JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Knowledge, Attitude and Practice towards Cervical Cancer Prevention among Mothers
of girls aged between 9 and 14 years: a cross sectional survey in Zimbabwe
Version: 1 Date: 17 Sep 2021
Reviewer:  Doreen Ramogola-masire
Reviewer's report:
I was pleased to see this article as we need relevant local context to guide implementation of
WHO “elimination” strategy, especially in sub-Saharan Africa where the burden of cervical
cancer is high.
This study assesses KAP of cervical cancer prevention among mothers of 9 to 14 year old
girls in Zimbabwe. It further assessed knowledge, acceptability, uptake of HPV vaccine. The
study used interviewer-based questionnaires which were piloted before being the instrument
was finalized. The study had an excellent response rate of 97%. The authors acknowledged the
limitation inherent in the chosen recruitment sites. I have a few suggestions and questions for
your manuscript:
Where is Parirenyawata in relation to Marondera Beitbridge? What training was provided to
those conducting the interviews? What language were the interviews conducted in?
Abstract: The clarity of the findings could be improved by re-organization to reflect the primary
objective of KAP of cervical cancer prevention; and the secondary objective of HPV vaccine
knowledge, acceptability, and uptake rate.
Background and Discussion: Well-structured with pertinent citations.
Results: This section needs careful editing and may benefit from a language editor; there are
several typos, spelling, grammatical errors (eg mixing of tenses), and inconsistent abbreviations
(eg page 6 line 267- standard deviation is usually abbreviated to SD etc). These mistakes distracts
from the quality of research. Table 2 seems to be missing some data-I couldn’t figure out where
the data quoted from line 293 to 333 was.
Title: Knowledge, Attitude and Practice towards Cervical Cancer Prevention among Mothers
of girls aged between 9 and 14 years: a cross sectional survey in Zimbabwe
Version: 2 Date: 19 Oct 2021
Reviewer:  Doreen Ramogola-masire
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the manuscript. Whilst most of my comments have been attended to, the
results section still needs attention to weed out typos, spelling errors, and grammatical errors
which distract from the valuable information in the manuscript.
Title: Knowledge, Attitude and Practice towards Cervical Cancer Prevention among Mothers
of girls aged between 9 and 14 years: a cross sectional survey in Zimbabwe
Version: 2 Date: 01 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Hae Won Kim
Reviewer's report:
Title is still not well reflect the results findings related logistic regression value.
it is continuously related the results compositions.
Despite of not being concise in the results section including tables, it  seems to be worthy to
be apparent as a whole.
However, if possible, it is recommended to revise further version in which confining to more
informed and condensed knowledge.
Title: Knowledge, Attitude and Practice towards Cervical Cancer Prevention among Mothers
of girls aged between 9 and 14 years: a cross sectional survey in Zimbabwe
Version: 4 Date: 13 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Doreen Ramogola-masire
Reviewer's report:
Most of the typos/spelling/grammatical errors corrected, with an occasional one here and there.
The results section reads much better!
Title: Women Empowerment in Reproductive Health: a Systematic Review of Measurement
Properties
Version: 3 Date: 02 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
This paper titled “Women Empowerment in Reproductive Health: a Systematic Review of
Measurement Properties” submitted to BMC Women's Health reports findings of a systematic
review of studies reporting the measurement properties of women empowerment’s scales in
reproductive health. The topic is important and would be of interest to readers of BMC Women's
Health.
However, I have several points requiring clarification.
Abstract:
- Results: As the aim of this study was to summarize the measurement properties of women
empowerment’s scales, it would be good to report measurement properties of the scales included
in the review instead of reporting how many studies had provided the property information.
- Conclusion: Suggest to add a sentence summarising the findings (i.e. the measurement
properties of the scales).
Introduction:
- Suggest to add what scales were available or existed in the literature.
Methods:
- Suggest authors to update the search, as it is more than 11 months ago now.
- Page 6 line 124: The authors mentioned “using the various search strategies”, please specify
what strategies were used.
- Page 7 line 141: Please specify “other types” and “all measurement properties”.
- Page 7 line 148: Please specify how many reviewers assessed the methodological quality.
Results:
- In Figure 1, when adding the numbers in the top boxes, it is 5612+38=5650, and after
subtracting the duplicates 416, it should be 5650-416=5234, which is different to the number in
the “abstract and titles screened” box. Please clarify.
- Table 1: Suggest to add the names of the scales in the Item/Subscales column.
- The author name of reference 29 is different in Table 1 to those in Table 2 and 3. Please clarify.
Discussion:
- Paragraph 2, last sentence: Suggest to elaborate on this and provide a reference for the study
mentioned.
- Paragraph 3, third sentence: The reference number is different to the previous sentence. Please
clarify.
- Paragraph 4, last sentence: It is still unclear why the authors suggest the existing instruments
be adapted in other contexts. Would be good to explain how this might affect the measurement
properties.
- Paragraph 5: Suggest to elaborate on the last sentence (e.g. why is was interesting?).
- Please elaborate the Limitations section (e.g. selection bias and language bias, etc.).
Title: Women Empowerment in Reproductive Health: a Systematic Review of Measurement
Properties
Version: 3 Date: 14 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting and needed paper. Track changes have been made on the manuscript
to indicate grammatical and language corrections. It would be good to have the paper proof read
before submission.
I think it is important that you have a look at the following main issues before submitting:
*What type of SR was done?
*This would determine the applicable analysis - eg did you consider a quantitative analysis and
pooling if it were possible/applicable? How did you determine heterogeneity?
*How many raters and assessors were involved with data extraction and quality rating? Was the
process blind? How were differences resolved?
*I also made a comment on how you define `women` in your manuscript - as you touch on
gender equality and rights, I think it is important to clarify. Eg referring to cis- and/or trans, etc.
Title: Women Empowerment in Reproductive Health: a Systematic Review of Measurement
Properties
Version: 5 Date: 26 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Minor Recommendations:
Abstract: The symbol for reliability coefficient is missing in the Results.
Introduction: Define abbreviations (e.g. HIV/AIDS, STD, etc.) upon first appearance in the text.
Table 1: Be consistent with the capital letters (e.g. Aged vs. aged), space, etc.
Title: Women Empowerment in Reproductive Health: a Systematic Review of Measurement
Properties
Version: 5 Date: 28 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Well done on a good manuscript.
Currently there is only minor revisions that I indicated with track changes on the document.
Be consistent in the use of terminology such as the words tools, or measuring instruments. or
scales.
Also write the names of the instruments with each word capitalised.
As mentioned previously, give an indication of how heterogeneity was determined and how/
why and on which method of data analysis you decided (as in this case a qualitative discussion
of results). It is clearly relevant, but just good practice to work it into the methodology on how
you ended up with a qualitative discussion.
I attach the document with track changes for convenience.
Title: Cross-sectional assessment of government health center needs to implement long-acting
reversible contraception services in rural Rwanda
Version: 0 Date: 20 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
This paper is a descriptive report of health centers and readiness for family planning training in
Rwanda.  There are places where the paper could be stronger:
Line 127-136 - Please try to be more concise with the particular aims of THIS [roject specifically
and not necessarily spend so much time on the details of the larger family planning counseling
project.
METHODS:
The methods section overall would be more clear if there was a summary statement about the
overall type of study this was.
RESULTS- the results would be more meaningful if median and IQR was presented rather than
average.  One cannot place only part of an IUD.
Title: The Impact of Medical Tourism on Cervical Cancer Screening among Immigrant Women
in the U.S.
Version: 2 Date: 23 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for a very interesting paper concept!  I did have concerns about the age of the data
(12 years since phase 2) and the number of changes in immigration laws and status since that
time.  Some discussion about that seems appropriate. Also, the term medical tourism seems odd
to me if the person is going to their own country for care.  As a person who worked abroad, I
always felt more comfortable receiving care in the US, even though the providers were just as
capable in the other country.  The use of self testing for HPV is a great idea, but if the test is
positive, how do you assure follow-up given the many reasons why immigrants are not using
care? I am not sure that follow up is easier in the US for immigrants than in their own country,
especially if they are uninsured! These issues merit discussion.
Title: The Impact of Medical Tourism on Cervical Cancer Screening among Immigrant Women
in the U.S.
Version: 2 Date: 01 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I think the authors do an excellent
job conveying the primary take-aways from this research to the reader. It is focused on an
important topic of access to cervical cancer and relationship between medical tourism and
cervical cancer screening.  The following comments are offered to help strengthen various
aspects of the manuscript.
Background- Medical tourism is a relatively new phenomenon, it will be helpful to share
additional information and literature review.
Methods:  The NIS was conducted in two rounds: 2003-2004 (round 1) and 2007-2009 (round
2), it is plausible that English proficiency and health insurance status would have changed over
this time. English proficiency and health insurance status data were taken from the first round,
this should be acknowledged as a limitation.
Results- Insurance status" can mean a lot of things. Since the idea is to contrast "Any Insurance"
with "Uninsured", I think it is better to specify "being uninsured" or "having insurance".
Significant association between cervical cancer screening and having one or more diagnoses of
a chronic illness is and important finding for the authors to include in the discussion.
Discussion- It is not clear what barriers were identified in the study.  According to your
discussion “The data also showed that immigrant women might face substantial barriers to
accessing healthcare in the U.S.” It will be better to name the barriers identified in this study
or rewrite for clarity.
The authors are proposing self-sample for HPV, the authors should explain why they think this
intervention will be plausible among immigrant women.
There is literature that shows that self-sampling may make it difficult for women to have follow-
ups as this procedure is completed outside of the health system. The authors should make
a compelling argument as to why this is an intervention that will work among women that
undertake medical tourism.
Title: Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk Among Iraqi Women in 2019
Version: 2 Date: 28 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Authors did a good work revising the previous manuscript extensively. There is need to further
revise or rephrase some sentences.  For instance, the sentence “were taken as without mutation
variable….” Do Authors mean “All participants without  BRCA mutation variable were enrolled
or all were assumed not to have BRCA mutation?
Results section under abstract: the sentence " following in Dhi Qar......"  is not clear. Sentence
should be rephrased.
In general, authors need to revise their English
Specific comments
Abstract
1. Background: sentence  on  “ Further analyse the tendencies that would …….”  there is no result
to proof this aim that authors further analyse the tendencies........ The statement is confusing.
Probably authors meant “ they highlighted the benefits of planning” and not analyse?
2. Results: Author’s should round up numbers to  1 decimal place and be consistent with the
format throughout the manuscript
Abbreviations
BRCA = Breast Cancer gene
Background
1. Second part of the study’s aim should be reviewed.
Materials and methods
1. Authors should rephrase the sentence, “were taken as without mutation variable….” . It is
confusing.
Results
1. Significant p values should be written as "<0.001" and not "0"
Title: Determinants of desire for more children among women in Ethiopia
Version: 1 Date: 15 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Although the study design is very
thorough and the sample size is very big, I have two major concerns with this manuscript.
1. My first concern is that the manuscript needs some substantial grammar editing. I would
suggest that the manuscript is revised by a native speaker. Without grammar editing, the
manuscript is not appropriate for publishing.
2. What is the contribution of your study and how would it help the government to increase the
fertility rate, as you suggested, since the fertility rate in Ethiopia is still very high?
Some minor suggestions/questions:
• Why did you not include independent variables such as current number of children,
employment status, partner’s education, their ideal number of children, use of contraception etc.?
• Please add the information regarding the ethical committee approval.
• The discussion needs to be more systematic and with less repeating. For example in the
paragraph, you are repeating almost the same thing three times: “This study found that having
no education was positively associated with desire for more children at the multivariate analysis,
suggesting that no education was associated with higher desire for more children as compared
to secondary and above education level. The odds of desire for more children were higher in
primary level educated women than secondary and above level educated women.”
Title: Determinants of desire for more children among women in Ethiopia
Version: 4 Date: 23 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you again, for the opportunity to review your manuscript. All minor concerns i had about
your manuscript were answered and corrected. Your paper still needs some substantial grammar
editing, however.
One major concern still remains about ethical approval of your study. You mention that Ethiopia
Health and Nutrition Research Institute Review, board for all EDHS, the Ministry of Science
and Technology, the Institutional Review Board of ICF International, and the CDC approved
your study. Yet, you do not provide any specific document or document number, by which study
was approved. Please add it. Without more detailed information about ethical approval of this
studiy, the manuscript is not appropriate for publishing.
Title: Determinants of desire for more children among women in Ethiopia
Version: 6 Date: 13 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I appreciate opportunity to review your article. Major concerns: english grammar level is not
sufficient. It is still not clear, what is contribution of your study. You imply in your background
section, that fertility rate is declining too fast, eventhough it was still 4.6 children per woman in
2000. It is not clear in what way your study would impact government children control programs.
Moreover, only verbal consent of patients, that were included in study, where they were asked
about family planning, is not sufficient. In my opinion, your study has too many limitations to
be published.
Title: Determinants of desire for more children among women in Ethiopia
Version: 6 Date: 23 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. The grammar has been greatly
improved, however, there are still some minor mistakes.
My comments/questions:
1. I still miss the discussion on contribution of your study and how would it help the government
to increase the fertility rate, since the fertility rate in Ethiopia is still very high?
2. The information regarding ethical committee approval should be put in the text.
Title: Determinants of desire for more children among women in Ethiopia
Version: 7 Date: 03 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors. Again, only verbal consent of patients, that were included in study, where they
were asked about family planning, even if you used secondary data, is not sufficient.
It is not clear, for example, how religion and contraceptive use, that you are mentioning in your
conclusion, will impact governmental family planning programs. Contribution from this paper
is very marginal, thus not significant and sufficient.
Title: Determinants of desire for more children among women in Ethiopia
Version: 7 Date: 20 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors have tried to incorporate some of reviewers’ suggestions. Although I understand that
this was a secondary analysis of data, this information should still be written in the manuscript
(under Methods). You stated that fertility needs to be increased because of the economic activity
and productivity. However, according to data from World Bank, Ethiopia’s unemployment rate
increased in the last year?
Title: Determinants of desire for more children among women in Ethiopia
Version: 8 Date: 13 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
The study uses secondary data. Nevertheless, are subjects informed about the data use in different
studies and do they agree with it – this should be elaborated. Although I agree with what you
have stated in the paragraph Ethical approval and consent to participate, it would be advisable to
state if the women were acquainted with the possibility that their data could be used for further
investigations.
According to World Population Review the population of Ethiopia is still rising a lot. They
have also stated on their website  »The disproportionate population increase has hindered the
economy’s ability to grow and develop at a more rapid pace due to the increased need for more
resources. Ethiopia remains one of the poorest countries in the world due to its rapid population
upsurge«. So based on this I have troubles correlating your data with the reality and how will
this data influence certain factors, such as country policies etc.
Title: Determinants of desire for more children among women in Ethiopia
Version: 8 Date: 13 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear author,
Thank you for submitting your paper, but following things should be changed:
1. in abstract please clarify the ideal number of children
2. In backround please do not mention basic definitions
3. Number of 2,3 of children is enough for population replacement
4. Please mention the numbers related to fertility in Ethiopia- not geografical facts
5. Explanation that working women are tied with work is not good, they maybe better realise
that having more children without providing them good conditions is not sufficinet for them
6. age of less than 18 years to marriage should be clearly discoureged in the paper since it brings
huge risk to potentional young mothers
7. The sentence "Furthermore, most of the women using contraceptive methods had a reduced
fertility rate. In this case, the government amends family planning programs because people are
a pillar to continue one’s country as a country. So, contraceptive use had an impact on the desire
for more children." should be totally revised and changed.
8. It is clear that women using OCP have lower fertility rate.
9. No conclusion should be made that a good thing is to decrease contraceptive methods in order
to improve fertility rate.
All above should be changed and should be written with more considerations of womens wrights.
Thank you.
Title: Determinants of desire for more children among women in Ethiopia
Version: 9 Date: 16 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
I again, can not agree with you. In the whole text there is no mentioning of women rights and
why the decline in desire for children happened. The prediction of population of Ethiopia is
that by 2050 you will have more than 200 milion people (that is almost 50% more). Of course
you can prove me wrong and prove with international data and sound statistics why you think
it is imperative that only desire for children should be encouraged (despite all the problems the
country is facing).
Nevertheless if your opinion is still the same, you should discuss this way more and provide a
thorough explanation with the data that support that (eg. the reasonale that only manpower will
improve the country position).
Title: Psycho-social experience of oocyte recipient women: a qualitative study
Version: 3 Date: 13 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article.
I make small suggestions below:
Data collection
"The interviews continued until categories were emerged and data saturation was reached. Data
were considered saturated when no new code was extracted from the interviews and the previous
codes were repeated at least 4 times."
It was clear how the authors reached data saturation to close the sample, however I still lack a
reference to support this process.
Discussion
In the last paragraph of the discussion section I think it would be better to present which
symptoms and not simply describe them as negative symptoms.
I make this suggestion because, in psychiatry, it is very vague to name them as positive or
negative symptoms, the value and quality of the words positive and negative do not always have
the same meaning, that is, positive symptoms are not always good and negative symptoms are
not always bad.
"the occurrence of these negative feelings in them”
Title: Psycho-social experience of oocyte recipient women: a qualitative study
Version: 3 Date: 20 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising your paper based on prior comments. I just have a few small edits I
recommend before publication:
You state multiple times your findings were of the “three main categories of psychological
symptoms, stigma and negative coping.” I think these 3 categories are vague, and you could
better word this based on your findings and conclusions. Specifically, I think it would make more
sense to say you found 3 categories of distressing psychologic symptoms, social stigmatization,
and negative coping mechanisms
Abstract
1. The sentence ending “contribute to their mental health programs” does not make sense.
Replace with something like “the identification of these challenges during the treatment process
is crucial to improve recipient mental health.”
2. In your results the first sentence does not make sense as written, you state you have three
main categories but do not explain how. It would make more sense to say something along
the lines of: “three main categories of psychological challenges were extracted from patient
interviews, specifically, distressing psychologic symptoms, social stigmatization, and negative
coping mechanisms”
Background
2. Taboo of female infertility should replace “taboo of women infertility”