Reviewer’s report
Title: 
User testing a patient information resource about potential complications
of vaginally inserted synthetic mesh
Version: 
1 
Date: 
07 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed most of the comments from reviewers. There are just
a few minor issues for them to consider, which are outlined below.
1) Background:
a) Second paragraph, last statement (page 3, lines 92-94): Given that the
preceding statement mentions a number of complications, change "this kind of
complication" in this particular statement to "these kinds of complications".
b) Fourth paragraph, fifth statement (page 4, lines 112-113): Delete "that are now
been" from the statement. Also, this statement should some as the last statement
in this paragraph for smooth flow of arguments.
2) Methods:
a) User testing:
* First paragraph, second statement (page 6, lines 165-167): Delete "a" before
"user" for the statement to read well.
* Second paragraph, last statement (pages 6-7, lines 172-174): Change "collect"
to "obtain".
b) Participants and setting, last paragraph, second statement (pages 7-8, lines
198-201): The word "admin" is colloquial, and should not be used in a scientific
paper.
3) Results:
a) Third paragraph, last statement (page 10, lines 239-240): Delete "category"
after "understandability", and change "category" after "affiliation" to
"categories".
b) Credibility, first paragraph, last statement (page 17, lines 386-389): Insert "of"
after "dissemination".
c) Accessibility, first statement (page 18, line 405): Delete "this" after
"describing".
4) Discussion:
a) Fifth paragraph, last statement (page 21, lines 471-474): Should "hand-copy
materials" be "hard-copy materials"?
b) Sixth paragraph, second statement (page 21, lines 477-482): Insert "and"
before "use of colour".
c) Last paragraph:
* Second statement (pages 21-22, lines 495-497): Delete "to" before "reduce".
* Fifth statement (page 22, lines 503-504): This statement should be framed in a
manner that takes into account time, i.e. a reader 20 years from now should not
be left thinking that the leaflet is yet to be shared and made available online.
Consider, for instance, something like, "The plan at the time of writing this paper
was to share the leaflet with NHSScotland and make it freely available on the
NHS Inform website." 
5) Strengths and limitations, first two statements (page 22, lines 507-511):
Separate the two statements with a full-stop.
6) Conclusions:
a) First paragraph, last statement (page 23, lines 535-536): Change "was reported
to" to "could".
b) Second paragraph, last statement (page 23, lines 540-543): Change "was
described as helping to" to "could".
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at
Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you
will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be
able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the
Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you
as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For
example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile
published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help
editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in
Publons’ privacy policy 
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
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 that I have no 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)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes