Reviewer’s report
Title: Risks and perception of non-communicable diseases and health promotion behavior of middle-
aged female immigrants in Japan: a qualitative exploratory study
Version: 0 Date: 12 Jan 2020
Reviewer: Katarina Hjelm
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments  for the authors in this  box rather than uploading your report 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.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this pilot-study whhich concerns an important area
to study. However, before publication there are some aspects that need to be improvedin the paper. In
the attached article specific questions and comments are given. In summary, this pilot-study lack a clear
definition of what a migrant is as well as why the studied areas are chosen and how the differ or are
similar  to Japan in general. The  Introduction lack  a sound theoretical base for the  study with a
description  of  why this  group  of  womern  are  chosen  as  well  as  why the  pre-and  postmenstrual
problems are related to NCDs. 
The Methods section as well as the Discussion need to be clarified as concerns this is a pilot-study and
why. The material now is handled as it is a proper study and thus the conclusions are not possible to
draw. The Methods section need to be described in such a way that the chosen methods are motivated
and properly analysed. If you chose focus-group interviews the methodological key reference Krueger
shpould be follow true all steps, including analysis of data. The the Results section should present
results so that the data analysis can be followed and illuminative quotations chosen in order to support
the subcategories and categories described. Either in the Methods or Results there should be support
from  the  interaction  in  the  focus-groups  illustrating  the  results.  The  Discussion  part  need  to  be
developed by concretely connecting the results to the theoretical model chosen in here, the health belief
model and it would be good to see the original reference source (Rosenstock et al 1998) used here. TRy
to connect the data to the different aspects of the model and explain the results. Further, the limitations
section should be connected to methodological litterature and discuss the clear bias in selection of data
in the study. 
In conclusion, an interesting PILOT-STUDY that need major revisions before publication. For detailed
comments, please see the manuscript. 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
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.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in 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
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'
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 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 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