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: 
5 
Date: 
16 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Review comments
General comment
I commend the Authors for the improvement in the quality of the manuscript at
present. I say kudos. I however advocate one more review of the manuscript.
Authors should take note of the following points.
Abstract
Results 
Review lines 53 to 55 for clarity. Among participants……
Conclusions
……. While the simplicity and relevance of the HPV/DNA test were markedly
perceived by most of the participants. Correct to
Most of the participants perceived the HPV/DNA test to be simple and also of
relevance.
Background 
Change 'that' to 'of'
Review this sentence: Therefore cervical cancer screening programme needs to
review with special attention.
Study design and setting
Review line 47
Indicate that the study was a cross sectional qualitative study. 
Theoretical framework
Use bullets instead of numerals
Recruitment and consent
Delete majority in line 14
Results
Delete the statement on response rate
Review lines 17 to 22
Reporting of results
Authors should take note of the following
1. The parts of the quotes to be included in the manuscript should be those
aspects that support the narration being made. Most of the quotes included in the
manuscript have many words and this should be reviewed.
2. All the themes have only one quote included in the reporting, why?
3. Each narration should be followed by its own quotes. For example, for the first
theme, Most of the participants claimed that cervical cancer incidence was still
high in Sri Lanka. This should be followed by its own quote. The views of a few
of the participant should follow with its quotes if available. Then the minority
report with its quote or just a narration as the case maybe.
4. Endeavour to introduce the quotes. Comments like this will be okay. This was
how one of the participants expressed her views; A participant had this to say;
before including the quote. 
5. The comment after the quote should be in brackets, (Participant, rural sector).
6. For the theme on challenges, what could be said to be the biggest barrier
associated with HPV/DNA screening based on the views of most of the
participants. This should be clarified.
Discussion
Change 2nd to second
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?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes