Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Exploring how Syrian women manage their health after migration to
Germany: Results of a qualitative study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
22 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this is an interesting study and I enjoyed reading the paper. 
My
enthusiasm is dampened due to the very small sample. 
I also think the paper
would benefit from a greater level of depth in the identification of themes
Abstract:
- In depth is italicized - 
think likely an editing error
- Background: 
if space allows, would be useful to add some text about
immigration of Syrians into Germany
- Maybe in methods - but think the authors should indicate that sampling was
purposeful
- I am assuming that the barriers and facilitators are related to medical care, but
the authors may want to clarify this
- Some discussion of the analysis should be added to the abstract
Background
- The introduction is very informative and provides needed details to add contaxt
to the study
- It would benefit from editing
Methods
- As participants are required to be mothers to participate in the study, I would
suggest the title be amended.
- The number of interviews is very small. Especially as the participants are from
three different areas. 
How was it determined to do nine interviews?
- Details are needed about recruitment. 
Who did the recruitment? 
Were people
approached or asked directly to participate, etc,? 
Are data available about the
number of people approached (or interested in the study)?
- The text stating that the first 2 interviews were done via video call needs ti be
edited as it given the impression that people participate d in multiple interviews
- Was the interview guide pilot-tested?
- Where were the in-person interviews conducted/?
- 
Data analysis
- I am assuming a codebook was created and suggest the authors add this
information to the text
- The texts was coded and then coded by a second author? Then, these 2 authors
grouped the codes together to identify themes?
- More explanation is needed about how focus was "given to what the women
considered of greatest importance to them". 
Does this mean that this impacted
the identification of themes or that themes were prioritized?
Results
- Theme 1 seems almost too broad and that it covers several distinct themes (at
least as written). A more nuanced approach may be beneficial. 
For example,
limited access to providers is very different from not trusting a provider or
believing that the provider has a lack of empathy. Maybe this section should
include sub-themes.
- Theme 2: 
do 
the women say why they do not use the services of a translator?
This would be useful to know as may be due to lack of availability or not
trusting the translator. 
This theme also discusses 2 unique thing, I believe
(feeling powerless due to language barriers, lack of access due to language
barriers)
- Theme 3: 
Also feels like it is discussing several themes
- Theme 4: 
maybe make theme 1? 
- 
Discussion
Is well done, but limitations need to be discussed
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.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
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:
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 I have not 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 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)