Title: An Acceptance Analysis of a Sexual Health Education Digital Tool in Resource-Poor
Regions of Kenya: An UTAUT based Survey Study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Review Report
Manuscript title: An acceptance analysis of a sexual health education digital tool resource-poor
regions of Kenya: An UTAUT based survey study
Manuscript ID:
Comments
Abstract
1. Should be ‘sexually transmitted diseases’
2. In results session, clearly separate the variables with a comma. Additionally, the results are
not clearly presented in the abstract.
3. Check grammar and use of past tense in both the method and results sessions. The use of ‘is’
should be ‘was’.
Background
1. Clearly indicate the problem at hand to be solved by this study.
2. Clearly state the gap in the literature that this study fills or filled.
Objectives
1. Clearly number the objectives for easy readability and clarity on the specifics.
Literature review
1. There was no clear literature review for this study.
Methods
1. Check grammatical errors, or example “ the origin UTAUT” instead of “the original UTAUT”
2. ….healthcare setting resp.???? What does this mean?
3. Attitudes towards technology and also technology anxiety and their effects on intentions have
already been incorporated several studies that have used the UTAUT model. So, this is not new.
4. The literature leading to the hypotheses’ formulation are very shallow and do not demonstrate
the relationships between the variables and also lacks complementary literature. Authors merely
defined the variables and stated the hypotheses. This does not bring out how the variables are
associated. Simply put, there should be enough flesh of writing and supporting literature to
justify the statement of the hypotheses.
5. Was the survey instrument adopted or adapted? How was the survey instrument validated?
Was there any pretest, pilot test etc.?
6. What was the total population that the sample was drawn out?
7. What was the sampling technique used?
8. How representative was the sample size used for this study in comparison to the population?
9. How was sample representation determined?
10. Again, the use of past tense and other grammatical errors.
Results
1. What were the results of discriminant validity and convergent validity These were not
reported.
2. In the item loadings, what are T1 -T4? Why have they been added to Attitude? Is it because
of lack of discriminant validity between two constructs?
3. In Figure 8, why are the items of FC being modelled in the regression model instead of the
construct FC? If FC had poor loadings, then it should be totally deleted from the model.
4. How were the control variables of ‘year of birth’ and ‘experience’ measured in terms of
moderating effects?
5. What were the results of the usability scale used?
6. Certain validations of results such as R2, effect sizes, confidence intervals model fit indices
have not been provided in the work.
7. Where were the qualitative findings reported since the authors claim they also used
interviews?
Discussion
1. The discussion should focus on the results and not the description of the study. Discuss
the results and relate to existing literature. This will be difficult for the authors because the
development of the hypotheses by way of literature review was very shallow and so there should
be a major revision in the literature write-up towards the hypotheses statement.
Implications
1. There should be clearly numbered implications for policy and practice based on the findings
of the study.
2. There should be clearly numbered implications for theoretical considerations based on the
findings of the study.
Conclusion
1. This session should clearly spell out the novelty and contribution of this paper coupled with
the summary of the general study.
General comments
This manuscript has to be submitted to a language editor for proofreading.