Reviewer's report
Title:Environmental and cultural determinants challenge causal attribution for
serious burns to women in India: a qualitative study from two major burns units
Version:2Date:22 August 2014
Reviewer: Junaid BHATTI
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review this interesting paper. Burns are an important
public health and gender inequality problem in developing countries. This paper
uses a qualitative approach to assess the process of establishing mechanism of
burns. In this approach they interviewed women affected by burn as well as the
key stakeholders involved in their care and/or investigation. While the idea of
study is very interesting and I would support it for publication, I see that it is still
far from the reach of common scientific reader.
p.3. For example, the objective statement in abstract is too complicated for
non-specialist reader to understand. Break the sentences, if you are presenting
two ore more ideas. Abstract has to be rewritten by simplifying the objectives and
results, and in an order that is logical.
p.5. Similarly, the introduction lacks a clear justification that why this research is
necessary. Authors can remodel their introduction by explaining epidemiology of
burns in the developing country with focus on India, possible issues in
investigating mechanisms, and the need to assess the process of investigation in
this particular setting, and possible benefits to do so.
p.6. There is no need to introduce methods in introduction as was done in the
paragraph preceding methods.
p.6 Please separate out measures (or the topics interviewed on) as a methods
sub-section, and elaborate what was intended to be collected --- more than
naming of the themes, currently provided.
p.7 It seems that you used personal interviews and focus groups, why this was
done, what bias it may introduce in your result or interpretations
p.7. There are few details about data handling. I would like more details how the
list of concepts was generated, whether it was aided by a software. The details
are insufficient to judge the quality of data interpretation and analyses
p. 7 Please explain framework analysis in analyses.
p. 7. What were a priori questions. They need to be presented upfront with
objectives or in measures, as appropriate.
p. 8. It is difficult to follow the results because there was no introduction of what
to expect in the analyses section. Please try to elaborate your sequence of
interpretation in the analyses so that a reader is helped through
p.9. Is grey market a constraint itself, why you use both in the heading
p. 10. Collision of anguish and opportunity? It would have been better if some
self-explaining titles are used, this is ambiguous to a reader who is unfamiliar of
the research settings.
p. 8-21. To be discussed with editor. Results are too long. There are too many
details about the process are described. I think general process information can
be summarized in introduction, and in results, only the issues about the process,
raised by the respondents should be mentioned.
p.21. Please summarize results in the first paragraph of discussion.
p. 22. Discussion is OK and corroborates with results but should be reduced.
Solutions to highlighted problems can be suggested.
p. 26. The conclusion is vague. No indication of interventions or future research
and policy implications were summarized.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
None