Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Acceptability, simplicity, and relevance of the new Human
papillomavirus/DNA test among 35- year-old ever-married women in a district
of Sri Lanka: Focus group discussions
Version: 
4 
Date: 
16 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Review comments
General comments
I commend the Authors for their good review of the manuscript based on
previous review comments. I am of the opinion that more revisions may be
required before the manuscript could be accepted for publication.
I also recommend a further review of the manuscript for correction of
grammatical errors.
Authors should take note of the following in the review of the manuscript.
Abstract
Change majority in the abstract section to most. 
Authors should take a careful look at comments on presentation of the results
and perhaps re-write the result section of the abstract.
There are three key words in the title of the study. The Authors should present
the views of most of the participants on these three key variables. This will be
useful.
Page 4, line 34, change of to that
Methods
Introduce the acronyms, MOH and WWC the first time they were introduced in
the manuscript.
Study population
Delete for in line 12
Data analysis
Review line 38. The Principal Investigator was coded data.
Page 14, line 34-36, review
Reporting of results 
There are still some issues with the way the results are presented.
1. It was same pattern all through the manuscript and the narration is poor.
Authors will start with the views of most of the participants and in the same
sentence bring forward that of some of the participants. One cannot decipher
whether the two (use of most and some) are on the same concept or different. 
2. After expressing the views of most of the participants on a particular concept,
minority report may require the views of a few or two or even one of the
participants. Remember also that if all the participants expressed the same view
that will be reported as all of the participants. 
3. In a study with three focus group discussions, one wonders the need for eight
themes. This made the results of one theme to be in isolation to that of the other.
For example, there is no need for theme three and four to be separated. If the two
themes are combined with more information, the reader would have been able to
understand the views of the women with regard to the two tests bearing in mind
the remarks of the Authors as stated in the background section. Authors should
do a careful review of the other themes.
4. Participant profile should include more information about the participants like
educational attainment, occupation and age groups if the authors obtained such
information.
5. The quotes should be edited for errors of grammar and focus should be on the
part of the quotes that support the narration by the Authors.
6. Since all the participants are married, there is no need to use mother or lady to
differentiate the participants in their quotes. Authors should use (Participant,
urban sector, or estate as the case may be) for the differentiations. 
7. Authors should note that the study design was not stated in this manuscript.
This should be corrected.
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 after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. 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