Title: TITLE: A Comparison of Behavioural Models explaining Cervical Cancer Screening
Uptake
Version: 2 Date: 16 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Christopher Mclaughlin
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for allowing me to review the paper. There are many positive aspects to the paper,
the main being the topic of the research is very important. I have a few suggestions or thoughts
to consider.
Just a suggestion, maybe the title can be reworked?
Abstract, look at the results, hone in more around the main finding(s), and also the conclusion
could be lengthened slightly. Thus, you could reduce the background and method sections
slightly and increase the others.
Background. Any more recent figures from 2018 – regarding prevalence and deaths?
Background generally fine and well detailed.
There could be more of a lead-in around the introduction of the Health Theories – why are they
important/need – in other words a rationale could be introduced thus leading into the Health
Theories section.
Health-based models such as these could be addressed and then each one brought in. Though
each of these models aims to predict and explain health-related behavior – they are quite distinct.
Just wondering if the authors would have considered a table to be inserted to identify each of
the main constructs/drivers – some are shared by some models maybe while others are unique.
Also, is the TPB – is quite different? It contains both belief-based constructs as well as affective
constructs. Ajzen clearly demonstrates this – so will the complete model be applied or only the
belief components or affective components? Explain. So as mentioned – either having a table
with the constructs identified (explained and referenced) or even using diagrams (visual) would
help the reader.
Also, what could be possible advantages to outweigh the disadvantages associated with these
models?
More detailed aim(s) should be presented for the reader - more formalized with a more
description.
Sample size good. Would it not be better to have the Data Collection follow the Sample size and
sample method? After this then the Participants could be described.
Questionnaire formulation. Good description. However, with the questions it might be good to
have them placed in a table – I will get to this point later in the results section. Overall, the TPB
has a formula or approach for the retrieving of beliefs through focus groups using the free-format
technique, was this used? Also, where are the statements more affective rather than belief-based?
Results were generally fine, but why was there not a series of exploratory factor analyses
conducted to explore the factor structure of the Health Models? It would better define the
loadings of each and show the main items, importantly supporting the models in turn.
Why were there separate sets of correlations conducted per model? What is the rationale, explain
more?
The discussion part could have had a section regarding implications for practice.
I also have a suggestion, rather than comparing the models, could they be integrated together?
The TPB for example utilizes other factors to extend and expand - all to assist in understanding
the behavior more. This could be brought out in future research more.  In other terms a more
integrated health-based model.