JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Do women empowerment indicators predict receipt of quality antenatal care in Cameroon?
Evidence from a nationwide survey
Version: 0 Date: 11 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Serge C Billong
Reviewer's report:
Dans le fond/Forme, les indicateurs de qualité de la CPN présentés sont en fait des éléments de
services offerts ou pas. Ils ne peuvent pas définir en eux seuls la qualité des services. Plusieurs
autres éléments peuvent qualifier la qualité par exemple le délai d'attente, la réalisation des
procédures opératoire standard (SOP) etc... la qualité ne peut pas se définir si facilement. Au
Cameroun par exemple plusieurs prélèvement sanguins n'aboutissent pas à la réalisation de
l'examen faute du payement par la cliente. Aussi différents examens effectués, les résultats ne
sont pas retirés
Pour améliorer ce manuscrit, au lieu de parler de qualité on peut nuancer avec le terme
disponibilité
Title: Do women empowerment indicators predict receipt of quality antenatal care in Cameroon?
Evidence from a nationwide survey
Version: 0 Date: 20 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Georges Nguefack-tsague
Reviewer's report:
Major
1. It is important to include the context of women’s empowerment and policies in Cameroon
as well as Cameroon strategies.
2. A Conceptual Framework of the association between women’s empowerment and antenatal
Care is missing. Please include it.
3. Selection of covariates (for adjustment) is not well explained in the method section.
Husband’s education, Husband’s occupation, and household size were worth investigating as
other covariates.
4. Justify or provide references of  the creation of an index with scores ranging from 0 to 6 and
also quality ANC with dummy 0/1
5. Interpret ORs associated with all 4 women empowerment indicators
6. Are there clear reasons why the authors have chosen the age the reference as 25 – 29; medium
for Knowledge level, middle for Wealth status while the natural choices are 15-19, low, and
poorest respectively?
7. It is important to make recommendation as well to the Ministry of Women's Empowerment
and the Family
Minor
1. In the Abstract, “Ministry of Health and Education” should be replaced by “Ministry of Public
Health”
Title: Do women empowerment indicators predict receipt of quality antenatal care in Cameroon?
Evidence from a nationwide survey
Version: 3 Date: 20 Aug 2021
Reviewer:  Georges Nguefack-tsague
Reviewer's report:
1. Please insert a figure to describe the Health Empowerment Intervention Framework by
Shearer and Reed
2. Selection of covariates (for adjustment) is not well explained in the method section.
Husband’s education, Husband’s occupation, and household size were worth investigating as
other covariates.
3. Interpret ORs associated with all 4 women empowerment indicators, it is not enough to say
e.g. that “had a lesser likelihood of receiving quality ANC compared to those with medium
knowledge level”, need to quantify using the value of the OR
4. Are there clear reasons why the authors have chosen the age the reference as 25 – 29; medium
for Knowledge level, middle for Wealth status while the natural choices are 15-19, low, and
poorest respectively? Please justify.
Title: The effects of stillbirth and abortion on the next pregnancy: a longitudinal study
Version: 2 Date: 09 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for allowing me to read your interesting manuscript. I have a number of questions that
would help me to understand the results as presented.
1. Are you using the term abortion to mean cases of pregnancy in which there was either a
medical or surgical termination, or have you also included women who experienced miscarriage?
2. Are you able to give more detail about the gestational age at which terminations of pregnancy
were performed and what methods were used?
3. I don't completely understand the basis for your sample size calculation? What outcome or
outcomes were being used when you were calculating this?
4. The information on PTSD is interesting but can you give more details? At what time after the
pregnancy loss was this assessed? How do you define the severity of the PTSD?
5. Do you know if any women after their abortion experience (or rape if it was the result of this)
received formal counselling or therapy of any kind?
6. The data you have presented on pregnancy outcome are interesting but there is no apparent
control group so it is difficult to understand the significance of these observations (and how was
antepartum haemorrhage defined?)
7. You state that women whose pregnancies were complicated by hypertension or diabetes were
excluded, but then report on these outcomes in the next pregnancy in the sub-group that was
studied.
Overall, I feel that this paper would be strengthened by some clearly stated aims for the study
or studies, and it may be better to focus the writing on one or two of the outcomes rather than
including all of the data. I would also advise some rigorous editing of the manuscript to improve
the flow.
Title: The effects of stillbirth and abortion on the next pregnancy: a longitudinal study
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review, “The effects of stillbirth and abortion on the next
pregnancy: a longitudinal study”.
This is a study characterizing pregnancies complicated by abortion and stillbirth and examining
the outcomes of subsequent pregnancies following an index pregnancy complicated by elective
abortion or stillbirth. The exposures of a prior elective termination and prior stillbirth are quite
different and a bit unusual to include in the same study. It may make more sense from a
pathophysiologic perspective to split this into two separate publications.
Methods:
-Please provide clear definitions that were used in this study for the abortion and stillbirth groups.
-I am not clear on the rationale for the power calculation and why the ratio of women having
an abortion versus a stillbirth was used. Based on the stated study objectives, I would not think
a comparison of these groups is necessary.
Results:
-Table 1 provides percentage comparisons between groups but no statistical information
regarding significant differences such as a p-value. This may be of use to the reader to understand
the study populations better.
-It would be useful to know what proportion of each group completed the surveys.
-PIDM and PIHTN are not standard abbreviations for gestational diabetes and gestational
hypertension that I am aware of. Please clearly define these in the text.
Discussion:
-The assertion that the abortion procedures disrupt the uterine wall and cause placenta previa and
abruption in future pregnancies seems overstated given that a D&C is one of the most common
surgical procedures performed worldwide. A better explanation of local surgical practices and
complications that might lead to adverse outcomes in your population would strengthen this
argument.
-The statement: “Pregnancy-induced diabetes mellitus and pregnancy-induced hypertension
were the common complications of stillbirth for the next pregnancy” leads the reader to believe
that a recurrent stillbirth occurred in the next pregnancy and that these (hypertension and
diabetes) were comorbid conditions. This doesn’t seem totally clear from reading the manuscript,
please clarify the outcomes and associations in the results section.
-I suggest clarifying the following statement as follows: The main limitation of this research
was failure to assess the effects of stillbirth and abortion on the health of the newborn in the
subsequent pregnancy.
Title: Determinants of wife-beating acceptance among reproductive age women in Ethiopia:  A
multilevel analysis of 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey
Version: 2 Date: 14 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Wubet Alebachew Bayih
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors! Congratulations on your scholarly work; you have brought important study
problem with good findings that have public health importance in the area of reproductive
health.  However, there are some concerns which I want you to address before considering the
manuscript for publication.
General comment
There are several typological and grammar usage errors that need extensive proof reading for
revisions. For example, terms like Cristian, Christiane (in the second paragraph of discussion
section ), ther for (in the methods).
Specific comments
Abstract
1.  Please change STATA to stata
2. I earnestly request you to rewrite result section of the abstract because its current appearance
is difficult to understand i.e. put the AOR immediately before the factor. Merge ‘Being married
[AOR= 1.3, 95% CI= (1.1, 1.6)]’ with preceding statement.
3. What about intervention to other factors: religion, marital status, region
Introduction: Well introduced
Methods
1. Change methodology to ‘methods’
2. Give a flow diagram for a clear understanding of how you reached a sample of 15,683
reproductive age women i.e show your sampling procedure diagrammatically including the
regions, urban and rural segments and then your study units.
3. You conducted the study based on a secondary data of huge sample size. What bias did you
anticipate to be introduced to the study? What methods did you employ to minimize these biases
in the conduct of your study?
Otherwise the measurement, data processing and analyses were stated appropriately with very
important model of handling the clustering effect.
Results: educational status, religion, marital status, region, community level wealth and
community level of television exposure were significant factors. Therefore, all these factors
should be given some textual narration besides the tabular presentation. However, the authors
focused on residence and maternal age, neither of which was significant from the study. Revise
it please.
Discussion:
While discussing your results, please be focused to your objective and synthesize explanation
of your findings. Hence, please reconsider discussion of each of your findings.
The authors gave potential explanations to the meaning of their findings or variations from other
studies. However, none of these explanations were supported by citation of existing literature.
Thus, please reference each of the explanations.
Please put strength and limitation in a separate section.
Conclusion: kindly request you to make strong recommendations to both governmental and
nongovernmental stakeholders of reproductive health so that plausible actions can be intervened.
These recommendations should be separately stated than mixing with the conclusion section.
Wish you the luckiest!
Wubet Alebachew
Title: Society, family, and individual characteristics as double-edged swords in the social
reintegration of Iranian female survivors from unintentional severe burns: A qualitative study
of enablers and barriers
Version: 2 Date: 16 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled: Society, family,
and individual characteristics as double-edged swords in the social reintegration of Iranian
female survivors from unintentional severe burns: A qualitative study of enablers and barriers.
BMC Women’s Health use parentheses [1] for their referencing as opposed to brackets used
in this manuscript. In addition, BMC Women’s Health do not use numbering of main or
subheadings headings. Indentation of paragraphs is required – please see recent publications in
BMC Women’s Health for clarification.
The keywords should contain MeSH terms for indexing. Burns; Qualitative research; Societies;
Survivors
The aim of the study does not include the term unintentional severe burns which is stated in
the title of the study.
Statements such as “Burn injuries cause more than 180,000 deaths around the globe annually”
require a reference.
The term “suffer” used throughout the introduction is emotive language. Suggest amending to
“experience”.
Table 1 headings needs formatting and requires an explanation of BS. The term “housewife”
could be construed as offensive to some and suggest amending to an alternative term such as
“Homemaker”. The abstract states 15 participants however the Table states 14 participants.
Inclusion criteria is evident stating no hearing problem. This should be amended to read “no
hearing impairment”. There are no exclusion criteria reported. Were those with severe mental
illness included? Were those who di not speak Farsi excluded? Was language an inclusion
criterion?
Under the subheading Sampling, recruitment, and participants, there is no mention of how many
were recruited and consented to participate in the study. It states, “but only three four to be
interviewed” - this is unclear. How many people out of the  65 female burn survivors were
included in the study as the abstract states 15 and Table 1 states 14.
Member check needs to be amended to "member checking". How did the researchers account for
bias? Was bracketing used or their preconceptions documented or similar? Were the transcripts
translated to English from Farsi? If so, was meaning lost in the translation?
I note there is a strong focus on self-immolation in this manuscript. However,  the aim of the
study was to investigate Iranian female survivors from unintentional severe burns as opposed
to intentional burns.
Title: Society, family, and individual characteristics as double-edged swords in the social
reintegration of Iranian female survivors from unintentional severe burns: A qualitative study
of enablers and barriers
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jul 2021
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is a relevant piece of work, conducted in a sample of Iranian residents, which
is a type of sample rarely found in the literature. There are, however, some major limitations
that shall be addressed:
• The result section of the abstract is very descriptive. Researchers should report the extracted
categories or themes and it is not necessary to write more than it.
• Why you use "reintegration"? why not "rehabilitation"?
• The authors should extend their reviews about other similar studies and show the research gap
for conduct this research. There is similar research in Iran that you can use for the literature
review as below:
A model to explain suicide by self-immolation among Iranian women: A grounded theory study
Why self-immolation? A qualitative exploration of the motives for attempting suicide by self-
immolation
Conceptual model of acid attacks based on survivor's experiences: Lessons from a qualitative
exploration
• Which burn survivors? Is not differences between kinds of burns? Acid attacks, self-
immolation, …
As you know there are many methods to select participants in qualitative studies. Why you
choose criterion-based?
• Why you ask the meaning of SR from burn survivors? Does the definition of SR was the aim
of your research?
• The main problem of research is about participants. Why you interviewed just with burn
survivors? I think family members, friends, related experts have very good experiences. They
could enhance the quality of research.
• I think the extracted categories and themes hadn’t enough abstraction. It doesn't need every
category make to a theme. One or two themes may be enough.
• The authors could do a better job in mention each principal finding to be separately discussed
according to the results of the previous studies and the existing scientific facts with more
scientific details.
Title: Women’s Outcomes Following Mixed-Sex, Women-Only, and Home-Based Cardiac
Rehabilitation Participation and Comparison by Sex
Version: 3 Date: 18 Oct 2021
Reviewer:  Massimo Mapelli
Reviewer's report:
The authors address the comments raised by the reviewers and I think that manuscript is now
suitable for a publication in your journal.
I think the "home based" rehab group should be deleted (less then 10 patients) from the
comparison and that peakVO2% data (in addition to peakVO2 absolute data) should be add to
the table. This would help, of course, to compare different groups of patients more than the
changes in the same group before and after the rehab program.
Title: Oral Health and Emotional Well-being in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women :
A Cross-Sectional Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Apr 2021
Reviewer:  Imke Janssen
Reviewer's report:
With a title of "Oral Health and Emotional Well-Being in Post-Menopausal Women...", I
expected to read a paper on postmenopausal women only.
However, the first half of the paper is devoted to a comparison of premenopausal and
postmenopausal women.
Whether oral health is related to menopause cannot be determined by this study, because
(a) it is cross-sectional, so no cause and effect can be determined with this design
(b) the study was conducted in 2 groups of women: premenopausal & postmenopausal. There is
not even overlap in age between the 2 groups (judging by the mean/SD given for each group).
The postmenopausal group was also significantly less educated, had more systemic diseases,
and higher BMI.
Therefore, results will be confounded by age and education as well as other diseases and BMI.
It seems to me that menopause is not the culprit, it is age.
The second half is not well motivated in the introduction. For example:
(1) Why look at depressed mood only and not the entire Health scale?
(2) Why should the effect of periodontitis on depressive mood be different in the 2 groups?
Women's Health Questionnaire:
(a) I don't understand what "binary calculation" means. Is it dichotomizing scores?
(b) According to their reference # 21, each section score should range from 0 to 100 with all
scores in between possible (which is very common in in scores of this type).
Title: Oral Health and Emotional Well-being in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women :
A Cross-Sectional Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 17 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
1) Page 3, lines 85 and 86 please add what country.
2) Page 5, line 142 - Are all 9 sections with negative direction i.e. higher score maeans lower
health? What about attractiveness, does higher score mean hihger or lower attractiveness? The
same refferred tommemory, concentration.
3) Page 6 statistical analysis: line 157 Exact should be exact, line 165 sperman should be
Spearman's.
4) Page 6 line 175 46plus/minus 4 years
5) Table 1  page 7, should be . instead of ,  in two percentages
6) page 7 line 187 Body mass indexes not "indices"
7) page 8 line 200 39.3% while in Table 2 39.2 for PMW
8) In Abstract PMW 32.2% and RMW 39.2, while in Table 2 - reversed
9) "Prevalence" not "Prevalance" in many pages
10) page 8 lines 207-210 please add percentages for PMW and RMW, not only p-values
11) page 8 lines 213-214 better write percentages for PMW and RMW separately, not total two
groups
12) Figure 2 nad description of this figure dos not suit,
13) Table 4 - is it only for PMW? If yes, it should be in the title
14) page 12 line 276 it sholud be sample not population
Title: Oral Health and Emotional Well-being in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women :
A Cross-Sectional Cohort Study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Imke Janssen
Reviewer's report:
Why should oral hygiene be recommended only for postmenopausal women (Abstract)? In order
to prevent tooth loss and other oral health problems, this may be even more important before
reaching menopause, even childhood one might say.
I do not think that the study design is appropriate to answer the question whether menopause can
be blamed for poor tooth health. However, the authors did not find a difference in periodontitis
between the 2 groups of women despite large differences in the prevalence of systemic diseases,
education,  and age. I think the story is there but could be worded much better. I highly
recommend a proofreading service.
Let me give you just a few examples.
Abstract: adjusting FOR age (include the "for")
Throughout the paper: "a woman's life" (not women)
Page 3: Menopause is a period (not term), periodontitis in post-menopause (drop "term"),
confounders, not confoundings
Your response to my comment on "binary calculation" should be included in the manuscript.
Limitations of the study need to be explicitly mentioned in the discussion.
Title: Women’s Autonomy in Refusing Risky Sex and Associated Factors in Ethiopia: Evidence
from 2011 & 2016 EDHS data
Version: 2 Date: 10 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
I consider “The trend of Women’s Autonomy in Refusing Risky Sex and Associated Factors in
Ethiopia: Evidence from 2011 & 2016 EDHS data” assessed an important topic. However, the
following important issues should be addressed.
comments:
1. First of all, the title could better express the paper proposal i.e. Women’s Autonomy in
Refusing Risky Sex and Associated Factors in Ethiopia:
2. The introduction to the study appears good. However, this section will benefit from proofread.
3. Authors should briefly explain what has been done so far by the government and other
stakeholders to address the problem in Ethiopia, and why the problem is increasing from time
to time, while the government is reporting that women’s activity in every aspect is maximized?
And also the four EDHS data showed that intimate violence (physical, sexual, and emotional)
is improved from time to time. The authors need to justify it.
4. I didn’t see the model diagnostic sections (like multi-collinearity issues, model performance)
5. Operational definition of the dependent variable is clear, however, it needs a reference.
6. What is the contribution of your paper?
General comment and questions
1. It would good if the authors consider more advanced models (like, multilevel, spatial…). This
is because Women’s Autonomy in Refusing Risky Sex varied from region to region (even from
districts to district). If the authors re-analyze their data using the recommended methods, this
will be a great asset for the journal . moreover, comments under the methods section could be
considered to improve the message in this section.
2. If the authors want to see the trends, they can use all the four rounds of the EDHS dataset in
Ethiopia so that the paper will  contribute to the methodology parts
3. The tables are not in a standard format
Most of the references are outdated like.. (Jejeebhoy SJ. Women's education, autonomy, and
reproductive behavior: Experience from developing countries. OUP Catalogue. 1995.).
Discussions: It is quite poor and repeats a lot of known facts without making any point as to how
this current study contributes to the discussion. A lot of results are repeated in the discussion.
What are the innovative ideas, for scale-up? Formulate clear what is innovative idea in the study