Reviewer's report
Title:Harnessing Information Technology to Improve Women's Health
Information: Evidence from Pakistan
Version:2Date:29 May 2014
Reviewer: Kathleen Gray
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions are NUMBERED
In general the paper lacks a clear structure and so does not do justice to the
research effort.
It is worth reorganizing, filing in gaps in reporting results, and linking conclusions
to background.
NUMBER 1 The term ‘gadget’ is inappropriate language, and should be replaced
by a phrase such as “devices and tools”, “tools and technologies”, or similar.
The Background has three main subsections:
Women and ICTs - Good overview of relevant literature bringing out the theme of
empowerment. NUMBER 2 Give this a subheading.
Women and health information - Adequate overview of relevant literature on the
theme of access. NUMBER 3 Reference to a few more empirical studies would
strengthen, including a published source to back up statements made about
traditional / modern sources.
Rationale and aims of research – NUMBER 4 Insert this subheading, before the
paragraph “There are other challenges and complications...” The end of this
paragraph should say a bit more about the particular advances in IT that appear
most promising to reach out to women. This paragraph is the place to make the
argument that this research project is worthwhile and necessary. Three aims are
stated: Document the authors’ experience of establishing a centre / Evaluate the
impact of the centre on intended users / Document successes, limitations and
challenges. NUMBER 5 Delete the third aim; it is not really a separate aim
addressed by a specific method of study, but perhaps a hint of your analytical
framework and certainly an expected part of your discussion.
Methods
The first aim (above) is certainly a research aim if your research method for
documentation is sufficiently well explained. NUMBER 6 Phase I needs to
describe not only the Objectives you set and the Structure you created, but also
your role as agents, your processes for making decisions, the ways you captured
and analysed data to support reflections on your experiences – and why this way
was particularly suited to this investigation. A classic paper is Baskerville, R., &
Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research
methods. European Journal of Information Systems, 7(2), 90-107.
NUMBER 7 The second aim likewise needs to be accompanied by a stronger
explanation of the Phase II evaluation method used, including the how the
questionnaire design drew on existing validated instruments. A relevant
discussion is found in Grunfeld, H. (2007, December). Framework for evaluating
contributions of ICT to capabilities, empowerment and sustainability in
disadvantaged communities. In CPRsouth2 Conference, Chennai,
India—December (pp. 15-17). NUMBER 8 Data analysis needs to explain what
set of themes and/or criteria was used to make sense of the data. NUMBER 9
Participant recruitment among indirect and no-contact groups also needs
explanation, particularly under the circumstances of disempowerment of women.
Results presently are structured as follows:
Subheading: Philosophy and functional parameters NUMBER 10 This belongs in
the Phase I description of the Centre, unless by including it here you mean to say
that this information was found out after the Centre had been established.
Major heading: Functioning in the local context
Subheading: Connecting with information agencies
Subheading: Creating empowerment
Subheading: Verification of information
Subheading: Non-health information
Main heading: Evaluation of the functioning
NUMBER 11 Regarding these headings and subheadings, the arrangement of
results needs to be improved so that (a) it clearly shows findings from each
phase and (b) within each phase sets out findings as they were produced by the
research methods - at present it is impossible to differentiate data from opinion in
the descriptions of functioning; quotes are not attributed (e.g. Participant 1 said
“…”) so that we can see how thoroughly interview data have been reported.
Main heading: Strengths NUMBER 12 ‘Strengths’ and ‘limitations’ should be
used for notes about the how the design and conduct of the research affects how
much meaning or significance the results can have, e.g. what if the participation
had been more or less or different? what if the time-scale had been shorter or
longer?, etc. NUMBER 13 The views (or ‘discoveries’ or ‘lessons learned’) about
the strengths and limitations of the Centre itself, which are based on your actual
findings, belong in the Discussion.
Main heading: Limitations See 12 & 13 above
In general, the findings appear to be very interesting and deserve more
disciplined reporting, which the present structure and format do not provide.
The Discussion introduces NUMBER 14 references which should be moved to
the Background. It is appropriate to cross-reference your findings with findings
from similar studies if there are any, citing them here.
The Conclusion NUMBER 15 will need to be revisited once these revisions are
completed.
Figure 1. NUMBER 16 Please explain: Why is the client not in the centre? What
processes are represented by the arrows? How has this model been derived
from the philosophy expounded in the text? How is it more useful than existing
models for this type of work, such as
http://ibec.ischool.washington.edu/projects/nc_health_info.php?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.