Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A conjoint analysis study on self -sampling for hum an papillomavirus (HPV) testing 
characteristics  
 
Version: 1 Date: 16 Jan 2020  
 
Reviewer: J Bonde  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
"A conjoint analysis study on self sampling.." by Biederman et al.  
This manuscript reports a small survey on women´s  preferences for HPV based self -sampling.  
 
The strenght of the manuscript is the use of a conjoint analysis methodology to offer new 
perspectives understanding women´s preferences for receiving and returning an HPV self -
sample. The choice of the conjoint analysis represents a welcome methodology shake -up to the 
scientific community engaged in designing HPV based self -sampling efforts.  
However, the manuscript suffers from a few draw backs.  
 
Major revisions:  
1) This study specifically engages black women in  the Hoosier State. If anything, these women 
are a rather specific subgroup. The introduction ought to reflect that the authors recognizes the 
difference in targeting a general population versus a specific demographic subgroup.  
2) Along this line, the specific subgroup targeted should be reflected in the title. I suggest adding 
to the title "….amongst African -American women of Indiana. Or similar.   
3) The survey respondent group is rather small, only 98 respondents. One would thin k that at a 
fair with such a high participation number as described, a larger sample would have been 
collected. Please, briefly describe in materials and methods why only 98 datasets were generated 
for the analysis. If this is due to the statistical power requirements of the conjoint analysis, please 
specify so in materials and methods.    
4) Please do not refer to this as a pilot study (pp 5, line 108). It is a survey study. Or a pilot 
survey study.  
5) Please make a note in materials and methods that the soc iodemographic characteristics were 
self-reported, in contrast to systematically, centrally retrieved database information.  
6) Why chose 30.000 USD as the income cutoff; please describe rationale.  
7) Pp 12, Please describe why women may have "more problems w ith mail -based return of HPV -
self-sampling kits". To my knowledge dropping a self -sampling kit in a common mail box is 
fairly simple, compared to going to or locating the right pharmacy.  
8) Table 3: Given the mean score and STDev, no statistically differen ce between the 9 options 
can be described, and the authors are stretching the interpretation of this limited data. Conjoint 
analysis, on the other hand, is rarely seen in this field of literature. The conjoint analysis offers 
some insight into the preferen ces though conclusions are restricted by the low sample size. I miss 
a methodological discussion on how conjoint analysis offers better insight into women´s 
preferences, justifying the choice of a relatively rarely used methodology.  
 
Minor revisions:  
Abstr act: "None of the sociodemographic characteristics were associated with acceptability 
of…" This sentence gives the wrong impression. Please rephrase.  
References 5 -7 are fairly outdated and newer, more comprehensive papers i.e. Arbyn et al BMJ, 
dec 2018, w ould be more relevant. See also Leinonen MK et al. J Clin Virol. 2018 Feb - Mar;99 -
100:22 -30. 
pp. 4 Line 96, self -sampling is a potential screening strategy.  
pp. 13, line 287; Not only the device offered is important. Also the invitation methods matters. 
See Lam et al, Int J Cancer. 2017 May 15 for a very elegant electronic version utilizing modern 
web/App based communication.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please 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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data 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 recommended, 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following question s: 
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, 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 sha res in an organisation t hat 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 com peting interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no comp eting 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 understan d 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 author s' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative 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 included  as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal