JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening services in low-and-middle-income
countries: A systematic review
Version: 5 Date: 07 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
It  is appreciable as you have done a lot efforts to review and categorize the barriers. However,
I feel petty that you did not conduce deep analysis on what is the key solutions for Leap over
the barriers, for which I think you have collected enough data to do. In addition, the manuscript
did not specify what the personal, social /cultural, medial aspects are identified, for instance,
whether public education the medical issue or social issue?  From your manuscript we can
easily concluded that making community (including the religion or social groups) to be part of
the cervical caner prevention together with the medical system can be an  effective solution to
increase the screening coverage, but sadly, you didi not provide data analysis to support it. In
general, the manuscript is publishable but contribute the worthwhile  .
Title: Women’s perceptions about mobile health solutions for selection and use of family
planning methods in Karachi: a feasibility Study
Version: 1 Date: 11 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Abstract: Line 36: though -> through?
Introduction: The paragraphs and sentences need to be streamlined. Start with the broad
descriptions about the LMICs in general, and then narrow down to the Pakistan’s cases and
situations. And then, the authors can emphasize where the research gap lies and justify their
study aims.
Methods:
In describing the study setting, it would be helpful to explain how these low socio-economic
study areas are indeed relatively underprivileged in comparison to other areas in the country,
particularly in terms of access to family planning services. The authors can provide statistics as
evidence. Also, what about the access to mobile phones in these areas? Are there any particular
reasons why the authors chose these areas?
In describing the recruitment process, the authors should explain in detail how they approached
to the women. Were they recruited at some specific places or venues? Who are these study
participants?
Theoretical framework was built without sufficient support and review of previous literature.
The definitions of each concept should be thoroughly reviewed. In fact, the context in which
experience, acceptability, and self-efficacy are discussed has been widely reviewed in the
previous literature so the authors are recommended to refer to the literature.
One point to be raised is that the title explicitly mentioned the perceptions for mHealth in
selection and use of family planning methods, but the implications did not really discuss
the “selection” aspect. What did you mean by selection? Was this an important topic in the
interview?
Discussion: The paragraphs and sentences need to be streamlined. First, summarize your
findings in relation to each of the three themes that you explored. And then compare and
contrast your findings with previous literature. And suggest solutions and way forward for future
research. Discuss limitations of the research in a clear manner.
Overall, the authors collected important data to inform policy and future interventions, but the
writing and the structure of the manuscript are not very clear. Also, the theoretical framework
is weak to support the author’s idea.
Title: Women’s perceptions about mobile health solutions for selection and use of family
planning methods in Karachi: a feasibility Study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  John O'donoghue
Reviewer's report:
I would first like to congratulate the authors on this body of work. It is a vital practical body of
work which highlights a number real challenges and opportunities for supporting more effective
family-planning both in Pakistan and the lessons learned can be shared internationally.
Overall the paper is very good. The feedback from the participants is very vivid and highlights
real world issues when is comes to family planning.
One point of concern is the age range of the participants on line 151 is says 15-49, but later on in
the paper they are none? Was the age range in line 151 correct? If a participant is in vulnerable
age group how are they supported? This is not clear in the paper.
I have added some notes and comments to the paper which I am not able to share here, but I
will pass onto the editor where possible.
Is seems that the main focus of the paper is around 1) Accessibility 2) Acceptability, and 3)
Self-Efficacy. The term feasibility is used, but I am not 100% if this was really investigated. In
relation to these terms and the terms around phones, mobile phones, smart phones and mobile
app, there is too much confusion. It would help the paper a lot if there were clarified.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this paper and it is a good body of evidence.
Title: Determinants of cervical cancer screening service utilization among women attending
healthcare services in Amhara region referral hospitals: A case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 17 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Pietro Serra
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Determinants of Cervical Cancer Screening
Service Utilization among Women Attending Health Care Services in Amhara Region Referral
Hospitals; Case-Control Study.” (Submission ID 00cc8c60-f9f6-4f66-9eab-da767aa95319),
which falls within the aim of this Journal.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention.
Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data. Nevertheless, authors should
clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles about the
topic.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker.
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest clarifying these points.
- What are the actual clinical implications of this study? it is important to report the results
obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to adequately highlight what
contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the topic and to future study
perspectives.
- Does this manuscript conform the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health
Research (EQUATOR) network guidelines? It would be mandatory to declare about this
element.
- To date, several lines of evidence support the possibility to use specific biomarkers to identify
early-stage cervical cancer and, in this way, offer a better prognosis to the patients. This point
deserves to be discussed, referring to: PMID: 33152105; PMID: 28918603.
- I would recommend to stress novel pieces of evidence about high-risk HPV-negative high-
grade cervical dysplasia, which seems to have more favorable outcomes than patients with
documented high-risk-HPV infection (PMID: 32552158; PMID: 33514481).
Title: Determinants of cervical cancer screening service utilization among women attending
healthcare services in Amhara region referral hospitals: A case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 25 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, the authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
- To date, several lines of evidence support the possibility to use specific biomarkers to identify
early stage cervical cancer and, in this way, offer a better prognosis to the patients. This point
deserves to be discussed, referring to: PMID: 28918603; PMID: 28466456.
- I would recommend to stress novel pieces of evidence about high-risk HPV-negative
high-grade cervical dysplasia, which seems to have more favorable outcomes than patients
with documented high-risk-HPV infection (PMID: 33514481) as well the potential role of
pre-operative conization before radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer (PMID:
32320800).
Title: Spirometry Profiles among Pregnant and Non-pregnant African Women: A Cross
Sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 26 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study explored and compared the spirometry profiles of pregnant and non-pregnant women.
Overall the paper is well written and provides good connection and justification for the research
however there are minor grammatical error and punctuation that could be addressed by detailed
proof reading.
By using the STROBE checklist can provide guidance on how to report observational research
well.
ABSTRACT
The methodology section are heavily weighted towards describing the methodologies used,
it would enhance the abstract to also include or balance the reporting in the results section.
Alternatively, reduce the methodology and enhance the results section.
INTRODUCTION
Introduction is well written, nicely presented argument in the need for conducting the study.
However as mentioned previously there are minor grammatical errors that could be addressed.
The usage of linking/transition words for example, therefore, despite that, furthermore could be
minimised.
Methodology
This section lays out the rationale for the methodological approach. Good explanation and
use. However as previously indicated above there are minor grammatical errors that could be
addressed by detailed proof reading.
Data collection tools – perhaps explain what a structured or standardised checklist was. How
did you arrived with such tools?
Data collection process- again structured checklist was adapted – it was not until in this section
that the maternal recall questionnaire was used as the structured questionnaire. Perhaps bring
this upfront in the data collection tools section to help guide the reader.
The statistical analysis is appropriate and well presented.
Ethical consideration:
It was noted personal identifying information was not collected and all other information
collected was used for research purposes only. – would benefit to reword this statement to make
it more clearer to the reader.
Results:
Nice figures and well presented
Discussion:
Well-written. But perhaps could be refined with some of the following comments or suggestions.
In the discussion, a bronchodilator prior to spirometry was not conducted unlike in other studies.
It would be of interest to cite some previous work who did not administer bronchodilator.
Consider including one-two statements about future research.
Title: Spirometry Profiles among Pregnant and Non-pregnant African Women: A Cross
Sectional Study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for carefully going through all the feedbacks. Clearly, the revised manuscript is more
clearer and provides a good flow throughout.
However, in line 437 (in the discussion) could you please consider using the word "values"
instead of "deal" for consistency. Using the word "deal" can suggest other meanings.
I suggest you stick with the word values or you might want to revised this sentence.
Title: Trends and factors contributing to health facility delivery among adolescent women in
Ethiopia: Multivariate decomposition analysis
Version: 1 Date: 27 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. Why did you limit yourself to adolescents? What about the remainder of the population,
notwithstanding the fact that institutional delivery is uncommon among women over the age of
25? There are also numerous published articles.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214139121000548
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12889-020-09125-2.pdf
https://www.dovepress.com/institutional-delivery-among-young-women-in-ethiopia-further-
analysis--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJWH
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7671470/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242242
2. I haven't seen any new insight in this finding; I wonder if the author of this manuscript used
other ways of analysis, such as decomposition over time.
Title: Trends and factors contributing to health facility delivery among adolescent women in
Ethiopia: Multivariate decomposition analysis
Version: 3 Date: 25 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Tesfahun Taddege Geremew
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author (s),
Thank you very much for addressing all the previous comments and suggestions.  I assume  that
the manuscript has a potential to be published if  the following minor comments and language
issues are fixed.
Minor Comments,
Page 5, line 98:  ... According to the 2007 Population and Housing Censuses (PHC)... , Please,
remove  "-es" from the Word "Censuses" and add " ...of Ethiopia" to Make it "According to the
2007 Population and Housing Census (PHC) of Ethiopia".
Page 5, line 98: "Ethiopia is sub-divided into nine regional states and two metropolitan cities".
Of course, the current subdivision of Ethiopia is no as such, but it was during the survey time.
Hence, It is appropriate to correct like this "At the time of the survey, Ethiopia is sub-divided
into nine regional states and two metropolitan cities".
Page 5, line 98: "The Stratified  Cluster ...". Better replace "The" with "A" to make it
"A stratified cluster ..."
Title: Child marriage, marital disruption, and marriage thereafter: evidence from a national
survey
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
I like this piece and believe it has potential to contribute to the literature. Hoqweer, tyhere are two
main problems with the piece as it now stands. These need to be addressed prior to publication.
1. There is no theoretical set-up. I struggle to see why a reader would be convinced to care about
this topic (I believe, of course, that they should believe it’s important, because it is!). A new
reader to this area would not know why s/he should care based on this paper in anything beyond
a shallow way—this needs to be addressed.
2. The analysis is unnecessarily complex.
a. You don’t need to run these models as three level models. In this case, you just need
to take advantage of Stata’s survey design package. You’d ‘svyset’ the data something
like this: svyset psuvariable [pw=weightvariable], strata(stratavariable) singleunit(centered) or
something similar.
b. You can then run survey adjusted binary logistic regression models that are much easier
and more flexible. Doing so actually adjusts the standard errors better than the 3-level model
because in this case the 3-levels are a function of the sampling design, and you’re not interested
in drawing inferences for grouping variables that aren’t part of the sampling design.
c. Running separate models based on child marriage status is inefficient. You’d be much better
off analytically and more parsimonious if you simply had a single model and ran interaction
terms to assess differences between women who experienced child marriage vs. those who
didn’t.
d. I’d love to see some attention paid to community characteristics in your models. What about
the % of women in their community or district that experienced child marriage? What about
the mean level of education? What happens to your results when you include mean income in
the community?
e. Please refer to bi-variate relationships as such, rather than ‘bi-variable’.
f. Your figure 1 could be improved. If this question is central enough to merit a graph, it’s
important enough to produce the results from a statistical model. The bi-variate relationship is
of little substantive interest—this graph should be replaced. Please examine this question net of
controls and other variables and using the more parsimonious and accurate methods described
above.
g. It’s inaccurate to compare across your two models (child marriage vs. not). Please place
everybody in the same model and run interactions that test for these differences explicitly. Use
Stata’s margins and marginsplot commands to easily produce graphs, predicted probabilities,
etc.
h. If I’m understanding correctly, the entirety of Table 3 is just mean differences with what
appear to be Wald and/or t-tests? These are not meaningful or helpful. Please conduct your
analysis in a statistical model with proper controls.
3. You should cite some more recent work on predictors of marital quality and divorce, including
work by Claire Kamp Dush (2010ish) and Spencer James (2015?). This would greatly amplify
your theoretical standings.
Title: Child marriage, marital disruption, and marriage thereafter: evidence from a national
survey
Version: 1 Date: 05 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study aims at examining the  child marriage, marital disruption and marriage thereafter
in Bangladesh. This should be an interesting topic the issue of child marriage in developing
countries. However, there are some areas of the paper that need some improvement to be
appropriate to this journal. Several comments are:
1. Introduction is relatively weak to show the importance and contribution of this study to the
area of child marriage studies. Author(s) may read some recent articles related to this.
2. Author(s) have to show a clear and unique novelty of this article. I could not find the clear
novelty of this research.
3. There is no clear framework for how the author develops the idea of child marriage and what
possible mechanism or channeling some variables influence the child marriage decision and
marital disruption. Is there any specific variable of interest? Without any clear framework, it
would be difficult for the reader to get the story. author may read this article for framework:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17450128.2021.1923878.
4. in results section,  page 8.  there has a negligible difference between women who married at
early age and women who married later age regarding marital disruption (8% vs 7.4%). Author
(s) have to rethink it.
5. Bangladesh is a Muslim dominated country. Therefore, it may issues on 'Tin Talak' system
rather than child marriage  for marital disruption. Is there any religious issues on marital
disruption?
6. table 1 and 2 shows the higher prevalence of child marriage and marital disruption in Dhaka,
Khulna and Chattogram. Best of my knowledge these regions are developed as compared to
others. Therefore, what factors contributed the child marriage and marital disruption in these
regions?
7. The endogeneity issues exist in this study. Due to child marriage, then women tend to have
lower education. At the same time, due to lower education then women tend to have child
marriage. and child married women have less autonomy therefore, they are more vulnerable
to marital disruption. Why doesn't the author apply the impact evaluation method such as IV
regression or propensity score matching to avoid the endogeneity issue?
Title: Child marriage, marital disruption, and marriage thereafter: evidence from a national
survey
Version: 3 Date: 31 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the theoretical framework you’ve incorporated, the shift from multilevel models to
binary logistic regression, changing from bi-variate to bi-variate, and the incorporation of more
recent work.
However, running the models separately (see 2c in my previous review) does not and cannot
do what you want it to do. You say that your “aim is to show the effect of age at first marriage
among the women who experienced child marriage and those who did not. Moreover, logistic
regression outputs containing the interaction term between child marriage and age at marriage
are complex for general readers to understand. Thus, we prefer using separate models for table 2.
However, we developed a marginal plot using an overall parsimonious model.” This is incorrect.
The way to show the effect of age at first marriage among women who experienced child
marriage and those who did not is precisely by putting them in the same model and seeing if
the key coefficients vary between the two groups. The way you currently do it you can only
make informed guesses about whether the effects differ by age. Further, you figure 1 treats
age continuously while your models treat it categorically. Creating a graph for general readers
is very simple and very similar to what you’ve already done in figure 1. You can graph the
interaction quite easily to show differences. Given that this is your key question, you need to
test it statistically and rigorously. By far the easiest way to do that is to put both groups in the
same model and then test for the differences via interaction terms, which you then graph with
marginsplot.
Title: Child marriage, marital disruption, and marriage thereafter: evidence from a national
survey
Version: 4 Date: 19 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the response you’ve given to my concerns. Well done! A couple things to point out.
First, yes, variables involved in interactions are always difficult to interpret but that’s no reason
to not use interaction terms. If you’re worried about interpretation, just center the variable in
question at its mean value. But this is not necessary because you can just produce the graph
at the values you want and then not worry about it further. Note that interaction terms are just
more elegant ways of engaging in subgroup analysis. Once understood, it’s much easier to grasp,
with clearer interpretations, than separate models. The model for child marriage, for instance, is
not meaningless; it just doesn’t display the information you’re seeing. That’s what the margins
command is for. Second, you need to adjust both the y and x axes on Figure 1 so they match.
Currently, the left y-axis goes from .05 to .25 and the right goes from .05 to .30, making them
incomparable. For the x-axis, the left goes up by 2 but the right goes up by 4. I’m not sure,
frankly, how you did that when these results come from the same model but I trust you found a
way. But as it stands, we can’t judge between the two graphs. Easy but important fix. Finally and
most importantly, the results demonstrate a very clear nonlinear pattern that needs to be modeled
statistically and graphed accordingly. To facilitate this, I’m providing some example Stata code
that might prove useful in helping you do this because you have to use a 3-way interaction.