Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Young Australian women's accounts of smoking and quitting: A qualitative study using 
visual methods  
 
Version: 1 Date: 07 Nov 2017  
 
Reviewer: Britta Wigginton  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript entitled "Young Australian women's 
accounts of smoking and quitting: A qualitative study  using visual methods". Overall, I really 
enjoyed reading this paper and I hope the authors find my comments useful. Their analysis offers 
important context and understanding of young women's smoking. My comments are designed to 
strengthen the few parts of  the paper that, in my view, require attention.  
Introduction nicely contextualises the aims of the research, and is comprehensive and well 
developed.  
What was the advertisement message used to recruit women? Given this is a study analysing 
language and b lurring the binary understandings of smoking and non -smoking, I would be 
interested to hear how the authors pitched the study to young women - a brief description of the 
'tag line' would be useful the at the beginning of the Participants section of the Met hods.  
The interview (length) ranges reported on page 7 line 26 - are these across the interviews, or for 
the second stage interviews? Please clarify.  
How were the visual photographs combined in the Analysis - which as the section is written so 
far, is very  much based on the textual data?  
The following ref may be useful for the Addictive section of the analysis (p 10 - 14) - as it 
provides insight into the acceptance, resistance and contextualisation of addiction for Aus 
smokers and has strong resemblances to what you are exploring here in this section, and could be 
unpacked in the context of the discussion (p. 19 - line 28 onwards):  
Wigginton, Morphett & Gartner (2017) Is it the nicotine? Australian smokers' accounts of 
nicotine addiction, Addiction Researc h & Theory, 25:4, 293 -301,DOI: 
10.1080/16066359.2016.1269892  
The above ref may also be useful for extending the discussion around cessation support in the 
Discussion (p. 20 -21).  
I am struck by the fact that resistance is rather situated, and often prese nted as temporary - with 
the act of quitting as future focussed. What I find particularly interesting is what appears to be 
the dominance of gendered discourses around parenting in that women reference starting a 
family or having kids as incompatible with a smoking identity. This is consistent with existing 
literature around the stigma attached to women's smoking in pregnancy, and in motherhood - 
which women in your study alluded to in their interviews. In the Discussion, the commentary 
around the defending  of smoking practices, the gendered nature of reasons for smoking and the 
implications of an addict identity could be extended to discuss the gendered targeting of tobacco 
control programmes and policies. In particular, what I am referring to is some comme ntary 
around how women 'focussed' interventions are typically timed in the context of women's 
reproductive events (pregnancy, birth) but could be more sensitively engaged with younger 
women (before pregnancy/motherhood). Given this is something women talke d about (allowing 
quitting to be future focused), I wonder if the authors would like to consider what this means for 
young women in terms of 'intervening early/ier' - and what we can learn from these findings? I 
am rather open about where the authors take this but feel it is a necessary gap to address in the 
Discussion, especially if we are to advocate for a move away from inherently sexist approaches 
to intervening on women's smoking. I ask this particularly in light of the mentions of 
recommendations for interventions in the Conclusion section.  
The discussion of the triangulation of different qualitative methods (as noted on page 21, line 48) 
could be extended to integrate reflections on the problems/issues of this, rather than treating this 
methodolog ical approach as unproblematic and necessarily 'straight forward'. I ask this in light of 
my earlier question about the analysis of the visual data. I am interested in how authors negotiate 
the evidence in terms of what is given priority, or foregrounded ( it appears to be the text), and 
how contradictions or inconsistencies were studied between these sources of data.  
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.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 t he 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 intere sts' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manu script is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy o f the journal