Reviewer’ s report
Title: Walking together: Women with the severe symptoms of menopause propose a platform for a
walking program; Outcome from focus groups
Version: 0Date: 19 Jun 2020
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript's topic fills a gap in research on menopause and effects of exercise on women's
health. There are pieces of information though that are missing that I would need, in order toassess validity of the study and rigor of the findings.
In the background section, is it possible to add some research literature and other studies that
performed similar analysis of exercise programs? Also, was any type of theory used to frame thenew program? Was any dialogic principles used to assess focus group findings? I am hoping theanswers were yes to some of these questions, in order to show that the value of this study was howit is placed in context of theory, research and comparable studies of similar programs.I cannot tell if the purpose of the study was to provide input to develop the program or to evaluatethe program. In the conclusion, authors state that the findings were used to inform thedevelopment of a program, but the intro needs to make this clear as well.The goal of the study is not clear without any RQs or Hs.Authors state focus groups "were essential" but does not state why. Without RQs, it is impossibleto assess whether focus groups were in fact the appropriate method.I would like to read several more details of method for purposes of evaluating the validity,transferability, and rigor of the process. For example, what part of the sample were purposive andwhat part convenience? Why were both used? Why mix active and non active participants into one
group? Who were moderators? Depending on who were moderators, if staff, how did that bias
results? If outside consultants, what did they know before going in to be moderators? Weremoderators trained? What was the focus group protocol used/questions asked? Why were fieldnotes taken, when this is not a typical procedure for focus groups? Who took them? Were the fieldnote takers trained?Since no RQs, in data analysis what were the coding and patterns based on? A lot of terminologyis in the data analysis section, but none of it is explained. What were the steps taken for dataanalysis, who was involved, and how did you assess inter rater reliability if more than one coder?Most focus groups do their best when 8 to 12 participants are included, according to experts. Whatwere the challenges of having "groups" of only two people? How do you define this as a group,and how did it go? Why not combine participants so that rich dialogue would occur?The results section reads like a list of quotes. Results should be synthesized around themes,paraphrased, and then quotes used as examples. Themes however should be around a theory orquestion, but without any, I do not understand where the subheaded titles in the results came from.No limitations based on group size, participant type, moderator skill, and lack of RQ are discussedat end. Generalizability brought up in limitations is not a limitation of focus group/ qualitativeresearch, as that is not supposed to have been a goal.
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 upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registeredat Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per yoursettings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email fromthem asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your newprofile 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 itswebservice 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
NoAre the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscriptQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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 interestsReviewer 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 manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou 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 wheneverprompted. 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)