Reviewer’ s report
Title: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Cervical Cancer Screening Among HIV-positive
and HIV-negative Women Participating in Human Papillomavirus Screening in Rural Zimbabwe
Version: 0Date: 02 Feb 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
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)?No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?No - there are major 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?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this 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?Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS:
The manuscript need some revision, their research objectives not well stated in the abstract andmethods. The ways these objectives were achieved were not very well stated. How did selfcollection of specimen of sample for HPV relate with the main objective which I think wasdetermining the knowledge, attitude and practice of cervical cancer screening. The tables focusedon the areas of interest but there is need to improve organization of the text.Is it possible that an aspect of this study has been published bearing in mind the time it was carried
out?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Title. The title should contain key objectives. HIV infection was significantly discussed andshould be mentioned in the title.Abstract:Contains no clear objectives. This should be captioned and clearly stated. HIV screening shouldmentioned if it was part of the objective. Method of data computation and analysis.Method: should contain sampling method, instrument used for data collection, determiningknowledge, attitude and practice should be briefly stated.
Page 3 line 55: most(%) women.
BackgroundThe extent of describing Zimbabwe's health system, demography, socio-economy, demographyand HIV is unnecessary, Focus should be on the characteristics of the studied district andpopulation. Literature on previous studies and why this is currently important.Methods:As described in the abstract section.Describe sampling methodsState parameters that determine study objectives and how to measure them, I.e. describe yourinstrument for data collection.How was the data computed and analysedPage 10, line 270. The statement is not clear to me. If the participants had an unequalopportunities, then bias was likely introduced.Results:This contains only the demographic characteristics of study population, main findings not stated inthe result sectionThe main findings should be stated in the result section, even mentioning the tables beforediscussing in the discuss section.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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.
I recommend additional statistical reviewQuality 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 thismanuscript, 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-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 of the journal