Title: “I'm walking on eggshells”: Challenges faced by mothers with breast cancer in interacting
with adolescent daughters
Version: 3 Date: 03 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
To the authors
The paper offers valuable insights into parent-adolescent relationships of mothers with breast
cancer. The paper describes the literature in this regard and outlines the research methodology
adopted in the study. However, the authors would benefit from seeking the services of a
professional editor. There are multiple occasions where grammatical  errors are found, and
although one can follow the arguments, the paper would still need professional editing.  This
includes the abstract and the body of the paper.
Regarding the methodology, more information on how recruitment was facilitated is required.
For example, were the mothers recruited from a hospital or online or how did the team access
the sample? I support that names of hospitals or spaces of access should remain anonymous,
but I think the context through which recruitment takes place is important to note in qualitative,
purposive studies.
Regarding the results, authors can do more to introduce the themes with introductory paragraphs
that links the different sub-themes. Some sentences are not phrased clearly and may need to be
rewritten. For example, under theme 1, the authors start the sentence with “ This is the beginning
of a new trajectory for the family when the diagnosis is conveyed.”
Perhaps rewriting this sentence to state: "When mothers disclose their cancer diagnoses to their
families… " Again, editing is required to ensure that the content is described and represented
well.
It will be useful to know which questions mothers were responding to in each of the subthemes.
Authors do not have to state the questions directly, but could say: “When mothers were asked
about… they indicated…". This will guide the reader to understand the point authors are making
a bit better.
Regarding the analysis, I don’t see the phenomenological analyses coming through.
Phenomenology is an in-depth approach that focuses on how participants speak about events,
how they felt, and the research offers a perspective on these issues. This is not coming through,
but it could just be how the test is written or organized.
Also, phenomenology normally integrates the narratives into the authors analyses and uses the
participants' narratives to make a point. At the moment, the authors place the narratives at the
end of their analyses with little engagement with the text or use of the text to showcase the
analyses. This is a missed opportunity. Looks more like thematic analysis.
In general, the results is written as if it should be part of the discussion section. It is difficult to
know whether the authors are discussing their own results or the literature. This can be rectified
by adding statements like: ‘our findings showed’ OR ‘we found..’
Please also try to make some of the headings a bit more clear. For example, for the heading
'Protect daughter or let her be independent', I am not sure what statement or message the authors
are trying to convey here. Is it a question that is posed or a dilemma?
Regarding the discussion, the authors presented the literature well and linked this to their study.
However, the authors can do more to contextualize the findings more. For example, does the
findings represent a particular context (socio-demographic, race, age, ethnicity) and how do
you expect things to potentially be different in other spaces, communities, countries, contexts?
This might have implications for coping support and other psychosocial needs of mothers and
daughters.
In all, the paper contributes to the paucity of literature and can be ready for publication should
the authors attend to the comments.