Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Women’s experiences of living with increased inter-recti distance after childbirth: An interview
study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
27 Apr 2020
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an attachment.
Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or
other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. 
Certainly the objective of this paper is important as the
lived experience of women with DRA is a phenomenon that absolutely requires study such to support
appropriate guidance related to care in rehabilitation and fitness sectors. 
The primary issue with this paper relates to the lack of explicated methodology. 
You indicate you are
using qualitative methods and you cite a general "content analysis" citation to support your methods.
There is also no separate section outlining the measures taken through the data collection and analysis
process to endure credibility and trustworthiness of the data and associated analyzed findings. 
Given you
are interested in the "lived experience", one would expect a phenomenological approach to be the best
suited here. 
However, your reserach objective does specifically indicate you are interested in describing
(less immersion and less depth) which is fine, and thus "Qualitative Description (Sandelowski, 2000)" or
"Interpretive Qualitative Description (Thorne, 2007)" would have been expected. 
At the very least, the
methodology used must be explained and justified. 
Further as written the analysis appears to be too
shallow to ensure the findings are trustworthy. 
The categories (n=4) outlines seem as though they should
be themes and the process the researchers went through to co-develop those themes as they worked with
the raw data needs to be explained in more detail. 
Did any of the physiotherapists who collected and
analyzed the data have any experience or expertise in qualitative research methods? 
The discussion and conclusion raise interesting and important points but the validity of this discussion
hinges on your methodology and methods which needs to be addressed in order to be credible and
trustworthy. 
I found myself asking "why were some participants not interviewed a second time to really
unearth emerging issues that came up to ensure a more complete analysis". 
As such the methods section
needs to be addressed. 
The other issues is that the reference list is rather dated. 
There is an important 2018 systematic review that
should be incorporated into he introduction as well as a 2019 paper reviewing consensus-based
recommendations for pregnancy-related DRA. 
Finally there are some sentences that are structured awkwardly in the introduction and discussion.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are 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 further assessment
in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration 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 this manuscript,
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 interests'
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. 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/
). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to be
included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not be
published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal