Reviewer's report
Title:"I'm the Momma": Using Photovoice to Understand Matrilineal Influence on
Family Food Choice
Version: 1Date:1 January 2010
Reviewer: Angela Odoms-Young
Reviewer's report:
I’m the Momma: Using Photovoice to Understand Matrilineal Influence on Family
Food Choice. Johnson et al.
Overview: This is a very timely and interesting paper describing maternal and
extended family influences on family food choice. Drawn from a sample of seven
women residing in Bryan, Texas, as indicated by the authors, the purpose of this
paper is to expand our understanding of direct and indirect matrilineal influences
on rural families’ eating, cooking and food purchasing behaviors.
This manuscript has several strengths: 1) studies examining matrilineal
influences on rural family food choice behaviors are limited; 2) this study uses
visual methodology to gain a clearer understanding of family and eating contexts;
and 3) the information included in this study has the potential to assist in the
development of interventions related to women’s health.
In spite of these strengths, I have four major concerns: 1) the literature presented
is not directly related to the target population in this study; 2) as described, this
study uses photo elicitation not photovoice; 3) the data analysis approach is not
well recognized and only vaguely described; and 4) the “Results” and
“Discussion/Conclusion” sections could be reorganized to better reflect the
implications of the results for improving food choice behaviors in rural families.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Introduction:
1. The literature review is not very focused. For example, this study is focused on
women living in Bryan, Texas. However, there is no discussion regarding
previous studies of food practices within rural areas; health issues in rural
communities; studies of dietary practices or determinants of dietary practices in
rural families.
2. In addition, although studies regarding food choice are included, a clear
justification should be included regarding how the current study (including target
population, methodology used, etc) will expand our understanding about food
choice in general and in rural/US families specifically.
Methodology:
1. The authors include a very detailed description of the survey. However, much
of the data collected in the survey is not included in this paper. Since the survey
is not the focus of the paper, the description should be brief and be discussed in
context of the interview.
2. Photovoice (Wang and Burris, 1997) includes a participatory action
methodology that includes a group process. Participants discuss photos in a
group setting. See Lorenz and Kolb, 2009 for the differences between photo
elicitation and photovoice.
3. From the description, it does not appear that the research questions and
6-item interview guide focused specifically on maternal and extended family
influences on food choice. Were maternal influences the only themes that
emerged? Were these themes discussed in the context of other issues?
4. More detail is needed on the analysis approach used in this study. The Sift
and Sort method is not well recognized and appears to be developed to facilitate
analysis in the context of qualitative software. The authors should include a
detailed description about how the analysis was conducted. The authors indicate
that comparisons were made within and between interviews. What was
compared? Was the data broken down into text units and coded? How were the
themes identified? Was an analysis program used to manage the data or was a
manual processed used?
5. The authors indicate they used both Sift and Sort and Constant Comparison,
however, the Sift and Sort seems to include some aspects of constant
comparative analysis. In State of the Art: Integrating Software with Qualitative
Analysis, Maietta appears to draw on several qualitative analysis approaches
including constant comparative analysis. Authors should review and gain a
clearer understanding of grounded theory and constant comparative analysis.
See Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strass and Corbin, 1998, Strauss and Corbin,
2008.
6. Not clear how the photos were included in the analysis.
Results:
1. What are “White Anglos” ? Is that different from White only or Caucasians?
2. In one section, the results include influences of other extended family
members such as fathers. Based on the focus of the paper, results should center
on female extended family members.
3. Photos are included but not described.
4. Several very interesting themes emerged, however, certain sections appear to
consist of just groups of quotes. More detailed descriptions of the overall themes
should be included.
Discussion/Conclusion
1. More explicit discussion about how these results can help better understand
food choice practices and improve health in rural families.
2. Several previous studies focused on multi- and intergenerational influences on
food choice were not included. Although the paper is qualitative other studies
(including quantitative studies) have focused on the influence of parents and
grandparents on food choice.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests