JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions associated with HPV Vaccination among Female
Korean and Chinese University Students
Version: 0 Date: 16 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Introduction
a) The Introduction should be considerably condensed.
b) The Authors should insert a point regarding the vaccine hesitancy since it gives a significant
contribution to the attitudes and to the suboptimal vaccination coverage. For example, the
following articles should be cited Della Polla et al. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2020;16:2744-51;
Dubè et al. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2019;15:113-20.
Methods
a) It is indicated that the participants were recruited at C university in Korea and Y university, a
sister university of C university, in China, but no information has been given how the universities
have been selected and how many there were in the geographic areas.
b) It is not indicated how and where the participants were approached to participate in the study.
c) It should be clarified whether a pilot study has been conducted.
d) It is not given any information whether participants were not able to continue to the next
question of the questionnaire if they failed to provide a response to an item.
e) The Authors should clarify whether the participants have received any gift or monetarily
compensated for their participation.
f) The statistical analysis is not adequate, because it would be particularly relevant to describe
the model(s) developed and the outcome(s), the variables included and the rationale why they
are included, the model building strategy, and it should be indicated the p-value that has been
used to determine statistical significance and if the tests were one-side or two-sided.
Results
a) No information is given about those who refused to participate and of the response rate.
Was there any attempt to quantify the response bias: information about non-responders. It
would be useful to have some kind of indication of comparability with non-respondents. Is
there any population-based data available? How did they differ from those in the sample, how
representative is the sample and were the findings representative of the geographic areas?
Discussion
a) The discussion for large part is not appropriate. The major weakness is that the references
are quite limited, comparisons with previously similar published studies from other countries
should be performed.
b) The important role of the healthcare workers as source of information with a positive
impact on the level of knowledge and attitudes towards HPV vaccination should be stressed
by citing recent studies that showed such important role. For example, the following articles
should be cited Napolitano et al. Vaccines (Basel) 2021;9(1):63; Napolitano et al. PLoS One
2018;13(3):e0194920.
c) The paragraph regarding the limitations of the study should discuss all limits such as, for
example, the study design, the representativeness of the sample, the recall bias, and the social
desirability bias.
Title: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions associated with HPV Vaccination among Female
Korean and Chinese University Students
Version: 0 Date: 17 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Despite lacking novelty, overall a well executed KAB (Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior)
study - cross-sectional survey.
The authors might wish to provide more information regarding the “Instrument for assessing
positive attitudes toward the HPV vaccination”, lines 141-145.
Few grammatical errors are identified (e.g. divalent instead of bivalent, line 71).
Title: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions associated with HPV Vaccination among Female
Korean and Chinese University Students
Version: 0 Date: 25 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Cervical Cancer is the most common malignancy in gynecological oncology. The most cases
are attributed to human papillomavirus(HPV). HPV vaccination can reduce cervical cancer risk,
but the HPV vaccination rate of women both in China and Korea. The manuscript analyzed the
cause by questionnaire survey and statistical analysis, and the conclusion has positive effects on
enhance HPV vaccination in China and Korea.
The manuscript is logically structured and clear. But it includes lots of data, if a statistician can
check the veracity of the statistical method would be better.
Title: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions associated with HPV Vaccination among Female
Korean and Chinese University Students
Version: 1 Date: 14 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
1. It should be indicated  that a pilot study has not been conducted.
2. The paragraph regarding the response rate should be moved in the results section.
3. The Authors did not discuss the limitations of the study.  All limits, as alreday indicated in
my first revision, should be discussed such as, for example, the study design, the recall bias,
and the social desirability bias.
Title: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions associated with HPV Vaccination among Female
Korean and Chinese University Students
Version: 1 Date: 20 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Cervical Cancer is the most common malignancy in gynecological oncology. The most cases
are attributed to human papillomavirus(HPV). HPV vaccination can reduce cervical cancer risk,
but the HPV vaccination rate of women both in China and Korea. The manuscript analyzed the
cause by questionnaire survey and statistical analysis, and the conclusion has positive effects on
enhance HPV vaccination in China and Korea.
The manuscript is logically structured and clear. Also it includes lots of data, the authors claimed
they thoroughly checked all statistical analysis and received confirmation of statistical analysis
from a statistician. So, the data could be presented in the paper  properly.
Title: The effectiveness of group problem-solving therapy on women's sexual function and
satisfaction after mastectomy surgery
Version: 2 Date: 27 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
1-   Original articles reporting a randomized controlled trial should follow the CONSORT
guideline items:
Identification as a clinical trial in the title
Wholly defined pre-specified outcome measures
How sample size was determined
Registration number, ethic number, and name of trial registry
2-   The results in the abstract should be rewritten with reporting the descriptive statistics and
p-values.
3-   It is necessary to compare outcomes at various times and report the p-value for two-by-
two comparisons.
4-   The significant level is <0.05, not <=0.05 (line 44)
5-   Some Exclusion criteria have been duplicated. What’s your mean by Participating in
supportive groups?
6-   Bonferroni post hoc test seems is not appliable in this study.
7-   Both of validity and reliability of the questionnaire in the population.
8-   Such sentences are vague, and there are a lot of grammatical mistake in the text
Title: The effectiveness of group problem-solving therapy on women's sexual function and
satisfaction after mastectomy surgery
Version: 7 Date: 20 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed most of my concerns, but a few issues remain.
The transition to the text now included in lines 68-74 feels a little jarring and abrupt. I would
encourage the authors to explicitly specify why they are highlighting the “maternal role” of
women with breast cancer here in this section.
Line 116: Per earlier comments, please replace “semi-experimental” with “pilot”.
Lines 190-203: I would present the sample assignments in paragraph form/prose rather than
using bullet points.
Lines 242-246: The conclusion here seems a little off based on the results. The authors do have
statistically significant increases in FSFI total scores following the intervention. Though the
final scores are not in the “functional” range (which is important and should be acknowledged,
as the authors have done), there is a signal for change, which suggests that further investigation
or titration of the dose of the intervention may be necessary. This could be addressed with the
addition of a sentence after the sentence on lines 244-246, indicating that although intervention
wasn’t associated with a change in clinical status, it was associated with some improvements
in sexual function, and further improvements may be possible with additional research. Or
something to that effect.
Lines 283-284: Randomization does not take participant preference into account. Offering
participants the option to be in the active group vs. the control group is a major flaw of study
design. I would clarify or remove this sentence and simply indicate that the study was not a
randomized controlled trial.
Title: Paper Title: The unspoken grief of multiple stillbirths in rural Pakistan: an interpretative
phenomenological analysis
Version: 3 Date: 08 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is an important topic and a public health issue of Pakistan that the authors report in the
manuscript.
Some suggestions are as follows for the authors to consider
Methods: Made some suggestions pertaining to elaborate or clarify if snowball technique was
used or were women identified using LHWs, TBAs, Political Leaders etc. At the moment both
techniques are mentioned.
Also will be good to elaborate how field notes were used (based on note-takers) if the audio
recordings were transcribed and translated?
Results: It might be useful to have a simple descriptive summary of the 08 women part of the
results section. Rather than have them tabulated. Since the approach of the authors from the
outset was to do "lived experience" then it is more relevant to provide a narrative summary of
these women. For example one of the eight women already had three living children, while one
of the women had a stillborn child nearly a year ago (11 months). Both will have a very different
lived experience and to help tease that out will be useful.
Similarly, the ages of these 08 women vary quite a bit. How age shapes lived experience is also
important to pick on.
Discussion: As mentioned above, it will be good to have the authors to tease as much as possible
the interpretation of some of the respondent characteristics mentioned above into their overall
interpretation and interposing findings with other studies.
Some key recommendations like adding some health systems based screening and support for
women with still born babies should be highlighted. Especially now that Pakistan's recent health
demographic survey indicates an increase in institutional deliveries across all provinces.
Strengths & Limitations: Authors should mention why out of 22 women only 08 consented to
be part of the study? Could there have been some loss of key participants?
Also one of the limitations missed is that a male member interviewed these women about
stillbirths, in their homes (especially in the context of rural settings of Pakistan).
Authors should also state if using Urdu based interview in Thatta Sindh was a limitation or not.
I would imagine these women sharing their lived experience would only have be expressed best
in their native language (Sindhi) not Urdu.
Title: Paper Title: The unspoken grief of multiple stillbirths in rural Pakistan: an interpretative
phenomenological analysis
Version: 7 Date: 31 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing all of the comments thoroughly. I have a few minor follow-up
questions and a couple of other things I noticed re-reading the manuscript.
- The first time the term ‘child-killer’ is used, please provide context as to where the phrase
comes from (i.e., its origin), as it is not a phrase common to all contexts. Saying ‘those that
kill their own children’ is simply restating the phrase. Please also put “child-killer” in quotes
in Figure 1.
- Thank you for your explanation about the interview team being both a male and female. Please
delete ‘however’ at the beginning of the sentence, as this makes it sound negative that a male
interviewer was present.
- At the end of the conclusion, I appreciate the addition of the suggestion that maternity staff be
trained in psychosocial support. I wonder if there are references here that draw on other work
in Pakistan or the region and/or if LHWs, TBAs, and other could also be trained to provide this
support in the community. Additionally, the conclusion of the abstract still states that clinical
psychologists should provide this support – please expand this to include others at healthcare
facilities, LHWs, TBAs, etc.
- In the study participants section, 22 women were identified but only 13 met eligibility criteria.
Please state what those eligibility criteria are in this section.
- Please rephrase “Since all the participants included in the study had never been to schools
that’s why verbal consent was taken from the study participants” to “All study participants were
illiterate due to a lack of formal education, so verbal consent was taken” or something similar
to confirm that participants were illiterate.
- The earlier version said that interviews were conducted in Urdu whereas ‘some of the women’s
mother language was Sindhi’ – I don’t think you need to state if it was the interviewer’s first
or second language, but only if it was the women’s first or second language. Were interviews
conducted in Urdu if it was the woman’s first language and Sindhi if that was her first language?
Title: Changes in cause-specific mortality trends across occupations in working-age Japanese
women from 1980 to 2015: A cross-sectional analysis
Version: 0 Date: 23 Oct 2021
Reviewer:  Raziye Ozdemir
Reviewer's report:
Title: Changes in cause-specific mortality trends across occupations in working-age Japanese
women from 1980 to 2015: A cross-sectional analysis
Date: 23.10.2021
The study examines the changes in absolute and relative mortality across various occupational
categories and diseases, and the cause-specific mortality inequalities between occupational
categories from 1980 to 2015. The topic and findings of this paper are important. The manuscript
has been written in accordance with the scientific article writing rules using clear and fluent
language. I can express a positive opinion on the manuscript. I wish that some of the suggestions
I have mentioned below will be evaluated by the authors.
1. #t may be useful to mention in more detail about women's labor force participation (proportion
of women employed, unemployment rate, part-time or irregular work patterns among women
etc.) in Japan in the introduction section of the manuscript.
2. In the method section, information about the completeness and accuracy of the Japanese
national vital registration system can be given. For example, what is the level of ill-defined
causes of death codes? What is the level of ill-defined codes among the deaths examined in the
study? #t would be useful to mention whether ill-defined codes are redistributed or excluded
from the analysis.
3. If available, it may be useful to provide detailed information on the accuracy of the information
on the woman's occupation before death in the death certificates in the method section. For
example, if part-time or irregular forms of work are common among women in Japan, the
deceased woman's occupation may not have been declared by the family member.
4. Line 182, discussion section: It can be added what is the suicide rate in Japan.
5. There are two data sources (National Vital Statistics and the Japanese Population Census)
in the study. The distribution of the population by occupation may be different in the two data
sources. Therefore, the possible denominator bias due to the use of different sources should be
emphasized in the limitations section.
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 interest.
Title: Changes in cause-specific mortality trends across occupations in working-age Japanese
women from 1980 to 2015: A cross-sectional analysis
Version: 0 Date: 12 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Fatemeh Khosravi Shadmani
Reviewer's report:
The study design is retrospective cross-sectional because the trend has been evaluated.
What is the reason for the different time classification? 1995 to 2000 are not the same as other
classes. this point affected the results.
Methods should be clear.
How were the two databases (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare) linked?
Why asthma and respiratory diseases are not considered?
Title: Impact of web-based health education on HPV vaccination uptake among college girl
students in Western and Northern China: a follow-up study
Version: 1 Date: 20 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
This draft includes a very important topic to evaluate the awareness about HPV vaccine among
Chinese female adolescent also include an implication that web-based health education may lead
to raising awareness of HPV vaccination among them. The objectives of the research are clearly
described and the methods are well-organized.
However, there are several points to improve the manuscript. Firstly, the authors should describe
the contents of the web-based educational tools themselves, especially with their validity, in
order to evaluate the effectiveness of the tools.
Secondly, I found two incorrect answers in the questionnaire from a scientific perspective;
“Condom can prevent HPV infection” and “Most HPV infections can be cured by antibiotics”.
The former statement is not correct because HPV can be transmitted even using condoms. So,
it should have been framed as "Condoms can reduce HPV infection". The latter statement is not
correct neither. There is no such evidence that HPV is cured by antibiotics, though most of the
HPV infections can be cleared in natural immunological response instead. Therefore, these two
questions should be taken out from the analysis.
Thirdly, I think the characteristics difference between the two groups is crucial in terms
of receiving sexual education in the past (l.160) as this may have influenced, possibly
underestimated, the effectiveness of the intervention. The authors should elaborate on how you
dealt with it and refer to it in the limitation paragraph.
Finally, how do the authors interpret the result that the intervention group’s motivation to get
vaccinated and encourage friends decreased in one month whereas both of them increased the
control group (Figure 2)? Does this possibly indicate that the effect of the health intervention
might not last long?
The points below are minor comments about the manuscript.
The title in Table 3 should be rephrased as “Reasons for reluctance for HPV vaccination”.
L.237; “Therefore, …”  is not understandable. Do the authors mean that health education is
useful to uptake HPV vaccination in female freshmen?
L 258; “The analysis…” and L 261; “Parents with…” seem to be similar sentences.
L 291; “…and vaccination costs…” is not understandable. Do the authors mean “reducing”
vaccination costs would be a cost-effective and practical way to improve coverage?
Nevertheless, the overall structure is well organized and I find this manuscript is valuable.
Therefore, I encourage the authors to improve the manuscript.
Title: “I felt like she didn’t take me seriously”: A multi-methods study examining patient
satisfaction and experiences with Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in Canada
Version: 2 Date: 27 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Rhonda Garad
Reviewer's report:
I wish to congratulate the authors on this important paper. The findings of this study are
consistent with studies in comparable countries, showing significant delays in diagnosis and
dissatisfaction with PCOS information and support. The number of respondents to the survey
and the follow up interviews is large enough to provide good insight into the issue. I was
concerned that many of the references were dated, however I note the authors indicated they
have used publicly available papers. I would have liked to see stronger recommendations about
high quality, freely available translation materials such as the ones we provide here https://
www.monash.edu/medicine/sphpm/mchri/pcos/resources
Of great importance is our freely available, evidence-based App which should be promote to
all women with PCOS. Whilst the authors suggest increased education of health professionals
they do not provide clear pathways to ensuring this occurs such as advocating to peak bodies
etc. However, this is a sound and important paper that I recommend for publication. Regards
Dr Rhonda Garad
Title: Fertility awareness and subclinical infertility among women trying to get pregnant at home
Version: 1 Date: 23 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated fertility knowledge and subclinical infertility in Japan. This is an
important topic that has not been fully assessed yet. I hope this study will be published soon, but
it includes many issues in reporting methods.  An extensive revision would be needed before
publication.
1. Please cite appropriate papers. For example, in the second paragraph of the background,
reference 1 (OECD)  is cited. However, this would not have enough information on fertility
knowledge. Please cite papers on fertility awareness here, such as Pedro J, Brandão T,
Schmidt L, Costa ME, Martins MV. What do people know about fertility? A systematic
review on fertility awareness and its associated factors. Ups J Med Sci. 2018 Jun;123(2):71-81.
doi: 10.1080/03009734.2018.1480186. Epub 2018 Jun 29. PMID: 29957086; PMCID:
PMC6055749. This study includes a lot of important studies. Please read this review and cited
papers.
Also, many sentences in the Discussion section do not cite any papers or only cite ”reference
1" repeatedly. You should attach citations to each sentence. As there are no citations, reviewers
cannot assess the correctness of this manuscript.
2. Background, the 4th paragraph: A number of studies have assessed fertility knowledge of the
general population.
Methods
1. More than 90% of the participants wanted to have children "now". What was the inclusion
criteria of the participants? Although the app users may hope to have a child "in the future,"
90% seems to be very high if you did not set any inclusion criteria.
2. Measures: Please describe each question in detail: yes/no, 5-point likert scale, or free-text?
3. What were the aim and the methods for the mutivariable regression analyses? Only the
statistical section mentioned the regression analyses although there were no information in the
background or the method section.
Results:
1. Fertility knowledge: the authors did not explain about the fertility knowledge questions in
the Methods.
2. There are too many tables. Also, one table is written on two or more pages, very hard to read.
3. Awareness and attitude for infertility: Is this asked in free-text writing? If you presented
several choices, how did you create these choices? Did you conduct qualitative studies
beforehand to create these choices? or did you review related papers?
4. (iii) the hesitation  to let other person know about their infertility would not be 89% but 6.5%.
5. Relatiohships between infertility and risk factors:
Please define infertility in the method section. This paragraph looks unreasonable because the
authors did not explain the aim of this analysis  or show any methods earlier.
Discussion
Literature review is insufficient. Please construct the discussion based on previous studies. Also,
if this is the first study in Japan to investigate subclinical infertility , the authors should discuss
the situation in other countries.