Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Acceptability, simplicity, and relevance of the new Human
papillomavirus/DNA test among 35- year-old ever-married women in a district
of Sri Lanka: Focus group discussions
Version: 
3 
Date: 
21 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Review comments
General comment
Thank you Editor for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I commend the
Authors for responding to the comments of Reviewers as observed in the current
manuscript.
I am of the opinion that the manuscript should be critically reviewed for
grammatical errors. In view of efforts put in by the Authors in responding to the
comments of Reviewers, it is important to point out that the Authors should seek
assistance in this direction. 
The presentation of the results should be reviewed. Authors should provide a
good narration before presenting the quotes. For a balanced presentation,
Authors should also include minority reports instead of focusing only on the
views of most of the participants. 
Abstract
Methods
What does the Authors mean by three venues were selected randomly? 
Review. 'The analysis was done manual content'
Results
Use most instead of majority
Instead of surveyed women, use participants
Conclusions
The conclusion needs to be reviewed
Include Sri Lanka as a key word
Background
Review and correct grammatical errors
Methods
This section should be sub-divided for clarity
There should be a description of the study area
Line 40,……. conducted in December 2018
Review line 43
Review lines 57 to 60
Is the moderator guide the same as focus group discussion guide?
Is conceptual framework same as questions asked? This should be reviewed.
Authors should include a conceptual framework for the study.
Use Participants' profile instead of socio-demographic. This should be presented
in prose. 
Results
Use most instead of majority
How many themes emerged from the analysis?
Cervical cancer? What about cervical cancer emerged as the first theme?
Quotations should be in italics, and indented 0.5' from both margins. It appears
there are identifiers like urban and rural, (as presented by the Authors) use it to
identify the participants after each quote.
For the first theme, the first narration was on the views of most of the
participants. Were there no counter or minority views on cervical cancer from
the participants?
The presentation of the results is very poor. The narrations before the quotes are
poor and in some instances there are no narrations. Again, after presenting the
views of most of the participants, what about the views of the remaining
participants? This will make for a balanced report.
Theme two; Human papilloma virus infection
This is not a good caption for a theme.
References
References and referencing style should be uniform and in agreement with
Journal guidelines. The references will need to be reviewed. Authors should visit
the Journal's website.
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 after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile 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 its webservice 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
Yes
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
Reviewer 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 manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you 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 whenever
prompted. 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 publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes