Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Perspectives of women participating in a cervical cancer screening campaign with 
community -based HPV self -sampling in rural western Kenya: A Qualitative study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Dec 2018  
 
Reviewer: Juan Félix  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your r eport as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to th e authors.  
This is a thoughtfully conducted sociological research project. The aims sought to find 
motivations and detractors to cervical cancer screening among women in a low income country 
setting. The questions posed were relevant and the data gathered  informative. The results and 
conclusions were informative as well.  
My only criticism of this manuscript is that as with most publications, readers will judge 
exploring the manuscript on the basis of the ABSTRACT. In this instance the abstract is plagued 
with technicalities and epidemiological "lingo" that belie the simple substance of the findings 
and would discourage the reader from pursuing  reading the entire work. Simplifying this 
ABSTRACt would greatly enhance the publication. The Methods section woul d very nicely 
suffice to explain and inform of the technicalities. Rewriting the abstract in a more "reader 
friendly"  fashion would greatly enhance viewership.  
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 comme nts 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 stat istical 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 i n the 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  
organisa tion 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 manuscr ipt, 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 paten ts 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 have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the man uscript 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 Open 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