
published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help
editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in
Publons’ privacy policy 
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 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 manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. 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)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes