Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Exploration of fertility and early menopause related information needs and
development of online information for young breast cancer survivors
Version: 
1 
Date: 
15 Feb 2022
Reviewer: 
Bedilu Abate
Reviewer's report:
Dear BMC Women's health editorial Office,
I am thankful to the editorial office for the chance given to me to review a
research titled "Fertility- and early menopause related information needs of
young breast cancer survivors". The study is useful to escalate the health of
women in general and for those women who are living in the rural areas. The
following are my general and specific objectives;
1. General Comments 
The title is not self-explanatory. The study area is not described.
Appropriate use of tenses. For instance the abstract is written in present tense.
2. Specific Comments
2.1. On the abstract Section
 The knowledge gap is written strongly.
 The result is not in line with the study objective.
 No key words.
2.2. On the Methods Section
o The first part of the methods section should be study settings.
o The study design should be one of the type of qualitative study i.e. possibly it
is phenomenology. 
o Gender, age, education status, year of experience in breast cancer management
needs explanation.
o How did you maintain data quality assurance?
o What are the stages that you have maintained data quality?
o Merge the data collection and data analysis together and shorten it.
o What type of analysis did you use? Is that thematic, narrative, content, IPA…
Or?
o What are the criteria's to shift from phase 1 to and 
others?
3. On The Results and Discussion Section
3.1. On The Results Section
Mention the sociodemographic character of your respondents prior to rushing to
results. 
You can thematize as:
i. Fertility information preference
ii. Sources of information
iii. Contents of the information
iv. Means of accessing it
v. Precaution in providing these information
vi. Counselling and advice
Support your finding with the best quotation of the respondents. 
It didn't seem result. Be coherent. Systematic, logical in presenting your results. 
We prefer narration since we need the aggregation of collected data.
You can present the tables in between, for instance in the second page of the
results section since it denotes the character of the patients. 
3.2. On The Discussion Section
* Shorten the first paragraph and compare it with the other findings.
* In line 392, you stated that "Serving these information needs has a positive
effect on women's psychological wellbeing [8-11]." Is that only psychologic
wellbeing?
* It is short and you failed to discuss even most important findings.
Thank You
Bedilu Abebe
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 publish my name with my
report.
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?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes