Reviewer’s report
Title:  Female perspectives on male involvement in a human-papillomavirus-based cervical cancer-
screening program in western Kenya
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jun 2019
Reviewer: Francis Obare
Reviewer's report:
The paper is now very much improved. There are just a few issues for the authors to consider further.
A.METHODS
1)Second paragraph, second statement (page 5, line 137): Delete "women" after "results".
2)Second  paragraph,  last  statement  (page  5,  line  141):  Change  "and  reached  72"  to  "but
successfully interviewed 72".
B.RESULTS
1)First  paragraph  (page  6,  line  184):  Change  "the  partner  permission"  to  "the  partner's
permission".
2)Fifth  paragraph  under  proposed  facilitators,  second  statement  (page  12,  line  339):  Delete
"matter" from the statement.
3)Sixth paragraph under proposed facilitators, first statement (page 12, line 346): Change "to the
community" to "in the community".
4)Framework: In spite of the changes, the framework still does not come out as explicitly as
expected. The authors should create a separate section just before the discussion section where they
explicitly talk about the framework in response to the issues that were previously raised (refer to
previous comments regarding the framework). It is essentially helping the reader understand Figure 1.
It is also in this section that the authors should specify that Figure 1 be inserted e.g. by using the phrase
"Insert Figure 1 about here". Given that illustrations are submitted separately, this gives the editor a
rough idea of where to insert the figure - which should be as close to the text that describes it as
possible - should the paper be accepted for publication. In its current form, the framework presented in
the figure is just floating somewhere without clarity of how and where it fits in the paper. There is no
explicit text that describes what the figure is all about, including the elements that constitute it, how the
findings feed into those elements, how the elements help us understand male involvement in cervical
cancer  programs,  and  how  researchers  can  operationalize  the  elements  for  replication  elsewhere.
Although having read the paper multiple times I have a clear sense of how this should be written up, it
is up to the authors to help the reader understand their framework.
C.DISCUSSION
1)First paragraph, last statement (page 13, lines 373-375): Give a few examples of the ways being
alluded to so that the statement is not left hanging the way it is in its current form.
2)Third paragraph, fourth statement (page 14, line 391): Change "increase in post-treatment care
adherence" to "increase in adherence to post-treatment care".
D.ABSTRACT
Results, last statement (page 2, lines 65-67): Rephrase the second part of this statement to read: "in a
setting where such leaders may hold influence over men in the community" as earlier suggested to
avoid unnecessary repetition of the word "community" in the statement.
E.DECLARATIONS
Authors contributions:
*First statement (page 17, line 477): Delete "assisted with" from the statement.
*Last statement (page 17, lines 477-480): Delete "of" between "approved" and "the".
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 comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
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
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