Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Physiotherapists' and midwives' views of increased inter r ecti abdominis distance and its 
management in women after childb irth 
 
Version: 1 Date: 29 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Philip Teg -Nefaah Tabong  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Physiotherapists' and midwives' views of increased inter recti abdominis distance and its 
management in women after childbirth  
 
Thanks for submitting a revised version of the manuscript. I still maintain that the manuscript has 
merits and the area of research is interesting. However, some editing may be required to improve 
flow.  
 
 
Abstract  
 
The authors have sufficiently addressed my concern here.  
 
 
Background  
 
The additions are essential in contextualizing their study.  
 
On page 4 lines 29 to 34: The statements should revised. The statements do not read well. There 
is also a typo there "DRA" should be changed to "IRD"  
 
On same page 4: lin es 58 -60: What does the sentence "A recent review found a few studies of 
weak quality indicating that IRD width may be associated with health -related quality of life, 
abdominal…." What does the "few studies with weak quality" mean?  
 
 
Study design  
 
Language c orrection is needed.  
 
 
Participants  
 
My concerns have been sufficiently addressed in this section.  
 
 
Procedure for data collection  
 
My concerns have been sufficiently addressed  
 
 
Data analysis  
 
The authors should indicate how the coding was done -did they employ any  computed assisted 
tool such as NVivo, Atlas.ti etc.  
 
 
Results  
 
My concerns have been addressed  
 
 
Discussion  
 
I am of the opinion that certain phrases need to be revised to maintain a balance in the 
discussion. Statement such as "deficiencies in the management' Lacked knowledge" are 
problematic. The authors did not assess the knowledge of the participants. The participants only 
expressed the opinion about IRD in the thematic areas explored. But statement such as "most of 
the participants lacked knowledge or defic ient in" creates the impression that a tool was used to 
assess participants knowledge and a cutoff determined to put participants into various levels of 
knowledge. Even the use of word such "most" should be avoided since these are group 
interviews.  
 
 
Streng th and limitation  
 
Language correction is required. For example 'The focus group form was chosen for data 
collection……." What does "the focus group form" mean?  
 
 
Conclusion  
 
Acceptable  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, ple ase specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the da ta shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recomme nded, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publ ication 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 f or publication, my named report 
including 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 Cr eative Commons 
CC-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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree t o the open peer review policy of the journal