Title: Social networks, mobility, and HIV risk among women in the fishing communities of
Lake Victoria
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting and valuable contribution to knowledge about women and their survival
strategies in the Lake Victoria fishing context.
There are a number of general comments and some specific.
GENERAL:
a)  It would be useful to frame the article in the umbrella context of the SRHR of the women, as
defined by the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission, 2018. This would include their vulnerability to
acquisition/experience of HIV/VAG/STIs/sex work (and drug use or SOGIE issues which you
didn't mention) or living with these experiences. The article's quite specific focus on HIV, while
understandable from an external viewpoint, may well not be the women's own main concern and
is therefore unlikely be the best entry point for any health-related programme to support them.
b) It would be good to understand more detail about who the researchers were, how selected
and trained, whether they only worked in one country or across locations etc., what were their
genders and ages, eg through a flow chart. The researchers who did the participant observation
- who were they? Genders? Ages? From where? How do researchers think their selection
may have influenced findings? Were any of the researchers members of these social networks
themselves? If not, why not?
c) The table has no breakdown by gender of the mean age, education, occupation or marriage/
co-habiting status of participants. In addition, the mean age is high, especially considering that
you wanted to include young women aged 15-17. It would be good to include, eg a breakdown
of how many women were not (yet) mothers, or eg under 25...
d) It would be good to understand the actual geographic range of the different social networks,
if possible. Eg where had each woman travelled over the past year. And do their geographic
ranges mirror those of the men they depend on or are they bigger/smaller/separate from those?
Eg do women move across male networks or only stick within existing male networks? Does
anyone travel across borders or stick within their own countries? Are there any women who do
their own fishing at all (this may be a clear no but for outsiders who don't know the area this
would also be good to know).
e) There is no mention at all of fish stocks or quality of fish caught with relation
to pollution or climate change - yet there seems to be a big background literature
on this (eg https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24632890-900-lake-victoria-is-at-risk-of-
dying-from-pollution-and-climate-change/ ) and VAWG is clearly on the increase connected to
climate change. Was there any mention of this by the women? Did they refer to VAW increasing?
Or fish stocks decreasing? Did they identify any links? What were their own priority concerns
throughout the interviews? What would they see as best ways to improve the quality of their
situations?
f) Were all men either viewed as neutral or 'bad' (a vague word)? Were any viewed as allies/
supporters?
g) Also, what about women/young women who couldn’t afford a phone or cost of data bundles
to use whatsapp?
h) Overall use of language: use of words such as 'deviant', 'target', exploit', risk'. These are all
quite loaded words which suggest/imply power and agency which women often do not have.
Instead, their actions may be in a world of limited choices where their strategy is essentially
one of survival/coping in a largely male-dominated world where exploitation and/or violence
against them appears prevalent. I would suggest you revisit the use of all these words throughout
the text. For example, in one place you state: "This kind of work exposed the girls/women to
the risk of HIV", which suggests a more empathetic interpretation than: "They would then move
into that area quickly to exploit the opportunities...." Given that many of the women are already
subject to widespread stigma and abuse, it would be helpful to ensure that the language used
throughout is not in danger of fuelling this.
SPECIFIC:
a) 'mature/emancipated minors aged 15-17'. This description is very unclear. It would be good
to clarify what you mean here. Some young women may have grown up with HIV and appear
to be mature or emancipated but may be very vulnerable to violence etc. Others may already
be married and also exposed to or living with HIV/violence etc. Others may be living on the
street or living with relatives as housemaids, exploited by male relatives... please do explain this
phrase and consider using a different one.
b) Were those interviewed compensated for their time? If so, how?
c) Are there any support networks of women living with HIV? Or networks of women who have
survived violence? Or are both these so normalized that there are no specific networks?
d) Were any of the networks interviewed being supported by any outside agency or govt body
or were they all self-initiated and supported? Did they think it could make a positive or negative
difference to them one way or another? eg granting phones and/or data bundles to women who
can't afford them?
e) For each social network, it would be helpful to say if these were present in all 3 country sites
or more in some / less in others. It is not currently clear.
f) Page 11, line 13. You mention: "sex workers-to-lodge owners/operators and women-to-family
networks". It would help to explain what you mean by these terms here or earlier, rather than
later on.
g) Page 17 line 22 seems like a repetition of p17 lines 5 and 6.
h) Benefits and risks: Are these as identified by the women themselves or by the researchers?  For
both benefits and risks, it would be good to clarify first what the women themselves identified
as benefits or ‘risks’, and then what the researchers’ viewpoints are.
i ) There are some very interesting additional comments in the ‘any other comments’ column,
which it would be good to highlight here. Eg some putting their children in boarding school,
wishing them not to grow up there… challenges for women who don’t have phones… women
having to travel to access ANC, ARVs…
j) Page 22, lines 17-19: "networks mainly focused on ways of maximizing earning prospects and
protection from harm, especially from violent clients. There was little emphasis put to health,
on health hazards, including HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. " First of all VAWG
*is* a health issue and health hazard so I am curious to know why you name it as separate here.
Secondly, this reiterates the General point a) I make above - that your HIV priority may not be
the priority of the women - and therefore not the best entry point for HIV work.
k) Specific language point: Page 16, lines 13-14: "In their quest for fish, women fish processors/
traders reportedly engaged in high risk sexual behaviour with fishermen to secure fish at a good
price." Do you mean that they specifically mentioned that they have sex without condoms? If
so, it would be helpful to clarify this  since sex alone, tho it may well not be what women want,
may not be ‘high risk’ in terms of HIV, STIs, pregnancy..…
l) There are various points where the grammar is unclear.