JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Understanding the relationship between illness perceptions of breast cancer and perceived
risk in a sample of U.A.E. female University students: The role of comparative risk
Version: 1 Date: 21 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors of this paper tried to investigate how illness perceptions of healthy women about
BC may influence risk perception. They found that young women with family history of BC
reported more negative illness perceptions and higher risk perception. The relationship between
illness perceptions and perceived individual risk was mediated by compared risk. The authors
proposed an interesting topic on women’s perception on BC, while several significant limitations
should be considered.
1. The studied population was a highly selected population, considering they were students in
a female campus of university. Therefore, findings in this paper cannot be generalized to other
population even in UAE. Please revise accordingly in the discussion. In addition, I strongly
suggest the authors to revise the title of the paper into “Understanding the relationship between
illness perceptions of breast cancer and perceived risk in a sample of U.A.E. female college
students: The role of comparative risk”.
2. I think the authors used a convenience sampling to collect data, which also introduced strong
selection bias for the sample. It’s obvious that the percentage of family history of breast cancer
was high in this sample, probably because those women were more willing to participate in the
survey.
3. The authors should collect other variables reflecting social economic status, such as household
income and religion. Also, the authors should make sure that they have excluded the international
students.
4. The question about perceived risk was for the next 10 years, while even the oldest participant
here would reach only 35. It is known that majority of the breast cancer patients are diagnosed
after 40. I would suggest to ask the life-time risk of breast cancer, which is more reasonable.
5. The breast cancer screening program in UAE started from 40 years old, while the authors
tested the women’s perception on breast cancer at their 20s. The perceptions would probably
change in 15-20 years.
6. The authors had a strong hypothesis that comparative risk could mediate the relationship
between illness perception dimensions and perceived individual risk. While in my opinion, the
women should have first understand their own risk and therefore to compare with the risk of
others. The authors should provide strong arguments to support their hypothesis before they
fitted the statistical model.
7. In the data analysis part, the authors assumed normal distribution of the variables, while later
on they found several observed variable deviated from normal distribution. Therefore, t-test
should not be used. They should use the rank test to study the difference (e.g. Wilcoxon rank
sum test). Similarly, the correlation test should use Spearman coefficients then.
Some minor points.
8. In Table 1, it’s better to list the exact p-values.
9. In the paper, it’s better to add 0 before the decimal dot.
Title: Understanding the relationship between illness perceptions of breast cancer and perceived
risk in a sample of U.A.E. female University students: The role of comparative risk
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
The design of this research has certain significance, but the current study design and
implementation can not achieve the research purpose. First of all, the selection of samples is lack
of representativeness; Second, the significance and reasons of choosing young people are not
clear; Third, the sample size is insufficient, if sample size is small, the credibility of the results
will be compromised; Fourth,the research content is not comprehensive enough. Since it is a
study on knowledge, belief and behavior in breast cancer, the basic knowledge and preventive
knowledge of breast cancer are not included in the study. It is suggested to improve the content
of the questionnaire and expand the scope of participants and sample size.
Title: Understanding the relationship between illness perceptions of breast cancer and perceived
risk in a sample of U.A.E. female University students: The role of comparative risk
Version: 3 Date: 12 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised the paper according to my comments. However, they should consider
some minor points in addition.
1. The authors should make tracked changes for their next revision. It's hard to see what the
authors have changed in the text.
2. Please add 0 before the decimal dot, otherwise please contact the editor. It's OK if the journal
accept this.
3. The p-values should not be 0.000 in table 1, if you meet this small p-value, you can just list
it as <0.001.
Title: Understanding the relationship between illness perceptions of breast cancer and perceived
risk in a sample of U.A.E. female University students: The role of comparative risk
Version: 4 Date: 21 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
The design and topic selection of this study are interesting, but there are several problems to be
considered. First, the representative question of the sample, what is the significance of selecting
college students and dividing them into younger and older groups? It cannot be analyzed for
statistical analysis. It is suggested to supplement the reasons and significance of grouping;
Second, the problem of sample size calculation. If the sample size is small, the reliability of the
results will be affected.  It is suggested to increase the sample size estimation process.Since it is
a study on knowledge, belief and behavior in breast cancer, the basic knowledge and preventive
knowledge of breast cancer are not included in the study. Could the the author provide relevant
data and results as supplementary materials?
Title: Understanding the relationship between illness perceptions of breast cancer and perceived
risk in a sample of U.A.E. female University students: The role of comparative risk
Version: 6 Date: 17 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Ad A. Kaptein
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript was apparently reviewed by two reviewers;  the authors revised the manuscript
accordingly; reviewer 1 is happy with the review as is, reviewer 2 raised some additional issues
to which the authors have now responded.  Therefore, I feel it would be overdoing things to
review the manuscript as  a third reviewer. I summarize my main issues, a comprehensive review
is not indicated in my view.
1. Cross-sectional design does not allow the use of words such as 'predicting', 'predictors'.
2. I'm not a native speaker of English but there are quite a few mistakes in the English. For
instance: line 70: "It has been an increased focus on  ...".  And sloppy typing, for instance line
71 where (8), should be followed by a period.
3. The authors use various words for the concept 'illness perceptions', i.e. illness schema (line
327), illness cognitions (line 397) . It is better to consistently use 'illness perceptions' throughout
the manuscript.
4. The word 'health education' (line 396) ignores the literature on addressing illness perceptions
and changing them into a more adaptive form.  In this context, the word 'lay', 'lay women' or 'lay
views' is a rather medicocentric word, reflecting medical arrogance about 'knowing better' than
those poor patients.  Delete 'lay'.  Physicians are lays when it comes to illness perceptions.
5. It is not mentioned why the BIPQ items on causal attributions are not discussed in the
manuscript. A remarkable omission given the importance of   socio-cultural influences on causal
attributions in various societies.
Title: Analyzing factors associated with Time to Age at First Marriage among Women in
Ethiopia:Log logistic-Gamma shared frailty model
Version: 3 Date: 21 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
- It is suggested to write the title more clearly. “Time to Age at First Marriage” is vague. What
does it mean exactly? When is the beginning of this time? It is better to omit the “time”.
- In the abstract: Please mention how many people were studied?  What is written in the
conclusion is part of the findings and not the conclusion.
- Please refer to previous studies in this field and their findings in the introduction.
- Discussion is written very poor. Please mention the reason for the difference with other
findings. What was the difference between the results of the present study and the findings of
previous studies that used logistic regression models and the Cox proportional models method?
-  Conclusion is very long and the findings are repeated in this section.
- The same study has been published in the “BMC Reproductive Health” (2022) with another
statistical analysis. Surprisingly, this article is not used in the references. It seems that the
authors need to mention the differences between the two studies in more detail and explain the
necessity for the present study. Please note what is changed by this study (focusing on the finding
applications).
Title: Analyzing factors associated with Time to Age at First Marriage among Women in
Ethiopia:Log logistic-Gamma shared frailty model
Version: 4 Date: 17 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors seem to have revised the manuscript well in line with the reviewers' comments.
Time to age at first marriage and associated factors are important for women's health policy
framing. The authors used an appropriate model for analyzing the determinants .
Title: Assessment of  Alcohol Utilization during Pregnancy and its Associated Factors among
Reproductive Women in Mecha Woreda of North Western Ethiopia
Version: 0 Date: 04 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
The area of the study is an interesting one in exploring reasons for the low utilization of IUCD,
but the methodology used did not answer the objectives included in the study. This is primarily
because of the selection of a qualitative study design which might have been a complimentary
to a quantitative study covering a larger sample size and users from both urban and rural areas.
Title: Assessment of  Alcohol Utilization during Pregnancy and its Associated Factors among
Reproductive Women in Mecha Woreda of North Western Ethiopia
Version: 0 Date: 20 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript “Assessment of  Alcohol Utilization during Pregnancy and its Associated
Factors among Reproductive Women in Mecha Woreda of North Western Ethiopia ” provides
an analyses of 374 reproductive women in Mecha Woreda, the study showed a prevalence of
35.5%. However, my main comment is that the authors should double check all the manuscript,
verify the objective of the paper and meditate what they want to say and it has to be alienated
with the objective of the paper.
I have some comments enumerated below
The introduction could be shorter and more structured – what is this paper about, what gap does
it fill, what questions does it seek to answer. This sentence is very hard to understand. Perhaps
eliminate or rephrase into simpler language: The conventional and manufactured alcoholic
liquids…
The objective of the manuscript  should be enunciated in manusctipt and resume.
The authors should review redaction in order to eliminate redundant information, for example:
The study's inclusion criteria were reproductive women [aged 15 to 49], and the study's exclusion
criteria were women aged 15 to 49 who were unwilling to participate.
I  have some dubts about the tittle and some methods, for example: the title of the manuscript
is Assessment of  Alcohol Utilization during Pregnancy… in the results the autors mention
currently pregnant (AOR=0.139;95% CL=0.057-0.343). This is not clear if all women have a
recent pregnant women or women in reproductive age.
Redundant information in all the manuscript:
Uses of CI vs CL
95 percent  CI=1.96 (= 0.05)
34 percent =0.34
Typo errors: result,a
Table2-
There are some information that maybe is not  useful for the paper, but it can be present in a
figure: Drinking  tella, Drinking  areki, Drinking  tej, Drinking wine, Drinking beer
Table 3- Average income is not useful for the paper. It is missing the unit account of currency
and may be it is not informative information to the manuscript.  I think it would be useful, if it
were possible present socioeconomic status.
Title: Assessment of  Alcohol Utilization during Pregnancy and its Associated Factors among
Reproductive Women in Mecha Woreda of North Western Ethiopia
Version: 4 Date: 02 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
From the reviewers response most of the comments are addressed but I still feel that there is a
need for a copy edit since some of the grammatical uses are not revised as expected. In addition
for the reference section those internet based references needs an access date.
Title: Assessment of  Alcohol Utilization during Pregnancy and its Associated Factors among
Reproductive Women in Mecha Woreda of North Western Ethiopia
Version: 4 Date: 18 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for providing a revised version of the manuscript.
My only comment is
Table 3- The currency of Ethiopian Birr (ETB) it is not informative to the potential readers in
a international  context .
Title: Women’s Awareness of Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors and Symptoms in Western Iran in
2020-2021
Version: 2 Date: 10 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Mario Palumbo
Reviewer's report:
I was pleased to review this review: “Women’s Awareness of Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors and
Symptoms in Western Iran in 2020-2021”
The methodology used by the Authors is appropriate for the purpose of the research article
description. The English language is fluid and well understood. Nevertheless, minor revision is
needed, but the paper is good quality.
The abstract is well structured and clear, the central theme of the work is well defined.
Regarding the introduction, I find this article very interesting: too bit is know about oncological
diseases and information is the first key to the early recognition of diseases such as ovarian
cancer, to improve and integrate the initial part of the paper, I recommend this work.
DOI: 10.1186/s13048-019-0503-7
As regards the paper’s structuring (Methods/Discussion): There is a good structure of the project
based on the literature data on studies (for example with respect to use of the OCAM), but
I would have appreciated more the fact of having understood a time range greater than one
year, and I disagree when you say that the use of technology such as whatsup for administering
the questionnaires was a limit. I understand on the one hand the pandemic era but using the
internet allows you to reach a young person you would not have reached, and I believe that this
clarification is only a way to cover any bias in the sampling.
Don't you think that the extension of the study for a longer time range, would have made
it possible to correct the evaluation error with respect to the cultural level of the patients
interviewed? In fact, How do you explain that 7.7% of participants would wait several months
for symptoms to appear before seeing a doctor?
In light of the data related to IVF treatment history / application of talcum powder to the
genital area, Haven't you thought about contacting the female family members of the interviewed
patients to further expand the statistics?
The Conclusions are consistent with the arguments developed in the work: the Iranian women
have moderate awareness of ovarian cancer and low knowledge of its warning signs.
Title: Women’s Awareness of Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors and Symptoms in Western Iran in
2020-2021
Version: 2 Date: 25 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
In general, the study provided important results. However, the awareness of ovarian cancer may
be lower than what the study estimates provide.
Introduction
It is better to merge paragraphs that have similar information and give a more coherent structure
to the introduction.
Has a similar study ever been conducted in Iran? The authors should provide further explanation
in this regard.
If there has been a similar study, has this study been able to cover the limitations as much as
possible?
Awareness always plays a key role in health issues, it is better to provide more reasons according
to the literature review.
Method
The sampling of this study is not random. Only women who referred to a midwife during the
study had a chance to participate. In addition, all women who entered the study during the study
and were able to answer online questionnaires formed the results. The results also show that
most people had at least a bachelor's degree and the average age is 32 years. This study seems to
face a selection bias. In addition, the study found that nearly 29 percent of people with a family
history of ovarian cancer.
At the beginning of the method, the authors say that the study is descriptive, but in Table 3,
statistical statistical analysis is performed.
A score below 16, between 16 and 36, and over 36 was regarded as low, moderate, and suitable
knowledge of ovarian cancer, respectively. What is the basis of this classification method?
Results:
The information in Table 2 should be presented in the form of a graph.
Table 4 should be omitted because it does not provide specific results but adds to the complexity
of the results. In the text, explanations are sufficient that the other variables were not related.
Discussion and conclusion:
At the beginning of the discussion, some of the results are presented numerically again. It is
better to describe the outstanding results qualitatively in this section.
It can be seen in many parts of the text that the authors have generalized the results to all Iranian
women. While samples have been collected from the west of Iran.
The results of the study show that about 29% of participants have a family history of ovarian
cancer. Therefore, the level of awareness is expected to be lower in the study population.
There is a 16% unresponsiveness in the study that researchers should discuss in effect on the
results.
Title: Mothers’ experiences of wellbeing and coping while living with rheumatoid arthritis: A
qualitative study
Version: 2 Date: 16 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written, thoughtful qualitative study of mothers' experience of wellbeing and
coping among 20 mothers living in Australia. The text is clear and data rich. This adds needed
patient voice to the literature around lived experience of mothers with RA. Limitations are noted
by the authors.
A few minor comments I have listed above with regard to clarifications in the methods. The
introduction and discussion could be condensed somewhat but are well written with a fine review
of prior literature.
I applaud the authors for taking on this important work.
Title: Mothers’ experiences of wellbeing and coping while living with rheumatoid arthritis: A
qualitative study
Version: 6 Date: 18 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Great job with the revisions. Only one very minor note:
Page 6: I would change "qualitatively trained" to "trained in qualitative research methods"
The paper reads very well and makes an important contribution. Thank you for the opportunity
to review it.
Title: The relationship between sleep quality, neck pain, shoulder pain and disability, physical
activity, and health perception among middle-aged women : a cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 06 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The purpose of this study was to identify the factors that affect sleep quality as well as the
relationship between sleep quality and neck pain, shoulder pain and disability, physical activity,
and health perception. A survey was utilized to assess neck pain, shoulder pain and disability,
physical activity, self-health perception and sleep quality. Finding revealed that Shoulder pain,
self-perceived task difficulty, and health perception were identified as variables that affected the
sleep quality in middle-aged women. The manuscript presents interesting data on sleep quality;
however, I have a number of concerns about the manuscript, specifically about the methods
section that dampen my enthusiasm, for example:
• Even though the authors has a good support from the literature in the introduction, I think
would be beneficial for the readers to have a better link between the aim and the potential clinical
relevance, significance, and novelty of this study. In addition, the authors should present a better
background and association between the construct of interest (Sleep quality) and all the other
variety of constructs and variables added to the study. Some factors are disconnected to the main
question of interest (Health perception). Please add a stronger rationale.
• Methods-The authors should explain the selection criteria for this sample. Were the participants
randomly selected?
• Methods- How were the questionnaires distributed? Where were the questionnaires
distributed? How they were collected? please explain the whole procedure, there is very
important and relevant information about data collection that is missing
• Statistical Analyses- Authors mentioned ANOVA to assess the differences in sleep quality,
please explain the groups, are these categorical or continuous variables?  Please mention the
type of regression analysis on the manuscript (stepwise is mentioned on the table)
• Results- Are the participants a significant representation of the demographic of the residents
in the city of Seoul?
• Results- Please improve quality and presentation of tables
• Please change “Factors affecting sleep quality” as it is not appropriate for a cross-sectional
design.
• Please explain the novelty of this data, aren’t’ the results expected?
• Discussion has room for improvement, please reorganize it and delete repetitive information.
Title: Mental distress and associated factors among women who experienced gender based
violence and attending court in South Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 31 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Title:
Mental distress and associated factors among women who experienced gender based violence
and attending court in South Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study
Authors: Jerusalem Sewalem1*, Alemayehu Molla1
First of all, I would like to thank for giving me the chance to review this manuscript. The title
is interesting and deals with more neglected areas especially in developing countries. However,
the manuscript at its current presentation needs more editorial corrections, language and needs to
be more detail in method, result and discussion parts. Saying this I have the following concerns
for the authors.
Abstract
Line 35- Use either mental distress or psychological distress consistently throughout the
manuscript
Background
Line 45- At its first presentation write in both full text and abbreviation.
Line 48- editorial problem.
Line 49- Here you can use only abbreviation GBV
Line 68- mothers, full stop
Population
Line 81- 83- what to mean by in the past one month or above? How much it is true? How
seriously ill women can visit court?
Line 101- What type of training did you give for 3 days? Can you list the contents of training
per each day?
Line 103-104- What input did you get from the pre-test? Have you included the result to your
main analysis?
Result
Line 126-127- table 1 format needs edition
How did you measure PTSD?
Discussion
Line 185- Insert the term and. Again, give more explanation how these variables can make a
difference.
189-198- Re-write this part. You need to give more explanation for each associated factor and
their indications.
Limitation
Line 200-  Add more