Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Predictors of Timely Diagnostic Follow-Up after an Abnormal Pap Test
among Hispanic Women Seeking Care in El Paso, Texas
Version: 
0 
Date: 
01 Aug 2019
Reviewer: 
Michal McDowell
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to read this important manuscript. The content is
important, the results are communicated clearly, and the discussion is thoughtful.
Abstract
Comment 1: I'm curious about your use of the word "Hispanic" as opposed to
"Latinx" throughout. 
Background
Comment 2: Can you speak to the reasons for the increased mortality rate in
border counties?
Comment 3: Give further background on the NBCCEDP - how does it provide
access to timely screening and diagnostic services? Would clarify.
Methods
Comment 4: Why exclude non-Hispanic women? 
Comment 5: Which risk factor characteristics were included?
Comment 6: What do you mean by "acculturated"? How does SASH measure
this?
Comment 7: Why was smoking used as a surrogate measure of risk-taking? Is
this validated? You have cites, but would make that explicit.
Results
Discussion
Comment 8: Cite your first sentence in your conclusion.
Comment 9: How does the 44% in your sample compare to others? How about
to other mixed ethnicity samples?
Comment 10: Can you be more explicit about why NBCCEDP was not
associated with receipt of care within an optimal diagnostic interval? 
Comment 11: Maybe talk about higher than average uninsured rate in Texas
when you reference the women under 30 findings.
Comment 12: You note "we relied on medical chart review" but above mention
collecting surveys. Would clarify.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Unable to assess
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.
I recommend additional statistical review
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
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