Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Impact of health talks on knowledge, attitudes and perception of breast
cancer screening and treatment amongst healthcare staff by a Breast Surgical
Unit in a Public Healthcare Institution - a cross sectional study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
11 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Impact of health talks on knowledge, attitudes and perception of breast cancer
screening and treatment amongst healthcare staff by a Breast Surgical Unit in a
Public Healthcare Institution - a cross sectional study
This study adds evidence of training effectiveness among healthcare staff in 3
domains of outcomes including breast cancer and screening knowledge and
perception and attitude if breast screening and treatment. Overall, the study
purpose was clear and the methodology was consistent with achieving the
proposed purpose. 
Author(s)can strengthen the presentation of the study procedures and findings in
the following ways. 
1. Provide information of context where the study was conducted; why training
healthcare staff of breast cancer/screening knowledge and screening/treatment
attitude is important in Singapore (i.e., if Singapore nurses-healthcare staff-have
lack of knowledge on these matters and why they have a lack of knowledge etc.);
why nurses, allied staff (define who they are), and regular staff as the target
participants of the study were considered important group of people to get
trained with the topics. -provide the information in the beginning of the paper,
instead of waiting until it is discussed in the discussion section. 
2. State the design of the study in an appropriate terminology. 
3. Consider cultural differences: including housing types as a correlate of the
outcome variables can be differently interpreted by western perspectives.
Author(s) may want to explain why exploring housing types as a key
demographic correlate of the outcome variables is meaningful from your
perspective. 
4. Under knowledge gap: regarding the phrase/sentence,"although knowledge in
complementary and alternative medicine is severely lacking", it's unclear what
you are trying to say. 
5. Explain Medisave for screening practices in more details when you provide
contextual information. Does Medisave provide a breast cancer screening
guideline? Then, it should be clearly explained. 
6. Significance of the study: how the findings can be useful in future practice and
research. 
7. Limitations: please note that your sampling technique was convenient
sampling. Include info of how long the survey took for its completion. 
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