Reviewer's report
Title:Somali women's view of physical activity - a focus group study
Version:2Date:20 August 2014
Reviewer: Joellen Wilbur
Reviewer's report:
Overall this was an interesting paper about an immigrant group that has rarely
been included in physical activity studies. Below are some comments that may
help to strengthen the paper.
Major compulsory revisions
1. Background
a. Line 89-90: Note what these studies found and what gap will be addressed by
this study.
b. The study does not appear to be driven by a theory
2. Methods
a. The main weakness of this study is that the participants spoke two different
languages. It appears that everything said in the focus group would need
translation. Also, one of the leaders was not bilingual. More needs to be said
about this process. Also, it would help to cite others if this Multilanguage
approach has been used in other studies.
b. It appears that the Somali transcript went from Swedish to English. No mention
is made of using the group method of translation. It appears that just one
translator was involved. A lot could be lost by going through several translations
without any consensus being addressed.
3. Discussion
a. Lines 268. The results do not address social background or education.
b. Some analyses seem to be in the results. For example line 269
c. The way the focus groups were conducted is a limitation to the whole study
which needs to be acknowledged.
d. The discussion tends to repeat some of the methods 284-289 (these should all
be in the methods)
e. Another limitation besides having people with different language skills is the
wide range on age. The teenagers and 20 years olds may be very different from
those in their 60s.
Minor essential revisions
4. Background
a. Line 75-76 needs a citation
5. Methods
a. Provide some information on the three regions where participants were
recruited. How many were recruited from each region? Who were the contact
persons within each region?
This section could be better organized dividing into: design, subjects and setting,
procedures. In subjects provide the inclusion criteria.
c. How did participants get to the researchers to be screened? Did they provide
their name and phone contact to the contact and then were screened over the
phone by the researcher? How many were not interested or did not meet
inclusion criteria? Note where the focus groups were held.
d. Lines 99 and 110-111 address the same thing and should be brought together.
The stats may be better placed in results. Suggest expanding table 1 to include
demographics of the sample- education, marital status, employment, age,
primary language, and years in country.
e. The focus group guide should be addressed so the reader has an idea of what
questions were asked. Note where the questions in the guide came from. From
lines 101 and 102 the guide does not appear to be standardized.
b. Results
a. Line 149: the concept of “self-mobilizing groups” is introduced. This concept
should be introduced earlier and carried through the study so the reader knows
what it is referring to.
b. In some places there are statements that seem to be generalizations and not
emerging from the data. For example lines 213 and 214 are not backed up by
data.
c. Line 248 is not backed up by data until later. What did they say about Sweden
giving no incentive to go outdoors?
d. Tables 2 and 3 provide a key for the meaning of p,k,, L
e. Table 2 be sure table matches text. It wasn’t clear in the text that it was single
mothers who talked about stress.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.