JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Evaluation of the effectiveness of a postnatal support education program for husbands in
promotion of their primiparous wives’ perceived social support: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 3 Date: 13 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
The study is " Evaluation of the effectiveness of a postnatal support education program for
husbands in promotion of their primiparous wives’ perceived social support: a randomized
controlled trial". While the study appears to be reasonably well conducted, the paper would
benefit from careful revision and additional study outcomes. I have the following specific
suggestions.
Abstract
1) The results section should be modified and reported more compeletly.
Introduction
1) Because the study appeal to an international audience it should be emphasized the importance
of study well and should be explained why it is necessary good.
2) There is no clearly stated hypothesis.
Methods
1)The effect of measurement frequency is not considered in the sample size calculation.
2) It is not clearly defined why the study has used 4 and 8 weeks after childbirth timepoint?
Results
1) It is better to report the effect size (Mean difference) in the results section.
Discussion
1- Please suggest future studies in this area
Title: Evaluation of the effectiveness of a postnatal support education program for husbands in
promotion of their primiparous wives’ perceived social support: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 5 Date: 26 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author
The organization of this article is satisfactory. The authors have improved the manuscript to
enhance the quality of this research. The results section of the paper presents a good view of the
study. But it will require a considerable amount of work to improve before publication.
Results:
It is better to report the type of delivery according to the planned delivery method in the table
1 and compare it between the two groups
Discussion
While the discussion of social support is interesting – has it been associated with any harder
long-term outcomes, e.g. postpartum weight retention, infant outcomes, etc?
Title: Evaluation of the effectiveness of a postnatal support education program for husbands in
promotion of their primiparous wives’ perceived social support: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 6 Date: 06 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author
The organization of this article is satisfactory. The authors have improved the manuscript to
enhance the quality of this research. Thank you for correcting your article.
The author was requested to add the type of delivery according to the previous plan, not to
modify the type of delivery in writing.
Title: Polycystic ovary syndrome is associated with a higher risk of premalignant and malignant
endometrial polyps in premenopausal women: A retrospective study in a tertiary teaching
hospital
Version: 0 Date: 08 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
The work entitled "Polycystic ovary syndrome is associated with a higher risk of premalignant
and malignant endometrial polyps in premenopausal women" searched the endometrial polyps
in premenopausal women and the results showed that PCOS was associated with an increased
risk of premalignant and malignant polyps.
The work is very interesting, easy to read and I was very pleased.
The number of cases is very significant and they were able to associate malignancy with the
presence of PCOS. The work was well structured with adequate inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Because it is retrospective, it needs data very well kept in accessible medical records and so
some data may be forgotten.
For example, the indications for hysteroscopy were not revealed, but they must be due
to ultrasound findings and/or abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Furthermore, patients with
hyperplasia or pre- or malignant diseases should have more AUB.
Some pre and malignant lesions that are not associated with AUB are very small lesions on the
surface or inside the polyps that were detected only by the anatomopathological examination
after excision of the polyps. Occasionally, malignancy is diagnosed in small areas of the polyps.
This was not seen in the discussion.
The conclusion of the work is important to show the need to evaluate the endometrium in cases of
chronic anovulation such as PCOS through ultrasound and to perform diagnostic hysteroscopy
if necessary.
Title: Polycystic ovary syndrome is associated with a higher risk of premalignant and malignant
endometrial polyps in premenopausal women: A retrospective study in a tertiary teaching
hospital
Version: 3 Date: 19 Feb 2023
Reviewer:  Stefano Palomba
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has significantly improved and have replied to all queries. Now, the manuscript
is ready for publication.
Title: Predictors of the Worry about Cancer Recurrence among Women with Breast Cancer
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jul 2021
Reviewer:  Chris Pyke
Reviewer's report:
This is a cross sectional analysis of a selection of Breast cancer survivors using a series of
validated questionnaires to measure "worry about cancer recurrence".
Introduction - good
Methods:
There is the impression that there has been some form of selection of the cohort. The Ethics
approval of a "convenience sampling method" may need a definition. (was anyone who was
eligible not included in the study - and for what reason?).
Does the proportion of DCIS versus Invasive cancer match the prevalence of these two illnesses
in the clinic? In other centres, DCIS represent 15% of the total breast cancer burden in society.
Completeness of follow up is also not commented on.
Was there a modification of the language of the  interrogation tools used to make them usable
in Tabriz? Has this been previously validated?
Otherwise good.
Results
The line "The most common type of illness was carcinoma in situ (62.0%) and in the stage
one (46.9%)" might be re stated that :The most common type of illness was carcinoma in situ
(62.0%). Of the 38% with invasive cancer, the commonest were those with stage one (46.9%)"
Discussion
good discussion of international comparisons
This study  should be hypothesis generating
Why was fear highest in "illness perception", private, mastectomy patients?
How would that be studied?
Title: Predictors of the Worry about Cancer Recurrence among Women with Breast Cancer
Version: 2 Date: 28 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your work with breast cancer patients. There are some problems that need to be
clarified.
Introduction
Line 36 and 37: please cite the latest data about breast cancer on GLOBOCAN.
Line 38: please cite the reference for breast cancer occurrence among Iranian women.
Line 41: How is the relationship between the incidence of breast cancer and the ageing
population? Please clearly explain it.
Line 50: How to interpret “worry about cancer recurrence is 39%- 97%”? The percentage of
breast cancer patients worry about cancer recurrence? Please make it clear.
Line 64: you mentioned that “Therefore, considering the limited number of studies focused on
the worry about cancer recurrence among breast cancer survivors and its effect on the quality of
life (13)”. However, your study only focused on the predictors of worry about cancer recurrence
among women with breast cancer. You didn’t solve the latter part “and its effect on quality of
life”. So, in the literature gap, you’d better not mention the latter part as you cannot solve the
problem of quality of life.
Methods
Line 78: Please provide the reference for the formula to calculate the sample size.
Line 89 to line 91: there are some scales you used for your study. However, you never mention
them in your introduction. Please give a brief background of these factors and justification for
using these scales.
Line 99: Has the cancer worry scale been validated in breast cancer patients? Why use this scale?
Is it suitable for breast cancer patients? Please justify it.
Results
Line 145 to 147: Please re-arrange your results. For example, the result of bivariate tests
should be put together. However, results divided by chemotherapy and radiotherapy group were
mentioned in the first paragraph in the Results section, not together with other bivariate test
results.
Table 1 and Table 2: please add the statistics, such as correlation coefficient, t value, F value etc.
Discussion
Line 161 to Line 171: When discussing the correlation between worry about cancer and illness
perception, please be not that shallow and provide more in-depth and detailed information about
how they correlated with each other.
Reference
Generally, the references are not very new.
Please follow a consistent format of the bibliography.
Title: Effect of group education and person-centered support in primary health care on mental
health and quality of life in women aged 45-60 years with symptoms commonly associated with
stress. A randomized controlled trial.
Version: 3 Date: 09 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper and the content is very good but I suggest the paper can be improved
in the following ways:
Abstract
Please modify the headlines based on the format of the journal
- In the method section, please include the method of analysis and study tools.
-In the conclusion part, it is necessary to specify the researcher's proposal to improve the
conditions and use of the beneficiaries
Introduction
Please bring the following items
1- Definition of the research problem
2- The magnitude and importance of the study variable
3- Bringing the variable epidemiology information of the study at the world level, the country
of India and the place of study
4- Bringing theoretical knowledge about the importance of studying
5- Expressing the necessity of conducting the study
Finally, the practical purpose of the study should be stated
Methods
Various tools have been used in this study
Please mention the method of scoring and validity and reliability separately for each tool
Discussion
In the discussion section, it is necessary to compare the main results of the study with the results
of other studies in this field
What are the strengths and limitations of the study?
Conclusion
What are your suggestion for future studies?
To strengthen the article, especially in the introduction and discussion section the following
studies are suggested, please to use and cited and add to article reference
- Domestic Violence Against Women Working in Four Educational Hospitals in Iran
- The effect of educational workshop on emergency department nurses' self-efficacy in patient
training
- Effect of massage on behavioural responses of preterm infants in an educational hospital in Iran
- The Prevalence of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Among Health Care Workers During the
COVID-19 Pandemic: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis
- The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress among nurses during the coronavirus disease
2019: A comparison between nurses in the frontline and the second line of care delivery
- Quality of working life and organizational commitment of Iranian pre-hospital paramedic
employees during the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak
Best regard
Title: Effect of group education and person-centered support in primary health care on mental
health and quality of life in women aged 45-60 years with symptoms commonly associated with
stress. A randomized controlled trial.
Version: 3 Date: 11 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is, in summary, an interesting randomized controlled trial aimed to determine the effect
of group education and person-centered support in primary health care on mental health and
quality of life in women aged 45-60 years with symptoms commonly associated with stress.
This manuscript has been written  appropriatly, however the paper as currently presented should
be reviewed by a native English speaker for the quality of language.
Would you please write the novelty of this RCT research?
Would you please write what did you done for these groups: group education person-centered
individual support, PCS, control group in terms of education or stress relieving programs? What
was differences between your interventions that you resulted  the PCS can be an effective
intervention in PHC for improving women’s health in menopause , possibly to prevent the
development of exhaustion syndrome?
How did you randomized groups?
Was it blinded research plan? If yes how did you separated individuals using educational or
other meditation classes in order to relieve their stress?
Title: Effect of group education and person-centered support in primary health care on mental
health and quality of life in women aged 45-60 years with symptoms commonly associated with
stress. A randomized controlled trial.
Version: 4 Date: 09 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Jean Damascene Makuza
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing the comments; I appreciate what the authors did for this version.  I
am happy with the new version and do not have any comment
Title: Health care provider reporting practices related to self-managed abortion
Version: 1 Date: 28 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for this interesting article. Here some suggestion to improve it.
ABSTRACT
Method section: do you use a guideline for reporting phase? Can you add this information?
Results section: have you coded the information? How have you coded it (categories, themes,
sub-themes, ...)? Can you list it?
BACKGROUND
In the background, you have described legal risk connected with SMA. Is the unique risk, or
can you describe other ones?
"Recent guidance from the U.S. Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights explains
that reporting patients who have attempted a self-managed abortion to law enforcement, in most
instances, violates HIPAA". What is HIPAA? Can you add it in full?
In the background, I have understood the "problem". But I think that before the questions you
have to add a paragraph in which you describe the relevance for organization, clinical field,
research,... of your study.
I think you have to better define the aim of your study.
METHOD
Can you add a supplementary table with all the questions of the interview guide? It will be more
clear.
You have mentioned "Theoretical Domains Framework". Can you provide some information
about that?
Have you used a guideline for reporting phase? Can you add this information?
I think you have to describe the method you use to summarize/categorize the information from
the interviews.
RESULTS
In background section, you have reported two questions used to address this study. However, in
result section, you create four paragraph, not following the initial structure. I think you have to
better structure this section, adding the other questions or unifying the last paragraphs.
For "What came to mind " paragraph, you have reported two tables (you have categorized
information). However, you have not done for the second question (the other paragraphs).
Regarding the quotation, you have not coded them. Can you associate a code to each interviewee
and report it in the quotations?
I think the structure of this section is not very clear. In my opinion it would be better to codify/
summarize the information better and report it more clearly.
DISCUSSION
I think that in this section it would be important to explore the above results in more detail. Each
result must be commented with the literature and its meaning must be understood.
Moreover, a paragraph should be added which examines the importance of the results of this
study for the clinical field, the organization and the research.
Title: Health care provider reporting practices related to self-managed abortion
Version: 2 Date: 31 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Jennifer Innis
Reviewer's report:
Most (but not all) of the line numbers provided by the authors in their responses to reviewers
are inaccurate. This made finding the revisions difficult.
In the first review, it was noted that page 7 referred to adjacent practices, and it was not clear
what it meant. The authors have stated a definition was added to line 205. This point was found
on line 183, that it refers to “beginning processes that could lead to reports”. This definition
is unclear.
The quote at the top of page 13 is still difficult to understand, although the authors did add the
word “fetal” which is helpful. Is it possible to make either the quote clear, or the point of the
quote clear.
The first 3 sentences in the Discussion section are hard to follow, and the first 2 sentences are
repetitious. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the Discussion section is also not clear.
The discussion section seems to be saying that this study illustrates how health care providers
notify government agencies of people trying to self-manage an abortion by other pathways.
Is this what the authors mean? Reading the paper it seemed that few cases were referred to
government agencies.
Title: Health care provider reporting practices related to self-managed abortion
Version: 3 Date: 23 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for this interesting article. Here you can find some suggestion in order to improve it
ABSTRACT
The abstract is well structured and has all the relevant information.
BACKGROUND
This section is clear and describes the importance of this study.
At the end of the first paragraph, you report the number of a reference (24). I think it is necessary
a numerical order, not as you provide (5, 24, 6).
METHODS
This section is well structured and described.
RESULTS
This section is very well structured and clear. However, can you please provide a clearer
definition of “composite cases”?
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
These two sections are interesting and clear
Title: A qualitative study of Influences on the Uptake of Contraceptive Services among people
of Reproductive age in Uganda
Version: 1 Date: 25 May 2022
Reviewer:  James Henry Obol
Reviewer's report:
Please ensure that conclusion stand on its own in the abstract section (Background, methods,
results, and conclusion).
How did  you arrive at this number of 259 participants?
Why did you conduct eight FGDs per district and not any other number?
How were the sub-counties selected to be included in the study from among the many sub-
counties in a district?
How was the recruitment conducted without introducing bias in the sample of participants
selected?
Under Housing in the result section, line 398 - 402, there  is no quote to support the statements.
Please add.
Under discussion section, line 579, ......................to go as below as 5% ..............What do you
mean here? It is not clear. Rephrase it.
Are there strength and limitations to your study. If so, list them.
Title: A qualitative study of Influences on the Uptake of Contraceptive Services among people
of Reproductive age in Uganda
Version: 3 Date: 27 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Yolandie Kriel
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is much improved from the first draft.
I appreciate that the information parts were removed from the paper - it is now more focused.
There remain some minor grammatical errors that I would encourage the authors to review.
Line 214 - using of the word interceding. I am still not sure that this is the correct word to use in
this sentence. The usual practice in qualitative research is to refer to the intercoder discussions.
Line 257 - majorly is not the best use of wording. Consider changing to mostly.
Line 263 - spelling of contraceptive
Line 279 - please review the sentence. It should perhaps read as ... was afraid of the modern
methods"
Line 314 - again use of the word majorly is not appropriate. Consider using mostly.
Line 325 - rephrase - "which is a relatively rural district"
Line 400 - please complete the sentence
Line 401 - use of the word majorly - change to mostly.
Line 438 - again th e use of the word majorly - change to mostly.
Lines 513-515 - please check the formatting of the text.
Lines 595-598 - the quote was deleted and now seems to be missing. Please insert a quote.
Line 715 - the meaning of the sentence is a bit unclear - who is held in a high position, the
unmarried adolescents or the health workers?
Line 719 - correct the capitalisation of the word studies
Line 722 - please clarify the sentence. contraceptive free services implies that no contraception
is present at the services, which is not what I think the sentence should say.
Line 727-728 - I think the sentence should read: not only health workers. Otherwise it is a
contradiction to the previous paragraph.
Line 734 - again the use of the word majorly is not grammatically appropriate. Please change
to mostly.
Title: Healthcare Workers’ Delivery of Adolescent Responsive Sexual and Reproductive
Healthcare Services: An Assessment in Plateau State, Nigeria
Version: 2 Date: 23 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an important study: access to adolescent SRH services
remains a problem despite a good policy framework and finding out why this disconnect exists
is important. Authors have especially done well in studying the primary health care level where
services are offered.
A few methodological issues, however, need to be addressed: not all cadres of health workers
are frontline and tasked with provision of the listed ASRH under study. They are not trained
for such, e.g., lab technologists and environmental health technicians. This makes results of the
study a bit flawed; the study should have focused on the right cadre of health workers - nurses,
midwives, medical assistants, and doctors.
Secondly, using consent to participate in the study as the determinant of inclusion rather than
non-probability sampling reduces the validity of the study.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Provide numbers of frontline health workers - nurses, midwives, clinician/medical assistants;
explain that these are the people trained to provide ASRH services from which sampling should
have been done; explain why all healthcare workers were included in the study rather than
frontline health workers; introduce a section on weaknesses of the study if necessary and list
non-probability sampling as one of the weaknesses."