Revie wer’s report  
 
Title: Helping Women Veterans Quit Smoking: A Qualitative Analysis of Successful and  
Unsuccessful Attempts  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear obje ctive that addresses a testable research 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow 
confidence in the results?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
N/A - there are no statistics in this study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of t his work technically 
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Maybe - with major revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
GENERAL COMMENTS:  
This paper explores the barriers and facilitators to smoking cessation in a marginalise d US 
population. It recruited and interviewed 14 Veteran women. In general it is well written, 
succinct, and sheds light on an important issue. The authors admit their sample is small, and this 
may have affected their ability to meet their aims. Some metho dological details are lacking. I 
provide more specific points below that the authors could consider in a revised manuscript.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
INTRODUCTION:  
- In the introduction it is not clear if many of the comparisons of women veterans are to male  
veterans or the civilian population as a whole. Can this please be clarified?  
 
METHODS  
- Given only three ex -smokers were recruited do the authors feel that this is enough 
representation?  
 
RESULTS  
- I was surprised to see a complete lack of information on  the participants demographic 
backgrounds, and if this wasn't collected then it's an opportunity missed to explore the context of 
each participant's background further. The first is obviously age - there is likely to be a 
difference in attitudes towards sm oking between younger and older participants. Another is their 
smoking history: how they started, how old they were when they started, how much they have 
smoked in their life, and the role of their military experience on smoking 
initiation/continuation/ces sation. Even now as a veteran, how they perceive themselves in 
society, interact with other veterans and the general public - these are all very important factors 
that could support a tailored cessation intervention.  
 
- A "drastic life event" sounds quite drastic(!), perhaps it could be reworded to "major" or 
"significant"  
 
- Were there differences in themes (or demographics) between those who were interviewed by 
phone and those in person? I'm not sure I caught how many phone interviews took place.  
 
 
Are the met hods 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.  
 
No 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional s tatistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
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 sal ary 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 t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publica tion 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 dec lare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organizatio n, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 Acc ess 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal