Title: Knowledge on Human Papilloma Virus and experience of getting positive results: a
qualitative study among women in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
Version: 2 Date: 25 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Title: I suggest the title should be rephrased as, ' Knowledge on Human Papilloma Virus
and experience of getting positive results: a qualitative study among women in Kilimanjaro,
Tanzania.'
Abstract: The authors should define the abbreviations on the first appearance in the text.
Example: HR-HPV. Moreover, the aim stated at the end of the background paragraph should
be similar to what is presented in the title. The methodology should describe the study design,
study site (where exactly in Kilimanjaro??), study duration, sampling technique?? What tool
was used to collect data?? Summary of the themes explored? In the results, this statement is not
clear, 'while others women explained testing positive will improve future screening follow up
and future plan for cervical cancer screening based on new test.' may need to be rephrased to
be more meaningful. Your conclusion should be based on the study research question. Need to
restructure the conclusion in the abstract.
Main body:
Background
Avoid unnecessary use of capital letters. Example Low- and Middle-income countries, Human
Papilloma Virus etc
What is VIA???
I suggest this information should be in the methodology, 'The study included women enrolled
in the comprehensive prevention of cervical cancer in Tanzania (CONCEPT) study that was
conducted in Dar es Salaam and Kilimanjaro regions (13). This study uses women who were
enrolled in Kilimanjaro and explored how women understood, internalized, and reacted to
positive HPV results. '
Data collection tool is not adequately described? What it semi-structured?? This statement is not
clear, 'The tool was piloted among four women were from the clinic two weeks after receiving
their results and corrections were made to match with objectives. ' I don't think you should state,
'The first author collected the IDIs ' you can say the qualitative researcher collected the IDIs and
in the authors' contribution then it will be much clearer that it is the first author. You have stated
that 'The IDIs were conducted in a room at the health facility where cervical screening was done
which lasted for about 45-50 minutes. ' Was the screening of patients stopped during the study
period?? Was the room suitable to conduct the interview without interruptions from patients and
staff??? Or the IDIs were conducted after working hours?? Please clarify.
Results: Check the grammar.
I suggest the subtitle 'Advises to improve the process' should be changed to 'recommendations
to improve uptake of cervical cancer screening to women'.
Discussion:
Was counseling and education on HPV provided before screening or after getting results???
Remove this sentence in line 342, it is a bit redundant. Majority of women had good knowledge
on HPV.
This comparison is not inline with what has been explained in the paragraph, 'This is in line with
the study from high income countries whereby women who tested positive for HPV had more
knowledge compared to HPV negative women (16). ' You did not make this comparison as all
participants were those who tested positive.
Make sure the paragraph has more than one sentence. Check line 356-358.
I suggest the discussion part should be revised and focus more on study findings rather than
findings from other studies which were not within the scope of this study.
In limitations rather than saying to my knowledge use to our knowledge.